Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T10:29:49.912Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed Management in Fresh Market Spinach (Spinacia oleracea) with Phenmedipham and Cycloate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Ran N. Lati ,
John S. Rachuy  and
Steven A. Fennimore
Ran N. Lati*
Affiliation:
University of California Davis, Department of Plant Sciences, 1636 East Alisal, Salinas, CA 93905
John S. Rachuy
Affiliation:
University of California Davis, Department of Plant Sciences, 1636 East Alisal, Salinas, CA 93905
Steven A. Fennimore
Affiliation:
University of California Davis, Department of Plant Sciences, 1636 East Alisal, Salinas, CA 93905
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: ranlati@ucdavis.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Fresh market spinach has limited herbicides available and weed management in this crop is dependent on hand-weeding. Phenmedipham is a POST herbicide registered for use on spinach grown for processing or for seed, but not fresh market spinach. This study evaluates the potential use of phenmedipham alone and in combination with cycloate for weed control in fresh spinach production. Greenhouse and field studies were conducted in 2013 using two spinach varieties known to have low and high tolerance to phenmedipham. The greenhouse studies showed that phenmedipham at 270 and 550 g ai ha−1 was safe to spinach when applied at the four-leaf stage for the low- and high-tolerance varieties, respectively. Phenmedipham was evaluated alone (550 g ha−1) and applied to the four-leaf stage in two varieties. Subsequently, a second experiment evaluated cycloate (1,700 g ha−1) followed by (fb) phenmedipham at several rates (90, 180, and 270 g ha−1). Phenmedipham alone (550 g ha−1) did not result in crop injury when applied to four-leaf spinach; however, the weed control was not better than cycloate alone. When applied as a sequential treatment following cycloate, all phenmedipham rates were safe to spinach and significantly improved weed control compared to cycloate alone. Cycloate fb phenmedipham at 270 g ha−1 provided 87% weed control relative to cycloate alone. This level of weed control was similar to the cycloate plus hand-weeding treatment, which provided 98% control. Results here show that cycloate fb phenmedipham improves weed control compared to cycloate alone, and has the potential to reduce hand-weeding costs in the fresh spinach production.

La espinaca para el mercado fresco tiene pocos herbicidas disponibles y el manejo de malezas en este cultivo depende de la deshierba manual. Phenmedipham es un herbicida POST registrado para su uso en espinaca producida para procesamiento o para semilla, pero no para espinaca para mercado fresco. Este estudio evalúa el potencial para el uso de phenmedipham solo y en combinación con cycloate para el control de malezas en producción de espinaca fresca. Se realizaron estudios de invernadero y de campo en 2013 usando dos variedades de espinaca que se sabía que tenían tolerancias a phenmedipham baja y alta. Los estudios de invernadero mostraron que phenmedipham a 270 and 550 g ai ha−1 fue seguro para la espinaca cuando se aplicó en el estadio de cuatro hojas para las variedades de baja y alta tolerancia, respectivamente. Se evaluó phenmedipham solo (550 g ha−1) y aplicado en el estadio de cuatro hojas en las dos variedades. Subsecuentemente, un segundo experimento evaluó cycloate (1,700 g ha−1) seguido de (fb) phenmedipham a varias dosis (90, 180, and 270 g ha−1). Phenmediphan solo (550 g ha−1) no resultó en daño al cultivo cuando se aplicó a espinacas en el estadio de cuatro hojas. Sin embargo, el control de malezas no fue mejor que el cycloate solo. Cuando se aplicó como un tratamiento secuencial después de cycloate, todas las dosis de phenmedipham fueron seguras para la espinaca y mejoraron significativamente el control de malezas en comparación con el cycloate solo. Cycloate fb phenmedipham a 270 g ha−1 brindó 87% de control de malezas en relación a cycloate solo. Este nivel de control de malezas fue similar al tratamiento de cycloate más deshierba manual, el cual brindó 98% de control. Los resultados muestran que cycloate fb phenmedipham mejora el control de malezas al compararse con cycloate solo, y tiene el potencial de reducir los costos asociados a la deshierba manual en la producción de espinaca fresca.

Keywords

Cycloatephenmediphamspinach, Spinacia oleracea L. ‘Nordic’ and ‘Regal’ SPQOLCycloatephenmediphamsequential applicationspinach injuryspinach yieldweed control in fresh spinach
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 29 , Issue 1 , March 2015 , pp. 101 - 107
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

Abdollahi, F, Ghadiri, H (2004) Effect of separate and combined applications of herbicides on weed control and yield of sugar beet. Weed Technol 18:968–976 Google Scholar
Agrian (2013a) Spin-Aid H Specimen Label. http://www.agrian.com/labelcenter/results.cfm. Accessed December 9, 2013Google Scholar
Agrian (2013b) Ro-Neet H Specimen Label. http://www.agrian.com/labelcenter/results.cfm. Accessed December 19, 2013Google Scholar
[CADPR] California Department of Pesticide Regulation (2013) Summary of Pesticide Use Report Data 2011. http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur11rep/comrpt11.pdf. Accessed January 11, 2014Google Scholar
Correll, JC, Bluhm, BH, Feng, C, Lamour, K, du Toit, LJ, Koike, ST (2011) Spinach: better management of downy mildew and white rust through genomics. Eur J Plant Pathol 129:193–205 Google Scholar
Dale, TM, Renner, KA, Kravchenko, AN (2006) Effect of herbicides on weed control and sugar beet (Beta vulgaris) yield and quality. Weed Technol 20:150–156 Google Scholar
Fennimore, SA, Doohan, DJ (2008) The challenges of specialty crop weed control, future directions. Weed Technol 22:364–372 Google Scholar
Fennimore, SA, Smith, RF, McGiffen, E Jr. (2001) Weed management in fresh market spinach (Spinacia oleracea) with S-metolachlor. Weed Technol 15:511–516 Google Scholar
Fennimore, SA, Tourte, LJ, Rachuy, JS, Smith, RF, George, CA (2010) Evaluation and economics of a machine-vision guided cultivation program in broccoli and lettuce. Weed Technol 24:33–38 Google Scholar
LeStrange, M, Koike, S, Valencia, J, Chaney, WE (2013) Spinach Production in California. http://ucanr.edu/repository/fileaccess.cfm?article=54021&p=%20PUIVXP&CFID=6609474&CFTOKEN=39025186. Accessed November 20, 2013Google Scholar
Morelock, TE, Correll, JC (2008) Spinach breeding, Pages 183–212 in Prohens, J Nuez, F, eds. Vegetables, I. New York: Springer Google Scholar
Norsworthy, JK, Smith, JP (2005) Tolerance of leafy greens to preemergence and postemergence herbicides. Weed Technol 19:724–730 Google Scholar
Smith, RF, LeStrange, M, Fennimore, SA (2013) Integrated Weed Control in Spinach. University of California, Pest Management Guidelines. http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/r732700111.html. Accessed November 11, 2013Google Scholar
Takele, E (2013) Spinach Production: Sample Costs and Profitability Analysis. http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu/pdf/8032.pdf. Accessed December 18, 2013Google Scholar
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2013) Vegetables: 2012 Summary. http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu.80/usda/. Accessed November 11, 2013.Google Scholar
Wallace, RW, Petty, AK (2007) Differential response of processing spinach varieties to clopyralid tank-mixes. Weed Technol 21:678–682 Google Scholar
Wallace, RW, Phillips, AL, Hodges, JC (2007) Processing spinach response to selected herbicides for weed control, crop injury, and yield. Weed Technol 21:714–718 Google Scholar