Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-45l2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T10:28:48.778Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Horse purslane (Trianthema portulacastrum) control in pigeonpea with PRE and POST herbicides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 April 2020

Gulshan Mahajan Open the ORCID record for Gulshan Mahajan [Opens in a new window] ,
R. C. N. Rachaputi  and
Bhagirath Singh Chauhan
Gulshan Mahajan*
Affiliation:
Postdoctoral Fellow, Queensland Alliance for Agriculture and Food Innovation, The University of Queensland, Gatton, Queensland, Australia Principal Agronomist, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, India
R. C. N. Rachaputi
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Queensland Alliance for Agriculture and Food Innovation, The University of Queensland, Gatton, Queensland, Australia
Bhagirath Singh Chauhan
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Queensland Alliance for Agriculture and Food Innovation, The University of Queensland, Gatton, Queensland, Australia School of Agriculture and Food Sciences, The University of Queensland, Gatton, Queensland, Australia
*
Author for correspondence: Gulshan Mahajan, Queensland Alliance for Agriculture and Food Innovation, The University of Queensland, Gatton, Queensland, Australia. (Email: g.mahajan@uq.edu.au)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Pigeonpea has great potential as a profitable summer legume rotational crop in cereal farming systems of subtropical Australia. Pigeonpea requires season-long weed control, but options for controlling broadleaf weeds in pigeonpea with POST herbicides are limited. The objective of this study was to evaluate the performance of different herbicides (PRE: pendimethalin; POST: acifluorfen, bentazon, and imazapic) applied singly or in sequence for horse purslane control in pigeonpea and their impact on pigeonpea yield. Field experiments were conducted in 2017 and 2018 at Gatton, Australia. Pendimethalin applied PRE at 1.14 kg ai ha−1 reduced horse purslane biomass by 87% and 92% and produced 32% and 105% higher grain yield compared with the nontreated control in 2017 and 2018, respectively. Imazapic applied POST at 0.10 kg ai ha−1 reduced horse purslane biomass by 79% and 82% and increased grain yield by 60% and 88% compared with the nontreated control in 2017 and 2018, respectively. Acifluorfen applied POST (0.34 and 0.42 kg ai ha−1) caused 16% to 48% injury to pigeonpea at 45 d after treatment. Control of horse purslane ranged from 87% to 92% (biomass reduction) with pendimethalin applied PRE at 1.14 kg ai ha−1 and was comparable with pendimethalin applied PRE at 0.91 kg ai ha−1 in the sequential application, and imazapic at 0.08 kg ai ha−1 or bentazon at 0.96 kg ai ha−1. The study findings suggest if farmers miss the PRE application of pendimethalin or are unable to achieve season-long weed control, POST application of imazapic is an alternate. This research provided herbicide options for control of horse purslane in pigeonpea that could be used in rotations for reducing the selection pressure of weeds.

Keywords

Acifluorfenbentazonimazapicpendimethalinhorse purslane, Trianthema portulacastrum L.pigeonpea, Cajanus cajan (L.) MillspPhytotoxicitysequential spraytolerancetropical green peaweed
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 34 , Issue 5 , October 2020 , pp. 764 - 769
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2020

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.)

