Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T00:16:29.991Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of herbicides for hair fescue (Festuca filiformis) management and potential seedbank reduction in lowbush blueberry

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 August 2019

Scott N. White Open the ORCID record for Scott N. White [Opens in a new window]
Scott N. White*
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Department of Plant, Food, and Environmental Sciences, Dalhousie UniversityFaculty of Agriculture, Truro, Nova Scotia, Canada
*
Author for correspondence: Scott N. White, 50 Pictou Road, Truro, Nova Scotia B2N 5E3, Canada. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Hair fescue is a widespread, seed-limited perennial grass in lowbush blueberry fields. Growers rely on pronamide, an expensive and difficult herbicide to use, for hair fescue management. Recent herbicide registrations provide opportunity to reduce pronamide use, though effects of these herbicides on hair fescue suppression and seedbank reduction are not well understood. The objectives of this research were to determine (1) the effects of herbicides currently registered in lowbush blueberry on suppression of hair fescue tufts and (2) whether suppression of hair fescue with these herbicides reduces hair fescue seedbanks. Pronamide gave the most consistent reductions in flowering tuft density, though applications after both autumn pruning and autumn of the nonbearing year were required to reduce the hair fescue seedbank by >60% across sites. Nonbearing-year hexazinone applications did not control hair fescue or reduce the seedbank. Nonbearing-year terbacil applications reduced flowering tuft density, but hair fescue recovered in the bearing year, and the seedbank was not reduced. Glufosinate applications following autumn pruning or in the spring of the nonbearing year did not suppress hair fescue or reduce the seedbank. Spring nonbearing-year foramsulfuron applications, alone or after autumn or spring glufosinate applications, reduced hair fescue flowering tuft density, but hair fescue recovered in the bearing year, and the seedbank was not reduced. In contrast, autumn and spring glufosinate applications followed by spring nonbearing-year foramsulfuron applications, when combined with autumn nonbearing-year pronamide applications, reduced flowering tuft density in both the nonbearing and bearing years and reduced the hair fescue seedbank by 58% to 83% across sites. Results indicate that hair fescue seedbanks can be reduced in lowbush blueberry fields and that a reduction in pronamide use will require alternative bearing-year treatments to prevent tuft recovery and seed production.

Keywords

Peter J. Dittmar, University of FloridaForamsulfuronglufosinatehexazinonepronamideterbacilhair fescueFestuca filiformis PourrFESTElowbush blueberryVaccinium angustifolium AitBearing yearflowering tuftnonbearing yearperennial grasstuft
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 33 , Issue 6 , December 2019 , pp. 840 - 846
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2019 

