Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T16:57:21.853Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Differential Response of Processing Spinach Varieties to Clopyralid Tank-Mixes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Russell W. Wallace*
Affiliation:
Department of Horticultural Sciences, Texas A & M University Research and Extension Center, 1102 East FM 1294, Lubbock, TX 79403
Alisa K. Petty
Affiliation:
Department of Horticultural Sciences, Texas A & M University Research and Extension Center, 1102 East FM 1294, Lubbock, TX 79403
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

Greenhouse research was conducted to evaluate the effects of POST-applied clopyralid and clopyralid plus additives (surfactants and herbicides) on eight processing spinach varieties for leaf injury and yield. Results demonstrate that when applied alone, clopyralid caused mild injury in the form of slight to moderate leaf malformations and crinkling in all tested spinach varieties. Leaf injury increased significantly 10, 20, and 35 days after treatment (DAT) when additives were mixed with clopyralid compared with when clopyralid was applied alone. Applications of clopyralid + phenmedipham increased leaf injury over clopyralid applied alone and all other clopyralid + additive treatments. Within varieties, spinach yields recorded 35 DAT were generally not reduced with any clopyralid + additive treatment, except when phenmedipham was added to the mixture. The leaf injury associated with clopyralid in this study, though consistent across varieties, generally appears to be cosmetic and may not be detrimental to spinach yields or to the quality of spinach harvested for canning or freezing.

Type
Research
Copyright
Copyright © 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

Anonymous 2006a. Spin-Aid® specimen Label. Research Triangle Park, NC Bayer CropScience. 2.Google Scholar
Anonymous 2006b. Stinger® specimen Label. Indianapolis Dow AgroSciences. 7.Google Scholar
Brandenberger, L., Wells, L. K., Havener, R., and Brothers, A. 2005. Screening of preemergence herbicides for use on spinach. in. 2005 Vegetable Weed Control Studies. Stillwater, OK Department of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture, Oklahoma State University Technical Report MP-162. 1314.Google Scholar
Fennimore, S. A., Smith, R. F., and McGiffen, M. E. Jr. 2001. Weed management in fresh market spinach (Spinacia oleracea) with s-metolachlor. Weed Technol. 15:511516.Google Scholar
Haar, M. J., Fennimore, S. A., McGiffen, M. E., Lanini, W. T., and Bell, C. E. 2002. Evaluation of preemergence herbicides in vegetable crops. HortTechnol. 12:9599.Google Scholar
Norsworthy, J. K. and Smith, J. P. 2005. Tolerance of leafy greens to preemergence and postemergence herbicides. Weed Technol. 19:724730.Google Scholar
Smith, D. T. and Aniciso, J. L. 2005. The Crops of Texas. College Station, TX Department of Soil and Crop Sciences. 63. Texas A & M University System Department Technology Report SCS-2005-01.Google Scholar
Smith, R. F., LeStrange, M., and Fennimore, S. A. 2001. Integrated weed control in spinach. University of California, Pest Management Guidelines, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Publication 3339. 29.Google Scholar
Tei, F. F. Stagnari and Granier, A. 2002. Preliminary results on physical weed control in processing spinach. Proceedings of the 5th EWRS Workshop on Physical and Cultural Weed Control. Doorwerth, The Netherlands European Weed Research Society. 164171.Google Scholar
Wallace, R. W. and Hodges, J. C. 2005. Texas High Plains Vegetable and Weed Control Research Program: Research Summary Reports for 2004–2005. College Station, TX Department of Horticultural Sciences, Texas A & M University. 125.Google Scholar