Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T20:43:17.407Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Tolerance of Direct-Seeded Paprika Pepper (Capsicum annuum) to Clomazone Applied Preemergence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Jose Cavero*
Affiliation:
Estacion Experimental Aula Dei (CSIC), Apdo. 202, 50080 Zaragoza, Spain
Joaquin Aibar
Affiliation:
Escuela Universitaria Politecnica, 22071 Huesca, Spain
Miguel Gutierrez
Affiliation:
Dept. Agricultura (DGA), Apdo. 727, 50080 Zaragoza, Spain
Sonsoles Fernandez-Cavada
Affiliation:
Dept. Agricultura (DGA), Apdo. 727, 50080 Zaragoza, Spain
Jose M. Sopena
Affiliation:
Dept. Agricultura (DGA), Apdo. 727, 50080 Zaragoza, Spain
Alfonso Pardo
Affiliation:
Centro de Investigacion y Desarrollo Agrario, Apdo. 1056, 26080, Logroño, Spain
Maria L. Suso
Affiliation:
Centro de Investigacion y Desarrollo Agrario, Apdo. 1056, 26080, Logroño, Spain
Carlos Zaragoza
Affiliation:
Dept. Agricultura (DGA)
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected].

Abstract

Field experiments were conducted from 1997 to 1999 at Ejea and at Valdegon (Spain) to study weed control and tolerance of direct-seeded pepper ‘Agridulce SIA’ to clomazone alone or with linuron, napropamide, or pendimethalin. The main weeds at Ejea were redroot pigweed, Diplotaxis erucoides, common purslane, and ivyleaf speedwell, while at Valdegon they were Solanum physalifolium and common purslane. Pepper was tolerant to clomazone applied at 0.18 kg ai/ha, but weed control was less than 77%. Increasing the rate of clomazone to 0.36 kg/ha controlled weeds at least 85% and did not injure pepper. Clomazone at 0.54 and 0.72 kg/ha injured pepper 6 wk after planting (WAP), but plants recovered and the dry weight and yield of paprika were not affected. Napropamide at 2.03 kg ai/ha applied with clomazone improved the control of D. erucoides. Addition of pendimethalin at 0.17 to 0.25 kg ai/ha to clomazone did not improve weed control and increased pepper injury 6 WAP in 1 of 2 yr, but yield was not affected. Linuron at rates ranging from 0.08 to 0.13 kg ai/ha used in combination with clomazone provided complete weed control but injured pepper the most (34 to 88%) and reduced pepper stand by 50% in 1 yr.

Type
Research
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

Ackley, J. A., Wilson, H. P., and Hines, T. E. 1998. Weed management in transplanted bell pepper (Capsicum frutescens) with clomazone and rimsulfuron. Weed Technol. 12: 458462.Google Scholar
Adigun, J. A., Lagoke, S.T.O., and Karikari, S. K. 1987. Herbicide evaluation studies in transplanted chilli pepper (Capsicum frutescens L.) in the Nigerian savanna. Crop Prot. 6: 283288.Google Scholar
Adigun, J. A., Lagoke, S.T.O., and Karikari, S. K. 1991. Chemical weed control in irrigated sweet pepper (Capsicum annuum L.). Trop. Pest Manag., 37: 155158.Google Scholar
Al-Khatib, K., Kadir, S., and Libbey, C. 1995. Broadleaf weed control with clomazone in pickling cucumber (Cucumis sativus). Weed Technol. 9: 166172.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1998. Command 3 ME herbicide label. Philadelphia, PA: FMC Corporation, Agricultural Chemical Group.Google Scholar
Bagley, F. C. and Beste, C. E. 1982. Pebulate and other herbicides for transplanted peppers. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 38: 126127.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E. and Esau, R. 1991. Control of annual broadleaf weeds in pinto beans (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Technol. 5: 532538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bollich, P. K., Jordan, D. L., Walker, D. M., and Burns, A. B. 2000. Rice (Oryza sativa) response to the microencapsulated formulation of clomazone. Weed Technol. 14: 8993.Google Scholar
Bond, W. P. and Walker, A. 1989. Aspects of herbicide activity and persistence under low level polyethylene covers. Ann. Appl. Biol. 114: 133140.Google Scholar
Cavero, J., Gil-Ortega, R., and Zaragoza, C. 1996a. Clear plastic mulch improved seedling emergence of direct-seeded pepper. HortScience 31: 7073.Google Scholar
Cavero, J., Zaragoza, C., and Gil-Ortega, R. 1996b. Tolerance of direct-seeded pepper (Capsicum annuum) under plastic mulch to herbicides. Weed Technol. 10: 900906.Google Scholar
Cavero, J., Gil-Ortega, R., and Gutierrez, M. 2000. Plant density affects the yield, yield components and color of direct-seeded paprika pepper. HortScience (in press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eshel, Y., Katan, J., and Palevitch, D. 1973. Selective action of diphenamid and napropamide in pepper (Capsicum annuum) and weeds. Weed Res. 13: 379384.Google Scholar
Frank, J. R., Schwartz, P. H., and Bourke, J. B. 1988. Insect and weed interactions on bell peppers (Capsicum annuum). Weed Technol. 2: 423428.Google Scholar
Labrada, R. and Paredes, E. 1983. Periodo critico de competencia de malezas y valoracion de herbicidas en plantaciones de pimiento. Agrotec. Cuba 15: 3546.Google Scholar
Lagoke, S.T.O., Adejonwo, K. O., Nongu, T. T., Uwannah, C. E., and Lawal, K. O. 1988. Studies on weed interference and chemical weed control in chilli pepper (Capsicum annuum L.). Niger. J. Weed Sci. 1: 310.Google Scholar
Lanini, W. T. and LeStrange, M. 1991. Low-input management of weeds in vegetable fields. Calif. Agric. 45: 1113.Google Scholar
Lanini, W. T. and LeStrange, M. 1994. Weed control economics in bell pepper (Capsicum annuum) with napropamide and hand weeding. Weed Technol. 8: 530535.Google Scholar
Liu, L. C., Antoni-Padilla, M., Goyal, M. R., and Gonzalez-Ibañez, J. 1987. Integrated weed management in transplanted tomatoes and peppers under drip irrigation. J. Agric. Univ. P.R. 71: 349359.Google Scholar
McGrady, J. J. and Cotter, D. J. 1984. Anticrustant effects on chile pepper stand and yield. HortScience 19: 408409.Google Scholar
Medina, J. A. 1995. Estudio de la flora arvense y su competencia en los cultivos de transplante y siembra directa de pimiento (Capsicum annuum L.). Ph.D. dissertation. University of Lerida, Spain. 209 p.Google Scholar
Neary, P. E. and Majek, B. A. 1992. Clomazone for weed control under plastic mulch. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 46:78.Google Scholar
Orengo-Santiago, E., Semidey, N., and Almodovar, L. 1987. Influence of glyphosate and paraquat pre-transplant treatments on weed control and pepper yields. J. Agric. Univ. P.R. 71: 6573.Google Scholar
Porter, W. C. 1990. Clomazone for weed control in sweet potatoes (Ipomoea batatas). Weed Technol. 4: 648651.Google Scholar
Sastre, P., Costa, J., Montserrat, A., and Zaragoza, C. 1998. Herbicidas de preemergencia en pimiento para pimentón. Horticultura 132: 9094.Google Scholar
Schultheis, J. R. and Cantliffe, D. J. 1988. Improvement of plant establishment in bell pepper with a gel mix planting medium. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 113: 546552.Google Scholar
Scott, J. E., Weston, L. A., and Jones, R. T. 1995. Clomazone for weed control in transplanted cole crops (Brassica oleracea). Weed Sci. 43: 121127.Google Scholar
Westberg, D. E., Oliver, L. R., Frans, R. E. 1989. Weed control with clomazone alone and with other herbicides. Weed Technol. 3: 678685.Google Scholar
Weston, L. A. and Barrett, M. 1989. Tolerance of tomato and bell pepper to clomazone. Weed Sci. 37: 285289.Google Scholar
Weston, L. A. and Jones, R. T. 1990. Tolerance of transplanted bell peppers (Capsicum annuum) to clomazone and diethatyl applied preemergent. Appl. Agric. Res. 5: 1316.Google Scholar
York, A. C. and Jordan, D. L. 1992. Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) response to clomazone and insecticide combinations. Weed Technol. 6: 796800.Google Scholar