Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-6c8bd87754-xvt4m Total loading time: 0.26 Render date: 2022-01-18T15:11:55.012Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Tolerance of southern highbush and rabbiteye blueberry cultivars to saflufenacil

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2019

Ryan B. Aldridge
Affiliation:
Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
Katherine M. Jennings
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
Sushila Chaudhari*
Affiliation:
Postdoctoral Research Scholar, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
David W. Monks
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
Wesley J. Everman
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Department of Crop Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
Lucky K. Mehra
Affiliation:
Instructor, Department of Plant Pathology, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Sushila Chaudhari, Email: schaudh@ncsu.edu

Abstract

Greenhouse and field studies were conducted to determine tolerance of blueberry to saflufenacil. Greenhouse studies included five saflufenacil rates (0, 50, 100, 200, and 400 g ai ha−1) and three southern highbush blueberry cultivars (‘Legacy’, ‘New Hanover’, and ‘O’Neal’) and one rabbiteye blueberry cultivar (‘Columbus’). Saflufenacil treatments were soil applied into each pot when blueberry plants were approximately 30-cm tall. Visible injury (purpling/reddening of foliage and leaf abscission) ranged from 3% to 12%, 3% to 42%, 0% to 43%, and 0% to 29% with saflufenacil from 50 to 400 g ha−1 in Columbus, Legacy, New Hanover, and O’Neal, respectively, at 28 d after treatment. Regardless of injury, plant growth (change in height), soil plant analysis development, and whole-plant dry biomass of all cultivars did not differ among saflufenacil rates. Field studies were conducted in Burgaw, NC, to determine the tolerance of nonbearing (<3-yr-old and not mature enough to produce fruit) and bearing (>3-yr-old and mature enough to produce fruit) southern highbush blueberry (‘Duke’) to saflufenacil application at pre-budbreak or during the vegetative growth stage. Treatments included three rates of saflufenacil (50, 100, and 200 g ha−1), glyphosate (870 g ae ha−1), glufosinate (1096 g ai ha−1), glyphosate (870 g ha−1) + saflufenacil (50 g ha−1), glufosinate (1096 g ha−1) + saflufenacil (50 g ha−1), and hexazinone (1,120 g ai ha−1), applied POST-directed to the soil surface beneath blueberry plants in a 76-cm band on both sides of the blueberry planting row. The maximum injury from treatments containing saflufenacil was ≤11% in both nonbearing and bearing blueberry. No negative effects on plant growth or fruit yield were observed from any treatments. Results from both greenhouse and field studies suggest that saflufenacil applied at 50 (1X commercial use rate) and 100 g ha−1 is safe to use in blueberry.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2019 

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

Anonymous (2011) Kixor™ herbicide product label. Research Triangle Park, NC: BASF Corporation. 21 pGoogle Scholar
Anonymous (2013) Treevix™ herbicide product label. Research Triangle Park, NC: BASF Corporation. 12 pGoogle Scholar
Ashigh, J, Hall, JC (2010) Bases for interactions between saflufenacil and glyphosate in plants. J Agric Food Chem 58:73357343CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Basinger, NT, Jennings, KM, Monks, DW, Mitchem, WE, Chaudhari, S, Heitman, JL, Havlin, JL, Howard, AM, Spayd, SE (2018a) Vegetation-free strip width affects growth, berry composition, and yield of Cabernet Franc in vigorous growing environments. Catalyst: Discovery into Practice 2:1523 Google Scholar
Basinger, NT, Jennings, KM, Monks, DW, Mitchem, WE, Perkins-Veazie, PM, Chaudhari, S (2018b) In-row vegetation-free strip width effect on established ‘Navaho’ blackberry. Weed Technol 32:8589 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buckelew, JK, Mitchem, WE, Chaudhari, S, Monks, DW, Jennings, KM (2018a) Evaluating weed control and response of newly planted peach trees to herbicides. Int J Fruit Sci 18:383393 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buckelew, JK, Mitchem, WE, Monks, DW, Chaudhari, S, Jennings, KM, Mehra, LK (2018b) Effects of vegetation-free strip width and irrigation on newly planted peach. Int J Fruit Sci doi: 10.1080/15538362.2018.1545622 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Correia, NM, Gomes, LJP (2015) Selectivity of saflufenacil for sweet sorghum and potential use of Na-bentazon as a safener. Planta Daninha 33:267274 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delaplane, KS, Mayer, DF (2001) Crop Pollination by Bees. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Science. Pp 171181 Google Scholar
Demchak, K, ed (2013) The Mid-Atlantic Berry Guide for Commercial Growers, 2013–2014. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Cooperative Extension. Pp 115169 Google Scholar
Die, JV, Rowland, LJ (2013) Advent of genomics in blueberry. Mol Breed 32:493504 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duke, SO, Lydon, J, Becerril, JM, Sherman, TD, Lehnen, LP, Matsumoto, H (1991) Protoporphyrinogen oxidase inhibiting herbicides. Weed Sci 39:465473 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frans, R, Talbert, R, Marx, D, Crowley, H (1986) Experimental design and techniques for measuring and analyzing plant responses to weed control practices. Pages 29–46 in Camper, ND, ed., Research Methods in Weed Science. 3rd edn. Westminster, CO: Southern Weed Science Society Google Scholar
Geier, PW, Stahlman, PW, Charvat, LD (2009) Dose responses of five broadleaf weeds to saflufenacil. Weed Technol 23:313316 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goncalves, CG, Junior, ACDS, Pereira, MRR, Marchi, SR, Martins, D (2016) Selectivity of saflufenacil applied singly and in combination with glyphosate on coffee and citrus crops. Revista Caatinga 29:4553 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heap, I (2018) The International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. http://www.weedscience.org/summary/MOA.aspx?MOAID=12. Accessed: March 26, 2018Google Scholar
Hixson, AC (2008)Soil Properties Affect Simazine and Saflufenacil Fate, Behavior, and Performance. Ph.D dissertation. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University. 242 pGoogle Scholar
Jhala, AJ, Ramirez, AHM, Singh, M (2013) Tank mixing saflufenacil, glufosinate, and indaziflam improved burndown and residual weed control. Weed Technol 27:422429 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krewer, G, Cline, B, NeSmith, DS (2015) Southeast Regional Blueberry Horticulture and Growth Regulator Guide. University of Georgia Cooperative Extension. 15 p. http://www.smallfruits.org/assets/documents/ipm-guides/3_21_07SR_BlueberryHortGuide.pdf. Accessed: March 11, 2019Google Scholar
Liebl, RA, Walter, H, Bowe, SJ, Holt, TJ, Westberg, DE (2008)BAS 800H: a new herbicide for preplant burndown and preemergence dicot weed control. Page 120 in Proceedings of the Weed Science Society of America. Chicago, IL: Weed Science Society of AmericaGoogle Scholar
Meyers, SL, Jennings, KM, Monks, DW, Ballington, JR, Jordan, DL (2016) Weed control in Southern highbush blueberry with S-metolachlor, flumioxazin, and hexazinone. Int J Fruit Sci 16:150158 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, RT, Soltani, N, Robinson, DE, Kraus, TE, Sikkema, PH (2012) Soybean (Glycine max) cultivar tolerance to saflufenacil. Can J Plant Sci 92:13191328 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monaco, TJ, Weller, SC, Ashton, FM (2002) Fruit and Nut Crops. Pages 484499 in Monaco, TJ, Weller, SC, Ashton, FM, eds., Weed Science: Principles and Practices. 4th edn. New York: Wiley Google Scholar
[NCCE] North Carolina Cooperative Extension (2016) North Carolina Agricultural Chemicals Manual 2016. Raleigh, NC. Pp 294296 Google Scholar
Powles, S (2008) Evolved glyphosate resistant weeds around the world: lessons to be learnt. Pest Manag Sci 64:360365 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Retamales, JB, Hancock, JF (2012) Blueberry Pests, Their Management and Cultivar Resistance. Pages 231266 in Retamales, JB, Hancock, JF, eds., Blueberries. 1st edn. Wallingford, UK: CAB International Google Scholar
Roberts, MM (2009)Biology and Control of Maryland Meadow Beauty (Rhexia mariana L.) in Blueberry (Vaccinium spp.) in North Carolina. MS dissertation. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University. 59 pGoogle Scholar
Roberts, MM, Jennings, KM, Monks, DW (2016) Response of the weed Maryland meadowbeauty (Rhexia mariana L.) and blueberry to flumioxazin PRE. Int J Fruit Sci 16:301309 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, MM, Jennings, KM, Monks, DW, Burton, MG, Stowe, PS (2017) Seed biology of the weed Maryland meadowbeauty (Rhexia mariana L.) in blueberry (Vaccinium spp.). Int J Fruit Sci 17:323332 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sciarappa, WJ, Pavllis, GC (2004) Organic options for managing weeds in highbush blueberries. HortScience 39:831832 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, M, Malik, M, Ramirez, AH, Jhala, AJ (2011) Tank mix of saflufenacil with glyphosate and pendimethalin for broad-spectrum weed control in Florida citrus. HortTechnology 21:606615 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strik, BC, Yarborough, D (2005) Blueberry production trends in North America, 1992 to 2003, and predictions for growth. HortTechnology 15:391398 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture/National Agricultural Statistics Service (2016) 2016 Blueberry Statistics. https://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/New_Jersey/Publications/Blueberry_Statistics/2016%20BLUEBERRYSUM.pdf. Accessed: November 16, 2018Google Scholar
Wu, L, Boyd, N (2012) Management of spreading dogbane (Apocynum androsaemifolium) in wild blueberry fields. Weed Technol 26:777782 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Tolerance of southern highbush and rabbiteye blueberry cultivars to saflufenacil
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Tolerance of southern highbush and rabbiteye blueberry cultivars to saflufenacil
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Tolerance of southern highbush and rabbiteye blueberry cultivars to saflufenacil
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *