Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T07:50:10.316Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of Postemergence and Postemergence-Directed Halosulfuron on Triploid Watermelon (Citrullus Lanatus)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Peter J. Dittmar ,
David W. Monks ,
Jonathan R. Schultheis  and
Katherine M. Jennings
Peter J. Dittmar*
Affiliation:
North Carolina State University, Campus Box 7609, Raleigh, NC 27695-7609
David W. Monks
Affiliation:
North Carolina State University, Campus Box 7609, Raleigh, NC 27695-7609
Jonathan R. Schultheis
Affiliation:
North Carolina State University, Campus Box 7609, Raleigh, NC 27695-7609
Katherine M. Jennings
Affiliation:
North Carolina State University, Campus Box 7609, Raleigh, NC 27695-7609
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: pjdittma@ncsu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Studies were conducted in 2006 at Clinton and Kinston, NC, to determine the influence of halosulfuron POST (over the crop plant) or POST-directed (to the crop) on growth and yield of transplanted ‘Precious Petite’ and ‘Tri-X-313’ triploid watermelon. Treatments included a nontreated control, 39 g/ha halosulfuron applied POST-directed to 25% of the plant (distal or proximal region), POST-directed to 50% of the plant (distal or proximal; Precious Petite only), and POST. Watermelon treated with halosulfuron displayed chlorotic leaves, shortened internodes, and increased stem splitting. Vines were longest in the nontreated control (Tri-X-313 = 146 cm, Precious Petite = 206 cm) but were shortest in the POST treatment (Tri-X-313 = 88 cm, Precious Petite = 77 cm). Halosulfuron POST to watermelon caused the greatest injury (Tri-X-313 = 64%, Precious Petite = 67%). Halosulfuron directed to 25 or 50% (distal or proximal) of the plant caused less injury than halosulfuron applied POST. Stem splitting was greatest when halosulfuron was applied to the proximal area of the stem compared with POST-directed distal or POST. Internode shortening was greatest in treatments where halosulfuron was applied to the distal region of the stem. However, Tri-X-313 in the POST-directed 25% distal treatment produced similar total and marketable fruit weight as the nontreated control at Clinton. Fruit number did not differ among treatments for either cultivar. At Kinston, Precious Petite nontreated control and POST-directed 25% distal end treatment had greater marketable fruit weight than the POST-directed 50% proximal and POST treatments. The current halosulfuron registration allows POST application between rows or PRE. Limiting halosulfuron contact to no more than 25% of the watermelon plant will likely improve crop tolerance.

Keywords

Halosulfuronwatermelon, Citrullus lanatus (Thunb.) Matsum. & Nakai ‘Tri-X-313’ and ‘Precious Petite’Crop injurydirected sprayherbicidesulfonylureanutsedge control
Type
Weed Management — Other Crops/Areas
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 22 , Issue 3 , September 2008 , pp. 467 - 471
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

Ackley, J. A., Wilson, H. P., and Hines, T. E. 1996. Yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus) control POST with acetolactate synthase-inhibiting herbicides. Weed Technol. 10:576–580.Google Scholar
Anonymous 2006. Sandea® herbicide product label. Gowan Publication No. 01-R0705. Yuma, AZ Gowan Co. 7.Google Scholar
Brandenberger, L. P., Talbert, R. E., Wiedenfeld, R. P., Shrefler, J. W., Webber, C. L. III, and Malik, M. S. 2005. Effects of halosulfuron on weed control in commercial honeydew crops. Weed Technol. 19:346–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buker, R. S. III, Stall, W. M., and Olson, S. M. 1997. Watermelon tolerance to halosulfuron applied preemergence and postemergence. Proc. Annu. Meet. Fla. State Hortic. Soc. 110:323–325.Google Scholar
Buker, R. S. III, Stall, W. M., Olson, S. M., and Schilling, D. G. 2003. Season-long interference of yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus) with direct-seeded and transplanted watermelon (Citrullus lanatus). Weed Technol. 17:751–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowler, C. C. 1998. Weed survey—southern states. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 51:299–313.Google Scholar
Henson, I. E. and Little, E. C. S. 1969. Penetration of polyethylene film by the shoots of Cyperus rotundus . Pest Artic. News. 15:64–66.Google Scholar
Johnson, W. C. III and Mullinix, B. G. Jr. 1999. Cyperus esculentus interference in Cucumis sativus . Weed Sci. 47:327–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, W. C. III and Mullinix, B. G. Jr. 2005. Effect of herbicide application method on weed management and crop injury in transplanted cantaloupe production. Weed Technol. 19:108–112.Google Scholar
Molin, W. T., Maricic, A. A., Khan, R. A., and Mancino, C. F. 1999. Effect of MON 12037 on the growth and tuber viability of purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus). Weed Technol. 13:1–5.Google Scholar
Morales-Payan, J. P., Santos, B. M., Stall, W. M., and Bewick, T. A. 1997. Effects of purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus) on tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) and bell pepper (Capsicum annuum) vegetative growth and fruit yield. Weed Technol. 11:672–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Santos, B. M., Bewick, T. A., Stall, W. M., and Shilling, D. G. 1997. Competitive interactions of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) and nutsedges (Cyperus spp.). Weed Sci. 4:229–233.Google Scholar
Starke, K. D., Monks, D. W., Mitchem, W. E., and Macrae, A. W. 2006. Response of five summer squash (Cucurbita pepo) cultivars to halosulfuron. Weed Technol. 20:617–621.Google Scholar
Talbert, R. E., Schmidt, L. A., Wells, J. A., Rutledge, J. S., and Parker, D. 1997. Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station Field Evaluation of Herbicides on Small Fruit, Vegetable, and Ornamental Crops. Fayetteville, AR University of Arkansas, AAES Research Series 461.Google Scholar
Trader, B. W. 2002. Weed control in cucumber (Cucumis sativus), pumpkin (Cucurbita maxima), and summer squash (Cucurbita pepo) with halosulfuron. Master's thesis. Blacksburg, VA Virginia Tech. 74.Google Scholar
Vencill, W. K., Richburg, J. S. III, Wilcut, J. W., and Hawf, L. R. 1995. Effect of MON 12037 on purple (Cyperus rotundus) and yellow (Cyperus esculentus) nutsedge. Weed Technol. 9:148–152.Google Scholar
Webster, T. M. and Culpepper, A. S. 2005. Halosulfuron has a variable effect on cucurbit growth and yield. HortSci. 40:707–710.Google Scholar
Webster, T. M., Culpepper, A. S., and Johnson, W. C. III. 2003. Response of squash and cucumber cultivars to halosulfuron. Weed Technol. 17:173–176.Google Scholar
Wells, J. and Talbert, R. 1998. Control of yellow nutsedge in cucurbits. Pages 114–117. In: Clark, J. R. and Richardson, M. D., editors. Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station Horticultural Studies 1998. Fayetteville, AR University of Arkansas, AAES Research Series 466 1998. 120.Google Scholar