Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T08:33:12.287Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed Control in Glyphosate-Tolerant Lettuce (Lactuca sativa)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Steven A. Fennimore  and
Kai Umeda
Steven A. Fennimore*
Affiliation:
Department of Vegetable Crops and Weed Science, University of California–Davis, 1636 East Alisal, Salinas, CA 93905
Kai Umeda
Affiliation:
University of Arizona, Maricopa County, 4341 East Broadway Road, Phoenix, AZ 85040
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: safennimore@ucdavis.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted in Arizona and California to evaluate the performance of glyphosate-tolerant lettuce and to determine the critical time of weed removal. Glyphosate was applied as a single or as a sequential application at 840 g ae/ha. Single glyphosate applications were made to lettuce at the two-, four-, six-, and eight-leaf stages. Sequential applications were made to lettuce at the two- or four-leaf stage followed by (fb) a second application 14 d after the first. Weed control efficacy, weeding times, and lettuce yield were all measured. Overall, glyphosate applied postemergence (POST) provided better weed control than the commercial standards bensulide or pronamide applied preemergence. Single glyphosate applications at the four-leaf stage and sequential applications at the two-leaf stage fb a second application 14 d later provided excellent control of most weeds, including redroot pigweed. Estimates of the critical time of weed removal were 26 to 29 d after emergence. Glyphosate treatments caused no adverse effects on lettuce. Lettuce head fresh weights in the glyphosate treatments were equal to or higher than those in bensulide or pronamide treatments. For crops such as lettuce, with few effective herbicides, the development of glyphosate-tolerant lettuce offers the opportunity to develop effective POST weed control programs.

Keywords

Bensulideglyphosatepronamideredroot pigweed, Amaranthus retroflexus L. #3 AMARElettuce, Lactuca sativa L. ‘RR Raider 323’CAPBPCapsella bursa-pastorisCHEALCHEMUChenopodium albumChenopodium muraleECHCOEchinochloa colonumglyphosate-tolerant lettuceherbicide toleranceiceberg lettuceLEFUNLeptochloa uninervaMALPAMalva parvifloraPOROLPortulaca oleraceaSolanum sarrachoidesSOLSAtime-of-applicationDAE, days after emergencefb, followed byPOST, postemergence
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 17 , Issue 4 , December 2003 , pp. 738 - 746
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

Askew, S. D. and Wilcut, J. W. 1999. Cost and weed management with herbicide programs in glyphosate-resistant cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 13:308–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[CA DPR] California Department of Pesticide Regulation. 2001. 2000 Annual Pesticide Use Report. Department of Pesticide Regulation, Sacramento, CA.Google Scholar
Clayton, G. W., Harker, K. N., O'Donovan, J. T., Baig, M. N., and Kidnie, M. J. 2002. Glyphosate timing and tillage system effects on glyphosate-resistant canola (Brassica napus). Weed Technol. 16:124–130.Google Scholar
Cudney, D. W., Bell, C. E., Smith, R. F., Lanini, W. T., LeStrange, M., Fennimore, S. A., and Bendixen, W. E. 2002. Lettuce Herbicide Treatment Table. UC DANR Publication 3339. Web page: http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu.Google Scholar
Endres, G. J., Hendrickson, P. E., Schatz, B., and Valenti, S. A. 2002. Weed control and crop response with Roundup-Ready spring wheat. Proc. West. Soc. Weed Sci 55:68–69.Google Scholar
Faircloth, W. H., Patterson, M. G., Monks, C. D., and Goodman, W. R. 2001. Weed management programs for glyphosate-tolerant cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 15:544–551.Google Scholar
Fennimore, S. A. 2001. Future weed management options for vegetable producers. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr 41:140.Google Scholar
Forcella, F., Wilson, R. G., Renner, K. A., Dekker, J., Harvey, R. G., Alm, D. A., Buhler, D. D., and Cardina, J. 1992. Weed seedbanks of the U.S. Corn Belt: magnitude, variation, emergence, and application. Weed Sci. 40:636–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldman, L. R. 1997. Raw and processed food schedule for pesticide tolerance reassessment notice. Fed. Reg 67:42019–42030.Google Scholar
Halford, C., Hamill, A. S., Zhang, J., and Doucet, C. 2001. Critical period of weed control in no-till soybean (Glycine max) and corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 15:737–744.Google Scholar
Lanini, W. T. and Strange, M. Le. 1991. Low-input management of weeds in vegetable fields. Calif. Agric 45:11–13.Google Scholar
Nagata, R. T., Dusky, J. A., Ferl, R. J., Torres, A. C., and Cantliffe, D. J. 2000. Evaluation of glyphosate resistance in transgenic lettuce. J. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci 125:669–672.Google Scholar
Northsworthy, J. K. and Oliver, L. R. 2001. Competitive potential and economic analysis of a glyphosate-tolerant/conventional soybean (Glycine max) mix. Weed Technol. 15:177–183.Google Scholar
Roberts, H. A., Hewson, R. T., and Ricketts, M. A. 1977. Weed competition in drilled summer lettuce. Hortic. Res 17:39–45.Google Scholar
Ryder, E. J. 1999. Crop Production Science in Horticulture 9. Lettuce, Endive and Chicory. Wallingford, UK: CABI Pp. 79–89.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1991. SAS System for Linear Models. 3rd ed. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. Pp 151–152.Google Scholar
Scott, R., Shaw, D. R., and Barrentine, W. L. 1998. Glyphosate tank mixtures with SAN 582 for burndown or postemergence applications in glyphosate-tolerant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 12:23–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaner, D. L. 2000. The impact of glyphosate-tolerant crops on the use of other herbicides and on resistance management. Pestic. Manag. Sci 56:320–326.Google Scholar
Shrefler, J. W., Dusky, J. A., Shilling, D. G., Brecke, B. J., and Sanchez, C. A. 1994. Effects of phosphorous fertility on competition between lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) and spiny amaranth (Amaranthus spinosus L). Weed Sci. 42:556–560.Google Scholar
Swanton, C. J., Shrestha, A., Chandler, K., and Deen, W. 2000. An economic assessment of weed control strategies in no-till glyphosate-resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 14:755–763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torres, A. C., Nagata, R. T., Ferl, R. J., Bewick, T. A., and Cantiliffe, D. J. 1999. In vitro assay selection of glyphosate resistance in lettuce. J. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci 124:86–89.Google Scholar
[USDA] United States Department of Agriculture. 2001. Agricultural Statistics 2001. Chapter IV. Statistics of Vegetables and Melons. Washington, DC: Agricultural Statistics Board, NASS USDA.Google Scholar
[USEPA] United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1994. R.E.D. Facts: Pronamide. Washington, DC: Environmental Protection Agency EPA-738-F-94-007. 7 p.Google Scholar
[WSSA] Weed Science Society of America. 2002. Herbicide Handbook. 8th ed. Vencill, W. K., ed. Lawrence, KS: Weed Science Society of America. Pp. 231–234.Google Scholar