Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T13:50:46.650Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Tolerance of Chickpeas to Postemergence Broadleaf Herbicides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 November 2017

Rick A. Boydston*
Affiliation:
Research Agronomist, Legume Genetics and Physiology Research Unit, Agricultural Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Prosser, WA
Howard Nelson
Affiliation:
Agronomist, Central Washington Grain Growers, Wilbur, WA
Bernardo Chaves-Cordoba
Affiliation:
Research Associate, Washington State University, Prosser, WA
*
Author for correspondence: Rick A. Boydston, Legume Genetics and Physiology Research Unit, Agricultural Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Prosser, WA 99350. (Email: rick.boydston@ars.usda.gov)

Abstract

Chickpea producers currently have no POST applied herbicides labeled for broadleaf weed control and rely heavily on PRE herbicides to manage weeds. Severe crop losses from broadleaf weed competition and harvest losses from weeds impeding harvest can occur when PRE herbicides perform poorly. Chickpea tolerance to POST applications of acifluorfen at 0.42 kg ai ha-1 and fomesafen at 0.28 kg ai ha-1 was tested at two sites in 2015. In 2016, both herbicides were tested on chickpeas when applied alone and in combination with pyridate at three sites. Acifluorfen and fomesafen injured chickpeas from 8 to 25% at 1 week after treatment (WAT) and 3 to 8% at 4 WAT in 2015 and from 16 to 40% at 1 WAT and 2 to 36% at 4 WAT in 2016. Pyridate applied POST at 1.00 kg ai ha-1 did not injure chickpeas or reduce yields. When pyridate was tank mixed with either acifluorfen or fomesafen, chickpea injury increased, but chickpeas recovered and yielded similar to nontreated checks or pyridate-treated plots. A low rate of metribuzin at 0.06 kg ai ha-1 tank mixed with pyridate had little impact on chickpea injury or weed control. In 2015, Russian thistle was controlled 100% by acifluorfen and fomesafen at Prosser at 28 DAT and both herbicides controlled the weed only 63% at Wilbur at 25 DAT. In 2016, all herbicide treatments reduced broadleaf weed densities equally ranging from 95 to 100% at Paterson, 50 to 100% at Prosser, and 78 to 98% at Wilbur. Chickpea yield was similar among POST herbicide treatments in all site-years. Acifluorfen, fomesafen, and pyridate have potential to improve control of susceptible broadleaf weeds that escape PRE herbicides chickpea production, but the potential for crop injury with acifluorfen and fomesafen warrant further evaluation.

Type
Weed Management-Other Crops/Areas
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2017 

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

Al-Thahabi, SA, Yasin, IZ, Abu-Irmaileh, BE, Haddad, NI, Saxena, MC (1994) Effect of weed removal on productivity of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L) and lentil (Lens culinaris Med) in a Mediterranean environment. J Agron Crop Sci 172:333341 Google Scholar
Anonymous (2003) Tough 5 EC herbicide label. EPA Reg. No. 100-880. Greensboro, NC: Syngenta Crop ProtectionGoogle Scholar
Dorigo, R (1999) The selectivity of flumetsulam to chickpeas, lentils, and vetch var. Popany. Pages 306–308 in Proceedings of the 12th Australian Weeds Conference. Hobart, Tasmania: Tasmanian Weed SocietyGoogle Scholar
Giménez-Espinosa, R, Jiménez-Díaz, R, De Prado, R (1995) Effects of pyridate on chickpea. Aust J Plant Physiol 22:731736 Google Scholar
Jefferies, ML, Willenborg, CJ, Bunyamin, T (2016) Response of chickpea cultivars to imidazolinone herbicide applied at different growth stages. Weed Technol 30:664676 Google Scholar
Kay, G, McMillan, MG (1990) PRE- and POST-emergent herbicides in chickpeas I. Crop tolerance. Pages 40–43 in Proceedings of the 9th Australian Weeds Conference Adelaide, South Australia: Crop Science Society of South Australia Inc.Google Scholar
Mohammadi, G, Javanshir, A, Khooie, FR, Mohammadi, SA (2005) Critical period of weed interference in chickpea. Weed Res 45:5763 Google Scholar
O’Neal, S (2017) Pest Management Strategic Plan for Pulse Crops (Chickpeas, Lentils, and Dry Peas) in the United States. Davis, CA: Western Integrated Pest Management Center. 83 pGoogle Scholar
Paolini, R, Faustini, F, Saccardo, F, Crino, P (2006) Competitive interactions between chickpea genotypes and weeds. Weed Res 46:335344 Google Scholar
Plew, JN, Hill, GD, Dastgheib, F (1994) Weed control in chickpeas (Cicer arietinum). Proc Agron Soc New Zealand 24:117124 Google Scholar
Seidel, JE, Russel, KW (1990) Pyridate – a new selective broad-leaved herbicide for post-emergence use in chickpeas. Pages 339–342 in Proceedings of the 9th Australian Weeds Conference. Adelaide, South Australia: Crop Science Society of South Australia Inc.Google Scholar
Tanveer, A, Javaid, MM, Irfan, M, Khaliq, A, Yaseen, M (2015) Yield losses in chickpea with varying densities of dragon spurge (Euphorbia dracunculoides). Weed Sci 63:522528 Google Scholar
Taran, B, Holm, F, Banniza, S (2013) Response of chickpea cultivars to pre- and post-emergence herbicide applications. Can J Plant Sci 93:279286 Google Scholar
Umeda, K, MacNeil, D (1999) University of Arizona Vegetable Report. http://arizona.openrepository.com/arizona/handle/10150/219974. Accessed August 23, 2017Google Scholar
Vasilakoglou, I, Vlachostergios, D, Dhima, K, Lithourgidis, A (2013) Response of vetch, lentil, chickpea and red pea to pre- or post-emergence applied herbicides. Spanish J Agric Res 11:11011111 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yenish, JP Schneider, P (2000) Weed Control and Crop Response to Herbicides in Chickpea Production. Tucson, AZ: Western Society of Weed Science Res Prog Rpt ISSN-0090-8142. p 89Google Scholar
Yousefi, AR, Alizadeh, HM, Rahimian, H (2007) Broadleaf weed control in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) with pre- and post-emergence herbicides. Res Crops 8:560564 Google Scholar