Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T10:25:10.906Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response of Five Summer-Squash (Cucurbita pepo) Cultivars to Halosulfuron

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Keith D. Starke ,
David W. Monks ,
Wayne E. Mitchem  and
Andrew W. Macrae
Keith D. Starke
Affiliation:
Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7609
David W. Monks*
Affiliation:
Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7609
Wayne E. Mitchem
Affiliation:
Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7609
Andrew W. Macrae
Affiliation:
Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7609
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Response of ‘Dixie’, ‘Lemondrop’, ‘Multipik’, ‘Superpik’, and ‘Seneca Prolific’ summer squash to halosulfuron PRE or POST at 0.036, 0.053, and 0.072 kg ai/ha, or halosulfuron PRE fb halosulfuron POST at 0.018 fb 0.018, 0.027 fb 0.027, and 0.036 fb 0.036 kg/ha was field evaluated in 1997 and 1998. All halosulfuron treatments and rates reduced the height of cultivars 17–19% at 6 WAP (weeks after planting) and summer-squash injury (chlorosis and necrosis of crop foliage) was 6, 14, and 11% from halosulfuron PRE, POST, and PRE fb POST, respectively. Early summer-squash flowering was reduced 32–82% by halosulfuron, resulting in reduced early yields. Dixie was the cultivar most tolerant to halosulfuron. Early flowering of Dixie was reduced 32–36% compared to 32–82% for the other cultivars. Marketable yield of summer squash was reduced 20–30% by all rates of halosulfuron when averaged over all application timings. Marketable yield of Seneca Prolific, Superpik, Dixie, Multipik, and Lemondrop was reduced 0–17% by halosulfuron PRE. Halosulfuron POST or PRE fb POST reduced marketable yield of all summer-squash cultivars by 25–46%. Thus, summer squash was not tolerant of POST halosulfuron; however, Dixie, Multipik, Seneca Prolific, and Superpik exhibited tolerance to halosulfuron PRE.

Keywords

Halosulfuronsummer squash, Cucurbita pepo L. ‘Dixie’, ‘Multipik’, ‘Superpik’, ‘Seneca Prolific’ and ‘Lemondrop’Sulfonylureavegetable tolerance to herbicidesWAPweeks after planting
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 20 , Issue 3 , September 2006 , pp. 617 - 621
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.)

References

Literature Cited

Anonymous. 1997. North Carolina Agricultural Chemicals Manual. Raleigh, NC: College of Agriculture and Life Science. North Carolina State University.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2004. Sandea herbicide label. EPA Reg. No. 10163–254. Yuma, AZ: Gowan Company.Google Scholar
Hume, R. J. and Lovell, P. H. 1983. The control of sex expression in cucurbits by ethephon. Ann. Bot. 52:689–695.Google Scholar
Labrada, R. E., Paredes, E., and Muniz, R. 1983. Weed competition in a cucumber crop. Trop. Pest Manage. 29:52–55.Google Scholar
Lanini, W. T. and Le Strange, M. 1991. Low-input management of weeds in vegetable fields. Calif. Agric. 45:11–14.Google Scholar
Mallot, S. J. and Ashley, R. A. 1988. Determination of squash's tolerance to weed interference: A critical period study. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 42:204–208.Google Scholar
Manley, W. T. 1983. United States standards for grades of summer squash. Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Agriculture FR Doc. 83-32551.Google Scholar
Monks, D. W., Mitchem, W. E., and Batts, R. B. 2002. Weed control investigations in horticultural crops. Horticult. Crops Res. Ext. Ser. 159:1–153.Google Scholar
Monks, D. W. and Schultheis, J. R. 1998. Critical weed-free period for large crabgrass in transplanted watermelon. Weed Sci. 46:530–532.Google Scholar
NeSmith, D. S. and Hoogenboom, G. 1994. Staminate and pistillate flower production of summer squash in response to planting date. HortScience 29:256–257.Google Scholar
O'Sullivan, J. O. and Sikkema, P. 2001. Sweet corn cultivar sensitivity to CGA 152005 postemergence. Weed Technol. 15:204–207.Google Scholar
Porter, W. C. 1994. Sedge (Cyperus spp.) control in sweet potatoes. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 47:79.Google Scholar
Robinson, D. K., Monks, D. W., and Burton, J. D. 1994. Effect of BAS 145 281, and naphthalic anhydride seed treatments on sweet corn (Zea mays) tolerance to nicosulfuron. Weed Sci. 42:614–617.Google Scholar
Seem, J. E., Creamer, N. G., and Monks, D. W. 2003. Critical weed-free period for ‘Beauregard’ sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas). Weed Technol. 17:686–695.Google Scholar
van der Vlugt, J. L. F. 1983. The effect of temperature on formation and abortion of flower buds in gynoecious cucumber plants. Sci. Hortic. 20:323–328.Google Scholar
Vencill, W. K., Richburg, J. S. III, Wilcut, J. W., and Hawf, L. R. 1995. Effect of MON-12037 on purple (Cyperus rotundus) and yellow (Cyperus esculentus) nutsedge. Weed Technol. 9:148–152.Google Scholar
Wallace, R. W. and Bellinder, R. R. 1992. Alternative tillage and herbicide options for successful weed control in vegetables. HortScience 27:745–748.Google Scholar
Weaver, S. E., Kropff, M. J., and Groeneveld, R. M. U. 1992. The critical period of weed interference. Weed Res. 40:302–307.Google Scholar