Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T17:59:32.629Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Control of Field Dodder (Cuscuta campestris) Parasitizing Tomato with ALS-Inhibiting Herbicides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Yaakov Goldwasser ,
Mario R. Miranda Sazo  and
W. Thomas Lanini
Yaakov Goldwasser
Affiliation:
R.H. Smith Institute of Plant Sciences and Genetics in Agriculture, R.H. Smith Faculty of Agriculture, Food & Environmental Sciences, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Rehovot 76100, Israel
Mario R. Miranda Sazo
Affiliation:
Cornell Cooperative Extension, Newark, NY 14513
W. Thomas Lanini*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences, University of California, Davis, 95616
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field dodder is a parasitic plant that attaches to the stems and leaves of broadleaf plants, including weeds, field crops, vegetables, and ornamentals, throughout most agricultural regions of the world. Effective field dodder control is extremely difficult to achieve, due to the nature of attachment and close association between host and parasite, which requires a highly effective and selective herbicide to destroy the parasite without crop damage. Previous studies have demonstrated the tolerance of certain tomato varieties to dodder parasitism. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the ability of sulfonylurea herbicides to control field dodder under greenhouse and field conditions. Two greenhouse studies and three field studies were conducted to evaluate the efficiency and crop selectivity of the sulfonylurea herbicides sulfosulfuron, rimsulfuron, halosulfuron, and flazasulfuron in controlling field dodder parasitizing tomato plants. Sulfosulfuron at 50 or 100 g ai ha−1 was effective and safe for tomato in field dodder control, while the other herbicides exhibited little or no dodder control.

Cuscuta campestris es una planta parasítica que se adhiere a los tallos y las hojas de plantas de hoja ancha, incluyendo malezas, cultivos extensivos, vegetales y ornamentales enla mayoría de las regiones agrícolas del mundo. El control efectivo de C. campestris es extremadamente difícil de alcanzar debido a la naturaleza de adherencia y asociación cercana entre el hospedero y el parásito, lo que requiere un herbicida selectivo altamente efectivo para destruir el parásito sin dañar al cultivo. Estudios previos han demostrado la tolerancia de ciertas variedades de tomate al parasitismo del C. campestris. El objetivo del presente estudio fue evaluar la habilidad de herbicidas sulfonylureas para controlar C. campestris bajo condiciones de invernadero y de campo. Dos estudios de invernadero y tres estudios de campo se realizaron para evaluar la eficiencia y selectividad en el cultivo de los herbicidas sulfonylurea: sulfosulfuron, rimsulfuron, halosulfuron y flazasulfuron en el control de C. campestris parasitando plantas de tomate. Sulfosulfuron a 50 ó 100 g ia ha−1 fue efectivo y seguro al tomate para el control de C. campestris, mientras que los otros herbicidas mostraron poco o ningún control de esta maleza.

Keywords

Parasitic plantsprocessing tomatoweed controlFlazasulfuronhalosulfuronrimsulfuronsulfosulfuronfield dodder, Cuscuta campestris Yunckertomato, Lycopersicon esculentum L.
Type
Weed Management—Other Crops/AREAS
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 26 , Issue 4 , December 2012 , pp. 740 - 746
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

