Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T11:00:40.692Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Response of Squash and Cucumber Cultivars to Halosulfuron

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Theodore M. Webster*
Affiliation:
Crop Protection and Management Research Unit, United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Coastal Plain Experiment Station, Tifton, GA 31794
A. Stanley Culpepper
Affiliation:
Crop and Soil Sciences, University of Georgia, Tifton 31794
W. Carroll Johnson III
Affiliation:
Crop Protection and Management Research Unit, United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Coastal Plain Experiment Station, Tifton, GA 31794
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: twebster@tifton.usda.gov

Abstract

Greenhouse studies were conducted to evaluate halosulfuron tolerance of several squash and cucumber cultivars commonly grown in Georgia. There was an inverse linear relationship between squash plant biomass and rate of halosulfuron (r 2 = 0.70 to 0.92). With the exception of ‘Supersett’, the slopes from regression of all squash cultivars were equivalent. The estimated amount of halosulfuron required to reduce growth by 20%, based on regression, ranged from 8.2 to 45 g ai/ha (for Supersett and ‘Dixie’, respectively). Squash plant height was also reduced by halosulfuron, though plants began to recover from the injury by the end of the study. There was no effect of halosulfuron rate on cucumber plant biomass or height. Cucumber cultivars appeared to be more tolerant to halosulfuron than did squash cultivars.

Type
Note
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

Culpepper, A. S. and Batts, R. B. 2001. Evaluation of halosulfuron in bareground watermelon culture. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 54: 78.Google Scholar
Garvey, P. V., Monks, D. W., Mitchem, W. E., and Mills, R. J. 1997. Tolerance of several vegetable crops to halosulfuron, dimethenamid, sulfentrazone, and clomazone. WSSA Abstracts 37: 19.Google Scholar
Harrison, H. F. and Fery, R. L. 1998. Response of leading bell pepper varieties to bentazon herbicide. Hortscience 33: 318320.Google Scholar
Mitchem, W. E. and Monks, D. W. 1997. Cucumber (Cucumis sativus) response to bentazon and halosulfuron. WSSA Abstracts 37: 20.Google Scholar
Seefeldt, S. S., Jensen, J. E., and Fuerst, E. P. 1995. Log-logistic analysis of herbicide dose-response relationships. Weed Technol. 9: 218227.Google Scholar
Stall, W. M. and Majek, B. A. 1995. Tolerance of cucurbits to MON 12037. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 48: 104.Google Scholar
Starke, K. D., Mitchem, W. E., Monks, D. W., and Garvey, P. V. 1998. Response of five squash varieties to halosulfuron applied PRE and POST. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 51: 91.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: 148152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, T. M. 2002. Weed survey—southern states: vegetable, fruit and nut crops subsection. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 55: 237258.Google Scholar
Webster, T. M., Csinos, A. S., Johnson, A. W., Dowler, C. C., Sumner, D. R., and Fery, R. L. 2001. Methyl bromide alternatives in a bell pepper-squash rotation. Crop Prot. 20: 605614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar