Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T10:33:18.209Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Swamp Dodder (Cuscuta gronovii) Applied Ecology in Carrot Production

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Christopher M. Konieczka ,
Jed B. Colquhoun  and
Richard A. Rittmeyer
Christopher M. Konieczka*
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI 53706
Jed B. Colquhoun
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI 53706
Richard A. Rittmeyer
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI 53706
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Swamp dodder continues to spread through Wisconsin carrots, reducing crop yield and quality. Greenhouse research was conducted to evaluate the effect of swamp dodder infection timing on carrot development and to evaluate carrot cultivar tolerance to the parasite. Data collection included measurement of carrot processing qualities such as root length, root diameter, and fresh weight, as well as quantification of carrot leaf biomass and swamp dodder biomass. Carrot processing qualities were reduced the most in carrots infected 14 d after emergence (DAE). Carrots infected 70 DAE were similar to the noninfected carrots for all processing qualities. Carrot cultivars differed in tolerance of swamp dodder parasitism. All parameters for cultivar tolerance were significantly reduced by swamp dodder infection; however, ‘Enterprise’, ‘Sweet Bites’, ‘Sugar Snax 54’, ‘Topcut 93’, and ‘Mokum’ were most tolerant of parasitism and exhibited minimal reductions in root length, diameter, and fresh weight compared with other cultivars. ‘7626B’, ‘Bolero’, ‘Legend’, and ‘Imperial Cuts’ cultivars grew poorly when parasitized.

Keywords

Swamp dodder, Cuscuta gronoviicarrot, Daucus carota L.Cultivar selectioninfection timingparasitismtolerance
Type
Notes
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 23 , Issue 1 , March 2009 , pp. 175 - 178
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

Al-Menoufi, O. A. and Ashton, F. M. 1991. Studies on the parasitism of Cuscuta spp. Series 8: Susceptibility and resistance of some Lycopersicon species to Cuscuta campestris infection. Pages 293–297. in Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Parasitic Weeds. Nairobi, Kenya.Google Scholar
Bewick, T. A., Binning, L. K., and Dana, M. N. 1988. Post-attachment control of swamp dodder (Cuscuta gronovii) in cranberry (Vaccinium macrocarpon) and carrot (Daucus carota L.). Weed Technol 2:166–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhati, D. S. 1994. (Cuscuta reflexa Roxb.), a severe parasitic weed on fennel (Foeniculum vulgare Mill.). J. Spices Arom. Crops 3:152–154.Google Scholar
Buddhi-Marambe, , Siril-Wijesundara, , Kushan-Tennakoon, , Dhammika-Pindeniya, , and Chandana-Jayasinghe, . 2002. Growth and development of Cuscuta chinensis Lam. and its impact on selected crops. Weed Biol. Manag 2:79–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cudney, D. W., Orloff, S. B., and Reints, J. S. 1992. An integrated weed management procedure for the control of dodder (Cuscuta indecora) in alfalfa (Medicago sativa). Weed Technol 6:603–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawson, J. H. 1990. Dodder (Cuscuta spp.) control with dinitroaniline herbicides in alfalfa (Medicago sativa). Weed Technol 4:341–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawson, J. H., Ashton, F. M., Welker, W. V., Frank, J. R., and Buchanan, G. A. 1984. Dodder and its control. U.S. Dept. Agriculture Farmers' Bull., No. 2276. 24.Google Scholar
Farah, A. F. and Al-Abdusalam, M. A. 2004. Effect of field dodder (Cuscuta campestris Yuncker) on some legume crops. Sci. J. King Faisal Univ. Basic Appl. Sci 5:103–113.Google 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 on Parasitic Weeds. Allepo, Syria: International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas.Google Scholar
Goldwasser, Y., Lanini, W. T., and Wrobel, R. L. 2001. Tolerance of tomato varieties to lespedeza dodder. Weed Sci 49:520–523.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchison, J. M. and Ashton, F. M. 1980. Germination of field dodder (Cuscuta campestris). Weed Sci 28:330–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ihl, B. and Miersch, J. 1996. Susceptibility and resistance of Lycopersicon to infection by Cuscuta . Pages 600–605. in the Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on Parasitic Weeds. Cordoba, Spain.Google Scholar
Moorthy, B. T., Manish-Bhan, S., Mishra, J. S., and Dubey, R. P. 2004. Effect of different densities of Cuscuta on varieties of niger [Guizotia abyssinica (L. f.) Cass]. Indian J. Weed Sci 36:249–252.Google Scholar
Morrison, J. R., Sandler, H. A., and Romaneo, L. K. 2005. Management of swamp dodder (Cuscuta gronovii Willd.) in cranberry may be enhanced by the integration of a nontoxic household cleaner. Crop Prot 24:1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parker, C. and Riches, C. R. 1993. Parasitic Weeds of the World: Biology and Control. New York: Wallingford Oxon Press. 183–221.Google Scholar
SAS Institute 2008. SAS System Version 9.1. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service 2007. Wisconsin Data—Vegetables. http://www.nass.usda.gov/QuickStats/PullData_US.jsp. Accessed January 23, 2008.Google Scholar