Abu-Irmaileh, B. E. 1987. Eastern dodder (Cuscuta monogyna Vahl.) distribution, host range and its response to glyphosate applications. Pages 1–10 in Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Parasitic Flowering Plants. Margburg, Germany : Phillips-Universität.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2009. Modified UC mix. http://greenhouse.ucdavis.edu/research/materials/mediafert.html. Accessed: June 2012.Google Scholar
Ashton, F. M. and Santana, D. 1976. Cuscuta spp. (Dodder). A literature review of its biology and control. Oakland, CA : Cooperative Extension Bulletin 1880. Division of Agricultural Science, University of California. 22 p.Google Scholar
Beyer, E. M., Duffy, M. J., Hays, J. V., and Schlueter, D. D. 1988. Sulfonylureas herbicides. in Kearney, P. C. and Kaufman, D. D., eds. Chemistry, Degradation and Mode of Action. New York : Marcel Dekker.Google Scholar
Cudney, D. W., Orloff, S. B., and Reints, J. S. 1992. An integrated weed management for the control of dodder (Cuscuta indecora) in alfalfa (Medicago sativa). Weed Technol. 6 :603–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, R. M., Hamilton, G., Lanini, W. T., Spreen, T. H., and Osteen, C. 1998. The importance of pesticides and other pest management practices in U.S. tomato production. Washington, D.C.: USDA National Agriculture Pesticide Impact Assessment Program. Document No. 1-CA-98. 263 p.Google Scholar
Dawson, J. H. 1984. Control of Cuscuta in alfalfa—a review. Pages 188–189 in Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium of Parasitic Weeds. Allepo, Syria : ICARDA.Google Scholar
Dawson, J. H., Musselman, L. J., Wolswinkel, P., and Dorr, I. 1994. Biology and control of Cuscuta . Rev. Weed Sci. 6 :265–317.Google Scholar
Eizenberg, H., Goldwasser, Y., Golan, S., Plakhine, D., and Hershenhorn, J. 2004. Egyptian broomrape (Orobanche aegyptiaca Pers.) control in tomato with sulfonylurea herbicides—greenhouse studies. Weed Technol. 18 :490–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fer, A. 1984. Physiological approach to the chemical control of Cuscuta: experiments with 14C-labelled herbicides. Pages 164–174 in Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium of Parasitic Weeds. Allepo, Syria : ICARDA.Google Scholar
Frear, D. S., Swanson, H. R., and Thalacker, F. W. 1991. Induced microsomal oxidation of diclofop, triasulfuron, chlorsulfuron, and linuron in wheat. Pestic. Biochem. Phys. 41 :274–287.Google Scholar
Goldwasser, Y., Lanini, W. T., and Wrobel, R. 2001. Tolerance of tomato varieties to lespedeza dodder. Weed Sci. 49 :520–523.Google Scholar
Hinz, J.R.R. and Owen, M.D.K. 1997. Acetolactate synthase resistance in a common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) population. Weed Technol. 11 :13–18.Google Scholar
Hickman, J. C. 1993. The Jepson Manual of Higher Plants of California. Berkeley, CA : University of California Press. 1400 p.Google Scholar
Holm, L., Doll, J., Holm, E., Panch, J., and Herberger, J. 1997. World Weeds: Natural Histories and Distribution. New York : John Wiley and Sons. 1129 p.Google Scholar
Hutchison, J. M. and Ashton, F. M. 1979. Effect of desiccation and scarification on the permeability and structure of the seed coat of Cuscuta campestris . Am. J. Bot. 66 :40–46.Google Scholar
Hutchison, J. M. and Ashton, F. M. 1980. Germination of field dodder (Cuscuta campestris). Weed Sci. 28 :330–333.Google Scholar
Lanini, W. T. 1992. Influence of dodder on tomato production. Progress Report to California Research Institute. Escalon, CA: California Tomato Research Institute. 7 p.Google Scholar
Lanini, W. T. 2004. Economical methods of controlling dodder in tomatoes. Proc. Calif. Weed Sci. Soc. 56 :57–59.Google Scholar
Lanini, W. T. and Kogan, M. 2005. Biology and management of Cuscuta in crops. Ciencia e Investigación Agraria 32 :127–141.Google Scholar
Lanini, W. T., LeBoeuf, J., and Rivara, C. 1999. Crop profile for tomatoes (processing) in California. http://www.ipmcenters.org/CropProfiles/docs/catomatoes-processing.pdf. Accessed: June 2012.Google Scholar
Mullen, R. J., Orr, J. P., Viss, T. C., and Whiteley, S. W. 1998. A three year study on dodder management with rimsulfuron. Pages 76–78 in Proceedings of the Western Society of Weed Science. Newark, CA : Western Society of Weed Science.Google Scholar
Nemli, Y. 1987. Preliminary studies on the resistance of some crops to Cuscuta campestris Yunck. Pages 591–596 in Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Parasitic Flowering Plants. Marburg, Germany : Phillips-Universität.Google Scholar
Parker, C. and Riches, C. R. 1993. Parasitic Weeds of the World: Biology and Control. Wallingford, UK : CAB International. 352 p.Google Scholar
Peters, E. J. and Linscott, D. L. 1988. Weeds and weed control. Pages 705–735 in Hanson, A. A., Barnes, D. K., and Hill, R. R., eds. Alfalfa and Alfalfa Improvement. Madison WI : American Society of Agronomy.Google Scholar
Schloss, J. V. 1995. Recent advances in understanding the mechanism and inhibition of acetolactate synthase. Pages 3–16 in Stetter, J., ed. Herbicides Inhibiting Branched-Chain Amino Acid Biosynthesis. New York : Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
Sensemen, S. A., ed. 2007. Herbicide Handbook. 9th ed. Lawrence KS : Weed Science Society of America.Google Scholar