Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T00:10:57.841Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Onion and Weed Response to Mustard (Sinapis alba) Seed Meal

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Rick A. Boydston ,
Matt J. Morra ,
Vladimir Borek ,
Lydia Clayton  and
Steven F. Vaughn
Rick A. Boydston*
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington State University Irrigated Agriculture Research and Extension Center, Prosser, WA 99350-9687
Matt J. Morra
Affiliation:
Division of Soil and Land Resources, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844-2339
Vladimir Borek
Affiliation:
Division of Soil and Land Resources, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844-2339
Lydia Clayton
Affiliation:
University of Idaho, Lewiston, ID 83501
Steven F. Vaughn
Affiliation:
Functional Foods Research Unit, Agricultural Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Peoria, IL 61604
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: rick.boydston@ars.usda.gov
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Weed control in organic onion production is often difficult and expensive, requiring numerous cultivations and extensive hand weeding. Onion safety and weed control with mustard seed meal (MSM) derived from Sinapis alba was evaluated in greenhouse and field trials. MSM applied at 110, 220, and 440 g m−2 severely injured onions and reduced onion stand by 25% or more when applied from planting to the one-leaf stage of onions in greenhouse trials. MSM derived from mustard cultivars ‘IdaGold’ and ‘AC Pennant’ reduced plant dry weight of redroot pigweed with an effective dose that provided 90% weed control (ED90) of 14.5 and 3.2 g m−2, respectively, in greenhouse trials, whereas the ED90 of MSM from a low-glucosinolate cultivar ‘00RN29D10’ was 128 g m−2, suggesting that glucosinolate content and ionic thiocyanate (SCN−) production contribute to phytotoxicity of MSM. In field trials, weed emergence, onion injury, and onion yield were recorded following single or three sequential applications of MSM from 1.1 to 4.5 MT ha−1 beginning at the two-leaf stage of onions in 2008, 2009, and 2010. By 8 wk after treatment (WAT), onion injury following MSM sequential applications was 10% or less in all 3 yr. Combined over 2008 and 2009, 48 and 68% fewer weeds emerged 3 WAT with MSM at 2.2 and 4.5 MT ha−1, respectively. In 2010, MSM at 2.2 and 4.5 MT ha−1 reduced the number of weeds emerged 4 WAT by 91 and 76%, respectively. MSM treatment did not significantly affect onion yield or size in 2008 and 2009, but in 2010 onion total yield was reduced by 29% by three sequential applications of MSM at 2.2 MT ha−1. MSM has potential to be used as a weed-suppressive amendment in organic production systems, but the risk of crop injury is substantial.

Keywords

Redroot pigweed, Amaranthus retroflexus Lwhite mustard, Sinapis alba Lonion, Allium cepa LAllelopathyglucosinolatesnatural productsorganicphytotoxicitythiocyanateSCN−weed management
Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 59 , Issue 4 , December 2011 , pp. 546 - 552
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

Ascard, J. and Johansson, T. 1991. White mustard meal interesting for weed control. Pages 139–155 in Weeds and Weed Control Reports. 32nd Swedish Crop Protection Conference. Uppsala, Sweden Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences.Google Scholar
Borek, V. and Morra, M. J. 2005. Ionic thiocyanate (SCN−) production from 4-hydroxybenzyl glucosinolate contained in Sinapis alba seed meal. J. Agric. Food Chem. 47:3837–3842.Google Scholar
Boydston, R. A., Anderson, T., and Vaughn, S. F. 2008. Mustard (Sinapis alba) seed meal suppresses weeds in container-grown ornamentals. HortSci. 43:800–803.Google Scholar
Brown, J. 2006. Oil Crop Potential for Biodiesel Production. Summary of Three Years of Spring Mustard Research: Methodologies, Results, and Recommendations. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. SR-510-36309. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy05osti/36309.pdf. Accessed: May 14, 2011.Google Scholar
Brown, P. D. and Morra, M. J. 1991. Ion chromatographic determination of SCN− in soils J. Agric. Food Chem. 39:1226–1228.Google Scholar
Brown, P. D. and Morra, M. J. 1993. Fate of ionic thiocyanate (SCN−) in soils. J. Agric. Food Chem. 41:978–982.Google Scholar
Brown, P. C., Morra, M. J., McCaffrey, J. P., Auld, D. L., and Williams, L. III. 1991. Allelochemicals produced during glucosinolate degradation in soil. J. Chem. Ecol. 17:2021–2034.Google Scholar
Daxenbichler, M. E., Spencer, G. F., Carlson, D. G., Rose, G. B., Brinker, A. M., and Powell, R. G. 1991. Glucosinolate composition of seeds from 297 species of wild plants. Phytochem. 30:2623–2638.Google Scholar
Drost, W. J., Rakow, G., and Raney, P. 1999. Inheritance of glucosinolate content in yellow mustard. Proc. 10th International Rapeseed conference, Canberra, Australia. http://www.regional.org.au/au/gcirc/4/76.htm. Accessed: May 14, 2011.Google Scholar
Earlywine, D. T., Smeda, R. J., Teuton, T. C., Sams, C. E., and Xiong, X. 2010. Evaluation of oriental mustard (Brassica juncea L. Czern.) seed meal for weed suppression in turf. Weed Technol. 24:440–445.Google Scholar
Hansson, D., Morra, M. J., Borek, V., Snyder, A. J., Johnson-Maynard, J. L., and Thill, D. C. 2008. Ionic thiocyanate (SCN−) production, fate, and phytotoxicity in soil amended with Brassicaceae seed meals. J. Agric. Food Chem. 56:3912–3917.Google Scholar
Hoagland, L., Carpenter-Boggs, L., Reganold, J. P., and Mazzola, M. 2008. Role of native soil biology in Brassicaceous seed meal-induced weed suppression. Soil Biol. Biochem. 40:1689–1697.Google Scholar
Katepa-Mupondwa, F., Rakow, G., and Raney, P. 1999. Developing oilseed yellow mustard (Sinapis alba L.) in Western Canada. Abstract, 10th International Rapeseed Congress, Canberra, Australia. http://www.regional.org.au/au/gcirc/4/56.htm. Accessed: May 14, 2011.Google Scholar
Knezevic, Z., Streibig, J. C., and Ritz, C. 2007. Utilizing R software package for dose-response studies: the concept and data analysis. Weed Technol. 21:840–848.Google Scholar
Miller, T. W. 2006. Natural herbicides and amendments for organic weed control. Pages 174–175 in Felsot, A. S. and Racke, K. D., eds. Crop Protection Products for Organic Agriculture. ACS Symposium Series 947. Washington, DC American Chemical Society.Google Scholar
Rice, A. R., Johnson-Maynard, J. L., Thill, D. C., and Morra, M. J. 2007. Vegetable crop emergence and weed control following amendment with different Brassicaceae seed meals. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 22:204–212.Google Scholar
Schuster, A. and Friedt, W. 1998. Glucosinolate content and composition as parameters of quality of Camelina seed. Ind. Crop. Prod. 7:297–302.Google Scholar
Seefeldt, S. S., Jensen, J. E., and Fuerst, E. P. 1995. Log-logistic analysis of herbicide dose-response relationships. Weed Technol. 19:218–227.Google Scholar
Svenson, S. and Deuel, W. 2000. Using quinoclamine and meadowfoam seed meal to control liverworts in containers. Proc. South. Nurs. Res. Conf. 45:391–393.Google Scholar
Vaughn, S. F. and Berhow, M. A. 2005. Glucosinolate hydrolysis products from various plant sources: pH effects, isolation and purification. Ind. Crop. Prod. 21:193–202.Google Scholar
Vaughn, S. F., Boydston, R. A., and Mallory-Smith, C. 1996. Isolation and identification of (3-methoxyphenyl) acetonitrile as a phytotoxin from meadowfoam (Limnanthes alba) seedmeal. J. Chem. Ecol. 22:1939–1949.Google Scholar
Vaughn, S. F., Palmquist, D. E., Duval, S. M., and Berhow, M. A. 2006. Herbicidal activity of glucosinolate-containing seedmeals. Weed Sci. 54:743–748.Google Scholar