Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T01:12:52.194Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Management of Spreading Dogbane (Apocynum androsaemifolium) in Wild Blueberry Fields

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Lin Wu  and
Nathan S. Boyd
Lin Wu
Affiliation:
Department of Environmental Sciences, Nova Scotia Agricultural College, Truro, NS, Canada B2N 4V9
Nathan S. Boyd*
Affiliation:
Department of Environmental Sciences, Nova Scotia Agricultural College, Truro, NS, Canada B2N 4V9
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Spreading dogbane is a troublesome weed of wild blueberry fields. Field studies were conducted in 2008 and 2009 to evaluate efficacy of different herbicides and application techniques on spreading dogbane as well as blueberry tolerance. Results indicated that summer-broadcast nicosulfuron at 25 g ai ha−1 with 0.5% v/v blend of surfactant with petroleum hydrocarbons suppressed (> 60%) spreading dogbane at three of four sites. Spot sprays with dicamba at 1 kg ae ha−1 effectively controlled (> 80%) spreading dogbane with minimal (19 to 23%) blueberry damage at three of four sites. Glyphosate spot sprays at 5 g ae L−1 water provided more effective and longer control than hand pulling. Wiping with glyphosate at 154 g ae L−1 water or wiping triclopyr at 29 g ae L−1 water onto the shoots is also an effective control method for localized patches of spreading dogbane. Although low to moderate crop damage may accompany these techniques, it may still be tolerable for growers to apply these options to limit long-term yield loss caused by spreading dogbane.

Apocynum androsaemifolium es una maleza problemática en campos de arándano silvestre. En 2008 y 2009, se realizaron estudios de campo para evaluar la eficacia de diferentes herbicidas y técnicas de aplicación sobre A. androsaemifolium y la tolerancia del arándano. Los resultados indicaron que la aplicación general durante el verano de nicosulfuron a 25 g ai ha−1 con una mezcla de surfactante con hidrocarburos de petróleo 0.5% v/v, suprimió (>60%) A. androsaemifolium en tres de los cuatro sitios experimentales. Aplicaciones localizadas de glyphosate a 5 g ae L−1 agua brindaron un control más efectivo y duradero que la deshierba manual. La aplicación con azadón químico de glyphosate a 154 g ae L−1 agua o de triclopyr a 29 g ae L−1 agua sobre tejido aéreo fueron también métodos efectivos de control cuando A. androsaemifolium tuvo una distribución localizada. Aunque un daño al cultivo de bajo a moderado puede acompañar a estas técnicas de aplicación, esto puede ser tolerable para productores que apliquen estas opciones con el objetivo de limitar pérdidas en rendimiento a largo plazo causadas por A. androsaemifolium.

Keywords

Dicambaglyphosatemesotrionenicosulfuronprimisulfuronspreading dogbane, Apocynum androsaemifolium L.wild blueberry, Vaccinium angustifolium L.Herbicidehorticultureperennial weedsPOST herbicidesweed control
Type
Weed Management—Other Crops/AREAS
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 26 , Issue 4 , December 2012 , pp. 777 - 782
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

Anonymous. 2010. Fruit and Vegetable Production. Statistics Canada. Cat. No. 22-003-X, Vol.78, no. 2. 13 p.Google Scholar
Curran, W. S., Werner, E. L., and Craig, P. H. 1997. Fall versus early summer applications for control of hemp dogbane in corn. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 51 :113.Google Scholar
DiTommaso, A., Clements, D. R., Darbyshire, S. J., and Dauer, J. T. 2009. The biology of Canadian weeds. 143. Apocynum cannabinum L. Can. J. Plant Sci. 89 :977–992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobbels, A. F. and Kapusta, G. 1993. Postemergence weed control in corn (Zea mays) with nicosulfuron combinations. Weed Technol. 7 :844–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doll, J. 1994. Hemp dogbane biology and management. http://ipcm.wisc.edu/uw_weeds/extension/articles/hempdog.htm. Accessed: April 17, 2009.Google Scholar
Doll, J. D. 1997. Hemp dogbane (Apocynum cannabinum L.) management in corn and glyphosate-resistant soybean. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 37 :90.Google Scholar
Glenn, S. and Anderson, N. G. 1993. Hemp dogbane (Apocynum cannabinum) and wild blackberry (Rubusalle gheniensis) control in no-till corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 7 :47–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glenn, S., Phillips, W. H., and Kalnay, P. 1997. Long-term control of perennial broadleaf weeds and triazine-resistant common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) in no-till corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 11 :436–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, K.I.N. 2003. Lowbush blueberry production: weeds. http://res2.agr.ca/kentville/pubs/pub1477/d1477_e.htm. Accessed: September 1, 2009.Google Scholar
Jensen, K.I.N. and Yarborough, D. E. 2004. An overview of weed management in the wild lowbush blueberry—past and present. Small Fruits Rev. 3 :229–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, K. J., Boyd, N. S., and Nams, V. O. 2010. Hexazinone and fertilizer impacts on sheep sorrel (rumex acetosella) in wild blueberry. Weed Sci. 58 :317–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinsman, G. 1993. The history of the lowbush blueberry industry of Nova Scotia 1950–1990. Debert, NS : Blueberry Producers' Association. 2 p.Google Scholar
Lapointe, L. and Rochefort, L. 2001. Weed survey of lowbush blueberry fields in Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, Quebec, following eight years of herbicide application. Can. J. Plant Sci. 81 :471–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacDougall, J. I., Veer, C., and Wilson, F. 1988. Soil of Prince Edward Island. Ottawa. ON : Land Resource Research Centre, Contribution No. 83-54, Research Branch, Agriculture Canada. Pages 34–80 p.Google Scholar
Makki, F. 2010. Canadian horticulture sector: Performance overview 2008 crop year. Burnaby, BC : Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada's Horticulture Division. 36 p.Google Scholar
McCully, K. V., Sampson, M. G., and Watson, A. K. 1991. Weed survey of Nova Scotia lowbush blueberry (Vaccinium angustifolium) fields. Weed Sci. 39 :180–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nalewaja, J. D., Woznica, Z., and Manthey, F. A. 1991. DPX-V9360 efficacy with adjuvants and environment. Weed Technol. 5 :92–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nowland, J. L. and MacDougall, J. J. 1973. Soils of Cumberland County, NS: Report No.17 Nova Scotia Soil Survey. Altma, MB : Canada Department of Agriculture W.W. Friesen and Sons Ltd., 38–47 p.Google Scholar
Orfanedes, M. and Wax, L. 1991. Differential response of hemp dogbane (Apocynum cannabinum) to clopyralid, Dowco 433, and 2,4-D. Weed Technol. 5 :782–787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ransom, C. V. and Kells, J. J. 1998. Hemp dogbane (Apocynum cannabinum) control in corn (Zea mays) with selective postemergence herbicides. Weed Technol. 12 :631–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SAS Institute. 1999. SAS User's Guide: Statistics. Version 6, 4th ed., Volume 2, SAS Institute Inc., Cary, North Carolina.Google Scholar
Sampson, M. G., McCully, K. V., and Sampson, D. L. 1990. Weeds of eastern Canadian blueberry fields. Truro. NS : Nova Scotia Agricultural College Bookstore. 229 p.Google Scholar
Schultz, M. E. and Burnside, O. C. 1979. Control of hemp dogbane with foliar and soil applied herbicides. Agron. J. 71 :723–730.Google Scholar
Schultz, M. E. and Burnside, O. C. 1980. Absorption, translocation, and metabolism of 2,4-D and glyphosate in hemp dogbane (Apocynum cannabinum). Weed Sci. 28 :13–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schuster, C. L., Al-Khatib, K., and Dille, J. A. 2007. Mechanism of antagonism of mesotrione on sulfonylurea herbicides. Weed Sci. 55 :429–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sibley, J. D. 1987. Lowbush blueberry production and marketing in Nova Scotia—A situation report—1987. Nova Scotia Department of Agriculture and Marketing. Truro, NS, Canada : 2 p.Google Scholar
Vander Kloet, S. P. 1978. Systematics, distribution and nomenclature of the polymorphic Vaccinium angustifolium Ait. Rhodora 80 :538–576.Google Scholar
Webb, K. T., Thompson, R. L., Beke, G. J., and Nowland, J. L. 1991. Soils of Colchester County, Nova Scotia: Report No.19 Nova Scotia Soil Survey. Ottawa, ON : Research Branch, Agriculture Canada. 201 p.Google Scholar
Webster, T. M. and Cardina, J. 1999. Apocynum cannabinum seed germination and vegetative shoot emergence. Weed Sci. 47 :524–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, B. J. and Harvey, R. G. 1996. Nicosulfuron tolerance in sweet corn (Zea mays) as affected by hybrid, rootworm insecticide, and Nicosulfuron Treatment. Weed Technol. 10 :488–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yarborough, D. E. 2011. Weed Management in Wild Blueberry Fields. Fact Sheet No. 236. Orono, ME : University of Maine.Google Scholar
Yarborough, D. E. and Bhowmik, P. C. 1989. Effect of hexazinone on weed populations and on lowbush blueberries in Maine. Acta Hort. 241 :344–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yarborough, D. E. and Marra, M. C. 1997. Economic thresholds for weeds in wild blueberry fields. Acta Hort. 446 :293–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar