Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T09:49:13.840Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Cucumber (Cucumis sativus) Response to Selected Foliar- and Soil-Applied Sulfonylurea Herbicides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Jill Schroeder*
Affiliation:
New Mexico State University, Box 30003, Department 3BE, Las Cruces, NM 88003

Abstract

Field experiments were conducted at six locations across the U.S. in 1995 and at two locations in 1996 to determine the yield and grade of slicer type cucumber after treatment with sulfonylurea herbicides. In 1995, thifensulfuron, bensulfuron, or 2,4-D amine was applied postemergence (POST) to cucumber at the initiation of vines. Thifensulfuron and bensulfuron were applied at concentrations between 0 and 2.24 g ai/ha, and 2,4-D amine was applied at 0 to 28 g/ha. Only thifensulfuron applied at 2.24 g/ha (51% of the maximum use rate in soybean) reduced yield of No. 1 cucumber. In 1996, chlorimuron and metsulfuron were applied preplant incorporated (PPI) at rates between 0 and 2.24 g/ha, and atrazine was applied at 0 to 1,120 g/ha. The herbicides were incorporated to a depth of 7.6 cm prior to planting cucumber. Only atrazine applied at ≥ 560 g/ha reduced yield of No. 1 and No. 2 grades of cucumber. The results led us to conclude that these sulfonylurea herbicides, at the low rates used in this research, do not adversely affect yield or grade of field-grown cucumber.

Type
Research
Copyright
Copyright © 1998 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

Al-Khatib, K., Mink, G. I., and Parker, R. 1992. Detection and tracking of airborne herbicide by using bio-indicator plants. Proc, West. Soc. Weed Sci. 45:2731.Google Scholar
Al-Khatib, K., Mink, G. I., Reisenauer, G., Parker, R., Westberg, H., and Lamb, B. 1993. Development of a biologically-based system for detection and tracking of airborne herbicides. Weed Technol. 7:404410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beyer, E. M., Duffy, M. J., Hay, J. V., and Schluetter, D. D. 1988. Sulfonylureas. In Kearney, P. C. and Kaufman, D. D., eds. Herbicides: Chemistry, Degradation, and Mode of Action. Volume 3. New York: Marcel Dekker. pp. 117189.Google Scholar
Boucounis, T. G., Whitwell, T., and Toler, J. E. 1990. Correlation of bioassay crop growth with cinmethylin and chlorimuron application rates for two soils. HortScience 25:536538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemphill, D. D. and Montgomery, M. L. 1981. Response of vegetable crops to sublethal application of 2,4-D. Weed Sci. 29:632635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, D. H. and Talbert, R. E. 1993. Imazaquin. chlorimuron, and fomesafen may injure rotational vegetables and sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.). Weed Technol. 7:573577.Google Scholar
Kalmowitz, K. E., Monoco, T. J., and Bonanno, A. R. 1990. Herbicide carryover in vegetable crops. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 43:180.Google Scholar
Melton, A., Whitwell, T., and Decoteau, D. R. 1988. Simulated drift of chlorimuron and imazaquin on cucumber. HortScience 23:830.Google Scholar
Schroeder, J., ed. 1997. S215 Southern Regional Research Report: Behavior and Fate of Selected Sulfonylurea and Imidazolinone Herbicides in the Southern Environment. South. Reg. Bull. 385. (http://www.msstate.edu/org/saaesd)Google Scholar
Williams, D. A., Baumann, P. A., Keeling, J. W., Bender, D. A., and Abernathy, J. R. 1992. Pinto bean, cucumber, and tomato tolerance to several field crop herbicides. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 45:149.Google Scholar