Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-hfldf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-07T01:00:55.164Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Fluridone and acetochlor cause unacceptable injury to pumpkin

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2019

J. Harrison Ferebee IV ,
Charles W. Cahoon Jr. Open the ORCID record for Charles W. Cahoon Jr. [Opens in a new window] ,
Thierry E. Besançon ,
Michael L. Flessner ,
David B. Langston ,
Thomas E. Hines ,
Hunter B. Blake  and
M. Carter Askew
J. Harrison Ferebee IV
Affiliation:
Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Plant Pathology, Physiology, and Weed Science, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA, USA
Charles W. Cahoon Jr.*
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Department of Crop and Soil Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
Thierry E. Besançon
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Department of Plant Biology, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA
Michael L. Flessner
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Department of Plant Pathology, Physiology, and Weed Science, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA, USA
David B. Langston
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Plant Pathology, Physiology, and Weed Science, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA, USA
Thomas E. Hines
Affiliation:
Research Specialist, Department of Plant Pathology Physiology, and Weed Science, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA, USA
Hunter B. Blake
Affiliation:
Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Plant Pathology Physiology, and Weed Science, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA, USA
M. Carter Askew
Affiliation:
Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Plant Pathology Physiology, and Weed Science, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Charles W. Cahoon Jr., Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, North Carolina State University, Campus Box 7620, Raleigh, NC 27695. (Email: cwcahoon@ncsu.edu)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Residual herbicides are routinely applied to control troublesome weeds in pumpkin production. Fluridone and acetochlor, Groups 12 and 15 herbicides, respectively, provide broad-spectrum PRE weed control. Field research was conducted in Virginia and New Jersey to evaluate pumpkin tolerance and weed control to PRE herbicides. Treatments consisted of fomesafen at two rates, ethalfluralin, clomazone, halosulfuron, fluridone, S-metolachlor, acetochlor emulsifiable concentrate (EC), acetochlor microencapsulated (ME), and no herbicide. At one site, fluridone, acetochlor EC, acetochlor ME, and halosulfuron injured pumpkin 81%, 39%, 34%, and 35%, respectively, at 14 d after planting (DAP); crop injury at the second site was 40%, 8%, 19%, and 33%, respectively. Differences in injury between the two sites may have been due to the amount and timing of rainfall after herbicides were applied. Fluridone provided 91% control of ivyleaf morningglory and 100% control of common ragweed at 28 DAP. Acetochlor EC controlled redroot pigweed 100%. Pumpkin treated with S-metolachlor produced the most yield (10,764 fruits ha–1) despite broadcasting over the planted row; labeling requires a directed application to row-middles. A separate study specifically evaluated fluridone applied PRE at 42, 84, 126, 168, 252, 336, and 672 g ai ha–1. Fluridone resulted in pumpkin injury ≥95% when applied at rates of ≥168 g ai ha–1; significant yield loss was noted when the herbicide was applied at rates >42 g ai ha–1. We concluded that fluridone and acetochlor formulations are unacceptable candidates for pumpkin production.

Keywords

Robert Nurse, Agriculture and Agri-Food CanadaAcetochlorclomazoneethalfluralinfomesafenfluridonehalosulfuronS-metolachlorcommon ragweedAmbrosia artemisiifolia L.ivyleaf morningglory, Ipomoea hederacea Jacq.redroot pigweed, Amaranthus retroflexus L.pumpkin, Cucurbita pepo L.Crop toleranceherbicide resistance managementpreemergence herbicidesresiduals
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 33 , Issue 5 , October 2019 , pp. 748 - 756
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.)

Footnotes

*

This article has been corrected since its original publication. Please see doi: 10.1017/wet.2019.77

