Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T21:14:58.318Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed Control in Cole Crops and Onion (Allium cepa) Using Ammonium Nitrate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Iris Bitterlich ,
Mahesh K. Upadhyaya  and
Solomon I. Shibairo
Iris Bitterlich
Affiliation:
Dep. Plant Sci., Univ. of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. V6T 1Z4, Canada
Mahesh K. Upadhyaya
Affiliation:
Dep. Plant Sci., Univ. of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. V6T 1Z4, Canada
Solomon I. Shibairo
Affiliation:
Dep. Plant Sci., Univ. of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. V6T 1Z4, Canada
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Weed control in cole crops and onion by postemergence spraying with liquid ammonium nitrate was studied to determine its feasibility under Fraser Valley, British Columbia conditions. Ammonium nitrate solutions (7.5, 10, 15 and 20% N) were applied at 800 L ha−1 on warm, sunny days. Shepherd's-purse, low cudweed, redroot pigweed and ladysthumb were susceptible to this treatment; common lambsquarters, common purslane and annual bluegrass were tolerant. In order to determine the effect of weed density on weed control, several shepherd's-purse densities were established in broccoli and sprayed with ammonium nitrate solution (20% N; 800 L ha−1). Two days after treatment, weed control was 87.2% for an initial density of 500 shepherd's-purse plants m−2 (1987) and 76.1% for an initial density of 988 plants m−2 (1988). The seedlings that survived the treatment were sufficiently set back that they did not cause any adverse effect on crop yield. In a separate study, cabbage and onion were found to be tolerant to the ammonium nitrate treatment. Initially, cauliflower, broccoli and Brussels sprouts growth was slightly inhibited by the ammonium nitrate treatment but the plants recovered and crop yield was not affected.

Keywords

Annual bluegrass, Poa annua L. ♯ POAANcommon chickweed, Stellaria media (L.) Vill. ♯ STEMElow cudweed, Gnaphalium uliginosum L. ♯ GNAULshepherd's-purse, Capsella bursa-pastoris (L.) Medik. ♯ CAPBAcommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. ♯ CHEALcommon groundsel, Senecio vulgaris L. ♯ SENVUcommon purslane, Portulaca oleracea L. ♯ POROLredroot pigweed, Amaranthus retroflexus L. ♯ AMAREladysthumb, Polygonum persicaria L. ♯ POLPEbroccoli, Brassica oleracea L. var. italicaBrussels sprouts, B. oleracea var. gemmiferacabbage, B. oleracea var. capitatacauliflower, B. oleracea var. botrytisonion, Allium cepa.
Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 44 , Issue 4 , December 1996 , pp. 952 - 958
Copyright
Copyright © 1996 by 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.)

References

Literature Cited

1. Agamalian, H. S. 1988. Weed control in crucifer crops with nitrogen fertilizers. Calif. Agric. 6: 16–17.Google Scholar
2. Anonymous 1990. Vegetable production guide for commercial growers. B.C. Ministry of Agric. and Fisheries. p. 114.Google Scholar
3. Baker, E. A. 1974. The influence of environment on leaf wax development in Brassica oleracea var. gemmifera. New Phytol. 73: 955–966.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Baker, E. A., Hunt, G. M., and Stevens, P.J.G. 1983. Studies of plant cuticle and spray droplet interactions: a fresh approach. Pest. Sci. 14: 645–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Baker, E. A., and Procopiou, J. 1980. Effect of soil moisture status on leaf surface wax yield of some drought-resistant species. J. Hort. Sci. 55: 85–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Bengston, C., Larsson, S., and Liljenberg, C. 1978. Effects of water stress on cuticular transpiration rate and amount and composition of epicuticular wax in seedlings of six oat varieties. Physiol. Plant. 44: 319–324.Google Scholar
7. Bitterlich, I. 1990. Weed interference and weed control in cole crops and onion. , University of British Columbia, Canada. 111 pp.Google Scholar
8. Bitterlich, I., and Upadhyaya, M. K. 1990. Leaf surface ultrastructure and susceptibility to ammonium nitrate injury. Can. J. Bot. 68: 1911–1915.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Cudney, D. W. and Orloff, S. 1988. Weed control in onion with fertilizer solutions—1987. West. Soc. Weed Sci., Res. Prog. Rep. pp. 118–119.Google Scholar
10. Hunt, G.M. and Baker, E. A. 1982. Developmental and environmental variations in plant epicuticular waxes: some effects on the penetration of naphthylacetic acid. Pages 279–292 in Cutler, D. F., Alvin, K. L., and Price, C. E. eds. The Plant cuticle. Academic Press Ltd., London.Google Scholar
11. Koziol, M. J. and Cowling, D. W. 1981. Effects of exposure to SO2 on the production of epicuticular wax in Lolium perenne L. Environ. Pollut. 26: 183–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Naegerly, S. K. 1985. Weed and feed—a Salinas valley technique. Am. Veg. Grow. 33: 24–25.Google Scholar
13. Saneoka, H., and Ogata, S. 1987. Relationship between water use efficiency and cuticular wax deposition in warm season forage crops grown under water deficit conditions. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 33: 439–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Silcox, D. and Holloway, P. J. 1986. A simple method for the removal and assessment of foliar deposits of agrochemicals using cellulose acetate film stripping. Aspects Appl. Biol. 11: 13–17.Google Scholar
15. Whitecross, M. I. and Armstrong, D. J. 1972. Environmental effects on epicuticular waxes of Brassica napus . Aust. J. Bot. 20: 87–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Wilkinson, L., Hill, M., Welna, J. P., and Birkenbeuel, G. K. 1992. SYSTAT for Windows: Statistics. Version 5. Systat Inc., Evanston, Illinois. pp. 116–385.Google Scholar