Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T09:21:12.153Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of Imazethapyr for Weed Control in Leafy Vegetable Crops

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Joan A. Dusky  and
William M. Stall
Joan A. Dusky
Affiliation:
Everglades Res. Educ. Cent., Univ. Florida, Belle Glade, FL 33430
William M. Stall
Affiliation:
Dep. Hortic. Sci., Univ. Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Imazethapyr was evaluated PRE and POST in five lettuce types and chicory under Florida field conditions. The relative sensitivity of leafy crop vigor (most sensitive to most tolerant) to imazethapyr PRE, based on 20% inhibition determined using regression analysis, was as follows: Boston > bibb > crisphead > romaine > leaf > escarole > endive. Leafy crop injury increased as the rate of imazethapyr applied POST increased, with all leafy crops responding in a similar manner. Surfactant addition increased imazethapyr phytotoxicity. Imazethapyr PRE treatments at 0.067 kg ai/ha provided greater than 80% control of livid amaranth, common purslane, flatsedge, and common lambsquarters. Imazethapyr POST at 0.067 kg/ha, with surfactant provided control greater than 85% of all weed species. Greater than 85% spiny amaranth control was provided by imazethapyr POST at 0.017 kg/ha. Use of surfactant with imazethapyr did not improve spiny amaranth control over imazethapyr with no surfactant. POST treatments did not decrease leafy crop yield compared with the hand-weeded check. Imazethapyr applied PRE reduced crop yield compared to the POST treatments and the hand-weeded control.

Keywords

Imazethapyr, 2-[4,5-dihydro-4-methyl-4-(1-methyethyl)-5-oxo-1H-imidazol-2-yl]-5-ethyl-3-pyridinecarboxylic acidlivid amaranth, Amaranthus lividus L. # AMALIspiny amaranth, Amaranthus spinosus L. # AMASPcommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. # CHEALflatsedge, Cyperus odoratus L. # CYPFEcommon purslane, Portulaca oleracea L. # POROLchicory, Cichorium endiva L.lettuce, Lactuca sativa L.Vegetable weed controlAMALIAMASPCHEALCYPFEPOROL
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , June 1996 , pp. 253 - 257
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. Anderson, R. N., 1964. Differential response of corn inbreds to simazine and atrazine. Weeds 12:60–61.Google Scholar
2. Anonymous. 1992. Vegetable Situation and Outlook Yearbook. USDA. Economic Research Service. TVS-258. Herndon, VA. 49 p.Google Scholar
3. Anonymous. 1994. Florida Agricultural Statistics. Vegetable Summary. Florida Agricultural Statistics Service. Orlando, FL. 80 p.Google Scholar
4. Arnold, R. N., Murray, M. W., Gregory, E. J., and Smeal, D. 1993. Weed control in pinto beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) with imazethapyr combinations. Weed Technol. 7:361–364.Google Scholar
5. Beste, C. E., 1988. Imazethapyr for lima beans. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 42:190.Google Scholar
6. Cantwell, J. R., Liebl, R. A., and Slife, F. W. 1989. Biodegradation characteristics of imazaquin and imazethapyr. Weed Sci. 37:815–819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Draper, N. R., and Smith, H. 1981. Applied Regression Analysis, 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York. p. 47–49.Google Scholar
8. Duah-Yentumi, S., and Kuwatsuka, S. 1982. Microbial degradation of benthiocarb, MCPA, and 2,4-D herbicides in perfused soils amended with organic matter and chemical fertilizers. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 28:19–26.Google Scholar
9. Dusky, J. A., and Stall, W. M. 1990. Imazethapyr: A potential herbicide for lettuce production on high organic matter soils. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 43:181.Google Scholar
10. Dusky, J. A., Stall, W. M., and White, J. M. 1988. Evaluation of herbicides for weed control in Florida lettuce production. Proc. Florida State Hortic. Soc. 101:367–370.Google Scholar
11. Friesen, G. H., and Wall, D. A. 1984. Response of potato (Solanum tuberosum) cultivars to metribuzin. Weed Sci. 32:442–444.Google Scholar
12. Goetz, A. J., and Lavy, T. L. 1989. Degradation of imazethapyr in Arkansas soils. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 42:341.Google Scholar
13. Goetz, A. J., Lavy, T. L., and Gbur, E. E. Jr., 1990. Degradation and field persistence of imazethapyr. Weed Sci. 38:421–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Harrison, H. F., Jones, A., and Dukes, P. D. 1987. Differential response of six sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas) cultivars to metribuzin. Weed Sci, 33:730–733.Google Scholar
15. Hart, R., Lignowski, E., and Taylor, F. 1991. Imazethapyr herbicide. p. 247–256 in Shaner, D. L. and O'Connor, S. L., eds. The Imidazolinone Herbicides. CRC Press Inc., Boca Raton, FL.Google Scholar
16. Hines, T. E., And Wilson, H. P. 1992. Varietal responses to clomazone. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 46:27.Google Scholar
17. Hopen, H. J., Hughes, R. L., and Michaelis, B. L. 1993. Selectivity among cabbage (Brassica oleracea L.) cultivars by clomazone. Weed Technol. 7:471–477.Google Scholar
18. Johnson, D. H., and Talbert, R. E. 1993. Imazethapyr and imazaquin control puncturevine (Tribulus terrestris) but carry over to spinach (Spinacia oleracea). Weed Technol. 7:79–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19. Kee, E., and Rider, L. 1988. Efficacy, phtotoxicity, soil residual of imazethapyr on peas and lima beans. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 42:191–198.Google Scholar
20. Loux, M. M., Liebl, R. A., and Slife, F. W. 1989. Adsorption of imazaquin and imazethapyr on soils, sediments, and selected adsorbents. Weed Sci, 37:712–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21. Loux, M. M., Liebl, R. A., and Slife, F. W. 1989. Availability and persistence of imazaquin, imazethapyr, and clomazone in soil. Weed Sci. 37:259–267.Google Scholar
22. Majek, B. A., 1988. Imazethapyr residue effects on several vegetable crops. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 42:227.Google Scholar
23. SAS Institute Inc. 1987. The ANOVA procedure. p. 125–154 in SAS/STAT Guide for Personal Computers, Ver. 6. SAS Inst., Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
24. Shaner, D. L., and Mallpudi, N. M. 1991. Mechanisms of selectivity of the imidazolinones. p. 91–102 in Shaner, D. L. and O'Connor, S. L., eds. The Imidazolinone Herbicides. CRC Press Inc., Boca Raton, FL.Google Scholar
25. Shrefler, J. W., Dusky, J. A., Shilling, D. G., Brecke, B. J., and Sanchez, C. A. 1994. Effects of phosphorus fertility on competition between lettuce (Lactuca sativa) and spiny amaranth (Amaranthus spinosus). Weed Sci. 42:556–560.Google Scholar
26. Shrefler, J. W., Shilling, D. G., Dusky, J. A., and Brecke, B. J. 1994. Influence of phosphorus fertility on intra- and interspecific interference between lettuce (Lactuca sativa) and spiny amaranth (Amaranthus spinosus). Weed Sci. 42:574–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27. Stall, W. M., Locascio, S. J., and Hochmuth, R. C. 1989. Preemergence and postemergence weed control in snap beans. Proc. Florida State Hortic. Soc. 102:329–332.Google Scholar
28. Tate, R. L., 1980. Microbial oxidation of organic matter of Histosols. Adv. Microbiol. Ecol. 4:169–201.Google Scholar