Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T11:14:42.946Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Herbicide Placement Site Affects Small Broomrape (Orobanche minor) Control in Red Clover

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Jed B. Colquhoun ,
Hanan Eizenberg  and
Carol A. Mallory-Smith
Jed B. Colquhoun*
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Science, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331
Hanan Eizenberg
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Science, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331
Carol A. Mallory-Smith
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Science, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Small broomrape is an annual holoparasitic weed that was recently discovered in red clover production fields in Oregon. Imidazolinone herbicides such as imazamox control small broomrape; however, the mechanism of uptake by the parasite is largely unknown. Studies were conducted to determine the imazamox route of uptake by small broomrape in red clover, and to determine the potential for imazamox to be exuded from red clover and the subsequent effect on small broomrape. Small broomrape control was best at 90% when imazamox was foliar-applied, and worst at 42% or less when imazamox was soil-applied. The presence of activated charcoal to adsorb imazamox at the soil surface did not affect efficacy of broadcast foliar treatment. Small broomrape control was also evaluated when a foliar-treated red clover plant was grown in the same pot as a nontreated, parasitized red clover plant that was bagged during herbicide application. Activated charcoal was spread on the soil surface to adsorb imazamox, thus limiting herbicide uptake routes to the foliage of one of two red clover plants in the pot. Small broomrape attachment decreased on nontreated red clover when the other red clover plant in the pot was treated, suggesting roots exuded the herbicide or an active metabolite.

Keywords

Imazamoxsmall broomrape, Orobanche minor J. E. Smith. # ORAMIred clover, Trifolium pratense L. # TRFPRParasitic plantimazamoxDATdays after treatment
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 20 , Issue 2 , June 2006 , pp. 356 - 360
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Current address: Department of Horticulture, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706.
Current address: Department of Weed Research, Newe Ya'ar Research Center, P.O. Box 1021, Ramat Yishay, 30095, Israel.

References

Literature Cited

Aly, R., Goldwasser, Y., Eizenberg, H., Hershenhorn, J., Golan, S., and Kleifeld, Y. 2001. Broomrape (Orobanche cumana) control in sunflower (Helianthus annuus) with imazapic. Weed Technol. 15:306–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colquhoun, J. B. and Mallory-Smith, C. A. 2001. Clover broomrape management with fumigation and herbicides. Seed Prod. Res. Ext/CrS 121:47–48.Google Scholar
Eizenberg, H., Goldwasser, Y., Golan, S., Hershenhorn, J., and Kleifeld, Y. 2001. Orobanche aegyptiaca control in tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) with chlorosulfuron. in Fer, A., Thalouran, P., Joel, D. M., Musselman, L. J., Parker, C., and Verkleij, J.A.C., eds. Proceedings of the 7th International Parasitic Weed Symposium, Nantes, France, University of Nantes. Pp. 293–294.Google Scholar
Eizenberg, H., Goldwasser, Y., Golan, S., Plakhine, D., and Hershenhorn, J. 2004. Egyptian broomrape (Orobanche aegyptiaca) control in tomato with sulfonylurea herbicides—greenhouse studies. Weed Technol. 18:490–496.Google Scholar
Foy, C. L., Jain, R., and Jacobsohn, R. 1989. Recent approaches for chemical control of broomrape (Orobanche spp). Rev. Weed Sci. 4:123–152.Google Scholar
Garcia-Torres, L. and Lopez-Granados, F. 1991. Control of broomrape (Orobanche crenata Forsk.) in broad bean (Vicia faba L.) with imidazolinones and other herbicides. Weed Res. 31:227–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldwasser, Y., Eizenberg, H., Golan, S., Hershenhorn, J., and Kleifeld, Y. 2001. Orobanche aegyptiaca control in potato. Crop Prot. 20:403–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hershenhorn, J., Goldwasser, Y., Plakhine, D., Lavin, Y., Herzlinger, G., Golan, S., Chilf, F., and Kleifeld, Y. 1998. Effect of sulfonylurea herbicides on early development of Egyptian broomrape (Orobanche aegyptiaca) in tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) under greenhouse conditions. Weed Technol. 12:115–120.Google Scholar
Jurado-Exposito, M., Castejon-Munoz, M., and Garcia-Torres, L. 1999. Uptake and translocation of imazethapyr in peas as affected by parasitism of Orobanche crenata and herbicide application methods. Weed Res. 39:129–136.Google Scholar
Lins, R., Colquhoun, J. B., Cole, C. M., and Mallory-Smith, C. A. 2005. Postemergence herbicide options for control of small broomrape in red clover. Weed Technol. 19:411–415.Google Scholar
Little, D. L. and Shaner, D. L. 1991. Absorption and translocation of the imidazolinone herbicides. in Shaner, D. L. and O'Conner, S. L., eds. The Imidazolinone Herbicides. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Pp. 53–69.Google Scholar
Musselman, L. J., Aggour, M., and Abu-Sbaieh, H. 1989. Survey of parasitic weed problems in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Trop. Pest Manage. 35:30–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pester, T. A., Nissen, S. J., and Westra, P. 2001. Absorption, translocation, and metabolism of imazamox in jointed goatgrass and feral rye. Weed Sci. 49:607–612.Google Scholar
Schneider, S. M., Rosskopf, E. N., Leesch, J. G., Chellemi, D. O., Bull, C. T., and Mazzola, M. 2003. United States Department of Agriculture-Agricultural Research Service. Research on alternatives to methyl bromide: pre-plant and post-harvest. Pest Manage. Sci. 59:814–826.Google Scholar
Vencill, W. K. ed. 2002. Herbicide Handbook. 8th ed. Lawrence, KS: Weed Science Society of America. Pp. 247–248.Google Scholar