Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T22:46:32.616Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Field evaluation of a fungal pathogen mixture for the control of seven weedy grasses

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

S. Chandramohan ,
R. Charudattan ,
R. M. Sonoda  and
Megh Singh
R. Charudattan
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Pathology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-0680
R. M. Sonoda
Affiliation:
Indian River Research and Education Center, University of Florida, Ft. Pierce, FL 34945
Megh Singh
Affiliation:
Citrus Research and Education Center, University of Florida, Lake Alfred, FL 33850
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In citrus, weedy grasses compete for moisture, nutrients, and light and can inhibit the growth of young trees and delay fruit production. These weeds are difficult to control, either because of their tolerance to available herbicides or due to growth habits that enable them to resist other control practices. Control of seven such weedy grasses (southern sandbur, large crabgrass, crowfootgrass, guineagrass, Texas panicum, johnsongrass, and yellow foxtail) with a mixture of three fungal pathogens, termed the multiple-pathogen strategy, was field tested in 1996 and 1998. Three fungi indigenous to Florida, Drechslera gigantea, Exserohilum longirostratum, and E. rostratum, isolated from large crabgrass, crowfootgrass, and johnsongrass respectively, were used. Two separate field studies were conducted: one study with seven grasses transplanted and grown within each plot (grass mixture field trial) and another study on a population of guineagrass alone present in a naturally infested field (guineagrass field trial). The objectives of this study were to (1) evaluate the field performance of D. gigantea, E. longirostratum, and E. rostratum individually and in a mixture to control the seven transplanted weedy grasses (grass mixture) and a population of guineagrass in a naturally infested field, respectively, and (2) compare the effectiveness of three carriers (water, Metamucil®, and an invert emulsion) on the bioherbicidal efficacy under field conditions. The fungi were applied as foliar sprays, each pathogen alone or in a mixture of the three fungi (1:1:1, v/v/v, for a total of 5 × 105 spores ml –1) in water, 0.5% aqueous Metamucil®, or an emulsion containing Sunspray® 6E. During the 14-wk experimental period, one or two additional sprays of all treatments were applied. Disease severity was recorded weekly for 4 to 6 wk after the initial spray (WAI). Maximum disease severities were obtained in emulsion-inoculum treatments, and were higher than those in the water-inoculum and the Metamucil-inoculum treatments. The pathogen mixture was equally effective as the individual pathogens in controlling the weeds tested. In the 1996 trial, 6 WAI, disease severity on grasses inoculated with D. gigantea spore suspensions in emulsion ranged from 78 to 100%, with E. longirostratum 90 to 100%, E. rostratum 79 to 100%, and the mixture 74 to 100%. In the 1998 trial, 4 WAI, disease severity on grasses inoculated with D. gigantea spore suspensions in emulsion ranged from 45 to 98%, with E. longirostratum 45 to 98%, E. rostratum 34 to 98%, and the mixture 32 to 98.5%. Thus, it was possible to manage all seven weedy grasses under field conditions using an emulsion-based inoculum preparation with the individual pathogens as well as the mixture of pathogens. The same three fungal pathogens were field tested for their ability to manage populations of guineagrass in a naturally infested field. The experimental design and treatments were identical to the field testing with the seven transplanted grasses. Two applications of an emulsion-based inoculum preparation of each pathogen or the mixture of pathogens effectively controlled guineagrass for up to 10 wk, with no regrowth.

Keywords

Bromacildiuronfluazifop-PglyphosatenorflurazonoryzalinoxyfluorfenparaquatsethoxydimsimazinethiazopyrDrechslera gigantea (Heald & Wolf) ItoExserohilum longirostratum (Subram.) Sivan.Exserohilum rostratum (Drechsler) Leonard & Suggs.southern sandbur, Cenchrus echinatus L. CCHECcrowfootgrass, Dactyloctenium aegyptium (L.) Willd. DTTAElarge crabgrass, Digitaria sanguinalis (L.) Scop. DIGSATexas panicum, Panicum texanum Buckl. PANTEguineagrass, Panicum maximum Jacq. PANMAyellow foxtail, Setaria glauca (L.) Beauv. SETLUjohnsongrass, Sorghum halepense (L.) Pers. SORHAankona sandcandler fine sandwinder sandBioherbicidebiological controlemulsionfungimultiple-pathogen strategypostemergence
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 50 , Issue 2 , April 2002 , pp. 204 - 213
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

Bendixen, L. E. 1986. Corn (Zea mays) yield in relationship to johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) population. Weed Sci. 34:449–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyette, C. D., Quimby, P. C. Jr., Connick, W. J. Jr., Daigle, D. J., and Fulgham, F. E. 1991. Progress in the production, formulation and application of mycoherbicides. Pages 209–222 In TeBeest, D. O., ed. Microbial Control of Weeds. New York: Chapman Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyette, C. D., Templeton, G. E., and Smith, R. J. 1979. Control of winged water primrose (Jussiae decurrens) and northern jointvetch (Aeschynomene virginica) with fungal pathogens. Weed Sci. 27:497–501.Google Scholar
Chandramohan, S. and Charudattan, R. 1996. Multiple-pathogen strategy for bioherbicidal control of several weeds. WSSA Abstr. 36:49.Google Scholar
Chandramohan, S. and Charudattan, R. 1998. A technique for mass production and multiple-harvesting of two bioherbicide fungi by solidsubstrate culturing. WSSA Abstr. 38:81.Google Scholar
Chandramohan, S. and Charudattan, R. 1999. Nontarget host reactions to inoculation with a mixture of three bioherbicidal fungi: Drechslera gigantea, Exserohilum longirostratum, and E. rostratum . Phytopathology 89 (Suppl.): S13. [Abstract]Google Scholar
Chiang, M., Van Dyke, C. G., and Chilton, W. S. 1989. Four foliar pathogenic fungi for controlling seedling johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense). Weed Sci. 37:802–809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crawley, D. K. and Walker, H. L. 1983. Interaction of two fungal pathogens of spurred anoda. Proc. South. WSSA Abstr. 36:136.Google Scholar
Futch, S. H. 2000. Weed control in Florida citrus. Pages 6–9 In Emerson, S., ed. Citrus & Vegetable Magazine. Tampa, FL: Vance Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
Gomez, K. A. and Gomez, A. A. 1984. Arcsine transformation. Pages 306–307 In Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research. 2nd ed. New York: J. Wiley.Google Scholar
Green, S., Stewart-Wade, S. M., Boland, G. J., Teshler, M. P., and Liu, S. H. 1998. Formulating microorganisms for biological control of weeds. Pages 249–281 In Boland, G. J. and Kuykendall, L. D., eds. Plant-Microbe Interactions and Biological Control. New York: Marcel Dekker.Google Scholar
Holm, L. G., Pluchnett, D. L., Pancho, J. V., and Herberger, J. P. 1977. The World's Worst Weeds: Distribution and Biology. Honolulu, HI: The University Press of Hawaii. pp. 54–372.Google Scholar
Horsfall, J. G. and Barratt, R. W. 1945. An improved grading system for measuring plant disease. Phytopathol. Abstr. 35:655.Google Scholar
Jain, R. and Singh, M. 1988. Growth and herbicidal response of two biotypes of guineagrass. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 41:124.Google Scholar
Keeley, P. E. and Thullen, R. J. 1991. Growth and interaction of bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. 39:570–574.Google Scholar
Rhodes, D. J. 1990. Formulation requirements for biological control agents. Asp. Appl. Biol. 24:145–153.Google Scholar
Singh, M. 1985. Perennial problem weeds and their control in tree fruits. Annual Meeting, Proceedings of the American Society for Horticultural Science. July 29-August 2, 1985. Blacksburg, VA.Google Scholar
Singh, M. 1986. Fluazifop-butyl and Sethoxydim for grass control in citrus. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 39:184.Google Scholar
Singh, M. and Tucker, D. P. H. 1983. Preemergence herbicides for weed control in citrus. HortSci. Abstr. 18:172.Google Scholar
Singh, M. and Tucker, D. P. H. 1984. Herbicide evaluation for weed control in Florida citrus nurseries and groves. Proc. Int. Soc. Citric. 1:81–185.Google Scholar
Singh, M., Tucker, D. P. H., and Combs, B. S. 1984. Evaluation of postemergence grass herbicides in citrus. WSSA Abstr. 24:24.Google Scholar
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1988. Soil Taxonomy. Soil Conservation Series Publication. Lincoln, NE: National Soil Survey Center.Google Scholar
Weller, S. C., Skroch, W. A., and Monaco, T. J. 1985. Common bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) interference in newly planted peach (Prunus persica) trees. Weed Sci. 33:50–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, C. S. and Hayes, R. M. 1984. Johnsongrass competition in Soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 32:498–501.Google Scholar
Yang, S. M., Johnson, D. R., Dowler, W. M., and Connick, W. J. Jr. 1993. Infection of leafy spurge by Alternaria alternata and A. angustiovoidea in the absence of dew. Phytopathology 83:953–958.Google Scholar