Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-tn8tq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-03T12:30:36.508Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Asiatic dayflower (Commelina communis) control in Douglas fir

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 January 2023

Jatinder S. Aulakh Open the ORCID record for Jatinder S. Aulakh [Opens in a new window]
Jatinder S. Aulakh*
Affiliation:
Associate Weed Scientist, Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station, Windsor, CT, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Jatinder S. Aulakh, Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station, Windsor, CT 06095. (Email: [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Asiatic dayflower (Commelina communis L.) is becoming increasingly invasive in Christmas tree plantations in the U.S. Northeast. Response of C. communis to preemergence or postemergence herbicides was evaluated in separate field and greenhouse experiments. The preemergence herbicides consisted of two application rates of flumioxazin (215 and 429 g ai ha−1), hexazinone plus sulfometuron-methyl (316 and 527 g ai ha−1), indaziflam (41 and 82 g ai ha−1), and S-metolachlor (2,136 and 4,272 g ai ha−1). The postemergence herbicides were: bentazon at 1,121 g ai ha−1, clopyralid at 280 g ae ha−1, mesotrione at 526 g ai ha−1, topramezone at 294 g ai ha−1, and triclopyr at 842 g ae ha−1. At 16 wk after treatment, higher rates of flumioxazin (429 g ha−1), hexazinone plus sulfometuron-methyl (527 g ha−1), indaziflam (82 g ha−1), and S-metolachlor (4,272 ha−1) provided 80% to 92% control and reduced C. communis plant density by 84% to 93% compared with the nontreated control. The lower rates of flumioxazin (215 g ha−1), hexazinone plus sulfometuron-methyl (316 g ha−1), and S-metolachlor (2,136 ha−1) gave 65% to 72% control and reduced C. communis plant density by 27% to 75% compared with the nontreated control. The postemergence application of mesotrione at 526 g ha−1, topramezone at 294 g ha−1, and triclopyr at 842 g ha−1 resulted in 76% to 90% control and reduction in dry biomass of 10- to 12-leaf C. communis at 28 d after treatment. Bentazon at 1,121 g ha−1 and clopyralid at 280 g ha−1 applied postemergence were ineffective with <10% control and reduction in C. communis dry biomass. This study showed that C. communis can be managed effectively with currently registered preemergence and postemergence herbicides in Christmas trees.

Keywords

Christmas treeherbicide efficacypostemergencepreemergenceweed management
Type
Research Article
Information
Invasive Plant Science and Management , Volume 15 , Issue 4 , December 2022 , pp. 168 - 173
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the 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.)

