Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T13:45:56.921Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Herbicides Tolerated by Cuphea (Cuphea viscosissima × lanceolata)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Frank Forcella ,
Gary B. Amundson ,
Russell W. Gesch ,
Sharon K. Papiernik ,
Vince M. Davis  and
Winthrop B. Phippen
Frank Forcella*
Affiliation:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, North Central Soil Conservation Research Laboratory, Morris, MN 56267
Gary B. Amundson
Affiliation:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, North Central Soil Conservation Research Laboratory, Morris, MN 56267
Russell W. Gesch
Affiliation:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, North Central Soil Conservation Research Laboratory, Morris, MN 56267
Sharon K. Papiernik
Affiliation:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, North Central Soil Conservation Research Laboratory, Morris, MN 56267
Vince M. Davis
Affiliation:
Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907
Winthrop B. Phippen
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, Western Illinois University, Macomb, IL 61455
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: forcella@morris.ars.usda.gov
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Partial seed retention line #23(‘PSR23’) cuphea is a hybrid of Cuphea viscosissima × C. lanceolata. It is a new, spring-planted, annual, potential oilseed crop that is highly susceptible to interference by weeds because of its slow growth during spring and early summer. Grass weeds are controlled easily in this broadleaf crop, but broadleaf weeds are an appreciable problem. Consequently, several broadleaf herbicides were screened for tolerance by ‘PSR23’ cuphea. Broadleaf herbicides to which cuphea showed tolerance in a spray cabinet and a greenhouse were tested in a field setting for 2 yr. Field tolerance was considered as absence of negative impact (P > 0.05) both years to any of four measured traits: overall vigor, dry weight, stand density, and time to anthesis. Cuphea showed tolerance in the field to three soil-applied herbicides (ethalfluralin, isoxaflutole, and trifluralin) and one postemergence herbicide (mesotrione). A few combinations of soil-applied and postemergence herbicides did not damage cuphea. These combinations were ethalfluralin followed by (fb) mesotrione, isoxaflutole fb imazethapyr, and isoxaflutole fb mesotrione. Availability of these herbicides for use in cuphea production may facilitate the domestication and acceptance of this new crop.

Keywords

‘PSR23’ cupheaCuphea viscosissima Jacq. × C. lanceolata f. silenoides W. T. AitonCapric acidethalfluralinisoxaflutoleimazethapyrlauric acidmesotrioneoilseedPSR23trifluralinfb, followed byMCFA, medium chain fatty acidPA, plant-appliedPPI, preplant incorporated‘PSR23’, partial seed retention line #23SA, soil-applied
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 19 , Issue 4 , December 2005 , pp. 861 - 865
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. 1997. Statistix for Windows. Tallahassee, FL: Analytical Software. 333 p.Google Scholar
Gesch, R. W., Forcella, F., Barbour, N., Phillips, B., and Voorhees, W. B. 2002. Yield and growth response of Cuphea to sowing date. Crop Sci. 42:1959–1965.Google Scholar
Gesch, R. W., Forcella, F., Barbour, N. W., Voorhees, W. B., and Phillips, B. 2003. Growth and yield response of Cuphea to row spacing. Field Crops Res. 81:193–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gunsolus, J. L., Becker, R. L., Durgan, B. R., Porter, P. M., and Dexter, A. G. 2003. Cultural and Chemical Weed Control in Field Crops. BU-03157-S. St. Paul: University of Minnesota Extension Service. 92 p.Google Scholar
Hirsinger, F. 1985. Agronomic potential and seed composition of Cuphea, an annual crop for lauric and capric seed oils. J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc. 62:76–80.Google Scholar
Knapp, S. J. 1993. Breakthroughs towards the domestication of Cuphea . in Janick, J. and Simon, J. E., eds. New Crops. New York: Wiley. Pp. 372–379.Google Scholar
Knapp, S. J. and Crane, J. M. 2000. Registration of reduced shattering Cuphea germplasm PSR23. Crop Sci. 41:299–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zollinger, R. K., Berglund, D. R., Dexter, A. G., Endres, G. J., Gregoire, T. D., Howatt, K. A., Jenks, B. M., Kegode, G. O., Lym, R. G., Messersmith, C. G., Thostenson, A. A., and Valenti, H. H. 2004. North Dakota Weed Control Guide. Circular W-253. Fargo: North Dakota State University Extension Service. 132 p.Google Scholar