References

Anonymous (2011) Strategy herbicide product label. Greeley, CO: Loveland Products, Inc. 4 pGoogle Scholar
Anonymous (2012) Harness herbicide product label. St. Louis, MO: Monsanto Co. 9 pGoogle Scholar
Anonymous (2014) Warrant herbicide product label. St. Louis, MO: Monsanto Co. 8 pGoogle Scholar
Anonymous (2015) Dual Magnum herbicide product label. Greensboro, NC: Syngenta Crop Protection. 50 pGoogle Scholar
Anonymous (2016) Curbit EC herbicide product label. Greeley, CO: Loveland Products, Inc. 6 pGoogle Scholar
Anonymous (2018) Brake herbicide product label. Carmel, IN: SePRO Corporation. 4 pGoogle Scholar
Brandenberger, LP, Shrefler, JW, Webber, CL III, Talbert, RE, Payton, ME, Wells, LK, McClelland, M (2005) Preemergence weed control in direct-seeded watermelon. Weed Technol 19:706–712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braswell, LR, Cahoon, CW, York, AC, Jordan, DL, Seagroves, RW (2016) Fluridone and encapsulated acetochlor reduce protoporphyrinogen oxidase inhibitor use in a glufosinate-based Palmer amaranth management program for cotton. Weed Technol 30:838847CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bratsch, A (2009) Specialty Crop Profile: Pumpkins. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Cooperative Extension. 8 pGoogle Scholar
Brown, D, Masiunas, J (2002) Evaluation of herbicides for pumpkin (Cucurbita spp.). Weed Technol 16:282–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cahoon, CW, Flessner, ML, Hines, T (2017) Glyphosate- and ALS-resistant common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) management in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Page 135 in Proceedings of the 70th Southern Weed Science Society Annual Meeting. Birmingham, AL: Southern Weed Science SocietyGoogle Scholar
Cahoon, CW, York, AC, Jordan, DL, Everman, WJ, Seagroves, RW, Braswell, LR, Jennings, KM (2015a) Weed control in cotton by combinations of microencapsulated acetochlor and various residual herbicides applied preemergence. Weed Technol 29:740–750CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cahoon, CW, York, AC, Jordan, DL, Seagroves, RW, Everman, WJ, Jennings, KM (2015b) Fluridone carryover to rotational crops following application to cotton. J Cotton Sci 19:631–640Google Scholar
Fishel, FM (2010) Pesticide Formulations. Gainesville, FL: UF/IFAS Extension. 14 pGoogle Scholar
Friesen, GH (1978) Weed interference in pickling cucumbers (Cucumis sativus). Weed Sci 26:626–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goggin, DE, Powles, SB (2014) Fluridone: a combination germination stimulant and herbicide for problem fields? Pest Manag Sci 70:1418–1424CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grichar, WJ, Dotray, PA, Etheredge, LM (2015) Weed control and peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) cultivar response to encapsulated acetochlor. Peanut Sci 42:100–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heap, I (2018) The international survey of herbicide resistant weeds. www.weedscience.org Accessed: February 13, 2018Google Scholar
Hill, ZT, Norsworthy, JK, Barber, LT, Gbur, E (2017) Assessing the potential for fluridone to reduce the number of postemergence herbicide applications in glyphosate-resistant cotton. J Cotton Sci 21:175–182Google Scholar
Hill, ZT, Norsworthy, JK, Barber, LT, Roberts, TL, Gbur, EE (2016) Assessing the potential for fluridone carryover to six crops rotated with cotton. Weed Technol 30:346–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jhala, AJ, Malik, MS, Willis, JB (2015) Weed control and crop tolerance of micro-encapsulated acetochlor applied sequentially in glyphosate-resistant soybean. Can J Plant Sci 95:973–981CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhar, TP, Hamilton, GC, VanGessel, MJ, Sanchez, E, Wyenandt, CA (2018) Mid-Atlantic commercial vegetable production recommendations. Blacksburg, VA: VT Extension. 432 pGoogle Scholar
Meyers, S, Shankle, MW (2017) An evaluation of pre-emergence metam-potassium and S-metolachlor for yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus) management in sweetpotato. Weed Technol 31:436–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Netherland, MD, Jones, D (2015) Fluridone-resistant hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata) is still dominant in the Kissimmee chain of lakes, FL. Invasive Plant Sci Manag 8:212–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliveira, RS Jr., Koskinen, WC, Graff, CD, Anderson, JL, Mulla, DJ, Nater, EA, Alonso, DG (2013) Acetochlor persistence in surface and subsurface soil samples. Water Air Soil Pollut 224:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peachey, E, Doohan, D, Koch, T (2012) Selectivity of fomesafen based systems for preemergence weed control in cucurbit crops. Crop Prot 40:91–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Place, G (2018) Herbicide resistant weed updates. Raleigh, NC: NC Cooperative Extension. 2 pGoogle Scholar
Prostko, EP, Johnson, WC III, Mullinix, BG Jr. (2001) Annual grass control with preplant incorporated and preemergence applications of ethalfluralin and pendimethalin in peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Technol 15:36–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reed, TV, Boyd, NS, Dittmar, PJ (2016) Application timing influences purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus) and yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus) susceptibility to EPTC and fomesafen. Weed Technol 30:743–750CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaner, DL, ed. (2014) Herbicide handbook. 10th edn. Lawrence, KS: Weed Science Society of America. Pp 22; 220; 232–233; 405–406Google Scholar
Soltani, N, Nurse, RE, Shropshire, C, Sikkema, PH (2014) Weed control with halosulfuron applied preplant incorporated, preemergence or postemergence in white bean. Agric Sci 5:875–881Google Scholar
Trader, BW, Wilson, HP, Hines, TE (2007) Halosulfuron helps control several broadleaf weeds in cucumber and pumpkin. Weed Technol 21:966–971CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trader, BW, Wilson, HP, Hines, TE (2008) Control of yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus) and smooth pigweed (Amaranthus hybridus) in summer squash with halosulfuron. Weed Technol 22:660–665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[USDA] US Department of Agriculture (2016) National Agricultural Statistics Service. Washington, DC: US Department of AgricultureGoogle Scholar
Waldrep, TW, Taylor, HH (1966) Methyl-3-phenyl-5-[3- (trifluoromethyl)phenyll-4(lH)-pyridinone, a new herbicide. Agric Food Chem 24:1250–1251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, TM (2006) Weed survey–southern states, vegetable, fruit, and nut crops subsection. Page 260 in Proceedings of the 59th Southern Weed Science Society Annual Meeting. San Antonio, TX: Southern Weed Science SocietyGoogle Scholar
York, AC (2018) 2018 North Carolina agriculture chemicals manual. Raleigh, NC: NC State Extension. 153 pGoogle Scholar
York, AC, Cahoon, CW (2018) Weed management in cotton. Pages 83–132 in 2018 Cotton Information. Publ. AG-417. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Cooperative Extension ServiceGoogle Scholar