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

[AAFC] Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (2012) Crop Profile for Lowbush Blueberry in Canada, 2011. Catalogue No. A118-10/31-2012E-PDF. AAFC No. 11751E. Ottawa, ON, Canada: Pesticide Risk Reduction Program, Pest Management Centre. 54 pGoogle Scholar
Amen, RD (1966) The extent and roles of seed dormancy in alpine plants. Q Rev Biol 41:271–281 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anonymous (2011) Nova Scotia Wild Blueberry Industry Research Priorities. Debert, NS, Canada: Wild Blueberry Producers Association of Nova Scotia. 13 ppGoogle Scholar
Anonymous (2012) Kerb® SC herbicide product label. Label code CN-30264-002-E. Calgary, AB: Dow Chemical Company. 7 pGoogle Scholar
Boyd, NS, White, S (2009) Impact of wild blueberry harvesters on weed seed dispersal within and between fields. Weed Sci 57:541–546 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyd, NS, White, S, Rao, K (2014) Fertilizer and fluazifop-P inputs for winter bentgrass (Agrostis hyemalis) infested lowbush blueberry fields. Weed Technol 28:527–534 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eaton, LJ, Glen, RW, Wyllie, JD (2004) Efficient mowing for pruning wild blueberry fields. Small Fruits Rev 3:123–131 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hacault, KM, Van Acker, RC (2006) Emergence timing and control of dandelion (Taraxacum officinale) in spring wheat. Weed Sci 54:172–181 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, KIN (1985) Weed control in lowbush blueberries in eastern Canada. Acta Hortic 165:259–265 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, KIN, Yarborough, DE (2004) An overview of weed management in the wild lowbush blueberry—past and present. Small Fruits Rev 3:229–255 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, WC, Eaton, LJ (1995) A comparison of first and second cropping years of Nova Scotia lowbush blueberries (Vaccinium angustifolium Ait.). Can J Plant Sci 75:703–707 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacDougall, JI, Veer, C, Wilson, F (1988) Soils of Prince Edward Island. Ottawa, Ontario: Research Branch, Agriculture Canada. 210 pGoogle Scholar
McCully, KV, Sampson, MG, Watson, AK (1991) Weed survey of Nova Scotia lowbush blueberry (Vaccinium angustifolium Ait.) fields. Weed Sci 39:180–185 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norsworthy, JK, Ward, SM, Shaw, DR, Llewellyn, RS, Nichols, RL, Webster, TM, Bradley, KW, Frisvold, G, Powles, SB, Burgos, NR, Witt, WW, Barrett, M (2012) Reducing the risks of herbicide resistance: best management practices and recommendations. Weed Sci 60(SP1):31–62 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pakeman, RJ, Hay, E (1996) Heathland seedbanks under Bracken Pteridium aquilinum (L.) Kuhn and their importance for re-vegetation after bracken control. J Environ Manag 47:329–339 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Percival, D, Kaur, J, Hainstock, LJ, Privé, JP (2012) Seasonal changes in photochemistry, light use efficiency and net photosynthetic rates of wild blueberry (Vaccinium angustifolium Ait.). Can J Plant Sci 92:1135–1143 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piessens, K, Honnay, O, Hermy, M (2005) The role of fragment area and isolation in the conservation of heathland species. Biol Conserv 122:61–69 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwinghamer, TD, Van Acker, RC (2008) Emergence timing and persistence of kochia (Kochia scoparia). Weed Sci 56:37–41 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sikoriya, SK (2014) Phenological Study and Management of Red Fescue (Festuca rubra) in Wild Blueberry. M.Sc dissertation. Halifax, NS, Canada: Dalhousie University. 106 pGoogle Scholar
Stampfli, A, Zeiter, M (1999) Plant species decline due to abandonment of meadows cannot easily be reversed by mowing. A case study from the Southern Alps. J Veg Sci 10:151–164 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, K (1986) Small-scale heterogeneity in the seed bank of an acidic grassland. J Ecol 74:733–738 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, K, Grime, JP (1979) Seasonal variation in the seed banks of herbaceous species in ten contrasting habitats. J Ecol 67:893–921 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webb, KT (1990) Soils of Pictou County, Nova Scotia. Nova Scotia Soil Survey Report No. 18. Ottawa, ON, Canada: Research Branch, Agriculture Canada. 183 pGoogle Scholar
White, SN (2018) Determination of Festuca filiformis Pourret. seed bank characteristics, seedling emergence, and herbicide susceptibility to aid management in lowbush blueberry (Vaccinium angustifolium Ait.). Weed Res 58:112–120 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, SN, Kumar, SK (2017) Potential role of sequential glufosinate and foramsulfuron applications for management of fescues (Festuca spp.) in wild blueberry. Weed Technol 31:100–110 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcox, DA, Healy, AJ (2016) Sedge/grass meadow restoration on former agricultural lands along a Lake Ontario drowned-river-mouth tributary. Ecol Restor 34:135–146 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yarborough, DE, Cote, J (2014) Pre- and post-emergence applications of herbicides for control of resistant fineleaf sheep fescue in wild blueberry fields in Maine. In Proceedings of the North American Wild Blueberry Research and Extension Workers Conference. Rutgers University Community Repository, 10.7282/T3DJ5H9GGoogle Scholar
Zhang, L, White, SN, Olson, AR, Pruski, K (2018) Evaluation of flazasulfuron for hair fescue (Festuca filiformis) suppression and wild blueberry (Vaccinium angustifolium Ait.) tolerance. Can J Plant Sci 98:1293–1304 CrossRefGoogle Scholar