Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T02:32:43.979Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pepper (Capsicum annuum) Cultivar Response to Metolachlor in Three New Mexico Soils

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Jill Schroeder
Jill Schroeder*
Affiliation:
Dep. Entomol., Plant Pathol. Weed Sci., N. Mex. State Univ., Las Cruces, NM 88003
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field experiments in 1988, 1989, and 1990 evaluated the response of four pepper cultivars to PPI applications of metolachlor at Las Cruces and Artesia, New Mexico. Metolachlor at ≥ 2.2 kg ai ha–1 in 1988 and 4.5 kg ha–1 in 1990 reduced overall green pepper yields only in a Harkey very fine sandy loam soil at Artesia. Metolachlor at ≥ 2.2 kg ha–1 reduced the yield of the jalapeno cultivar ‘TAM’ and at 4.5 kg ha–1 reduced the yield of New Mexico cultivar ‘NM 6-4’ and a proprietary New Mexico cultivar in 1988. Metolachlor did not reduce the yield of any cultivar in 1989 or 1990. Metolachlor bioactivity on NM 6-4 pepper was similar in the three soils regardless of irrigation water source. Emergence of peppers was ranked Belen clay loam = Rakor loam > Harkey very fine sandy loam when the greenhouse temperature approximated field conditions. Under conditions where germination and emergence of peppers was reduced by an interaction between soil factors and temperature, further stand reduction due to metolachlor treatment caused yield reductions.

Keywords

Metolachlor, 2-chloro-N-(2-ethyl-6-methylphenyl)-N-(2-methoxy-1-methylethyl)acetamidepeppers, Capsicum annuum L.Herbicide toleranceirrigation water qualitychile peppersjalapeno peppersthird party registration
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 6 , Issue 2 , June 1992 , pp. 366 - 373
Copyright
Copyright © 1990 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. Bellinder, R. R. and Warholic, D. T. 1988. Evaluation of acetanilide injury and its potential for yield reduction in cabbage, Brassica oleracea L. Weed Technol. 2:350–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Bellinder, R. R., Wilcox-Lee, D., Senesac, A., Warholic, D. T. 1989. Response of early-maturing cabbage (Brassica oleracea var. capitata) to metolachlor. Weed Technol. 3:463–466.Google Scholar
3. Belote, J. N. III, and Monaco, T. J. 1977. Factors involved in alachlor injury to the potato (Solanum tuberosum). Weed Sci. 25:482–486.Google Scholar
4. Bennett, M. A. and Gorski, S. F. 1989. Response of sweet corn (Zea mays) endosperm mutants to chloracetamide and thiocarbamate herbicides. Weed Technol. 3:475–478.Google Scholar
5. Boldt, L. D. and Barrett, M. 1989. Factors in alachlor and metolachlor injury to corn (Zea mays) seedlings. Weed Technol. 3:303–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Bosland, P. W., Bailey, A. L., and Iglesias-Olivas, J. 1990. Capsicum pepper varieties and classification. N. Mex. State Univ., Coop. Ext. Serv., Circ. 530, Coll. Agric. Home Econ. Las Cruces 13 p.Google Scholar
7. Braverman, M. P., Lavy, T. L., and Talbert, R. E. 1985. Effects of metolachlor residues on rice (Oryza sativa). Weed Sci. 33:819–824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Braverman, M. P., Lavy, T. L., and Barnes, C. J. 1986. The degradation and bioactivity of metolachlor in the soil. Weed Sci. 34:479–484.Google Scholar
9. Deal, L. M. and Hess, F. D. 1980. An analysis of the growth inhibitory characteristics of alachlor and metolachlor. Weed Sci. 28:168–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Ellis, T. W., Wilson, H. P., Mascianica, M. P., and Janssen, K. A. 1983. Influence of metolachlor on sweet corn (Zea mays saacharata) growth and nutrient accumulation. Weed Sci. 31:342–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Glover, C. R. 1980. The NMSU Irrigation Water Classification System. Guide A-116. Cooperative Extension Service New Mexico State University. Las Cruces 4 p.Google Scholar
12. Gore, C., Hand, J. G., Albelo, J., Hoel, S., Mapel, C. L., and Lawrence, J. 1989. New Mexico Agricultural Statistics 1989. U. S. Dep. Agric. and N. Mex. Agric. Stat Serv., N. Mex. Dep. Agric., Las Cruces, NM. 73 p.Google Scholar
13. Humburg, N. E., ed. 1989. Herbicide Handbook of the Weed Science Society of America. 6th ed. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. p. 180–183.Google Scholar
14. Jordan, G. L. and Harvey, R. G. 1978. Response of processing peas (Pisum sativum) and annual weeds to acetanilide herbicides. Weed Sci. 26:313–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Ketchersid, M. L., Norton, K., and Merkle, M. G. 1981. Influence of soil moisture on the safening effect of CGA-43089 in grain sorghum (Sorghum tricolor). Weed Sci. 29:281–287.Google Scholar
16. New Mexico State University, Cooperative Extension Service. 1985. Pesiticide use on New Mexico major crops in 1983. Coop. Ext. Serv. N. Mex. State Univ. Las Cruces 24 p.Google Scholar
17. Peter, C. J. and Weber, J. B. 1985. Adsorption, mobility and efficacy of alachlor and metolachlor as influenced by soil properties. Weed Sci. 33:874–881.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Rice, R. P. Jr. and Putnam, A. R. 1980. Temperature influences on uptake, translocation and metabolism of alachlor in snap beans (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Sci. 28:131–134.Google Scholar
19. Rowe, L. and Penner, D. 1990. Factors affecting chloroacetanilide injury to corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 4:904–906.Google Scholar
20. Rowe, L., Rossman, E., and Penner, D. 1990. Differential response of corn hybrids and inbreds to metolachlor. Weed Sci. 38:563–566.Google Scholar
21. Russell, E. W. 1973. Soil Conditions and Plant Growth. Tenth ed. Longman Group Limited, London and New York. p. 748–770.Google Scholar
22. Weber, J. B. and Peter, C. J. 1982. Adsorption, bioactivity, and evaluation of soil tests for alachlor, acetochlor and metolachlor. Weed Sci. 30:14–20.Google Scholar