Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T22:43:05.615Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response of Alfalfa, Green Onion, Dry Bulb Onion, Sugar Beet, Head Lettuce, and Carrot to Imazosulfuron Soil Residues 2 Years after Application

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Joel Felix ,
Steven A. Fennimore  and
John S. Rachuy
Joel Felix*
Affiliation:
Oregon State University/Malheur Experiment Station, 595 Onion Ave, Ontario, OR, 97914
Steven A. Fennimore
Affiliation:
University of California, Davis, Salinas, CA, 93905
John S. Rachuy
Affiliation:
University of California, Davis, Salinas, CA 93905
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted from 2009 to 2011 in Oregon and from 2006 to 2008 in California to evaluate the response of various crops to imazosulfuron soil residues 91 to 731 d after application (DAA). Imazosulfuron rates applied in Oregon were 224 or 450 g ai ha−1 PRE, sequential 224 g ha−1 PRE and POST, or 450 g ha−1 as a tank mixture with PRE applied S-metolachlor at 1,060 g ai ha−1 followed by 224 g ha−1 POST to potato. Imazosulfuron was applied on bare ground PRE at 224, 336, and 450 g ha−1 and applied sequentially at 450 g ha−1 in California. Sugar beet planted 91 to 364 and 458 to 731 DAA were injured 83 to 94% and 54 to 78% among imazosulfuron rates and application timing in 2007 and 2008, respectively. Alfalfa planted 701 DAA at rates greater than 224 g ha−1 was injured, and the forage yield was reduced. Onion, spinach, carrot, and broccoli were also injured by imazosulfuron residues when planted 91 to 731 DAA, regardless of the rate or interval before planting. Imazosulfuron applied at 224 to 450 g ha−1 458 to 731 d before planting head lettuce resulted in moderate injury that did not reduce fresh-weight yield. The results indicated that imazosulfuron residues in the soil have the potential to injure many rotational specialty crops for 2 yr or more in soils with pH > 6.9.

Se realizaron estudios de campo de 2009 a 2011 en Oregon y de 2006 a 2008 en California para evaluar la respuesta de varios cultivos a residuos en el suelo de imazosulfuron a 91 y 731 d después de la aplicación (DAA). En Oregon, las dosis de imazosulfuron aplicadas a la papa fueron 224 ó 450 g ai ha−1 PRE, aplicaciones secuenciales de 224 g ha−1 PRE y POST, o 450 g ha−1 en mezcla en tanque con S-metolachlor a 1060 g ai ha−1 PRE seguido de 224 g ha−1 POST. En California, imazosulfuron se aplicó PRE sobre suelo desnudo a 224, 336 y 450 g ha−1 y secuencialmente a 450 g ha−1. La remolacha azucarera sembrada 91 a 364 y 458 a 731 DAA fue dañada 83 a 94% y 54 a 78% en las diferentes dosis y momentos de aplicación de imazosulfuron en 2007 y 2008, respectivamente. Alfalfa sembrada 701 DAA a dosis mayores a 224 g ha−1 sufrió daño y el rendimiento del forraje se redujo. Cebolla, espinaca, zanahoria y brócoli también sufrieron daños debido a los residuos de imazosulfuron, cuando se sembraron 91 a 731 DAA, independientemente de la dosis o intervalo de tiempo antes de la siembra. Imazosulfuron aplicado de 224 a 450 g ha−1, 458 a 731 d antes de la siembra de lechuga, resultó en daño moderado que no redujo el rendimiento de peso fresco. Los resultados indicaron que los residuos de imazosulfuron en el suelo tienen el potencial de dañar muchos cultivos rotacionales de vegetales por 2 años o más en suelos con pH >6.9.

Keywords

EPTCimazosulfuronrimsulfuronS-metolachloralfalfa, Medicago sativa L.broccoli, Brassica oleracea L. var. botrytis L. ‘Marathon'carrot, Daucus carota L. ‘Bolero F'dry bulb onion, Allium cepa L. ‘Vaquero'green onion, Allium cepa L. cv. ‘1200′head lettuce, Lactuca sativa L. ‘Sniper'potato, Solanum tuberosum L. ‘Ranger Russet'spinach, Spinacia oleracea L. ‘Whale'sugar beet, Beta vulgaris L. ‘HM91122RR' and ‘B4430R'Crop rotationherbicide soil carryoverplant backsoil residuesvegetables
Type
Weed Management—Other Crops/AREAS
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 26 , Issue 4 , December 2012 , pp. 769 - 776
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

