Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T17:02:00.588Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Safety of Bicyclopyrone on Several Vegetable Crops and Efficacy of Weed Control

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 June 2018

Yin Chen
Affiliation:
Graduate Student, Department of Horticulture and Crop Science, The Ohio State University, Wooster, OH, USA
Chengsong Hu
Affiliation:
Research Associate, Department of Horticulture and Crop Science, The Ohio State University, Wooster, OH, USA
Douglas Doohan*
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Horticulture and Crop Science, The Ohio State University, Wooster, OH, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Douglas Doohan, Department of Horticulture and Crop Science, The Ohio State University, 1680 Madison Ave, Wooster, OH 44691. (Email: [email protected])

Abstract

Weed control in vegetable production is especially challenging, because few registered herbicides simultaneously offer excellent crop tolerance and broad-spectrum weed control. We report here the response of several vegetables and weeds to 37.5 and 50 g ai ha−1 of the new herbicide bicyclopyrone (BCP). Vegetable crops showed good tolerance to BCP PRE and post-directed (POST-DIR) in high organic matter content muck soil. POST BCP severely injured all crops. Soil type and the rate of BCP PRE significantly affected response of vegetable crops, and variety of onion was significant. POST BCP controlled hairy galinsoga and small common purslane plants (>80% injury). Hairy galinsoga was not controlled by BCP PRE application in muck soil but was controlled in a 2:3 (vol/vol) blend of Wooster silt loam and a commercial potting mix. Common purslane was slightly injured in the muck soil and was well controlled in the soil and potting mix blend by PRE BCP. The herbicide did not control prostrate pigweed in either soil type or at any growth stage.

Type
Note
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2018 

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

Barriuso, E, Feller, C, Calvet, R, Cerri, C (1992) Sorption of atrazine, terbutryn and 2, 4-D herbicides in two Brazilian Oxisols. Geoderma 53(1), 155167 Google Scholar
Boelter, DH (1968) Important physical properties of peat materials. Pages 150156 in Proceedings of the 3rd International Peat Congress. Quebec City, PQ: National Research Council of Canada Google Scholar
Boyd, NS (2016) Pre- and post-emergence herbicides for row middle weed control in vegetable plasticulture production systems. Weed Technol 30(4), 949957 Google Scholar
Carter, CA, Chalfant, JA, Goodhue, RE, Han, FM, DeSantis, M (2005) The methyl bromide ban: economic impacts on the California strawberry industry. Appl Econ Perspect Pol 27:181197 Google Scholar
Chew, V (1976) Comparing treatment means: a compendium. Hortsci 11:348357 Google Scholar
Deepak, MS, Spreen, TH, VanSickle, JJ (1996) An analysis of the impact of a ban of methyl bromide on the U.S. winter fresh vegetable market. J Agric Appl Econ 28:433 http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/15113/1/28020433.pdf. Accessed March 20, 2016Google Scholar
Dunne, CL (2012) Environmental effects on an HPPD inhibiting herbicide’s persistence in different soils over a four-year period. https://soils.ifas.ufl.edu/media/soilsifasufledu/sws-main-site/pdf/technical-papers/Dunne_Cheryl_One_Year_Embargo.pdf. Accessed May 20, 2017Google Scholar
Dyson, JS, Beukle, S, Brown, CD, Lans, MCG (2002) Adsorption and degradation of the weak acid mesotrione in soil and environmental fate implications. J Environ Qual 31:613618 10.2134/jeq2002.6130Google Scholar
Egel, D, Welty, C, Miller, S (2017) Midwest Vegetable Production Guide for Commercial Growers 2017. Ohio State University Extension Bulletin 948. Columbus, OH. 230 ppGoogle Scholar
Fennimore, SA, Doohan, DJ (2008) The challenges of specialty crop weed control, future directions. Weed Technol 22:364372 Google Scholar
Grover, R (1974) Adsorption and desorption of trifluralin, triallate, and diallate by various adsorbents. Weed Sci 22:405408 Google Scholar
Lappin, HM, Greaves, MP, Slater, JH (1985) Degradation of the herbicide mecoprop [2-(2-methyl-4-chlorophenoxy) propionic acid] by a synergistic microbial community. Appl Environ Microbiol 49:429433 Google Scholar
McErlich, AF, Boydston, RA (2013) Current state of weed management in organic and conventional cropping systems. Chapter 2 in Young S & Pierce F eds. Automation: The Future of Weed Control in Cropping Systems. Publications from USDA-ARS / UNL Faculty. 1387 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2392&context=usdaarsfacpub. Accessed November 7, 2017Google Scholar
Mou, B (2011) Mutations in lettuce improvement. Int J Plant Genom 2011:723518 (doi: 10.1155/2011/723518 )Google Scholar
NASS (2016) Vegetables. 2015 Annual Summary. http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/VegeSumm//2010s/2016/VegeSumm-02-04-2016.pdf. Accessed November 21, 2016Google Scholar
Peachey, E (2015) Preliminary Screen for Potential Herbicides in Direct-Seeded Vegetable and Seed Crops. http://ir4.rutgers.edu/Fooduse/PerfData/4032.pdf. Accessed October 12, 2016Google Scholar
Stevenson, FJ (1972) Organic matter reactions involving herbicides in soil. J Environ Qual 1:333343 Google Scholar
Tickes, B (2012) Update on the reregistration of pronamide (Kerb) for use on leaf lettuce (Nov. 14, 2012). The University of Arizona. Vegetable IPM Updates Archive. Cooperative Extension. https://cals.arizona.edu/crop/vegetables/advisories/more/weed73.html. Accessed November 6, 2017Google Scholar
Winkle, ME, Leavitt, JRC, Burnside, OC (1981) Effects of weed density on herbicide absorption and bioactivity. Weed Sci 29:405409 Google Scholar
Yu, YL, Chen, YX, Luo, YM, Pan, XD, He, YF, Wong, MH (2003) Rapid degradation of butachlor in wheat rhizosphere soil. Chemosphere 50:771774 Google Scholar