Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T04:54:42.840Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Tulip (Tulipa spp.), Daffodil (Narcissus spp.), and Iris (Iris spp.) Response to Preemergence Herbicides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Kassim A Al-Khatib*
Affiliation:
N.W. Res. Ext. Cent., Washington State Univ., Mt. Vernon, WA 98273

Abstract

Broadleaf weed control and tulip, daffodil, and iris response to alachlor, dithiopyr, diuron, isoxaben, napropamide, oryzalin, oxadiazon, oxyfluorfen, pendimethalin, pronamide, and thiazopyr applied preemergence were evaluated. All herbicides controlled broadleaf weeds for five months after application, but control with oxyfluorfen, pendimethalin, alachlor, pronamide, and napropamide decreased six months after application. The greatest weed control was with oxadiazon, isoxaben, thiazopyr, dithiopyr, and diuron, whereas the least weed control was with napropamide and alachlor. In general, tulip was more sensitive to herbicides than daffodil and iris. All herbicides injured tulips at early growth stages but bulb yield of tulip was reduced only by oxadiazon, oxyfluorfen at 0.28 kg ai/ha, pronamide, and dithiopyr. Tulip flower quality was reduced only by oxadiazon, oxyfluorfen at 0.28 lb/ha, and pronamide. Daffodil and iris were tolerant to thiazopyr, isoxaben, pronamide, alachlor, oryzalin, napropamide, and diuron.

Type
Research
Copyright
Copyright © 1996 by 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.)

References

Literature Cited

1. Al-Khatib, K. and Libbey, C. 1992. Weed control research in ornamental bulbs. Proc. Northwest Bulb Growers 44:2628.Google Scholar
2. Bing, A. and Macksel, M. 1984. The effect of landscape herbicides on newly planted bulbs. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 38:217220.Google Scholar
3. Howard, S. W., Libbey, C. R., and Hall, E. R. 1990. Herbicide evaluation in bulbous iris, narcissus, and tulip. Acta Hort. 266:561565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Lawson, H. M. 1976. The effect of spring-germinating weeds on narcissus. Ann. Appl. Biol. 83:324327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Lawson, H. M. and Wiseman, J. S. 1973. Weed competition. 20th Annual Report for the Year 1973. Scottish Hortic. Res. Inst. p. 24.Google Scholar
6. Lawson, H. M. and Wiseman, J. S. 1978. The effect of weeds on the growth and development of narcissus. J. Appl. Ecol. 15:257272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Peabody, D. V. 1981. Use of registered (and nonregistered) herbicides in ornamental bulbs. Proc. Northwest Bulb Conf. 33:2730.Google Scholar
8. Peabody, D. W., Schaefer, V., and Vidmore, V. 1979. Weed Science Investigations, 1979 Prog. Rep. Washington State Univ. p. 5567.Google Scholar
9. Skroch, W. A., Warren, S. L., and De Hertogh, A. A. 1988. Phytotoxicity of herbicides to spring flowering bulbs. J. Environ. Hortic. 6:109113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Wauchope, R. D., Buttler, T. M., Hornsby, A. G., Augustijin-Beckers, P.W.M., and Burt, J. P. 1992. Pesticide properties database for environmental decision-making. Rev. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 123:1164.Google ScholarPubMed
11. William, R. D., Burrill, L. C., Ball, D., Parker, R., Al-Khatib, K., Callihan, R. H., Eberlein, C., and Morishita, D. W. 1995. Pacific Northwest Weed Control Handbook. Washington State Univ. Coop. Ext., Pullman. p. 251253.Google Scholar