Footnotes

Associate Editor: Rob J. Richardson, North Carolina State University

References

Ahrens, JF (2007) 2006 Weed management trials in Christmas trees. Page 38 in Proceedings of the 60th Northeastern Weed Science Society Meeting. Baltimore: Northeastern Weed Science SocietyGoogle Scholar
Ahrens, JF, Bennett, KP (2011) 2011 New England Guide to Chemical Weed and Brush Control in Christmas Trees. http://www.christmas-trees.org/2011_NE_Guide.pdf. Accessed: September 7, 2022Google Scholar
Ahrens, JF, Mervosh, TL (2002) Preliminary results with herbicides for control of Asiatic dayflower in conifer beds. Page 67 in Proceedings of the 56th Northeastern Weed Science Society Meeting. Philadelphia: Northeastern Weed Science SocietyGoogle Scholar
Ahrens, JF, Mervosh, TL (2003) Effective herbicides for Asiatic dayflower control in conifer beds. Page 38 in Proceedings of the 57th Northeastern Weed Science Society Meeting. Baltimore: Northeastern Weed Science SocietyGoogle Scholar
Ahrens, JF, Mervosh, TL (2009) Herbicides for postemergence weed control in ten field-grown conifer species. Page 67 in Proceedings of the 63rd Northeastern Weed Science Society Meeting. Baltimore: Northeastern Weed Science SocietyGoogle Scholar
Ahrens, JF, Mervosh, TL (2010) Postemergence weed control in actively growing conifers. Page 96 in Proceedings of the 64th Northeastern Weed Science Society Meeting. Cambridge: Northeastern Weed Science SocietyGoogle Scholar
Ahrens, JF, Mervosh, TL (2013) Pre and post budbreak applications of indaziflam in field-grown conifers. Page 121 in Proceedings of the 67th Northeastern Weed Science Society Meeting. Baltimore: Northeastern Weed Science SocietyGoogle Scholar
Anonymous (2022a) Frequency® herbicide label. Research Triangle Park, NC: BASF Corp. 11 pGoogle Scholar
Anonymous (2022b) Tenacity® herbicide label. Research Triangle Park, NC: BASF Corp. 16 pGoogle Scholar
Aulakh, JS (2016) Herbicides for Preemergence Weed Control in Christmas Trees. https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/CAES/DOCUMENTS/Publications/Fact_Sheets/Valley_Laboratory/HerbicidesforPreemergenceWeedControlinChristmasTreespdf.pdf. Accessed: August 18, 2022Google Scholar
Aulakh, JS (2020) Weed control efficacy and tolerance of Canaan fir to preemergence herbicides. Weed Technol 34:208–213 Google Scholar
Baranov, AI (1964) A contribution to the knowledge of life history of Commelina communis . Q J Taiwan Mus 17:82–113.Google Scholar
Brashier, CK (1966) A revision of Commelina (Plum.) L. in the U.S.A. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 93:1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpepper, AS (2006) Glyphosate-induced weed shifts. Weed Technol 20:277–281 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpepper, AS, Flanders, JT, York, AC, Webster, TM (2004) Tropical spiderwort (Commelina benghalensis) control in glyphosate-resistant cotton. Weed Technol 18:432–436 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faden, RB (1993) The misconstrued and rare species of Commelina (Commelinaceae) in the eastern United States. Ann Missouri Bot Gard 80:208–218 Google Scholar
Fawcett, JA (2002) Glyphosate tolerant Asiatic dayflower (Commelina communis) control in no-till soybeans. Page 183 in Proceedings of the 57th North Central Weed Science Society Meeting. St Louis: North Central Weed Science SocietyGoogle Scholar
Flanders, JT, Culpepper, AS, York, AC (2001) Asiatic dayflower (Commelina communis) control in glyphosate-resistant cotton. Pages 1220–1221 in Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conference. Atlanta: Beltwide Cotton ConferencesGoogle Scholar
Grossmann, K, Ehrhardt, T (2007) On the mechanism of action and selectivity of the corn herbicide topramezone: a new inhibitor of 4-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase. Pest Manag Sci 63:429–439 Google ScholarPubMed
Hardy, CR, Sloat, LL, Faden, RB (2009) Floral organogenesis and the developmental basis for pollinator deception in the Asiatic dayflower, Commelina communis (Commelinaceae). Am J Bot 96:1236–1244 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Isaac, WA, Gao, Z, Li, M (2013) Managing Commelina species: prospects and limitations. Price AJ, Kelton JA, eds. Herbicides—Current Research and Case Studies in Use. London: IntechOpen. doi: 10.5772/56743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Isaac, WAP, Brathwaite, RAI, Cohen, JE, Bekele, I (2007) Effects of alternative weed management strategies on Commelina diffusa Burm. infestations in fair trade banana (Musa spp.) in St. Vincent and the Grenadines. Crop Prot 26:1219–1225 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhns, LJ, Harpster, TL (2002) A futile attempt at controlling Asiatic dayflower in Christmas trees. Pages 83–85 in Proceedings of the 56th Northeastern Weed Science Society Meeting. Philadelphia: Northeastern Weed Science SocietyGoogle Scholar
Kuhns, LJ, Harpster, TL (2003) Controlling Asiatic dayflower in Christmas trees. Pages 41–42 in Proceedings of the 57th Northeastern Weed Science Society Meeting. Baltimore: Northeastern Weed Science SocietyGoogle Scholar
Kuhns, LJ, Harpster, TL (2004) Response of dayflower to pre- and postemergence herbicides. Pages 92–93 in Proceedings of the 58th Northeastern Weed Science Society Meeting. Cambridge: Northeastern Weed Science SocietyGoogle Scholar
Monquero, PA, Chistoffoleti, PJ, Matas, JA, Heredia, A (2004) Leaf surface characterization and epicuticular wax composition in Commelina benghalensis, Ipomoea grandifolia and Amaranthus hybridus . Planta Daninha 22:203–210 Google Scholar
Tuffi-Santos, LD, Meira, RMSA, Santos, IC, Ferreira, FA (2004) Effect of glyphosate on the morpho-anatomy of leaves and stems of C. diffusa and C. benghalensis. Planta Daninha 22:101–107 Google Scholar
Ulloa, SM, Owen, MDK (2009) Response of Asiatic dayflower (Commelina communis) to glyphosate and alternatives in soybean. Weed Sci 57:74–80 Google Scholar
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture (2022) USDA PLANTS Database Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. https://plants.sc.egov.usda.gov/home/plantProfile?symbol=COCO3. Accessed: September 7, 2022Google Scholar
Webster, TM, Burton, MG, Culpepper, AS, Flanders, JT, Grey, TL, York, AC (2006) Tropical spiderwort (Commelina benghalensis L.) control and emergency patterns in preemergence herbicide systems. J Cotton Sci 10:68–75 Google Scholar
Webster, TM, Burton, MG, Culpepper, AS, York, AC, Prostko, EP (2005) Tropical spiderwort (Commelina benghalensis): a tropical invader threatens agroecosystems of the southern United States. Weed Technol 19:501–508 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, TM, Faircloth, WH, Flanders, JT, Prostko, EP, Grey, TL (2007) The critical period of Bengal dayflower (Commelina benghalensis) control in peanut. Weed Sci 55:359–364 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wortman, SE (2014) Integrating weed and vegetable crop management with multifunctional air-propelled abrasive grits. Weed Technol 28:243–252 CrossRefGoogle Scholar