Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T11:57:30.789Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed Management in Fresh Market Spinach (Spinacia oleracea) with S-metolachlor

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Steven A. Fennimore ,
Richard F. Smith  and
Milton E. Mcgiffen Jr.
Steven A. Fennimore*
Affiliation:
Department of Vegetable Crops and Weed Science, University of California-Davis, c/o USDA-ARS, Salinas, CA 93905
Richard F. Smith
Affiliation:
University of California, Cooperative Extension, Monterey County, Salinas, CA 93901
Milton E. Mcgiffen Jr.
Affiliation:
Department of Botany and Plant Sciences, University of California-Riverside, Riverside, CA 92521
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted with fresh market spinach to examine crop tolerance and weed control with S-metolachlor. S-metolachlor was applied preemergence (PRE) at rates of 0.56, 0.72, 1.06, and 1.41 kg/ha and compared with the commercial standard cycloate at 3.4 and 4.5 kg/ha. Spinach was generally tolerant of S-metolachlor at rates up to 1.06 kg/ha on all soil types. S-Metolachlor at 0.56 to 0.72 kg/ha and cycloate at 3.4 kg/ha provided >88% control of common purslane, nettleleaf goosefoot, and shepherd's purse. Control of common chickweed with S-metolachlor at ≥0.56 kg/ha was >80%, whereas cycloate at 3.4 to 4.5 kg/ha was ineffective. Hand-weeding times in plots treated with S-metolachlor at 0.56 and 0.72 kg/ha were similar or lower than hand-weeding times in plots treated with cycloate at 3.4 kg/ha. Greenhouse studies were conducted to compare the relative tolerance of fresh market spinach to S-metolachlor and metolachlor. The GR10 values for S-metolachlor and metolachlor were 1.57 and 2.03 kg/ha, respectively. At rates above 2.2 kg/ha S-metolachlor is less selective in spinach than metolachlor. S-metolachlor is safe for PRE use in fresh market spinach at rates up to 1.06 kg/ha.

Keywords

CycloatemetolachlorS-metolachlorS-enantiomercommon chickweed, Stellaria media L. Vill. # STEMEcommon purslane, Portulaca oleracea L. # POROLnettleleaf goosefoot, Chenopodium murale L. # CHEMUshepherd's-purse, Capsella bursa-pastoris L. Medik # CAPBPspinach, Spinacia oleracea L. # SPQOLHerbicide toleranceweed controlCAPBPCHEMUPOROLSPQOLSTEMEGR10, herbicide concentration required to reduce shoot dry weight by 10%PRE, preemergence
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 15 , Issue 3 , September 2001 , pp. 511 - 516
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. 1998. Metolachlor Section 18 Emergency Exemption for Spinach. Available online: http://ag.arizona.edu/maricopa/vegcrops.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1999. Technical bulletin—S-metolachlor. Novartis Crop Protection, Inc. Greensboro, NC.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2000a. Spin-Aid sample label. 2000 Crop Protection Reference. New York: C&P Press. pp. 108–109.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2000b. Dual Magnum sample label. 2000 Crop Protection Reference. New York: C&P Press. pp. 1647–1663.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2000c. RoNeet sample label. Available online: http://www.zenecaagproducts.com/pdf/labels/RONEET6e_0300.PDF.Google Scholar
Gallitano, L. B. and Skroch, W. A. 1993. Herbicide efficacy for production of container ornamentals. Weed Technol. 7: 103–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lanini, W. T. and Le Strange, M. 1994. Weed control economics in bell pepper (Capsicum annuum) with napropamide and hand weeding. Weed Technol. 8: 530–535.Google Scholar
LeStrange, M., Koike, S., Valencia, J., and Chaney, W. E. 1999. Spinach Production in California. Available online: vric.ucdavis.edu/richome/html/veginfo/commodity/spinach/spinachprod.html.Google Scholar
[NAPIAP] National Pesticide Impact Assessment Program. 1999. California spinach commodity profile. Available online: http://ipmwww.ncsu.edu/opmpiap/proindex.htm.Google Scholar
O'Connell, P. J., Harris, C. T., and Allen, J.R.F. 1998. Metolachlor, S-metolachlor and their role within sustainable weed management. Crop Prot. 17: 207–212.Google Scholar
Seefeldt, S. S., Jensen, J. E., and Fuerst, E. F. 1995. Log-logistic analysis of herbicide dose-response relationships. Weed Technol. 9: 218–227.Google Scholar
Smith, R. F., LeStrange, M., and Fennimore, S. A. 2001. Integrated weed control in spinach. University of California, Pest Management Guidelines. Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources publication no. 3339. 29 p.Google Scholar
Talbert, R. E., Schmidt, L. A., and Wells, J. A. 1999. Field Evaluations of Herbicides on Small Fruit, Vegetable, and Ornamental Crops, 1998. Research Series, Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station. 1999, no. 467. 32 p.Google Scholar
Talbert, R. E., Tierny, M. J., Strebe, T. A., Kitt, M. J., and Burgos, N. R. 1995. Field Evaluations of Herbicides on Small Fruit, Vegetable, and Ornamental Crops, 1994. Research Series, Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station, 1995, no. 447. 58 p.Google Scholar
[USDA] United States Department of Agriculture. 2000. Vegetables: 1999 Summary. Available online: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu.80/usda/.Google Scholar