Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T17:51:38.641Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of Weed Control and Crop Safety with Herbicides in Open Field Tree Nurseries

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Bradley D. Hanson  and
Sally A. Schneider
Bradley D. Hanson*
Affiliation:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, 9611 S. Riverbend Ave., Parlier, CA 93658
Sally A. Schneider
Affiliation:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Crop Production and Protection, GWCC, Room 4-2218, Beltsville, MD 20705
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Open field production of fruit and nut-tree nursery stock depends upon preplant soil fumigation, extensive tillage, and hand-labor throughout the growing season for adequate weed control. Because methyl bromide, the favored fumigant, is being phased out because of environmental concerns and the costs of both fuel and labor continue to rise, herbicides are likely to become a more important weed management tool in the tree nursery industry. Two trials were conducted to evaluate weed control and crop safety with several herbicides applied following fumigation with methyl bromide or 1,3-dichloropropene in central California stone-fruit nurseries. PRE and POST-directed applications of several labeled and unlabeled materials were applied in a band over seeded peach rootstock or applied after emergence with a drop-nozzle spray boom. Crop productivity and weed control were monitored throughout the 1-yr growing season. PRE oryzalin and dithiopyr treatments provided the best weed control with very little crop injury. PRE applications of flumioxazin, rimsulfuron, and sulfentrazone did not have adequate crop safety at the rates and timings tested. However, POST-directed applications of flumioxazin and rimsulfuron were much safer to the peach and almond crops and should be evaluated in future trials. Additional herbicides and application techniques are needed to find acceptable, safe control measures for weeds, such as California burclover, common mallow, and redstem filaree, which often are poorly controlled with preplant fumigation in tree nurseries.

Keywords

DithiopyrflumioxazinisoxabenoryzalinprodiaminerimsulfuronsulfentrazoneCalifornia burclover, Medicago hispida Gaertn. MEDPOcommon mallow, Malva parviflora L. MALPAredstem filaree, Erodium cicutarium L EROCIalmond, Prunus dulcis Millpeach, Prunus persica BatschBare root treeherbicide screeningmethyl bromide alternativesselectivitytolerancetree nursery
Type
Weed Management — Other Crops/Areas
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 22 , Issue 3 , September 2008 , pp. 493 - 498
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

Atland, J. E., Gilliam, C. H., and Wehtje, G. 2003. Weed control in field nurseries. HortTechnology. 13:9–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[CDFA] California Department of Food and Agriculture 2005. Approved treatment and handling procedures to ensure against nematode pest infestation of nursery stock. Pages 1–19. in. Nursery Inspection Procedures Manual. Item 7. Sacramento, CA Plant Health and Pest Prevention Services.Google Scholar
Duniway, J. M. 2002. Status of chemical alternatives to methyl bromide for pre-plant fumigation of soil. Phytopathology. 92:1337–1343.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gilliam, C. H., Wehtje, G., Eason, J. E., Hicks, T. J., and Fare, D. C. 1989. Weed control with Gallery and other herbicides in field-grown nursery crops. J. Environ. Hortic. 7:69–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanson, B. and Shrestha, A. 2006. Weed control with methyl bromide alternatives. CAB Rev. Perspect. Agric. Vet. Sci. Nutr. Nat. Resour. 1/63:1–13. http://www.cababstractsplus.org/cabreviews/reviews.asp.Google Scholar
[NASS] National Agricultural Statistics Service 2007a. Nursery Crops—2006 Summary. http://www.usda.gov/nass/pubs/reportname.htm. Accessed: January 10, 2008.Google Scholar
[NASS] National Agricultural Statistics Service 2007b. Noncitrus Fruits and Nuts—2006 Summary. http://www.usda.gov/nass/pubs/reportname.htm. Accessed: January 10, 2008.Google Scholar
Norton, J. A. 2005. A review of methyl bromide alternatives evaluated by IR-4. Pages 33-1–33-2. in Obenauf, G. L., editor. Proceedings of the Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. Fresno, CA: Methyl Bromide Alternatives Outreach.Google Scholar
Schneider, S. M., Rosskopf, E. N., Leesch, J. G., Chellemi, D. O., Bull, C. T., and Mazzola, M. 2003. United States Department of Agriculture–Agricultural Research Service research on alternatives to methyl bromide: pre-plant and post-harvest. Pest Manag. Sci. 59:814–826.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shrestha, A., Browne, G. T., Lampinen, B. D., Schneider, S., Simon, L., and Trout, T. 2008. Perennial crop nurseries treated with methyl bromide and alternative fumigants: Effects on weed seed viability, weed densities, and time required for hand weeding. Weed Technol. 22:267–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[UNEP] United Nations Environment Programme 1999. The Montreal Protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer as either adjusted and/or amended in London 1990, Copenhagen 1992, Vienna 1995, Montreal 1997, Beijing 1999. Nairobi, Kenya Ozone Secretariat. http://hq.unep.org/ozone/pdfs/Montreal-Protocol2000.pdf. Accessed: January 10, 2008.Google Scholar
Willoughby, I., Jinks, R. L., and Stokes, V. 2006. The tolerance of newly emerged broadleaved tree seedlings to the herbicides clopyralid, cycloxydim, and metazachlor. Forestry. 79:599–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zheljazkov, V. D., Patterson, K., Parsons, K. J., and Sampson, G. 2007. Tolerance of bare-root ornamental perennials to selected herbicides. Can. J. Plant Sci. 87:439–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar