Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T10:29:31.240Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tolerance of Selected Advanced Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) Breeding Lines to Fomesafen

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Nilda R. Burgos ,
Lynn P. Brandenberger ,
Erin N. Stiers ,
Vinod K. Shivrain ,
Dennis R. Motes ,
Linda Wells ,
Steve Eaton ,
Larry W. Martin  and
Teddy E. Morelock
Nilda R. Burgos*
Affiliation:
Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701
Lynn P. Brandenberger
Affiliation:
Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74708
Erin N. Stiers
Affiliation:
Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701
Vinod K. Shivrain
Affiliation:
Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701
Dennis R. Motes
Affiliation:
University of Arkansas Vegetable Substation, Kibler, AR 72921
Linda Wells
Affiliation:
Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74708
Steve Eaton
Affiliation:
University of Arkansas Vegetable Substation, Kibler, AR 72921
Larry W. Martin
Affiliation:
University of Arkansas Vegetable Substation, Kibler, AR 72921
Teddy E. Morelock
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: nburgos@uark.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Chemical options for weed control in commercial cowpea production are limited. Repeated long-term use of the acetolactate synthase (ALS) inhibitor, imazethapyr, has resulted in selection for ALS-resistant populations of Palmer amaranth. Experiments were conducted at Bixby, OK, and Kibler, AR, from 2001 to 2003 to evaluate the tolerance of cowpea cultivars and advanced breeding lines to fomesafen, a potential alternative for controlling ALS-resistant Palmer amaranth and other problematic broadleaf weeds. Eight commercial cultivars and 42 advanced breeding lines were entered in the preliminary screening, using 0.84 kg/ha fomesafen. Six breeding lines were selected for the first replicated trial and three (00-582, 00-584, and 00-609) were advanced to across-location experiments. Fomesafen doses of 0, 0.17, 0.34, and 0.67 kg/ha were tested across locations. ‘Early Scarlet’ was used as commercial standard. The advanced lines had equal or higher yield potential (1,182 to 1,936 kg/ha) than Early Scarlet (1,108 kg/ha) across locations. Of the cultivars tested, line 00-609 was the best yielder, whereas 00-584 had the highest tolerance to fomesafen. At the commercial fomesafen rate of 0.34 kg/ha, 00-584 had higher yield (974 and 1,735 kg/ha, respectively, at Bixby, OK, and Kibler, AR) than the nontreated, weed-free, Early Scarlet. Thus, fomesafen can be used on the tolerant line, 00-584, without reducing yield potential relative to Early Scarlet.

Keywords

FomesafenimazethapyrPalmer amaranthAmaranthus palmeri S. Watts. AMAPAcowpeaVigna unguiculata L. WalpBroadleaf weed controlherbicide optionsherbicide resistance management
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 21 , Issue 4 , December 2007 , pp. 863 - 868
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

Albright, J. W. and Harvey, R. G. 1983. Influence of early-season postemergence injury on soybean yield. Proc. North. Central Weed Control Conf. 1983 4–5.Google Scholar
Baldev-Ram 2004. Nutrient depletion by weeds, weed control efficiency and productivity of pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum) as influenced by intercropping systems and integrated weed management. Indian J. Agric. Sci. 74:534–538.Google Scholar
Bell, C. E. 2000. Weed control in carrots: the efficacy and economic value of linuron. Hortscience 35:1089–1091.Google Scholar
Brar, M. S. 1999. Micropropagation, regeneration, and genetic transformation of U.S. cowpea cultivars. Ph.D dissertation. Fayetteville, AR University of Arkansas.Google Scholar
Burgos, N. R., Kuk, Y. I., and Talbert, R. E. 2001. Amaranthus palmeri resistance and differential tolerance of Amaranthus palmeri and Amaranthus hybridus to ALS-inhibitor herbicides. Pest Manag. Sci. 57:449–457.Google Scholar
Colby, S. R. 1983. Fomesafen, a breakthrough in postemergence soybean weed control. Abstr. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. 28. [Abstract].Google Scholar
Ehlers, J. D. and Hall, A. E. 1997. Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L. Walp.). Field Crop Res. 53:187–204.Google Scholar
Ferguson, G. M., Hamill, A. S., and Tardif, F. J. 2001. ALS inhibitor resistance in populations of Powell amaranth and redroot pigweed. Weed Sci. 49:448–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fery, R. L. 1981. Cowpea production in the United States. Hortscience 16:273–474.Google Scholar
Franssen, A. S., Skinner, D. Z., Al-Khatib, K., Horak, M. J., and Kulakow, P. A. 2001. Interspecific hybridization and gene flow of ALS resistance in Amaranthus species. Weed Sci. 49:598–606.Google Scholar
Gaeddert, J. W., Peterson, D. E., and Horak, M. J. 1997. Control and cross-resistance of an acetolactate synthase inhibitor-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) biotype. Weed Technol. 11:132–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gianessi, L. P. and Sankula, S. 2003. The value of herbicides in U.S. crop production. Washington, DC National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy. 16. http://www.heartland.org, Accessed: February 19, 2007.Google Scholar
Hinz, J. R-R. and Owen, M. D. K. 1997. Acetolactate synthase resistance in a common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) population. Weed Technol. 11:13–18.Google Scholar
[IITA] International Institute of Tropical Agriculture 2004. Annual Report. Ibadan, Nigeria IITA http://www.iita.org/cms/details/annualreport. Accessed: March 19, 2007.Google Scholar
Latunde-Data, A. O. 1990. Genetic manipulations of the cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L. Walp.) for enhanced resistance to fungal pathogens and insect pests. Pages 133–154. in Brady, N.C. ed. Advances in Agronomy. San Diego Academic.Google Scholar
Lee, H. J., Duke, M. V., and Duke, S. O. 1993. Cellular localization of protoporphyrinogen-oxidizing activities of etiolated barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) leaves (relationship to mechanism of action of protoporphyrinogen oxidase-inhibiting herbicides). Plant Physiol. 102:881–889.Google Scholar
Manley, B. S., Wilson, H. P., and Hines, T. E. 1996. Smooth pigweed (Amaranthus hybridus) and livid amaranth (A. lividus) response to several imidazolinone and sulfonylurea herbicides. Weed Technol. 10:835–841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MP-44 Arkansas 2006. Recommended chemicals for weed and brush control—weed response ratings for soybean herbicides. Pages 37. in Scott, R.C., Boyd, J.W., Smith, K.L., ed Fayetteville, AR Cooperative Extension Service, University of Arkansas.Google Scholar
Pavese, E. J. 1983. Fomesafen: a new selective herbicide for soybean. Malezas. 11:224–234.Google Scholar
Rachie, K. O. 1985. Introduction. Pages xxi–xxviii. in Singh, S.R., Rachie, K.O. eds. Cowpea Research, Production, and Utilization. Chichester, England Wiley.Google Scholar
SAS SAS User's Guide. Version 8.2. 2004. Cary, NC SAS Institute.Google Scholar
Sprague, C. L., Stoller, E. W., Wax, L. M., and Horak, M. J. 1997. Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) resistance to selected ALS-inhibiting herbicides. Weed Sci. 45:192–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vidrine, P. R., Reynolds, D. B., and Griffin, J. L. 1991. Postemergence hemp sesbania (Sesbania exaltata) control in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 6:374–377.Google Scholar
Wang, G. Y., Ehlers, J. D., Ogbuchiekwe, E. J., Yang, Shengping, and McGriffin, M. E. Jr. 2004. Competitiveness of erect, semierect, and prostrate cowpea genotypes with sunflower (Helianthus annuus) and purslane (Portulaca oleracea). Weed Sci. 52:815–820.Google Scholar
Webster, T. M. 2006. Weed survey—southern states: vegetables, fruit and nut crops subsection. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 59:260–277.Google Scholar
Zegada-Lizarazu, W., Izumi, Y., and Iijima, M. 2006. Water competition of intercropped pearl millet with cowpea under drought and soil compaction stresses. Plant Prod. Sci. 9:123–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zegada-Lizarazu, W., Niitembu, S., and Iijima, M. 2005. Mixed planting with legumes modified the water source and water use of pearl millet. Plant Prod. Sci. 8:433–440.Google Scholar