Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-9pm4c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T12:42:15.248Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Selective and effective control of field dodder (Cuscuta campestris) in chickpea with granular pendimethalin

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 May 2019

Yaakov Goldwasser*
Affiliation:
Researcher, Institute of Plant Science & Genetics in Agriculture, Faculty of Agriculture, Food and Environment, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Rehovot, Israel
Onn Rabinovitz
Affiliation:
Extension Researcher, Agricultural Extension Service of Israel, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Beit Dagan, Israel
Elad Hayut
Affiliation:
Agronomist, Gadot Agro, Kidron, Israel
Hadar Kuzikaro
Affiliation:
M.Sc Student, Institute of Plant Science & Genetics in Agriculture, Faculty of Agriculture, Food and Environment, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Rehovot, Israel
Moshe Sibony
Affiliation:
Researcher, Institute of Plant Science & Genetics in Agriculture, Faculty of Agriculture, Food and Environment, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Rehovot, Israel
Baruch Rubin
Affiliation:
Professor, Institute of Plant Science and Genetics in Agriculture, Faculty of Agriculture, Food and Environment, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Rehovot, Israel
*
Author for correspondence: Yaakov Goldwasser, Institute of Plant Science and Genetics in Agriculture, Faculty of Agriculture, Food and Environment, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, P.O. Box 12, Rehovot, Israel 76100. (Email: yaakov.goldwasser@mail.huji.ac.il

Abstract

Field dodder is an obligatory stem and leaf plant parasite that causes significant damage in field and vegetable crops in all agricultural regions of the globe. Selective and effective measures to control the parasite are extremely limited. In recent studies, we have shown that granular formulations of dinitroaniline cell division–inhibiting herbicides applied after crop establishment and before dodder germination fit our dodder control strategy and kill the parasite effectively and selectively. The aim of our study conducted from 2014 to 2018 was to evaluate the efficacy and selectivity of granular pendimethalin for dodder control in chickpea under laboratory, greenhouse, and field conditions. Petri dish experiments revealed that the herbicide reduces dodder seed germination while its main effect is a restriction of shoot elongation. Greenhouse experiments demonstrated that the inhibition and distortion of dodder shoot growth impede shoot twining and prevent attachment to the host plant. In dose–response experiments conducted in the greenhouse, we observed that half the recommended rate of granular pendimethalin provides efficient dodder control with no damage to chickpea seedlings. In 3 yr of chickpea field trials, GPM applied across the seeding bed at the recommended rate resulted in high crop yields that were not significantly different from those observed for the untreated no-dodder control, while half of the recommended dose efficiently controlled dodder and other weeds with no damage to the crop, resulting in significantly increased chickpea yields and profitability. These studies indicate that GPM can provide efficient and selective dodder control in chickpea.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2019 

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

Ali, R (2012) Conventional and biotechnological approaches for control of field dodder. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol 43:304317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benvenuti, S, Dinelli, G, Bonetti, A, Catizone, P (2005) Germination ecology, emergence and host detection in Cuscuta campestris. Weed Res 45:270278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Choudhary, CN, Prakash, N (2018) Assessment of pendimethalin, quizalfop ethyl and imazethapyr on weed count of Cuscuta and yield attribute of lentil. Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci 7:13861392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cudney, DW, Orloff, SB, Reints, JS (1992) Integrated weed management for the control of dodder (Cuscuta indecora) in alfalfa (Medicago sativa). Weed Technol 6:603606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawson, JH (1990) Dodder (Cuscuta spp.) control with dinitroaniline herbicides in alfalfa (Medicago sativa). Weed Technol 4:341348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawson, JH, Musselman, LJ, Wolswinkel, P, Dorr, I (1994) Biology and control of Cuscuta. Rev Weed Sci 6:265317Google Scholar
Dorr, I (1987) The haustorium of Cuscuta—new structural results. Pages 163–170 in Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Parasitic Flowering Plants. Marburg, Germany: Philipps-Universität.Google Scholar
Goldwasser, Y, Miryamchik, H, Rubin, B, Eizenberg, H (2016) Field dodder (Cuscuta campestris)—a new model describing temperature dependent seed germination. Weed Sci 64:5360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldwasser, Y, Miryamchik, H, Sibony, M, Rubin, B (2012) Detection of resistant chickpea (Cicer arietinum) genotypes to Cuscuta campestris (field dodder). Weed Res 52:122130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grundy, A (2003) Predicting weed emergence: a review of approaches and future challenges. Weed Res 43:111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holm, L, Doll, J, Holm, E, Panch, J, Herberger, J (1997) World Weeds: Natural Histories and Distribution. New York, NY: Wiley. Pp 249265Google Scholar
Keith, RA, Tingey, DC (1968) Germination and spring emergence of dodder as influenced by temperature. Weeds 12:4548Google Scholar
Knezevic, SZ, Datta, A (2015) The critical period for weed control: revisiting data analysis. Weed Sci 63(SP1):188202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knezevic, SZ, Evans, SP, Blankenship, EE, Van Acker, RC, Lindquist, JL (2002) Critical period for weed control: the concept and data analysis. Weed Sci 50:773786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lati, RN, Filin, S, Eizenberg, H (2012) Effect of tuber density and trifloxysulfuron application timing on purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus) control. Weed Sci 60:494500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mishra, JS (2009) Biology and management of Cuscuta species. Indian J Weed Sci 41:111Google Scholar
Muelbauer, FJ, Sarker, A (2017) Economic importance of chickpea: production, value, and world trade. Pages 512 in Varshney, R, Thudi, M, Muehlbauer, F, eds. The Chickpea Genome. Compendium of Plant Genomes. Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nir, E (1996) The biology and control of field dodder (Cuscuta campestris Yuncker). M.S. thesis. Rehovot, Israel: Faculty of Agriculture of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. 54 pGoogle Scholar
Nir, E, Rubin, B, Zharasov, SW (1996) On the biology and selective control of field dodder (Cuscuta campestris). Pages 809816 in Moreno, MT, Cubero, JI, Berner, D, Joel, D, Musselman, LJ, Parker, C, eds. Advances in Parasitic Plant Research. Proceedings of the 6th International Parasitic Weed Symposium. Cordoba, Spain.Google Scholar
Parker, C, Riches, CR (1993) Parasitic Weeds of the World: Biology and Control. Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing. 332 pGoogle Scholar
Rubiales, D, FernÆndez-Aparicio, M (2012) Innovations in parasitic weed management in legume crops. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 32:433439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaner, DL (2014) Herbicide Handbook. Lawrence, KS: Weed Science Society of America. 513 pGoogle Scholar
Tsivion, Y (1978) Loading of assimilates and some sugars into the translocation system of Cuscuta. Aust J Plant Physiol 5:581587Google Scholar
Wolswinkel, P (1984) Phloem unloading and “sink strength”: the parallel between the site of attachment of Cuscuta and developing legume seeds. Plant Growth Regul 2:309317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yenish, JP (2007) Weed management in chickpea. Pages 233245 in Shyam, S, Yadav, W, Chen, W, eds. Chickpea Breeding and Management. Oxfordshire, UK: CABI.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zait, Y, Segev, D, Schweitzer, A, Goldwasser, Y, Rubin, B, Mishael, Y (2015) Development and employment of slow release pendimethalin formulations for the reduction of root penetration into subsurface drippers. J Agric Food Chem 63:16821688CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed