Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T02:31:59.916Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Effect of PRE and POST Herbicides on Carolina Redroot (Lachnanthes caroliniana) Growth

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Stephen L. Meyers*
Affiliation:
Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695
Katherine M. Jennings
Affiliation:
Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695
David W. Monks
Affiliation:
Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695
David L. Jordan
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695
James R. Ballington
Affiliation:
Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

Greenhouse studies were conducted in Raleigh, NC to determine Carolina redroot control by selected PRE and POST herbicides labeled for blueberries. Paraquat, glufosinate, glyphosate, and flumioxazin provided some Carolina redroot shoot control 7 d after POST application (DAPOST) ranging from 48 to 74%. Control 25 DAPOST was greatest for hexazinone at 2.2 kg ai ha−1 (90%) followed by glufosinate with 56% control and paraquat and terbacil each with 53% control. Control for most treatments declined between 25 and 63 DAPOST with the exception of glyphosate, which increased to 64%. Carolina redroot shoots per pot were reduced by terbacil, hexazinone at 2.2 kg ha−1, and glyphosate compared with the nontreated check 63 DAPOST. Control of Carolina redroot roots and rhizomes 63 DAPOST ranged from 7 to 68%, with the greatest control provided by terbacil (68%) and hexazinone at 2.2 kg ha−1 (64%). Terbacil and hexazinone at 2.2 kg ha−1 were the only treatments that reduced both shoot and root/rhizome dry weight compared with the nontreated check.

Estudios de invernadero fueron realizados en Raleigh, NC, para determinar el control de Lachnanthes caroliniana con varios herbicidas PRE y POST registrados para uso en arándanos (Vaccinum corymbosum). Paraquat, glufosinate, glyphosate y flumioxazin brindaron control parcial del tejido aéreo de L. caroliniana a 7 días después de la aplicación POST (DAPOST), el cual varió entre 48 y 74%. El mayor control a 25 DAPOST se obtuvo con hexazinone a 2.2 kg ai ha−1 (90%) seguido por glufosinate con 56% y paraquat y terbacil cada uno con 53% de control. Para la mayoría de los tratamientos, el control disminuyó entre 25 y 63 DAPOST, con la excepción de glyphosate, el cual aumentó a 64%. El número de tallos de L. caroliniana por maceta se redujo con terbacil, hexazinone a 2.2 kg ha−1, y glyphosate al compararse con el testigo no-tratado a 63 DAPOST. El control de raíces y rizomas de L. caroliniana a 63 DAPOST varió entre 7 y 68%, obteniéndose el mayor control con terbacil (68%) y hexazinone a 2.2 kg ha−1 (64%). Terbacil y hexazinone a 2.2 kg ha−1 fueron los únicos tratamientos que redujeron el peso seco de tallos y de raíces/rizomas en comparación con el testigo no-tratado.

Type
Weed Management—Other Crops/Areas
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

Ferrell, J., Sellers, B., and Walter, J. 2009. Control of Redroot (Lachnanthes caroliniana) in Pastures. Gainesville, FL University of Florida Cooperative Extension Service. SS AGR 290. 2 p.Google Scholar
Meggitt, W. F. and Aldrich, R. J. 1959. Amitrol for control of redroot in cranberries. Weeds. 7:271276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyers, S. L., Jennings, K. M., Monks, D. W., Ballington, J. R., and Jordan, D. L. 2013. POST control of Carolina redroot (Lachnanthes caroliniana). Weed Technol. 27:534537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monaco, T. J., 1970. Weed Control Investigations in Horticultural Crops 1969–1970. Raleigh, NC: NC State University. Pp. 2435.Google Scholar
[NCDA&CS] North Carolina Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services. 2012. 2011 North Carolina Agricultural Statistics. Raleigh, NC NC Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Pp. 65, 95.Google Scholar
Radford, A. E., Ahles, H. E., and Bell, C. R. 1983. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolina. Chapel Hill, NC The University of North Carolina Press. Pp. 323.Google Scholar
Roberts, M. M. 2009. Biology and Control of Maryland Meadowbeauty (Rhexia mariana L.) in Blueberry (Vaccinium spp.) in North Carolina. Ph.D Dissertation. Raleigh, NC North Carolina State University. 86 p.Google Scholar
Teuton, T. C., Unruh, J. B., Brecke, B. J., MacDonaold, G. E., Miller, G. L., and Ducar, J. T. 2004. Tropical signalgrass (Urochloa subquadripara) control with preemergence- and postemergence-applied herbicides. Weed Technol. 18:419425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[USDA-NRCS] U.S. Department of Agriculture-Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2013. PLANTS Profile- Lachnanthes caroliniana Lam. (Dandy), Carolina redroot. Available at http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=LACA5. Accessed April 12, 2013.Google Scholar
Weakley, A. S. 2012. Flora of the Southern and Mid-Atlantic States. Available at http://www.herbarium.unc.edu/FloraArchives/WeakleyFlora_2012-Nov.pdf. Accessed April 12, 2013.Google Scholar
Welker, W. V. Jr. 1979. The control of redroot (Lachnanthes tinctoria). Proceedings of the Northeastern Weed Science Society. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 33:142.Google Scholar
Welker, W. V. Jr. and Brogdon, J. L. 1968. Response of highbush blueberries to long-term use of diruon and simazine. Weed Sci. 16:303305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar