Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T16:07:06.407Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Identifying the Best Sulfonylurea Herbicide for Weed Control and Crop Tolerance in Sulfonylurea-Resistant Chicory (Cichorium intybus)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Robert G. Wilson ,
Bruno Desprez  and
Michael T. Edwards
Robert G. Wilson*
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska, Scottsbluff, NE 69361
Bruno Desprez
Affiliation:
Florimond Desprez, BP 41-F59242, Cappelle-en-Pévèle, France
Michael T. Edwards
Affiliation:
DuPont, 14611 Pecos Street, Broomfield, CO 80020
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field trials were conducted in 2004 and 2005 to identify sulfonylurea (SU) herbicides that would provide improved weed control, minimal soil residual, and crop safety to SU-resistant chicory. SU-resistant chicory had previously been selected in vitro for resistance to chlorsulfuron. Our research evaluated three commercial, nonresistant and three breeding lines of SU-resistant chicory. Each of the cultivars was treated POST at the two true-leaf growth stage with either foramsulfuron, rimsulfuron, rimsulfuron plus thifensulfuron, tribenuron, thifensulfuron, thifensulfuron plus tribenuron, triflusulfuron, flumetsulam, or imazamox at normal use rates. Established plant densities and root yields of SU-resistant chicory breeding lines were greater than or equal to the densities and root yields of commercial cultivars. The plant density of commercial chicory cultivars was reduced by rimsulfuron, rimsulfuron plus thifensulfuron, tribenuron, and thifensulfuron plus tribenuron, but SU-herbicides did not reduce the density of SU-resistant breeding lines. SU-resistant chicory differed in cross-resistance to SU-herbicides, with tribenuron causing the most crop injury and thifensulfuron, the least. Weed control varied between the SU-herbicides. The greatest reduction in weed biomass occurred with tribenuron, thifensulfuron plus tribenuron, and rimsulfuron plus thifensulfuron; the least reduction occurred with triflusulfuron, foramsulfuron, and rimsulfuron. Chicory root yields comparable to the hand-weeded treatment were achieved with rimsulfuron plus thifensulfuron and thifensulfuron plus tribenuron treatments. The SU herbicides that met the initial project objectives of crop tolerance and improved weed control were combinations of rimsulfuron plus thifensulfuron and thifensulfuron plus tribenuron.

Keywords

Imazamoxflumetsulamforamsulfuronrimsulfuronthifensulfurontribenurontriflusulfuronchicory, Cichorium intybus L. ‘Beryl’, ‘Orchies’, ‘Turquoise’, ‘FD 28’, ‘FD 29’, ‘FD 30’Root yieldweed biomassweed density
Type
Extension/Outreach
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 21 , Issue 2 , June 2007 , pp. 537 - 541
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

Baert, J. R. and Van Bockstaele, E. J. 1993. Cultivation and breeding of root chicory for inulin production. Ind. Crops Prod. 1:229–234.Google Scholar
Corey, K. A. and Whitney, L. F. 1987. Production of Belgian endive: description and prospects for the United States. Hortic. Sci. 22:1044. [Abstract].Google Scholar
Dewaele, E., Forlani, G., Degrande, D., Nielsen, E., and Rambour, S. 1997. Biochemical characterization of chlorsulfuron resistance in Cichorium intybus L. var. Witloof. J. Plant Physiol. 151:109–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lavigne, C., Manac'h, H., Guyard, C., and Gasquez, J. 1995. The cost of herbicide resistance in white-chicory: ecological implications for its commercial release. Theor. Appl. Genet. 91:1301–1308.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mersie, W. and Elliott, J. 1993. Selectivity of pronamide and trifluralin in Belgian endive (Cichorium intybus). Weed Technol. 7:226–229.Google Scholar
Millecamps, J. L. 1989. Selection of chicory Cichorium intybus L. var. Witloof with resistance to sulfonylurea herbicides with cellular culture. Lille Flanders, Artois, France University of Science and Technology. 55. Ph.D thesis.Google Scholar
Van den Ende, W., Michiels, A., DeRoover, J., and Van Laere, A. 2002. Fructan biosynthetic and breakdown enzymes in dicots evolved from different invertases: expression of fructan genes throughout chicory development. Sci. World J. 2:1273–1287.Google Scholar
Van Waes, C., Baert, J. B., Carlier, L., and Van Bockstaele, E. 1998. A rapid determination of total sugar content and the average inulin chain length in roots of chicory (Cichorium intybus L). J. Sci. Food Agric. 76:107–110.Google Scholar
Vencill, W. K. 2002. Herbicide Handbook. 8th ed. Lawrence, KS Weed Science Society of America. 493.Google Scholar
Wilson, R. G., Smith, J. A., and Yonts, C. D. 2004. Evaluation of herbicides for weed control in chicory (Cichorium intybus). Weed Technol. 18:540–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar