Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T07:40:09.882Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Early-Season Weed Control Using Herbicides with Adjuvants in Direct-Seeded Onion

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

James R. Loken  and
Harlene M. Hatterman-Valenti
James R. Loken
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences, North Dakota State University, Department 7670, P.O. Box 6050, Fargo, ND 58108
Harlene M. Hatterman-Valenti*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences, North Dakota State University, Department 7670, P.O. Box 6050, Fargo, ND 58108
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: H.Hatterman.Valenti@ndsu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Early-season weed competition may cause substantial yield losses in onion. Oxyfluorfen and bromoxynil are POST herbicide options for weed control once onion has developed two leaves, which often takes 4 to 6 wk. Multiple applications of oxyfluorfen at 35 and 18 g ai ha−1 and bromoxynil at 35 and 18 g ae ha−1 with adjuvants were evaluated for onion safety and weed control under controlled greenhouse conditions. Oxyfluorfen at 35 g ha−1 plus organosilicone surfactant caused 42% onion injury at 12 d after three sequential applications. Onion treated with bromoxynil at 18 g ha−1 plus high surfactant oil concentrate had lower fresh weight (0.7 g) compared to methylated seed oil (MSO) (1.2 g) or petroleum oil concentrate (POC) (1.3 g) at the same bromoxynil rate. The addition of nonionic surfactant to bromoxynil, averaged across bromoxynil rates, provided 17 and 39% control of redroot pigweed and common lambsquarters, respectively. Redroot pigweed control with oxyfluorfen at 35 or 18 g ha−1 plus any tested adjuvant was excellent (≥ 93%). Results suggested the use of POC or MSO with either oxyfluorfen or bromoxynil for subsequent field trials because of similar common lambsquarters and redroot pigweed control and onion safety.

La competencia temprana durante la temporada de crecimiento puede causar pérdidas sustanciales de rendimiento en la cebolla. Oxyfluorfen y bromoxynil son opciones de herbicidas POST para el control de malezas cuando la cebolla ha desarrollado dos hojas, lo cual toma frecuentemente de 4 a 6 semanas. En condiciones de invernadero, se evaluó la seguridad en la producción de cebolla y el control de malezas de aplicaciones múltiples de oxyfluorfen a 35 y 18 g ai ha−1 y de bromoxynil a 35 y 18 g ae ha−1 con adyuvantes. Oxyfluorfen a 35 g ha−1 más surfactante organosilicone causó 42% de daño en la cebolla a 12 días después de tres aplicaciones secuenciales. Cebolla tratada con bromoxynil a 18 g ha−1 más surfactante de aceite de alta concentración tuvo un peso fresco menor (0.7 g) en comparación con el aceite metilado de semilla (MSO) (1.2 g) o el concentrado de aceite de petróleo (POC) (1.3 g) a la misma dosis de bromoxynil. La adición de surfactante no-iónico al bromoxynil, promediando todas las dosis de bromoxynil, brindó 17 a 39% de control de Amaranthus retroflexus y Chenopodium album, respectivamente. El control de A. retroflexus con oxyfluorfen a 35 ó 18 g ha−1 más cualquiera de los adyuvantes evaluados fue excelente (≥93%). Los resultados sugirieron el uso de POC o MSO ya sea con oxyfluorfen o bromoxynil para estudios de campo futuros por el control similar de A. retroflexus y C. album además de su seguridad en la cebolla.

Keywords

Bromoxyniloxyfluorfencommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L.redroot pigweed, Amaranthus retroflexus L.onion, Allium cepa L.Herbicideinjurymicroratereduced-rate
Type
Weed Management—Techniques
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 27 , Issue 2 , June 2013 , pp. 369 - 372
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

Anonymous. 2005. Buctril® herbicide product label. Bayer CropScience. http://www.cdms.net/LDat/ld405002.pdf. Accessed November 28, 2007.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2009. GoalTender® herbicide product label. Dow AgroSciences. http://www.cdms.net/LDat/ld6MH025.pdf. Accessed December 11, 2009.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2010. Prefar® 4-E herbicide product label. Gowan. http://www.cdms.net/LDat/ld142014.pdf. Accessed December 12, 2010.Google Scholar
Bell, C. E. and Boutwell, B. E. 2001. Combining bensulide and pendimethalin controls weeds in onions. Calif. Agric. 56(1):35–38.Google Scholar
Boydston, R. A. and Seymour, M. D. 2002. Volunteer potato (Solanum tuberosum) control with herbicides and cultivation in onion (Allium cepa). Weed Technol. 16:620–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brewster, J. L. 1994. Onions and other vegetable alliums. Wallingford, UK CAB International.Google Scholar
Dexter, A. G. 1994. History of sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris) herbicide rate reduction in North Dakota and Minnesota. Weed Technol. 8:334–337.Google Scholar
Dunan, C. M., Westra, P., Schweizer, E. E., Lybecker, D. W., and Moore, F. D. III. 1995. The concept and application of early economic period threshold: The case of DCPA in onions (Allium cepa). Weed Sci. 43:634–639.Google Scholar
Egel, D. 2012. Midwest Vegetable Production Guide for Commercial Growers. Relative Effectiveness of Herbicides for Vegetable Crops. http://www.btny.purdue.edu/Pubs/ID/ID-56/herbEffect.pdf. Accessed August 5, 2012.Google Scholar
Hazen, J. L. 2000. Adjuvants—terminology, classification, and chemistry. Weed Technol. 14:773–784.Google Scholar
Loken, J. R. and Hatterman-Valenti, H. M. 2010. Multiple applications of reduced-rate herbicides for weed control in onion. Weed Technol.: 24:153–159.Google Scholar
Melander, B. and Hartvig, P. 1997. Yield responses of weed-free seeded onions (Allium cepa L.) to hoeing close to the row. Crop Prot. 16:687–691.Google Scholar
Schumacher, C. E. and Hatterman-Valenti, H. M. 2007. Effect of dose and spray volume on early-season broadleaved weed control in Allium using herbicides. Crop Prot. 26:1178–1185.Google Scholar
Sikkema, P., Deen, W., and Vyas, S. 2005. Weed control in pea with reduced rates of imazethapyr applied preemergence and postemergence. Weed Technol. 19:14–18.Google Scholar
Steckel, L. E., DeFelice, M. S., and Sims, B. D. 1990. Integrating reduced rates of postemergence herbicides and cultivation for broadleaf weed control systems in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 38:541–545.Google Scholar
Woznica, Z., Nalewaja, J. D., Messersmith, C. G., and Milkowski, P. 2003. Quinclorac efficacy as affected by adjuvants and spray carrier water. Weed Technol. 17:582–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zollinger, R. K. 2000. Extension perspective on grower confusion in adjuvant selection. Weed Technol. 14:814–818.Google Scholar
Zollinger, R., ed. 2011. 2011 North Dakota Weed Control Guide. Fargo, ND North Dakota State University Extension Service Rep. W-253. 135 p.Google Scholar