Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-72crv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-08T20:15:45.530Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

POST Weed Control Using Halosulfuron in Direct-Seeded Watermelon

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

James W. Shrefler ,
Lynn P. Brandenberger ,
Charles L. Webber III ,
Warren Roberts ,
Mark E. Payton  and
Lynda K. Wells
James W. Shrefler*
Affiliation:
Wes Watkins Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Box 128, Lane, OK 74555-0128
Lynn P. Brandenberger
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture, Oklahoma State University, 360 Ag Hall, Stillwater, OK 74078-6027
Charles L. Webber III
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture, Oklahoma State University, 360 Ag Hall, Stillwater, OK 74078-6027
Warren Roberts
Affiliation:
USDA, Agricultural Research Service South Central Agricultural Research Laboratory, P.O. Box 159, Lane, OK 74555
Mark E. Payton
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture, Oklahoma State University, Wes Watkins Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Box 128, Lane, OK 74555-0128
Lynda K. Wells
Affiliation:
Statistics, Oklahoma State University, 301 Math Sci., Stillwater, OK 74078
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: jim.shrefler@okstate.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Watermelon growers rotate crops to prevent problems, but weed populations in new fields may hold unexpected control challenges. Having effective POST herbicides would provide growers an opportunity to respond to emerging weeds on an as-needed basis. To address this need, field studies were conducted over 4 yr in Oklahoma to determine efficacy and crop response of POST halosulfuron applications to direct-seeded watermelon that received PRE application of ethalfluralin at 840 g/ha. At 5 wk after crop emergence (WAE) halosulfuron was applied at 18, 27, 36, and 54 g/ha. The 27 g/ha rate was also applied at 1, 2, 3 and 7 WAE. Halosulfuron applications made 5 WAE did not provide acceptable (> 80%) control of pigweeds and cutleaf groundcherry regardless of rate. Applications made 1 WAE provided significantly better control of pigweeds and cutleaf groundcherry than did later applications. Halosulfuron treatments of 36 and 54 g/ha made 5 WAE and of 27 g/ha made 1, 2 and 3 WAE did not result in significant yield increases compared with the hand-weeded check. These studies show that POST halosulfuron application may be a useful treatment for direct-seeded watermelon. This option would enable more judicious use of herbicides and possible reduction in production costs.

Keywords

HalosulfuronPalmer amaranth, Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats. AMAPAtumble pigweed, Amaranthus albus L. AMAALcutleaf groundcherry, Physalis angulata L. PHYANeclipta, Eclipta prostrata L. ECLALwatermelon, Citrullus lanatus (Thunb.) Matsumura & Nakai var. lanatus ‘Jubilee’, ‘XIT 101’Broadleaf weed controlwatermelon injury

Information

Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 21 , Issue 4 , December 2007 , pp. 851 - 856
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

Anonymous 2005. Sandea product label. Yuma, AZ Gowan Company. 13.Google Scholar
Bell, V. D. and Oliver, L. R. 1979. Germination, control, and competition of cutleaf groundcherry (Physalis angulata) in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 27:133–138.Google Scholar
Boyhan, G. B., Kovach, S. P., Norton, J. D., Abrahams, B. R., Hollingsworth, M. H., and Dangler, J. M. 1995. Preemergent herbicides for cantaloupe and watermelon. J. Veg. Crop Prod. 1:79–92.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 (Citrullus lanatus) crops. Weed Technol. 19:706–712.Google Scholar
Brandenberger, L. P., Talbert, R. E., Wiedenfeld, R. P., Shrefler, 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buker, R. S. III and Stall, W. M. 2001. Halosulfuron rate and timing application effects on summer squash and muskmelon. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 54:77.Google Scholar
Culpepper, A. S., Gimenez, A. E., York, A. C., Batts, R. B., and Wilcut, J. W. 2001. Morningglory (Ipomoea spp.) and large crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis) control with glyphosate and 2,4-DB mixtures in glyphosate-resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 15:56–61.Google Scholar
Eizenberg, H., Goldwasser, Y., Achdary, G., and Hershemhorn, J. 2003. The potential of sulfosulfuron to control troublesome weeds in tomato. Weed Technol. 17:133–137.Google Scholar
Hartzler, R. G. and Foy, C. L. 1983. Efficacy of three postemergence grass herbicides for soybeans. Weed Sci. 31:557–561.Google Scholar
Hoyt, G. D., Bonanno, A. R., and Parker, G. C. 1996. Influence of herbicides and tillage on weed control, yield, and quality of cabbage (Brassica oleracea L. var. capitata). Weed Technol. 10:50–54.Google Scholar
Lu, W., Duthie, J. A., Roberts, B. W., Taylor, M. J., and Edelson, J. V. 2003b. Partial budget analysis of effects of crop management intensity on profitability of three watermelon cultivars. J. Veg. Crop Prod. 9/1:49–71.Google Scholar
Lu, W., Roberts, B. W., Duthie, J. A., Shrefler, J. W., Taylor, M. J., and Edelson, J. V. 2003a. Characteristics and geographic variation of watermelon (Citrullus lanatus) production in Oklahoma from a statewide survey. J. Veg. Crop Prod. 9/1:33–48.Google Scholar
Miller, T. W. and Libbey, C. R. 1999. Tolerance of cucumber, squash, and pumpkin to several herbicides. West. Soc. Weed Sci. Res. Prog. Rep. 62–64.Google Scholar
Mitchem, W. E., Monks, D. W., and Mills, R. J. 1997. Response of transplanted watermelon (Citrullus lanatus) to ethalfluralin applied PPI, PRE, and POST. Weed Technol. 11:88–91.Google Scholar
Monks, D. W. and Shultheis, J. R. 1998. Critical weed-free period for large crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis) in transplanted watermelon (Citrullus lanatus). Weed Sci. 46:530–532.Google Scholar
Porter, W. C. 1993. Pursuit herbicide for weed control in southern peas. Louisiana Agric. 36/2:20.Google Scholar
Sholar, J. R. and Nickels, J. N. 1999. Eclipta (Eclipta prostrata L.) control programs in peanut. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 52:63.Google Scholar
[SWSS] Weed Identification Guide 1993. Weed Sci. Soc. Champaign, IL South.Google Scholar
Talbert, R. E., Schmidt, L. A., and Wells, J. A. 1998. Field evaluation of herbicides on small fruit, vegetable, and ornamental crops 1998. Fayettville, AR Arkansas Agriculture Experiment Station Research Series 467. 11–12.Google Scholar
Terry, E. R., Stall, W. M., Shilling, D. G., Bewick, T. A., and Kostewicz, S. R. 1997. Smooth amaranth interference with watermelon and muskmelon production. Hort. Sci. 32:630–632.Google Scholar
Umeda, K. 2002. Maynard, D., ed. Efficacy and safety of new herbicides for melon production in the desert southwest United States. Cucurbitaceae. Alexandria, VA ASHS Press. 404–408.Google Scholar
W.K. Vencill, ed. 2002. Herbicide Handbook. 8th ed. Lawrence, KS Weed Sci. Soc. of America. 235–237.Google Scholar
Webster, T. M. 2002. Weed survey of southern states. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 55:245–247.Google Scholar
Webster, T. M. and Culpepper, A. S. 2005. Halosulfuron has a variable effect on cucurbit growth and yield. Hort. Sci. 40:707–710.Google Scholar
Webster, T. M., Culpepper, A. S., and Johnson, W. C. III. 2003. Response of squash and cucumber cultivars to halosulfuron. Weed Technol. 17:173–176.Google Scholar
Wehtje, G. R., Gilliam, C. H., Grey, T. L., and Blythe, E. K. 2006. Potential for halosulfuron to control eclipta (Eclipta prostrata) in container-grown landscape plants and its sorption to container rooting substrate. Weed Technol. 20:361–363.Google Scholar