Footnotes

Associate Editor: Amit Jhala, University of Nebraska, Lincoln

References

Beran, DD, Masters, RA, Gaussoin, RE (1999) Grassland legume establishment with imazethapyr and imazapic. Agron J 91:592–596 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bidlack, JE, Middick, A, Shantz, D, MacKown, CT, Williams, RD, Rao, SC (2006) Weed control in a pigeon pea–wheat cropping system. Field Crops Res 96:63–70 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Böger, P, Beese, B, Miller, R (1977) Long-term effects of herbicides on the photosynthetic apparatus II. Investigations on bentazon inhibition. Weed Res 17:61–67 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charles, G (2006) Herbicides for pigeonpea trap crops. WEEDpak. March 2006. http://www.insidecotton.com/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1/995/WeP%20I2%20Pigeon%20pea%20management.pdf?sequence=29&isAllowed=y. Assessed: 15 August 2019Google Scholar
Goyal, SN, Tikka, SBS, Patel, NM, Ahlawat, IPS (1991) Integrated weed management in pigeonpea. Indian J Agron 36:52–54 Google Scholar
[GRDC] Grains Research & Development Corporation (2014) Mungbeans. http://www.mungbean.org.au/assets/grdc-grownotes-mungbeans.pdf. Accessed: 17 January, 2020Google Scholar
Grichar, WJ (2007) Horse purslane (Trianthema portulacastrum), smellmelon (Cucumis melo), and Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) control in peanut with postemergence herbicides. Weed Technol 21:688–691 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grichar, WJ (2008) Herbicide systems for control of horse purslane (Trianthema portulacastrum L.), smellmelon (Cucumis melo L.), and Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats) in peanut. Peanut Sci 35:38–42 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jursik, M, Soukup, J, Holec, J, Andr, J, Hamouzová, K (2015). Efficacy and selectivity of pre-emergent sunflower herbicides under different soil moisture conditions. Plant Protect Sci 51:214–222 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kočárek, M, Artikov, H, Voříšek, K, Borůvka, L (2016). Pendimethalin degradation in soil and its interaction with soil microorganisms. Soil Water Res 11:213–219 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahajan, G, Chauhan, BS, Gill, MS (2013) Dry-seeded rice culture in Punjab state of India: lesson learned from farmers. Field Crops Res 144:89–99 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahajan, G, Rachaputi, RCN, Chauhan, BS (2019) Integrated weed management using row arrangements and herbicides in pigeonpea in Australia. Crop Pasture Sci 70:676–683 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malik, RS, Yadav, A (2014) Effect of sowing time and weed management on performance of pigeon pea. Indian J Weed Sci 46:132–134 Google Scholar
Mine, A, Matsunaka, S (1975) Mode of action of bentazon: effect on photosynthesis. Pesticide Biochem Physiol 5:444–450 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reddy, AS, Rao, PV, Babu, PV, Rao, YK (2016) Response of integrated weed management practices on growth and yield of pigeonpea [Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp]. Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci 5:610–616 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saxena, MC, Yadav, DS (1975) Some agronomic considerations of pigeonpea and chickpea. Pages 31-61 in Proceedings, International Workshop on Grain Legumes. Hyderabad, India, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics13–16 January 1975Google Scholar
Singh, G, Sekhon, HS (2013) Integrated weed management in pigeon pea [Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.]. World J Agric Sci 9:86–91 Google Scholar
Talnikar, AS, Kadam, GL, Karande, DR, Jogdand, PB (2008) Integrated management in pigeonpea [Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.]. Int J Agric Sci 4:363–370 Google Scholar
Tripathi, SS, Vivek, (1995) Evaluation of dinitroaniline herbicides for weed management in pigeonpea. Indian J Weed Sci 27:152–153 Google Scholar
Tu, M, Hurd, C, Randall, JM (2001) Imazapyr. In Weed Control Methods Handbook. The Nature Conservancy. https://www.invasive.org/gist/products/handbook/methods-handbook.pdf. Accessed: 15 August 2019Google Scholar
Umarani, R, Selvaraj, JA (1995) Studies on the growth and yield of carpet weed (Trianthema portulacastrum) as influenced by soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merrill). Indian J Weed Sci 27:209–210 Google Scholar
Umeda, K, MacNeil, D (1999) Garbanzo bean weed control study. Vegetable: A College of Agriculture Report. http://arizona.openrepository.com/arizona/handle/10150/219974. Accessed: 15 August 2019Google Scholar
Vaishya, RD, Khan, AM (1989) Weed management with herbicides in pigeonpea. International Pigeonpea Newsletter 9:14–16 Google Scholar
Varshney, JG (1993) Weed management in pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan L.) and green gram (Phaseolus radiatus) intercropping system. Indian J Agric Sci 63:4–7 Google Scholar
Wilcut, JW, York, AC, Grichar, WJ, Wehtje, GR (1995) The biology and management of weeds in peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Pages 207–244 in Pattee, HE, Stalker, HT, eds. Advances in Peanut Science. Stillwater, OK: Amer Peanut Research and Education Society Google Scholar
Wrubel, RP, Gressel, J (1994) Are herbicide mixtures useful for delaying the rapid evolution of resistance? A case study. Weed Technol 8:635–648 Google Scholar