Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T18:40:46.720Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Control of Tropical Soda Apple (Solanum viarum) with Aminopyralid

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Jason A. Ferrell*
Affiliation:
Agronomy Department, University of Florida, IFAS, Gainesville, FL 32611
J. Jeffrey Mullahey
Affiliation:
West Florida REC, University of Florida, IFAS, Milton, FL 32583
Kenneth A. Langeland
Affiliation:
Agronomy Department, University of Florida, IFAS, Gainesville, FL 32611
William N. Kline
Affiliation:
Dow AgroScienes, Duluth, GA 30096
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]. This is a Florida Agriculture Experiment Station publication

Abstract

Experiments were conducted between 2002 and 2004 at multiple locations in Florida to determine the efficacy of aminopyralid and other herbicides on tropical soda apple (TSA) control. Aminopyralid applied at rates ≥0.08 kg ai/ha consistently provided >96% TSA control up to 335 d after treatment (DAT), while applications <0.06 kg/ha were less effective as well as inconsistent. Control of TSA with aminopyralid was often not statistically different from control with triclopyr, picloram, or dicamba. However, these responses were likely due to the variability in TSA control by triclopyr, picloram, or dicamba across several locations. For example, the standard error of the mean for TSA control with picloram at 335 DAT was 8, compared to 1 for aminopyralid. Herbicides were applied in April, January, and June, but time of year did not affect the efficacy of aminopyralid. Aminopyralid possesses soil residual activity and controlled 98% of germinating seedlings at 75 DAT, compared to 0% control for triclopyr or 2,4-D + dicamba. Therefore, aminopyralid controlled TSA from foliar applications and soil residual activity more consistently than any other herbicide evaluated in these experiments.

Type
Research Article
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.)

Footnotes

This is a Florida Agriculture Experiment Station publication.

References

Literature Cited

Akanda, R. U., Mullahey, J. J., Dowler, C. C., and Shilling, D. G. 1997. Influence of Postemergence herbicides on Tropical soda apple (Solanum viarum) and bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum). Weed Technol. 11:656661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Akanda, R. U., Mullahey, J. J., and Shilling, D. G. 1996. Environmental factors affecting germination of tropical soda apple (Solanum viarum). Weed Sci. 44:570574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, W. F., Mullahey, J. J., and Akanda, R. U. 1996. Survivability of tropical soda apple seed in the gastro-intestinal tract of cattle. Fla. Cattleman Livestock J. 60:3739.Google Scholar
Call, N. M., Coble, H. D., and Perez-Fernandez, T. 2000. Tropical soda apple (Solanum viarum) herbicide susceptibility and competitiveness in tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea). Weed Technol. 14:252260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carmer, S. G., Nyquist, W. E., and Walker, W. M. 1989. Least significant differences for combined analysis of experiments with two or three-factor treatment designs. Agron. J. 81:665672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferrell, J. A. and MacDonald, G. E. Approximate Herbicide Pricing—2005. Florida Cooperative Extension Service Rep. SS-AGR-50. 4 p.Google Scholar
Ferrell, J. A. and Mullahey, J. J. 2005. Tropical Soda Apple (Solanum viarum Dunal) in Florida. Florida Cooperative Extension Service Rep. SS-AGR-16. 4 p.Google Scholar
Hager, A. G., Wax, L. M., Bollero, G. A., and Stoller, E. W. 2003. Influence of diphenylether herbicide application rate and timing on common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) control in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 17:1420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kline, W. N., Chemello, A. A., Troth, J. L., and Breuninger, J. M. 2005. Aminopyralid: global opportunities. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 58:140.Google Scholar
Langeland, K. A. and Burks, K. Caddock 1998. Identification and Biology of Non-Native Plants in Florida's Natural Areas. Gainesville, FL: I.F.A.S. Distribution Center, University of Gainesville, Florida. 165 p.Google Scholar
Mislevy, P., Mullahey, J. J., and Martin, F. G. 1997. Response of tropical soda apple (Solanum viarum) to triclopyr. Soil Crop Sci. Soc. Fla. Proc. 56:1113.Google Scholar
Mislevy, P., Mullahey, J. J., and Martin, F. G. 1999. Preherbicide mowing and herbicide rate on tropical soda apple (Solanum viarum) control. Weed Technol. 13:172175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mullahey, J. J. 1996. Tropical soda apple (Solanum viarum), a biological pollutant threatening Florida. Castanea 61:255260.Google Scholar
Mullahey, J. J., Cornell, J. A., and Colvin, D. L. 1993a. Tropical soda apple (Solanum viarum) control. Weed Technol. 7:723727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mullahey, J. J., Nee, M., Wunderlin, R. P., and Delaney, K. R. 1993b. Tropical soda apple (Solanum viarum): a new weed threat in subtropical regions. Weed Technol. 7:783786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mullahey, J. J., Shilling, D. G., Mislevy, P., and Akanda, R. A. 1998. Invasion of tropical soda apple (Solanum viarum) into the U.S.: lessons learned. Weed Technol. 12:733736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[NASS] National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA. 2003. 2003 Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry Summary. Web page: http://www.nass.usda.gov. Accessed: February 7, 2004.Google Scholar
Patterson, D. T., McGowan, M., Mullahey, J. J., and Westbrooks, R. G. 1997. Effects of temperature and photoperiod on tropical soda apple and its potential range in the U.S. Weed Sci. 45:404408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pingle, A. R. and Dnyansagar, V. R. 1979. Induction of germination in Solanum viarum . Curr. Sci. 48:449450.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 2002. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Version 9. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. Pp. 20832226.Google Scholar
Vencill, W. K. ed. 2002. Herbicide Handbook. 8th ed. Lawrence, KS: Weed Science Society of America. Pp. 345348, 434–436.Google Scholar