Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T10:36:28.970Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Screening of Weed Control Options During Juneberry (Amelanchier alnifolia) Establishment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Harlene M. Hatterman-Valenti
Harlene M. Hatterman-Valenti*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences, North Dakota State University, 166 Loftsgard Hall, Fargo, ND 58105-5051
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Few weed management options are available for juneberry, which has limited the potential for this new crop. Field trials were initiated at three locations in North Dakota to evaluate efficacy and crop safety associated with chemical and physical weed control treatments applied just before or immediately after transplanting. All treatments except norflurazon and trifluralin provided at least 85% control of redroot pigweed, common lambsquarters, common purslane, and yellow foxtail for the duration of the trial at Absaraka, ND, during 2001. Stinkgrass weed control 8 wk after treatment (WAT) dropped to unacceptable levels (<85%) with all treatments except azafenidin at 0.5 kg ai/ ha, norflurazon, and oxyfluorfen at 1.1 kg ai/ha at Dawson, ND, during 2001. However, juneberry injury 4 WAT by azafenidin at 0.5 kg/ha, flumioxazin at both locations, or azafenidin at 0.34 kg/ha and oxyfluorfen at 1.1 kg ai/ha at Absaraka, ND, was greater than observed for plants within the physical treatments. Juneberry injury generally decreased with time, yet remained >20% at 8 WAT for azafenidin and flumioxazin at Absaraka, ND, and for all treatments except the mulches at Dawson, ND. Plant injury 8 WAT at Absaraka in 2002 was 10% or less for all treatments and was lower compared with 2001. All physical treatments—azafenidin at 0.34 and 0.5 kg/ha, flumioxazin at 0.29 kg/ha, and oryzalin at 4.5 kg/ha—provided at least 85% control of all weed species at Carrington and Absaraka, ND, during 2002.

Keywords

Azafenidin, 2-[2,4-dichloro-5-(2-propynyloxy)phenyl]-5,6,7,8-tetrahydro-1,2,4-triazolo[4,3-a]pyridin-3(2H)-oneflumioxazinoryzalinoxyfluorfen, 2-chloro-1-(3-ethoxy-4-nitrophenoxy)-4-(trifluoromethyl)benzenetrifluralincommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. # CHEALcommon purslane, Portulaca oleracea L. # POROLredroot pigweed, Amaranthus retroflexus L. # AMAREstinkgrass, Eragrostis cilianensis (All.) E. Mosher # ERACNyellow foxtail, Setaria glauca (L.) Beauv. # SETLUjuneberry, Amelanchier alnifolia Nutt. ‘Lee 8’, ‘Martin’, ‘Smoky’Weed managementmulchesSaskatoonMAT, months after treatmentWAT, weeks after treatment
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 19 , Issue 3 , September 2005 , pp. 623 - 628
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-Hamdeh, N. and Abu-Qudais, M. 2001. The economics of mechanical versus chemical weed control in peas and lettuce under different tillage systems and irrigation regimes. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 79:177–185.Google Scholar
Berger, B. M., Duhlmeier, D., and Siebert, C. F. 1999. Tillage effects on persistence and distribution of trifluralin in soil. J. Environ. Qual. 28:1162–1167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brault, D., Stewart, K. A., and Jenni, S. 2002. Optical properties of paper and polyethylene mulches used for weed control in lettuce. HortScience 37:87–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darrow, G. M. 1975. Minor temperate fruits. in Janick, J. and Moore, J. N., eds. Advances in Fruit Breeding. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press. Pp. 269–284.Google Scholar
Harris, R. E. 1976. The Saskatoon—Canada's national fruit. Can. Agric. 21:28–29.Google Scholar
Haywood, J. D. 1999. Durability of selected mulches, their ability to control weeds, and influence on growth of loblolly pine seedlings. New For. 18:263–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaps, M. L. and Odneal, M. B. 1991. Fall-applied preemergent herbicides in a Missouri vineyard do not control annual weeds the following season. HortScience 26:1292–1293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhns, L. J., Harpster, T. L., and VanGessel, M. 2003. Weed control provided by fall or spring applications of flumioxazin in Christmas trees. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 50:55.Google Scholar
Laughlin, K. M., Smith, R. C., and Askew, R. G. 1988. Juneberry for commercial and home use on the northern Great Plains. Fargo, ND: North Dakota State University publication H-938.Google Scholar
Mazza, G. and Davidson, C. G. 1993. Saskatoon berry: a fruit crop for the prairies. in Janick, J. and Simon, J. E., eds. New Crops. New York: Wiley. Pp. 516–519.Google Scholar
McConkey, M. 1979. What's a Saskatoon? The pioneering and popularizing of a native fruit. North Am. Pomona. 12:2–10.Google Scholar
McIntosh, M. S. 1983. Analysis of combined experiments. Agron. J. 75:153–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monks, C. D., Monks, D. W., Basden, T., Selders, A., Poland, S., and Rayburn, E. 1997. Soil temperature, soil moisture, weed control, and tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) response to mulching. Weed Technol. 11:561–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saladin, G., Magne, C., and Clement, C. 2003a. Effects of flumioxazin herbicide on carbon nutrition of Vitis vinifera L. J. Agric. Food Chem. 51:4017–4022.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saladin, G., Magne, C., and Clement, C. 2003b. Impact of flumioxazin herbicide on growth and carbohydrate physiology in Vitis vinifera L. Plant Cell Rep. 21:821–827.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Seifert, J. R. and Woeste, K. 2002. Evaluation of four herbicides and tillage for weed control on 1-0 planted tree seedlings. North. J. Appl. For. 19:101–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
St.-Pierre, R. G. 1999. History, use and economic importance. in Growing Saskatoons: A Manual for Orchardists. Saskatoon, SK, Canada: Native Fruit Development Program, Department of Plant Science, University of Saskatchewan. Pp. 1–5.Google Scholar
Waterer, D. R. 2000. Effect of soil mulches and herbicides on production economics of warm season vegetable crops in a cool climate. HortTechnology 10:154–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, S. 1994. Commercial Saskatoon Berry Production on the Prairies. 2nd ed. Saskatoon, SK, Canada: University Extension Press, University of Saskatchewan. Pp. 18–28.Google Scholar
Zatylny, A. M., St-Pierre, R. G., and Tulloch, H. P. 2002. Comparative agronomic performance of 15 saskatoon (Amelanchier alnifolia Nutt.) cultivars during their first seven years of growth. J. Am. Pomolog. Soc. 56:118–128.Google Scholar