Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T00:37:26.368Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Processing Spinach Response to Selected Herbicides for Weed Control, Crop Injury, and Yield

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Russell W. Wallace ,
Aaron L. Phillips  and
John C. Hodges
Russell W. Wallace*
Affiliation:
Department of Horticultural Sciences, Texas A&M University, Lubbock, TX 79403
Aaron L. Phillips
Affiliation:
Del Monte Foods, Crystal City, TX 78839
John C. Hodges
Affiliation:
Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: rwwallace@ag.tamu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Only two spinach herbicides are currently available to producers, and with limited choices in herbicide mode of action (MOA), overuse of the current herbicides can result in dominance of uncontrolled weeds. Therefore, spinach producers need more herbicide options. Trials were conducted in processing spinach to evaluate the crop safety of dimethenamid-p (0.56 kg ai/ha), EPTC (2.94 to 3.40 kg ai/ha), or ethofumesate (0.84, 1.12 or 2.24 kg ai/ha) applied pre-emergent (PRE), and ethofumesate (0.09 or 0.18 kg ai/ha) applied early postemergent (EPOST) for potential use as alternatives to s-metolachlor (0.73 kg ai/ha) and cycloate (2.52 kg ai/ha). The control of London rocket was excellent with s-metolachlor, dimethenamid-p, and ethofumesate. Weed control with cycloate and EPTC was fair, and generally inferior to all others. Cycloate and s-metolachlor were safe to spinach, and only minor crop injury was observed with all other herbicides, except the high rate of ethofumesate PRE, which resulted in high levels of injury. Spinach outgrew all early herbicide injury with no significant yield losses. Ethofumesate applied EPOST caused no injury in year 1, although in year 2 injury was higher in all plots where it was applied twice, regardless of rate. In high-density plantings, dimethenamid-p caused significant crop injury to spinach, but only at one location on a sandy loam soil. In that trial, yields in dimethenamid-p plots were reduced an average 30% compared to the hand-weeded and s-metolachlor plots. As a result of this research, dimethenamid-p, EPTC, and ethofumesate should be considered candidates for expanded-use registrations in processing spinach production. More research is needed to determine additional rates and use patterns for improved crop safety, as well as an evaluation of soil types and spinach varieties.

Keywords

Cycloatedimethenamid-pEPTCethofumesates-metolachlorLondon rocket, Sisymbrium irio L. SSYIRspinach, Spinacia oleracea L., ‘DMC 66-09’, ‘Baker’Processing spinach productionweed controlspinach injury
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 21 , Issue 3 , September 2007 , pp. 714 - 718
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

Brandenberger, L., Wells, L. K., Havener, R., and Brothers, A. 2005. Screening of preemergence herbicides for use on spinach. in. 2005 Vegetable Weed Control Studies. Technical Report MP-162. Stillwater, OK Department of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture, Oklahoma State University. 13–14.Google Scholar
Fennimore, S. A., Smith, R. F., and McGiffen, M. E. Jr. 2001. Weed management in fresh market spinach (Spinacia oleracea) with s-metolachlor. Weed Technol. 15:511–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gianessi, L. and Reigner, N. 2005. Why California Organic Growers Want an Exemption from a Farm Worker Protection Rule. Research Brief No. 1. Washington, DC 20005 CropLife Foundation. 17.Google Scholar
Haar, M. J., Fennimore, S. A., McGiffen, M. E., Lanini, W. T., and Bell, C. E. 2002. Evaluation of preemergence herbicides in vegetable crops. Hort. Technol. 12:95–99.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Norsworthy, J. K. and Smith, J. P. 2005. Tolerance of leafy greens to preemergence and postemergence herbicides. Weed Technol. 19:724–730.Google Scholar
Smith, D. T. and Anciso, J. L. 2005. The Crops of Texas. Dept. Tech. Rep. SCS-2005-01. College Station, TX Department of Soil and Crop Sciences. Texas A & M University System. 63.Google Scholar
Smith, R. F., LeStrange, M., and Fennimore, S. A. 2001. Integrated weed control in spinach. University of California, Pest Management Guidelines. Davis, CA Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources. 29. Publication No. 3339.Google Scholar
Tei, F., Stagnari, F., and Granier, A. 2002. Preliminary results on physical weed control in processing spinach. in. Proceedings of the 5th EWRS Workshop on Physical and Cultural Weed Control, Pisa, Italy. March 11–13. Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue, Quebec, Canada Institut de Malherbologie. 164–171.Google Scholar
Wallace, R. W. and Hodges, J. C. 2005. Texas High Plains Vegetable and Weed Control Research Program: Research Summary Reports for 2004–2005. College Station, TX Department of Horticultural Sciences. Texas A & M University. 125.Google Scholar