Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2024-05-31T23:03:07.122Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of POST-Directed Applications of Flumioxazin in New Mexico Chile Pepper

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 November 2018

Brian J. Schutte Open the ORCID record for Brian J. Schutte [Opens in a new window] ,
Erik A. Lehnhoff  and
Leslie L. Beck
Brian J. Schutte*
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Department of Entomology, Plant Pathology and Weed Science, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM, USA
Erik A. Lehnhoff
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Department of Entomology, Plant Pathology and Weed Science; New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM, USA
Leslie L. Beck
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor; Department of Extension Plant Sciences; New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Brian Schutte, Department of Entomology, Plant Pathology and Weed Science, New Mexico State University, 945 College Avenue, Las Cruces, NM, 88003. (E-mail: bschutte@nmsu.edu)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The objective for this study was to determine if POST-directed applications of flumioxazin reduce fruit yield for chile pepper produced on coarse- and fine-textured soils irrigated by furrow. This objective was addressed with a multiyear (2015, 2016, 2017) field study that compared flumioxazin effects on fruit yield against a commercial standard (POST-directed carfentrazone) and the absence of a POST-directed herbicide. The field study occurred at two university research farms that differed in soil texture. On fine-textured soil, treatments included the no POST–directed herbicide control and the following four POST-directed herbicides applied to raised beds: (1) flumioxazin at 107 g ai ha–1 applied 4 wk after crop thinning, (2) carfentrazone at 35 g ai ha–1 applied 4 wk after crop thinning, (3) flumioxazin at 70 g ai ha–1 applied 4 and 6 wk after crop thinning, (4) carfentrazone at 35 g ai ha–1 applied 4 and 6 wk after crop thinning. On coarse-textured soil, treatments included the no POST–directed herbicide control and the following three POST-directed herbicides applied 4 wk after crop thinning: (1) flumioxazin at 107 g ai ha–1 applied to raised beds, (2) flumioxazin at 107 g ai ha–1 applied to furrows, (3) carfentrazone at 35 g ai ha–1 applied to raised beds. On fine-textured soil, treatment did not affect fruit yield. On coarse-textured soil, flumioxazin applied to furrows did not reduce fruit yield, but flumioxazin on raised beds reduced fruit yield of some cultivars in 2015 and 2017. Year-to-year variability in both flumioxazin-induced yield loss and soil characteristics suggested that chile pepper sensitivity to flumioxazin was negatively associated with soil organic matter content. In a follow-up greenhouse study, soil organic matter lessened flumioxazin-induced crop injury. In general, this study indicates that recommendations for POST-directed flumioxazin in New Mexico chile pepper will need to be soil-type specific.

Keywords

Steve Fennimore, University of California, DavisCarfentrazoneflumioxazinchile pepper, Capsicum annuum LHerbicide injurypreemergencevegetableweed control
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 33 , Issue 1 , February 2019 , pp. 135 - 141
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2018 

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.)

Footnotes

Cite this article: Schutte BJ, Lehnhoff EA, Beck LL (2018) Evaluation of POST-directed applications of flumioxazin in New Mexico chile pepper. Weed Technol 33:135–141. doi: 10.1017/wet.2018.83

References

Alister, C, Rojas, S, Gomez, P, Kogan, M (2008) Dissipation and movement of flumioxazin in soil at four field sites in Chile. Pest Manag Sci 64:579–583Google Scholar
Amador-Ramirez, MD (2002) Critical period of weed control in transplanted chilli pepper. Weed Res 42:203–209Google Scholar
Anonymous (2011) FIFRA Section 24(c) Special Local Need registration for Chateau hebicide on bell and non-bell peppers in Oklahoma. https://www.oda.state.ok.us/cps-pesticide.htm. Accessed: January 8, 2018Google Scholar
Anonymous (2015) Chateau SW herbicide product label. Valent Form 1522-H. Valent U.S.A. Corporation, Walnut Creek, CA 31 pGoogle Scholar
Bailey, GW, White, JL (1964) Review of adsorption and desorption of organic pesticides by soil colloids with implications concerning pesticide bioactivity. J Agr Food Chem 12:324–332Google Scholar
Bigot, A, Fontaine, F, Clement, C, Vaillant-Gaveau, N (2007) Effect of the herbicide flumioxazin on photosynthetic performance of grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.). Chemosphere 67:1243–1251Google Scholar
Bosland, PW (2015) The history, development, and importance of the New Mexican pod-type chile pepper to the United States and world food industry. Plant Breeding Reviews 39:283–324Google Scholar
Boyd, NS (2014) Pepper and tomato root uptake of paraquat and flumioxazin. Weed Technol 28:626–632Google Scholar
Burke, IC, Askew, SD, Wilcut, JW (2002) Flumioxazin systems for weed management in North Carolina peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Technol 16:743–748Google Scholar
Castro, AJ, Saladin, G, Bezier, A, Mazeyrat-Gourbeyre, F, Baillieul, F, Clement, C (2008) The herbicide flumioxazin stimulates pathogenesis-related gene expression and enzyme activities in Vitis vinifera. Physiol Plantarum 134:453–463Google Scholar
Cobb, AH, Reade, JPH (2010) Herbicides and Plant Physiology. 2nd edn. West Sussex, United Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons LtdGoogle Scholar
Ferrell, JA, Vencill, WK (2003) Flumioxazin soil persistence and mineralization in laboratory experiments. J Agr Food Chem 51:4719–4721Google Scholar
Ferrell, JA, Vencill, WK, Xia, K, Grey, TL (2005) Sorption and desorption of flumioxazin to soil, clay minerals and ion-exchange resin. Pest Manag Sci 61:40–46Google Scholar
Hutchinson, PJS, Boydston, RA, Ransom, CV, Tonks, DJ, Beutler, BR (2005) Potato variety tolerance to flumioxazin and sulfentrazone. Weed Technol 19:683–696Google Scholar
Niekamp, JW, Johnson, WG (2001) Weed management with sulfentrazone and flumioxazin in no-tillage soyabean (Glycine max). Crop Prot 20:215–220Google Scholar
Ozores-Hampton, M, Boyd, NS, McAvoyE, J E, J., Miller, CF, Noling, JW, Vallad, GE (2017) Pepper production. Pages 207–238 in GE Vallad, HA Smith, PJ Dittmar, JH Freeman, eds. Vegetable Production Handbook for Florida, 2017–2018. Gainesville, FL: IFAS Extension, University of of Florida. http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/cv292, Accessed: January 8, 2018Google Scholar
Price, AJ, Wilcut, JW, Cranmer, JR (2004) Physiological behavior of root-absorbed flumioxazin in peanut, ivyleaf morningglory (Ipomoea hederacea), and sicklepod (Senna obtusifolia). Weed Sci 52:718–724Google Scholar
R Development Core Team. 2008. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, http://www.R-project.orgGoogle Scholar
Rodriguez-Alvarado, G, Fernandez-Pavia, S, Creamer, R, Liddell, C (2002) Pepper mottle virus causing disease in chile peppers in southern New Mexico. Plant Dis 86:603–605Google Scholar
Sanogo, S, Schroeder, J, Thomas, S, Murray, L, Schmidt, N, Beacham, J, Fiore, C, Liess, L (2013) Weed species not impaired by Verticillium dahliae and Meloidogyne incognita relationships that damage chile pepper. Plant Health Progress 14, 10:1094/PHP-2013-0920-01-RSGoogle Scholar
Schroeder, J (1992) Oxyfluorfen for directed postemergence weed control in chile peppers (Capsicum annuum). Weed Technol 6:1010–1014Google Scholar
Schroeder, J (1993) Late-season interference of spurred anoda in chile peppers. Weed Sci 41:172–179Google Scholar
Schutte, BJ (2017) Measuring interference from midseason tall morningglory (Ipomoea purpurea) to develop a model for teaching weed seedbank effects on chile pepper. Weed Technol 31:155–164Google Scholar
Shaner, D, Jachetta, J, Senseman, S, Burke, I, Hanson, B, Jugulam, M, Tan, S, Glenn, B, Turner, P (2014) Herbicide Handbook. 10th edn. Lawrence, KS: Weed Science Society of AmericaGoogle Scholar
Shumway, C, Scott, B, Boyd, J (2018) Herbicide Injury Image Database. University of Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service. https://plants.uaex.edu/herbicide/. Accessed: January 10, 2018Google Scholar
Skaggs, RK, Decker, M, VanLeeuwen, D (2000) A Survey of Southern New Mexico Chile Producers: Production Practices and Problems. Las Cruces, NM: New Mexico State University, Agriculure Experiment Station. Pp 68Google Scholar
Taylor-Lovell, S, Wax, LM, Nelson, R (2001) Phytotoxic response and yield of soybean (Glycine max) varieties treated with sulfentrazone or flumioxazin. Weed Technol 15:95–102Google Scholar
[USDA NASS] U.S. Department of Agriculure, National Agricultural Statistics Service (2017) Quick Stats. http://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/. Accessed: December 17, 2017Google Scholar
Wauchope, RD, Yeh, S, JBHJ, Linders, Kloskowski, R, Tanaka, K, Rubin, B, Katayama, A, Kordel, W, Gerstl, Z, Lane, M, Unsworth, JB (2002) Pesticide soil sorption parameters: theory, measurement, uses, limitations and reliability. Pest Manag Sci 58:419–445Google Scholar
Yoshida, R, Sakaki, M, Sato, R, Haga, T, Nagano, E, Oshio, H, Kamoshita, K (1991) S-53482 — a new N-phenylphthalimide herbicide. Pages 69–75 in Proceedings of the Brighton Crop Protection Conference - Weeds. Lavenham, Suffolk, England: Lavenham Press LimitedGoogle Scholar