Boydston, R. A. and Felix, J. 2008. Yellow nutsedge control in potato with imazosulfuron. Proc. West. Soc. Weed Sci. 61:6 [Abstract].Google Scholar
Brewster, B. D. and Appleby, A. P. 1983. Response of wheat (Triticum aestivum) and rotation crops to chlorsulfuron. Weed Sci. 31 :861–865.Google Scholar
Dittmar, P. J., Jennings, K. M., and Monks, D. W. 2010. Response of diploid watermelon to imazosulfuron POST. Weed Technol. 24 :127–129.Google Scholar
Felix, J. 2011. Response of dry bulb onion, sugar beet, and pinto beans to imazosulfuron soil residues. Weed Technol. 25 :586–590.Google Scholar
Felix, J. and Boydston, R. A. 2010. Evaluation of imazosulfuron for yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus) and broadleaf weed control in potato. Weed Technol. 24 :471–477.Google Scholar
Felix, J. and Doohan, D. J. 2005. Response of five vegetable crops to isoxaflutole soil residues. Weed Technol. 19 :391–396.Google Scholar
Greenland, R. G. 2003. Injury to vegetable crops from herbicides applied in previous years. Weed Technol. 17 :73–78.Google Scholar
Hay, J. V. 1990. Chemistry of sulfonylurea herbicides. Pestic. Sci. 29 :247–261.Google Scholar
Jennings, K. M. 2010. Tolerance of fresh-market tomato to postemergence-directed imazosulfuron, halosulfuron, and trifloxysulfuron. Weed Technol. 24 :117–120.Google Scholar
Johnson, W. C. III, Grey, T. L., and Kissel, D. 2010. Interactive effects of soil pH, halosulfuron rate, and application method on carryover to turnip green and cabbage. Weed Technol. 24 :160–164.Google Scholar
Morrica, P., Barbato, F., Della, I. R., Seccia, S., and Ungaro, F. 2001a. Kinetics and mechanism of imazosulfuron hydrolysis. J. Agric. Food Chem. 49 :3816–3820.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morrica, P., Giordano, A., Seccia, S., Ungaro, F., and Ventriglia, M. 2001b. Degradation of imazosulfuron in soil. Pest Manag. Sci. 57 :360–365.Google Scholar
Moyer, J. R. 1995. Sulfonylurea herbicide effects on following crops. Weed Technol. 9 :373–379.Google Scholar
Moyer, J. R. and Esau, R. 1996. Imidazolinone herbicide effects on following rotational crops in southern Alberta. Weed Technol. 10 :100–106.Google Scholar
Novosel, K. M., Renner, K. A., Kells, J. J., and Chomas, A. J. 1995. Sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris) response to and sorption characteristics of nicosulfuron and primisulfuron. Weed Technol. 9 :484–489.Google Scholar
Pekarek, R. 2009. Evaluation of a ‘Caliente' Mustard Cover Crop, S-Metolachlor, Imazosulfuron, and Thifensulfuron-Methyl for Weed Control in Bell Pepper. Ph.D Dissertation. Raleigh, NC : North Carolina State University. 129 p.Google Scholar
Robinson, D. E. 2008. Atrazine accentuates carryover injury from mesotrione in vegetable crops. Weed Technol. 22 :641–645.Google Scholar
Senseman, S. A., ed. 2007. Herbicide Handbook. 9th ed. Lawrence, KS : Weed Science Society of America. Pp 91–92.Google Scholar
Soltani, N., Sikkema, P. H., and Robinson, D. E. 2005. Effect of foramsulfuron and isoxaflutole residues on rotational vegetable crops. Hortscience 40 :620–622.Google Scholar
Strand, L. 2006. Integrated pest management for potatoes in the western United States 2nd ed. Davis, CA : University of California Statewide Integrated Pest Management Program. Pub. 3316. 167 pp.Google Scholar
Tomlin, C. D. C. 1997. The Pesticide Manual. 11th ed. Farnham, Surrey, UK : British Crop Protection Council. Pp. 703–704.Google Scholar
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1995. United States Standards for Grades of Onions (Other than Bermuda-Granex-Grano and Creole Type). Washington, DC : Agricultural Marketing Service. 9 p. http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5050312. Accessed: April 27, 2012.Google Scholar