Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T07:21:04.326Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Flooding to manage dodder (Cuscuta gronovii) and broad-leaved weed species in cranberry: An innovative use of a traditional strategy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 April 2010

Hilary A. Sandler  and
Joanne Mason
Hilary A. Sandler*
Affiliation:
University of Massachusetts Amherst Cranberry Station, P.O. Box 569, East Wareham, MA02538, USA.
Joanne Mason
Affiliation:
University of Massachusetts Amherst Cranberry Station, P.O. Box 569, East Wareham, MA02538, USA.
*
*Corresponding author: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The implementation of new uses for traditional cultural and pest management practices has been prompted by renewed interest in sustainable approaches for farming. The use of floods (for various durations) has been an inexpensive and historical cultural practice in cranberry (Vaccinium macrocarpon Ait.) horticulture. The onset of a serious economic crisis in the cranberry industry in 1999–2000 brought about an urgent need to find inexpensive methods of pest control that would allow growers to remain fiscally solvent. Initially, anecdotal evidence from several farms indicated that holding short-term spring floods suppressed dodder infestations. Based on these findings, a 2-year demonstration-style project was initiated in 2002 to determine the efficacy of short-term floods (24–48 h) for the management of dodder in cranberry in Massachusetts. The project was expanded to include evaluating a 10-day summer flood for control of broad-leaved weed species at one commercial cranberry farm. Species richness and diversity and percentage weed coverage were lower after the implementation of the 10-day flood period compared to pre-flood assessments. Weed species dead or not detected after the 10-day flood included ground nut, asters, narrow-leaved goldenrod, chokeberry and poison ivy. Comparison of paired sites (flooded and nonflooded bogs) indicated dodder stem dry weights were lower on flooded areas in three out of the seven locations in year 1. At two additional locations, the flooded bog had higher stem weights when paired with a historically low-infestation bog, which may have masked any dodder reduction from the flooding practice. In year 2, no differences in the number of germinated seedlings between any treatment pairs were noted. Data from a cranberry company representing 12% of the cranberry acreage in Massachusetts indicated a 65–89% reduction in pesticide use when short-term spring floods were implemented during 2001–2003 compared to the previous 3-year period. Short-term flooding may offer a sustainable option that can be integrated into the overall management plan for several problematic cranberry weed species, especially dodder. Additional research is warranted to further define the most effective environmental conditions needed and to validate the efficacy of short flooding events for effective cranberry weed management.

Keywords

nonchemical weed controlparasitic plantsperennial weedsfloodingcultural practiceswater management
Type
Preliminary Report
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 25 , Issue 4 , December 2010 , pp. 257 - 262
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

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

1DeMoranville, C.J. 2008. Flood management. In Sandler, H.A. and DeMoranville, C.J. (eds). Cranberry Production: A Guide for Massachusetts, CP-08. University of Massachusetts Amherst Cranberry Station Extension Publication, East Wareham, MA. p. 66–71.Google Scholar
2Averill, A.L., Sylvia, M.M., Kusek, C.C., and DeMoranville, C.J. 1997. Flooding in cranberry to minimize insecticide and fungicide inputs. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 12:50–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3DeMoranville, C.J., Sandler, H.A., Shumaker, D.E., Averill, A.L., Caruso, F.L., Sylvia, M.M., and Pober, D.M. 2005. Fall flooding for management of cranberry fruitworm (Acrobasis vaccinii) and dewberry (Rubus hispidus) in Massachusetts cranberry production. Journal of Crop Protection 24:999–1006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4Parker, C. and Riches, C.R. 1993. Parasitic Weeds of the World—Biology and Control. CAB International, Oxon, UK.Google Scholar
5Devlin, R.M. and Deubert, K.H. 1980. Control of swamp dodder (Cuscuta gronovii) on cranberry bogs with butralin. Proceedings of the Northeastern Weed Science Society 34:399–405.Google Scholar
6Bewick, T.A., Binning, L.K., and Dana, M.N. 1989. Control of swamp dodder in cranberry. HortScience 24:850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7Else, M.J., Sandler, H.A., and Schluter, S. 1995. Weed mapping as a component of integrated pest management in cranberry production. HortTechnology 5:302–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8Sandler, H.A. 2010. Managing Cuscuta gronovii (swamp dodder) in cranberry requires an integrated approach. Sustainability 2:660–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9Franklin, H.J. 1948. Cranberry Insects in Massachusetts, Bulletin No. 445. Massachusetts Agricultural Experiment Station, East Wareham, MA.Google Scholar
10Beckwith, C.S. 1932. Late holding of the winter flood. In Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Convention of the American Cranberry Growers' Association. p. 1–3.Google Scholar
11Blake, G., Sandler, H.A., Coli, W., Pober, D.M., and Coggins, C. 2007. An assessment of grower perceptions and factors influencing adoption of IPM in commercial cranberry production. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 22:134–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12Averill, A.L., Averill, M.M., and DeMoranville, C.J. 1994. Alternative management strategies: Impact of late water on cranberry fruitworm and mites. Cranberries 58(4):23–25.Google Scholar
13Cockfield, S.D. and Mahr, D.L. 1992. Flooding cranberry beds to control blackheaded fireworm (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Journal of Economic Entomology 85:2383–2388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14Scammell, H.B. 1917. The Cranberry Girdler. Bulletin No. 554. USDA, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
15Demoranville, I.E. 1986. Weeds of Massachusetts Cranberry Bogs, Part 2. University of Massachussets Cooperative Extension Publication, SP-149, East Wareham, MA.Google Scholar
16Goff, E.S. 1893. Insects and disease injurious to cranberries. Wisconsin Agricultural Experiment Bulletin No. 35.Google Scholar
17Fitzpatrick, S.M. 2007. Survival of submerged larvae of cranberry girdler, Chrysoteuchia topiaria, in the laboratory. Crop Protection 26:1810–1816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18Huntzinger, M. 2003. Effects of fire management practices on butterfly diversity in the forested western United States. Biological Conservation 113:1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19Stephens, S.S. and Wagner, M.R. 2006. Using ground foraging ant (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) functional groups as bioindicators of forest health in northern Arizona ponderosa pine forests. Environmental Entomology 35:937–949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20Lambert, D.H. 1990. Effects of pruning method on the incidence of mummy berry and other lowbush blueberry diseases. Plant Disease 74:199–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21Hildebrand, P.D. and Renderos, W.E. 2007. Valdensinia leaf spot (Valdensinia heterodoxa) of commercial lowbush bluebery in Atlantic Canada: an emerging new threat [abstract]. Canadian Journal of Plant Pathology 20:90.Google Scholar
22Lindborg, R. and Eriksson, O. 2004. Effects of restoration on plant species richness and composition in Scandinavian semi-natural grasslands. Restoration Ecology 12:318–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23Mharapara, I.M. 1987. Cropping of rice and maize in vleis. Cropping in the semiarid areas of Zimbabwe. In Proceedings of a Workshop Held in Harare, 24–28 August, Vol. 2. p. 543–561.Google Scholar
24Obiri, B.D., Bright, G.A., McDonald, M.A., Anglaaere, L.C.N., and Cobbina, J. 2007. Financial analysis of shaded cocoa in Ghana. Agroforestry Systems 71(2):139–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25Yamada, S., Okubo, S., Kitagawa, Y., and Takeuchi, K. 2007. Restoration of weed communities in abandoned rice paddy fields in the Tama Hills, central Japan. Agriculture, Ecosystems, and Environment 119:88–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26Averill, A.L. and Sylvia, M.M. 1998. Cranberry Insects of the Northeast. University of Massachusetts Amherst Cranberry Station Extension Publication, East Wareham, MA.Google Scholar
27Franklin, H.J. 1951. Cranberry Insects in Massachusetts, Parts II–VII. Volume Bulletin No. 445. Massachusetts Agricultural Experiment Station, East Wareham, MA.Google Scholar
28SAS Institute. 2007. Release 9.1.3 of the SAS system for Microsoft Windows. SAS Institute, Cary, NC.Google Scholar
29Sandler, H.A. and Ghantous, K. 2007. Germination patterns of swamp dodder seeds planted near a commercial cranberry farm [abstract]. Proceedings of the Northeastern Weed Science Society 61:65.Google Scholar
30Reddy, K.N. and Singh, M. 1992. Germination and emergence of hairy beggarstick (Bidens pilosa). Weed Science 40:195–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31Baird, J.H. and Dickens, R. 1991. Germination and emergence of Virginia buttonweed (Diodia virginiana). Weed Science 39:37–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32Gealy, D. 1998. Differential response of palmleaf morningglory (Ipomoea wrightii) and pitted morning glory (Ipomoea lacunosa) to flooding. Weed Science 46:217–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
33Kroger, C.H., Reddy, K.N., and Poston, D.H. 2004. Factors affecting seed germination, seedling emergence, and survival of texasweed (Caperonia palustris). Weed Science 52:989–995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
34Sandler, H.A. and Ghantous, K.M. 2007. Management practices and obstacles for dodder control in cranberries. Fruit Grower News 46(2):17–18.Google Scholar