Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T18:43:40.735Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tolerance of Cantaloupe to Postemergence Applications of Rimsulfuron and Halosulfuron

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Jason K. Norsworthy  and
Charles W. Meister
Jason K. Norsworthy*
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, Soils, and Plant Sciences, Clemson University, 277 Poole Agricultural Center, Clemson, SC 29634-0315
Charles W. Meister
Affiliation:
University of Florida, P.O. Box 110720, Gainesville, FL 32611-0720
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field trials were conducted in the spring of 2004 and the spring and summer of 2005 to evaluate cantaloupe tolerance to rimsulfuron and halosulfuron applied to cantaloupe at the two-leaf stage, five- to six-leaf stage, plants having 30- to 40-cm vines, and plants having up to 5-cm-diam melons. Additionally, control of eight weed species was evaluated in these trials in 2005. Cantaloupe plant injury from rimsulfuron differed among application timings and trials, but applications were generally more injurious when applied at the two early crop stages. Halosulfuron was less injurious to cantaloupe, but 31 and 14% injury occurred following the two-leaf and five- to six-leaf applications, respectively, in the second trial in 2005. In the first trial of 2005, number of marketable melons the first week of harvest was lower for all halosulfuron applications compared with the nontreated control (30 to 37% reduction). In the second trial of 2005, total number of marketable melons was comparable to the nontreated control for each of the halosulfuron treatments, except the five- to six-leaf and up to 5-cm-diam melon applications. Injury estimates were poor indicators of occurrence or absence of delays in crop earliness or number of marketable melons. Rimsulfuron was generally effective (≥ 80% control) in controlling seedling Texas panicum, large crabgrass, tall morningglory, pitted morningglory, and Palmer amaranth, but was ineffective against yellow and purple nutsedge and goosegrass. Halosulfuron was effective in controlling yellow and purple nutsedge, but was ineffective against Texas panicum, large crabgrass, goosegrass, pitted morningglory, tall morningglory, and Palmer amaranth.

Keywords

Halosulfuronrimsulfurongoosegrass, Eleusine indica (L.) Gaertn. ELEINlarge crabgrass, Digitaria sanguinalis (L.) Scop. DIGSAPalmer amaranth, Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats. AMAPApitted morningglory, Ipomoea lacunosa L. IPOLApurple nutsedge, Cyperus rotundus L. CYPROtall morningglory, Ipomoea purpurea (L.) Roth PHBPUTexas panicum, Panicum texanum Buckl. PANTEyellow nutsedge, Cyperus esculentus L. # CYPEScantaloupe, Cucumis melo L. Reticulatus group ‘Athena’Methyl bromide alternativeminor use crop
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 21 , Issue 1 , March 2007 , pp. 30 - 36
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

Anonymous, , 2005a. Alanap label. http://www.cdms.net/ldat/ld09N007.pdf. Accessed: November 15, 2005.Google Scholar
Anonymous, , 2005b. Dacthal label. http://www.cdms.net/ldat/ld6D2001.pdf. Accessed: November 15, 2005.Google Scholar
Anonymous, , 2005c. Sandea label. http://www.cdms.net/ldat/ld5LK036.pdf. Accessed: November 15, 2005.Google Scholar
Blum, R. R., Isgrigg, J. III, and Yelverton, F. H. 2000. Purple (Cyperus rotundus) and yellow nutsedge (C. esculentus) control in bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) turf. Weed Technol. 14:357–365.Google Scholar
Brandenberger, L. P., Shrefler, J. W., Webber, C. L. III, Talbert, R. E., Payton, M. E., Wells, L. K., and McClelland, M. 2005a. Preemergence weed control in direct-seeded watermelon. Weed Technol. 19:706–712.Google Scholar
Brandenberger, L. P., Talbert, R. E., Wiedenfield, R. P., Schrefler, J. W., Webber, C. L. III, and Malik, M. S. 2005b. Effects of halosulfuron on weed control in commercial honeydew crops. Weed Technol. 19:346–350.Google Scholar
Johnson, W. C. III 2002. Herbicide placement on cantaloupe and water melon transplanted on polyethylene-covered beds—weed control efficacy and injury considerations. Proc. South. Weed. Sci. Soc. 55:208.Google Scholar
Johnson, W. C. III and Mullinix, B. G. Jr. 2005. Herbicide application method on weed management and crop injury in transplanted cantaloupe production. Weed Technol. 19:108–112.Google Scholar
Nalewaja, J. D., Woznica, Z., and Manthey, F. A. 1991. DPX-V9360 efficacy with adjuvants and environment. Weed Technol. 5:92–96.Google Scholar
Nelson, K. A. and Renner, K. A. 2002. Yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus) control and tuber production with glyphosate and ALS-inhibiting herbicides. Weed Technol. 16:512–519.Google Scholar
D.C. Sanders, ed. 2004. Vegetable Crop Guidelines for the Southeastern United States 2004–2005. Lenexa, KS Vance.Google Scholar
Tonks, D. J. and Eberlein, C. V. 2001. Postemergence weed control with rimsulfuron and various adjuvants in potato (Solanum tuberosum). Weed Technol. 15:614–616.Google Scholar
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture 2005. National Agriculture Statistics Service: Ag Statistics Data Base. http://www.usda.gov/nass/ Accessed: November 22, 2005.Google Scholar
Vencill, W. K., Richburg, J. S. III, Wilcut, J. W., and Hawf, L. R. 1995. Effect of MON-12037 on purple (Cyperus rotundus) and yellow (Cyperus esculentus) nutsedge. Weed Technol. 9:148–152.Google Scholar
Webster, T. M. 2002. Weed survey—southern states: vegetable, fruit and nut crops subsection. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 55:237–258.Google Scholar
Webster, T. and Culpepper, A. 2005a. Eggplant tolerance to halosulfuron applied through drip irrigation. Hortscience 40:1796–1800.Google Scholar
Webster, T. and Culpepper, A. S. 2005b. Halosulfuron has a variable effect on cucurbit growth and yield. Hortscience 40:707–710.Google Scholar