Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T05:38:38.716Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hazelnut tolerance to basal-directed applications of clopyralid and quinclorac

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 August 2022

Rafael M. Pedroso Open the ORCID record for Rafael M. Pedroso [Opens in a new window]  and
Marcelo L. Moretti Open the ORCID record for Marcelo L. Moretti [Opens in a new window]
Rafael M. Pedroso
Affiliation:
Former Research Associate, Oregon State University, Department of Horticulture, Corvallis, OR, USA Assistant Professor, University of São Paulo, Crop Science Department, Piracicaba, SP, Brazil
Marcelo L. Moretti*
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Oregon State University, Department of Horticulture, Corvallis, OR, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Marcelo L. Moretti, Assistant Professor, Oregon State University, 4017 Agriculture and Life Sciences Building, Corvallis, OR 97331. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted to determine hazelnut tolerance to quinclorac and clopyralid and control efficacy of Canada thistle and field bindweed at three commercial orchards in western Oregon. Hazelnut cultivars evaluated included ‘Jefferson’, ‘Wepster’, and ‘McDonald’. Clopyralid at 278, 547, and 1,090 g ae ha−1, and quinclorac at 420, 840, and 1,680 g ai ha−1 were applied once a year as basal-directed applications to trees that were 1, 2, and 5 yr old. Treatments were imposed in the early spring of 2019 and reapplied in 2020. In both years, treatments covered hazelnut suckers. Hazelnut injury from clopyralid and quinclorac was consistently between 0% and 13% and not different from nontreated control plants (P > 0.05) between 14 d and 455 d after initial treatment. Similarly, there was no treatment effect on plant canopy index, leaf chlorophyll content, trunk cross-sectional area, internode length, or yield among treatments, even at the highest rates of clopyralid and quinclorac. In separate efficacy studies, clopyralid (278 g ae ha−1) resulted in 68% Canada thistle control and did not differ when clopyralid was mixed with carfentrazone (278 + 35 g ai ha−1) or glufosinate (278 + 1,148 g ai ha−1). Clopyralid-containing herbicide treatments suppressed field bindweed growth but did not kill plants even when mixed with carfentrazone or glufosinate. Quinclorac (420 g ha−1) alone provided 80% control of field bindweed and 93% and 98% control when combined with rimsulfuron (35 g ai ha−1) or carfentrazone (35 g ai ha−1), respectively. Still, all herbicide treatments resulted in similar field bindweed biomass. Results indicate that clopyralid and quinclorac are effective tools to help manage Canada thistle and field bindweed and that hazelnut can tolerate clopyralid and quinclorac at rates equivalent to 4-fold commercial-use rates not affecting plant growth and yield.

Keywords

CarfentrazoneclopyralidglufosinatequincloracrimsulfuronCanada thistle, Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop.field bindweed, Convolvulus arvensis L.hazelnut, Corylus avellana L.Auxinic herbicidetree nutsperennial weedcrop tolerance
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 36 , Issue 4 , August 2022 , pp. 576 - 582
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the 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

Associate Editor: Peter J. Dittmar, University of Florida

References

Adams, JP, Pelkki, MH, Ford, VL, Humphrey, A (2017) Initial effects of quinclorac on the survival and growth of high biomass tree species. Ann Forestry Res 60:75–87 Google Scholar
Ali, A, Streibig, JC, Duus, J, Andreasen, C (2013) Use of image analysis to assess color response on plants caused by herbicide application. Weed Technol 27:604–611 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anonymous (1996) Saber® herbicide product label. Loveland publications. No. 34704-803. Greeley, CO. Loveland Products Inc. 21 p.Google Scholar
Anonymous (2020a) Quinstar 4L® herbicide product label. Albaugh L No. AD122320. Ankeny, IA: AD122320.Google Scholar
Anonymous (2020b) Stinger® herbicide product label. Agriscience C No. CD02-043-020. Indianapolis, IN: CD02-043-020.Google Scholar
Armel, GR, Hall, GJ, Wilson, HP, Cullen, N (2005) Mesotrione plus atrazine mixtures for control of Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense). Weed Sci 53:202–211 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooks, ME, Kristensen, K, van Benthem, KJ, Magnusson, A, Berg, CW, Nielsen, A, Skaug, HJ, Machler, M, Bolker, BM (2017) glmmTMB balances speed and flexibility among packages for zero-inflated generalized linear mixed modeling. The R Journal 9:378–400 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, S, Mangold, J, Menalled, F, Orloff, N, Miller, Z, Lehnhoff, E (2018) A meta-analysis of field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) management in annual and perennial systems. Weed Sci 66:540–547 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Degennaro, FP, Weller, SC (1984) Growth and reproductive characteristics of field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) biotypes. Weed Sci 32:525–528 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donald, WW (1988) Clopyralid effects on shoot emergence, root biomass, and secondary shoot regrowth potential of Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense). Weed Sci 36:804–809 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enloe, SF, Lym, RG, Wilson, R, Westra, P, Nissen, S, Beck, G, Moechnig, M, Peterson, V, Masters, RA, Halstvedt, M (2007) Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) control with aminopyralid in range, pasture, and noncrop areas. Weed Technol 21:890–894 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enloe, SF, Nissen, SJ, Westra, P (1999a) Absorption, fate, and soil activity of quinclorac in field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis). Weed Sci 47:136–142 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enloe, SF, Westra, P, Nissen, SJ, Miller, SD, Stahlman, PW (1999b) Use of quinclorac plus 2,4-D for controlling field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) in fallow. Weed Technol 13:731–736 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[FAO] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2021) FAOSTAT statistical database. https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QCL. Accessed: September 15, 2022Google Scholar
Grossmann, K (1998) Quinclorac belongs to a new class of highly selective auxin herbicides. Weed Sci 46:707–716 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, JC, Bestman, HD, Devine, MD, Born, WHV (1985) Contribution of soil spray deposit from postemergence herbicide applications to control of Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense). Weed Sci 33:836–839 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hampson, CR, Azarenko, AN, Potter, JR (1996) Photosynthetic rate, flowering, and yield component alteration in hazelnut in response to different light environments. J Am Soc Hort Sci 121:1103–1111 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, RJ, King, DR, Zollinger, R, Moretti, ML (2021) 1-Naphthaleneacetic acid (NAA) reduces sucker growth in European hazelnut (Corylus avellana L.). HortScience 56:1594–1598 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaya-Altop, E, Haghnama, K, Sarıaslan, D, Phillippo, CJ, Mennan, H, Zandstra, BH (2016) Long-term perennial weed control strategies: economic analyses and yield effect in hazelnut (Corylus avellana). Crop Protect 80:7–14 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kniss, A, Streibig, J (2020) Statistical analysis of agricultural experiments using R. https://rstats4ag.org/. Accessed: January 20, 2021Google Scholar
Kviklys, D (2009) [Tolerance of apple propagation material to herbicides.] Sodininkystė ir daržininkystė 28:109–115 Google Scholar
Lamoureux, GL, Rusness, DG (1995) Quinclorac absorption, translocation, metabolism, and toxicity in leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula). Pestic Biochem Physiol 53:210–226 Google Scholar
Lenth, R (2019) Emmeans package: estimated marginal means, aka least-squares means. R package version 1.3.5.1. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/emmeans/index.html. Accessed: July 9, 2021Google Scholar
Marsalis, MA, Lauriault, LM, Jones, SH, Renz, MJ (2008) Managing field bindweed in sorghum–wheat–fallow rotations. Crop Manag 7:1–9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mehlenbacher, SA, Smith, DC (1992) Effect of spacing and sucker removal on precocity of hazelnut seedlings. J Am Soc Hort Sci 117:523–526 Google Scholar
Miller, BR, Lym, RG (1998) Using the rosette technique for Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) control in row crops. Weed Technol 12:699–706 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moretti, ML (2022) Quick reference guide to herbicides labeled for use in hazelnuts. Pages N1–45 in Peachey, ER, ed. Pacific Northwest Weed Management Handbook. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State Univ. https://pnwhandbooks.org/weed/horticultural/orchards-vineyards/tree-fruits-nuts/quick-reference-guide-herbicides-labeled-use. Accessed: September 15, 2022Google Scholar
Orloff, N, Mangold, J, Miller, Z, Menalled, F (2018) A meta-analysis of field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis L.) and Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense L.) management in organic agricultural systems. Agric Ecosyst Environ 254:264–272 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renner, KA (1991) Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) control in sugarbeet with clopyralid. Weed Technol 5:392–395 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
RStudio Team (2021) RStudio: Integrated Development R. RStudio, Inc. http://www.rstudio.com. Accessed: January 20, 2021Google Scholar
Shaner, DL (2014a) Quinclorac. Pages 111–112 in Shaner, DL, ed. Herbicide Handbook. Lawrence, KS: Weed Science Society of America Google Scholar
Shaner, DL (2014b) Clopyralid. Page 513 in Shaner, DL, ed. Herbicide Handbook. Lawrence, KS: Weed Science Society of America Google Scholar
Sharpe, SM, Boyd, NS, Dittmar, PJ, MacDonald, GE, Darnell, RL (2018) Clopyralid tolerance in strawberry and feasibility of early applications in Florida. Weed Sci 66:508–515 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Šidák, Z (1967) Rectangular confidence regions for the means of multivariate normal distributions. J Am Stat Assoc 62:626–633 Google Scholar
Soil Survey Staff (2022) Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Web Soil Survey. https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/. Accessed: January 10, 2022Google Scholar
Sprague, CL, Frasier, AL, Penner, D (1999) Identifying acetolactate synthase inhibitors for potential control of quackgrass (Elytrigia repens) and Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol 13:54–58 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tiley, GE (2010) Biological flora of the British Isles: Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop. J Ecol 98:938–983 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[USDA] United States Department of Agriculture (2021) Noncitrus Fruits and Nuts 2020 Summary. Pages 1–88 in National Agriculture Statistics Service, ed. Washington, DC: United States Department of Agriculture. https://downloads.usda.library.cornell.edu/usda-esmis/files/zs25x846c/sf269213r/6t054c23t/ncit0521.pdf.Google Scholar
Westra, P, Chapman, P, Stahlman, PW, Miller, SD, Fay, PK (1992) Field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) control with various herbicide combinations. Weed Technol 6:949–955 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitesides, RE (1979) Field bindweed: a growth stage indexing system and its relation to control with glyphosate. PhD diss. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 98 pGoogle Scholar
Willoughby, I, Jinks, RL, Stokes, V (2006) The tolerance of newly emerged broadleaved tree seedlings to the herbicides clopyralid, cycloxydim and metazachlor. Forestry 79:599–608 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zargar, M, Bayat, M, Lyashko, M, Chauhan, B (2019) Postemergence herbicide applications impact Canada thistle control and spring wheat yields. Agron J 111:2874–2880 CrossRefGoogle Scholar