Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T14:18:34.343Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Response of Eastern Black Nightshade (Solanum ptycanthum) to Low Rates of Imazethapyr and Metolachlor

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Katherine I. Ward
Affiliation:
University of Western Ontario, London, ON N6A 5B9 Canada
Susan E. Weaver
Affiliation:
Agric. & Agri-Food Canada, Research Ctr., Harrow, ON NOR 1G0 Canada

Abstract

Eastern black nightshade is a problem weed in soybeans primarily due to interference with harvesting operations and reductions in crop quality. Field and greenhouse studies were conducted in 1990 and 1991 at Harrow, Ontario, to determine whether sublethal rates of imazethapyr and metolachlor could suppress growth and berry production by eastern black nightshade. In the greenhouse, plants treated with metolachlor PRE at 0.8 kg ai ha−1 or imazethapyr POST at 30 g ai ha−1 (1/3 to 1/2 the labelled rates) produced significantly fewer berries in the first flower cluster, with fewer seeds per berry, than untreated plants. When a surfactant was added to the imazethapyr, almost all flower buds in the first cluster were aborted. Treated plants recovered from the damage, however, and did not differ significantly from control plants in dry weight or berry production 110 DAP. In the field, application of 50 g ai ha−1 imazethapyr POST (2/3 of the lowest labelled rate), with or without a surfactant, resulted in delayed flowering, abortion of most of the flower buds in the first cluster, and greatly reduced growth and total berry production between soybean leaf abscision and harvest. Application of metolachlor + metribuzin PPI in the field at 2/3 of the labelled rate (1.6 + 0.25 kg ai ha−1) was not sufficient to reduce nightshade growth and berry production after soybean leaf abscision. Sublethal rates of imazethapyr and metolachlor did not reduce seed viability in either the greenhouse or the field.

Type
Weed Management
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. Bassett, I. J. and Munro, D. B. 1985. The biology of Canadian weeds. 67. Solanum ptycanthum Dun., S. nigrum L. and S. sarrachoides Sendt. Can. J. Plant Sci. 65: 401414.Google Scholar
2. Defelice, M. S., Brown, W. B., Aldrich, R. J., Sims, B. D., Judy, D. T., and Guethle, D. R. 1989. Weed control in soybeans (Glycine max) with reduced rates of postemergence herbicides. Weed Sci. 37: 365374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. de Ruiter, H., Uffing, A.J.M., Meinen, E., and Prins, A. 1990. Influence of surfactants and plant species on leaf retention of spray solutions. Weed Sci. 38: 567572.Google Scholar
4. Devlin, D. L., Long, J. H., and Maddux, L. D. 1991. Using reduced rates of postemergence herbicides in soybeans. Weed Technol. 5: 834840.Google Scholar
5. Hamill, A. S. and Zhang, J. 1995. Herbicide reduction in metribuzin-based weed control programs in corn. Can. J. Plant Sci. 75: 927933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Hermanutz, L. A. and Weaver, S. E. 1994. Variability in metribuzin tolerance among ruderal and agrestal populations of Solanum ptycanthum Dun. Can. J. Plant Sci. 74: 395401.Google Scholar
7. Hume, L. and Shirriff, S. 1989. The effect of 2,4-D on growth and germination of lamb's-quarters (Chenopodium album L.) plants having different degrees of tolerance. Can. J. Plant Sci. 69: 897902.Google Scholar
8. Jensen, P. E. and Kudsk, P. 1988. Prediction of herbicide activity. Weed Res. 28: 473478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Kent, L. M., Wills, G. D., and Shaw, D. R. 1991. Influence of ammonium sulfate, imazapyr, temperature, and relative humidity on the absorption and translocation of imazethapyr. Weed Sci. 39: 412416.Google Scholar
10. Klingaman, T. E., King, C. A., and Oliver, L. R. 1992. Effect of application rate, weed species, and weed stage of growth on imazethapyr activity. Weed Sci. 40: 227232.Google Scholar
11. Misra, M. K. 1987. Removal of black nightshade contamination from soybean seeds. Seed Sci. and Tech. 15: 219227.Google Scholar
12. Ogg, A. G. Jr. 1986. Variation in response of four nightshades (Solanum spp.) to herbicides. Weed Sci. 34: 765772.Google Scholar
13. Ogg, A. G. Jr. and Rogers, B. S. 1989. Taxonomy, distribution, biology and control of black nightshade (Solanum nigrum) and related species in the United States and Canada. Rev. Weed Sci. 4: 2558.Google Scholar
14. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food. 1995. Guide to Weed Control. Publication 75. Toronto, Ontario, Canada.Google Scholar
15. Quackenbush, L. S. and Andersen, R. N. 1984. Effect of soybean (Glycine max) interference on eastern black nightshade (Solanum ptycanthum). Weed Sci. 32: 638645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Steckel, L. E., Defelice, M. S., and Sims, B. D. 1990. Integrating reduced rates of postemergence herbicides and cultivation for broadleaf weed control in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 38: 541545.Google Scholar
17. Stoller, E. W. and Myers, R. A. 1989. Effects of shading and soybean Glycine max (L.) interference on Solanum ptycanthum (Dun.) (eastern black nightshade) growth and development. Weed Res. 29: 307316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Zhang, J. and Cavers, P. B. 1994. Effect of herbicide application on fruit characters of Xanthium strumarium L. populations. Can. J. Plant Sci. 34: 319326.Google Scholar
19. Zhang, J., Cavers, P. B., and Jasieniuk, M. 1994. Response of Xanthium strumarium populations to sublethal applications of bentazone. Weed Res. 34: 5561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar