Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T08:33:13.346Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Burning Nettle, Common Purslane, and Rye Response to a Clove Oil Herbicide

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Nathan S. Boyd  and
Eric B. Brennan
Nathan S. Boyd*
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, Salinas, CA, 93905
Eric B. Brennan
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, Salinas, CA, 93905
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Weed management is often difficult and expensive in organic production systems. Clove oil is an essential oil that functions as a contact herbicide and may provide an additional weed management tool for use on organic farms. Burning nettle, purslane, and rye responses to 5, 10, 20, 40, and 80% v/v clove oil mixture applied in spray volumes of 281 and 468 L/ha were examined. Log-logistic curves were fitted to the nettle and purslane data to determine the herbicide dose required to reduce plant dry weight 50% (GR50) and 90% (GR90). A three-parameter Gaussian curve was fitted to the rye data. The GR50 and GR90 were largely unaffected by spray volume. Nettle dry weight was reduced by 90% with 12 to 61 L clove oil/ha, whereas 21 to 38 L clove oil/ha were required to reduce purslane biomass to the same level. Rye was not effectively controlled by clove oil. Clove oil controls broadleaf weeds at high concentrations, but its cost makes broadcast applications prohibitive, even in high-value vegetable production systems.

Keywords

Burning nettle, Urtica urens L. URTURpurslane, Portulaca oleracea L. POROLrye, Secale cereale L. ‘Merced’Log-logisticspray volumecontact herbicideorganicGDD, growing degree daysOMRI, organic materials review institute
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 20 , Issue 3 , September 2006 , pp. 646 - 650
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

CCOF. 2003. Manual three: CCOF international standards and other standards. Web page: http://www.ccof.org/pdf/CCOFman3.pdf.Google Scholar
Curran, W. S. 2004. The Pennsylvania State University 2004 herbicide field trials. Final Report. Vol. 4. Pp. 200–206. Web page: http://www.weeds.cas.psu.edu/pdf/trials04.pdf.Google Scholar
Curran, W. S., Lingenfelter, D. D., and Muse, C. B. 2005. Effectiveness of vinegar and clove oil for control of annual weeds. WSSA Abstr. 45:16.Google Scholar
Ferguson, J. 2004. Evaluation of organic herbicides. Hortscience 39:876.Google Scholar
Gaskell, M., Fouche, B., Koike, S., Lanini, T., Mitchell, J., and Smith, R. 2000. Organic vegetable production in California—science and practice. HortTechnology 10:699–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seefeldt, S. S., Jensen, J. E., and Fuerst, E. P. 1995. Log-logistic analysis of herbicide dose–response relationships. Weed Technol. 9:218–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, R. 2004. Post emergence organic weed control in onions and broccoli. Crop Notes. November–December. Pp. 10–12. http://cemonterey.ucdavis.edu/newsletterfiles/newsletter85.htm.Google Scholar
Tourte, L., Smith, R. F., Klonsky, K. M., and DeMoura, R. L. 2004. Sample costs to produce organic leaf lettuce. Monterey and Santa Cruz Counties. University of California Cooperative Extension. Web page: http://www.agecon.ucdavis.edu.Google Scholar
Tworkoski, T. 2002. Herbicide effects of essential oils. Weed Sci. 50:425–431.Google Scholar