Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T06:18:11.139Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Interactive Effects of Soil pH, Halosulfuron Rate, and Application Method on Carryover to Turnip Green and Cabbage

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

W. Carroll Johnson III ,
Timothy L. Grey  and
David Kissel
W. Carroll Johnson III*
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, University of Georgia, Tifton, GA 31793
Timothy L. Grey
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, University of Georgia, Tifton, GA 31793
David Kissel
Affiliation:
Agricultural and Environmental Services Laboratory, University of Georgia, College Station Road, Athens, GA 30602
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: Carroll.Johnson@ars.usda.gov.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted in 2006 and 2007 to evaluate the tolerance of autumn-planted cabbage and turnip green to halosulfuron applied the previous spring to cantaloupe. Main plots were three levels of soil pH: maintained at a natural pH level, pH raised with Ca(OH)2, and pH lowered with Al2(SO4)3. Subplots were a factorial arrangement of two halosulfuron application methods and three halosulfuron rates. Halosulfuron application methods were PPI or POST after transplanting to the edges of mulch-covered seedbeds. Halosulfuron rates were 35 and 70 g ai/ha, along with a nontreated control. Cantaloupe were transplanted, maintained weed-free, and evaluated for yield response. After cantaloupe harvest, direct-seeded turnip green and transplanted cabbage were established in September of each year and evaluated for crop tolerance and yield. Data indicated nonsignificant main effects of soil pH and halosulfuron application method on cantaloupe yield. However, in 2007 cantaloupe yields were significantly reduced, by 16 and 20% for halosulfuron applied at 35 and 70 g/ha, respectively. For all turnip green and cabbage response parameters, interactions were nonsignificant between application method and rate, soil pH and rate, and soil pH and application method, along with the three-way interaction. After 6 mo, there was no evidence of stunting from halosulfuron carryover in 2006 to direct-seeded turnip green and in both years to transplanted cabbage. Visual estimates of stunting to direct-seeded turnip green ranged from 9 to 16% for halosulfuron at 35 and 70 g/ha, respectively, in 2007, but all stunting was transient and turnip green yield was not affected.

En el 2006 y 2007 se llevaron al cabo estudios de campo para evaluar la tolerancia de la col y nabo sembrados durante el otoño al halosulfuron aplicado la primavera anterior en cultivos de melón. Las parcelas principales fueron tres diferentes niveles de pH en el suelo: a) mantenido a un nivel natural de pH, b) un pH aumentado con Ca (OH)2 y c) un pH disminuido con Al2(SO4)3. Las subparcelas fueron arregladas factorialmente en dos métodos de aplicación y tres diferentes dosis de halosulfuron. Los métodos de aplicación fueron: incorporados antes de la siembra (PPI), o en postemergencia (POST) después de transplantarlos en bordes de cama de siembra cubierta con paja. Las dosis de halosulfuron fueron de 35 y 70 g ia/ha, así como también un testigo sin tratamiento. El melón fue transplantado, mantenido libre de maleza y se evaluó su rendimiento. Después de la cosecha de melón, se sembró el nabo en forma directa y se transplantó la col en septiembre de cada año, evaluándose la tolerancia y el rendimiento. Los datos indicaron que los efectos principales del pH del suelo y los métodos de aplicación del halosulfuron, no fueron significativos en el rendimiento del melón. Sin embargo, en 2007 los rendimientos del melón se redujeron significativamente en un 16 y en un 20% en los casos donde el halosulfuron se aplicó en 35 y 70 g ia/ha respectivamente. Para todos los parámetros de respuesta del nabo y la col, las interacciones no fueron significativas entre el método de aplicación y la dosis, entre el pH del suelo y la dosis, y entre el pH del suelo y el método de aplicación así como también, en la interacción de los tres factores. En 2006, después de 6 meses, no había evidencia de falta de crecimiento atribuible al efecto residual del halosulfuron en el caso de la siembra directa del nabo y en ambos años para la col transplantada. Las estimaciones visuales de falta de crecimiento en el nabo en 2007, fueron de un 9 a un 16% para el halosulfuron en dosis de 35 y 70 g/ha respectivamente, pero todo el daño en el crecimiento fue transitorio y el rendimiento del nabo no fue afectado.

Keywords

HalosulfuroncabbageBrassica oleracea L.cantaloupeCucumis melo L.turnip greenBrassica rapa L.Brassica oleraceaBrassica rapacantaloupeCucumis melomethyl bromide alternatives
Type
Weed Management—Other Crops/Areas
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 24 , Issue 2 , June 2010 , pp. 160 - 164
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, , 2009. Sandea® Herbicide Label. http://www.gowanco.com/Reference/Document.aspx?rid=422. Accessed: January 13, 2010.Google Scholar
Boyhan, G. E., Kelley, W. T., and Granberry, D. M. 1999. Cantaloupe and Specialty Melons. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Cooperative Extension Service Bull. 1179.Google Scholar
Carpenter, A. C., Senseman, S. A., and Cralle, H. T. 1999. Adsorption–desorption of halosulfuron on selected Texas soils. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 52:211.Google Scholar
Culpepper, A. S. 2009. Commercial vegetables weed control in 2009. Pages 401–405. in. Georgia Pest Control Handbook—Commercial Edition. Athens, GA: Cooperative Extension Service, University of Georgia College of Agriculture and Environmental Science.Google Scholar
Dermiyati, S. K. and Yamamoto, I. 1997a. Degradation of the herbicide halosulfuron-methyl in two soils under different environmental conditions. J. Pestic. Sci 22:282–287.Google Scholar
Dermiyati, S. K. and Yamamoto, I. 1997b. Relationships between soil properties and sorption behavior of the herbicide halosulfuron-methyl in selected Japanese soils. J. Pestic. Sci 22:288–292.Google Scholar
Grey, T. L., Culpepper, A. S., and Webster, T. M. 2007a. Residual herbicide dissipation from soil covered with low-density polyethylene mulch or left bare. Weed Sci 55:638–643.Google Scholar
Grey, T. L., Culpepper, A. S., and Webster, T. M. 2007b. Autumn vegetable response to herbicides spring applied under polyethylene mulch. Weed Technol 21:496–500.Google Scholar
Irwin, T. T. 2007. Georgia Agricultural Facts 2007 Edition. Athens, GA: Georgia Agricultural Statistics Service. 64–65.Google Scholar
Johnson, W. C. III and Mullinix, B. G. Jr. 2002. Weed management in watermelon (Citrullus lanatus) and cantaloupe (Cucumis melo) transplanted on polyethylene covered seedbeds. Weed Technol 16:860–866.Google Scholar
Johnson, W. C. III and Mullinix, B. G. Jr. 2005. Effect of herbicide application method on weed management and crop injury in transplanted cantaloupe (Cucumis melo) production. Weed Technol 19:108–112.Google Scholar
Kelley, W. T., MacDonald, G., and Adams, D. B. 2000. Commercial Production and Management of Cabbage and Leafy Greens. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Cooperative Extension Service Bull. 1181.Google Scholar
Webster, T. M., Csinos, A. S., Johnson, A. W., Dowler, C. C., Sumner, D. R., and Fery, R. L. 2001. Methyl bromide alternatives in a bell pepper-squash rotation. Crop Prot 20:605–614.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