Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T13:15:21.573Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Growth and Competitiveness of Common Lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) after Foliar Application of Ascochyta caulina as a Mycoherbicide

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Corné Kempenaar ,
Petra J. F. M. Horsten  and
Piet C. Scheepens
Corné Kempenaar
Affiliation:
Res. Inst. for Agrobiology and Soil Fertility (AB-DLO), P.O. Box 14, 6700 AA Wageningen, The Netherlands
Petra J. F. M. Horsten
Affiliation:
Res. Inst. for Agrobiology and Soil Fertility (AB-DLO), P.O. Box 14, 6700 AA Wageningen, The Netherlands
Piet C. Scheepens
Affiliation:
Res. Inst. for Agrobiology and Soil Fertility (AB-DLO), P.O. Box 14, 6700 AA Wageningen, The Netherlands
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Control of common lambsquarters by the use of Ascochyta caldina as a postemergence mycoherbicide was studied in corn and sugar beet, in 1992 or 1993. The weed was planted at determined positions in the crops. Plots were treated with suspensions of A. caulina spores, and wetness duration's were varied to create different levels of disease development. Application of A. caulina resulted in necrosis development on, and mortality of common lambsquarters. Average severities of leaf necrosis 1 wk after treatment ranged from 0.01 to 0.75. Average proportions of dead plants 3 wk after treatment ranged from 0.00 to 0.65. Necrosis development and mortality were affected by wetness duration in two experiments. Sublethally diseased plants showed reduced growth. Maximum dry matter was affected by crop and by necrosis development. Numbers of fruits per plant showed a positive, almost linear relationship with plant dry matter weight. Seed weight was less affected by necrosis than number of fruits per plant. Competitiveness of common lambsquarters was reduced after infection by A. caulina. Crop dry matter weight showed a positive relationship with the level of common lambsquarters control. In corn, yield reduction by competition was prevented by application of A. caulina, but not in sugar beet.

Keywords

Common lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. ♯ CHEALCorn, Zea mays L.Sugar beet, Beta vulgaris subspecies vulgaris L.Ascochyta caulina v.d. Aa & v. KestBiological controlweed controlcompetitionpropagationCHEALintegrated pest management
Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 44 , Issue 3 , September 1996 , pp. 609 - 614
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. Bruzesse, E. and Hasan, S. 1983. A whole leaf clearing and staining technique for host specificity studies of rust fungi. Plant Patho. 32: 335–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Campbell, C. L. and Madden, L. V. 1990. Introduction to Plant Disease Epidemiology. John Wiley & Sons, New York. 532 pp.Google Scholar
3. Daniel, J. T., Templeton, G. E., Smith, R. J. Jr. and Fox, W. T. 1973. Biological control of Northern Jointvetch in rice with an endemic fungal disease. Weed Sci. 21: 303–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Holm, L. G., Pluckett, D. L., Pancho, J. V., and Herberger, J. P. 1977. Pages 84–91 in The World's Worst Weeds (Distribution and Biology). University Press of Hawaii, Honolulu.Google Scholar
5. Kempenaar, C. 1995. Studies on biological control of Chenopodium album by Ascochyta caulina. Ph.D.-Thesis, Agricultural University Wageningen, The Netherlands. 126 pp.Google Scholar
6. Kempenaar, C. and Schnieders, B. J. 1995. A method to obtain fast and uniform emergence of weeds for field experiments. Weed Res. (In press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Kempenaar, C., Horsten, P. J. F. M., and Scheepens, P. C. Spore germination and disease development after application of pycnidiospores of Ascochyta caulina to Chenopodium album plants. European J. of Plant Patho. (In press).Google Scholar
8. Lewis, J. 1973. Longevity of crop and weed seeds: survival after 20 years in soil. Weed Res. 13: 179–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Payne, R. W., Lane, P. W., Ainsley, A. E., Bicknell, K. E., Digby, P. G. N., Harding, S. A., Leech, P. K., Simpson, H. R., Todd, A. D., Verrier, P. J., White, R. P., Gower, J. C., Tunnicliffe Wilson, G., and Paterson, L. J. 1987. Genstat 5: Reference manual. Clarendon Press, Oxford. 749 pp.Google Scholar
10. Roberts, H. A. and Feast, P. M. 1973. Changes in the number of viable seeds in soil under different regimes. Weed Res. 3: 298–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Schroeder, D., Mueller-Schaerer, H., and Stinson, C. S. 1993. A European weed survey in 10 major crop systems to identify targets for biological control. Weed Res. 33: 449–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Templeton, G. E., TeBeest, D. O., and Smith, R. J. 1979. Biological weed control with mycoherbicides. Ann. Rev, of Phytopatho. 17: 301–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Tuite, J. 1969. Pages 183–184 in Plant Pathological Methods, Fungi and Bacteria. Burgess Publication Co., Minneapolis.Google Scholar
14. Van der Aa, H. A. and Van Kesteren, H. A. 1979. Some pycnidial fungi occurring on Atriplex and Chenopodium . Persoonia 10: 267–276.Google Scholar
15. Zimdahl, R. L. 1980. Weed Crop competition (a review). International Plant Protection Center, Corvallis, Oregon. 195 pp.Google Scholar