Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ndmmz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-09T16:02:39.563Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Potential for Halosulfuron to Control Eclipta (Eclipta prostrata) in Container-Grown Landscape Plants and Its Sorption to Container Rooting Substrate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Glenn R. Wehtje ,
Charles H. Gilliam ,
Timothy L. Grey  and
Eugene K. Blythe
Glenn R. Wehtje
Affiliation:
Horticulture, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849
Charles H. Gilliam
Affiliation:
Horticulture, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849
Timothy L. Grey*
Affiliation:
Crop and Soil Science, University of Georgia, Tifton, GA 31794
Eugene K. Blythe
Affiliation:
Horticulture, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: tgrey@uga.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Eclipta is a seed-borne summer annual that is problematic in the production of container-grown landscape plants. Halosulfuron at 70 g/ha is registered as a directed application to landscape areas but not to container-grown landscape plants. Halosulfuron was applied preemergence (PRE) to seeded eclipta and postemergence (POST) to progressively older eclipta seedlings at rates ranging from 0.18 to 100 g/ha. For halosulfuron PRE treatments, eclipta control was determined from the foliage weight of surviving seedlings. For halosulfuron POST treatments, control was determined from the weight of foliage regrowth following the removal of the treated foliage 2 wk after treatment. Nonlinear regression and log-logistic analysis indicated that the rate required for 90% control (I90) for halosulfuron PRE was 45 g/ha. For halosulfuron POST, the I90 was 60 g/ha for plants having five or fewer true leaves and 98 g/ha for plants that had lateral branching from the basal crown. Analysis estimated the I90 for flowering-sized eclipta exceeded 300 g/ha. Selective placement studies revealed that the phytotoxicity resulting from POST treatments occurs by foliar and root uptake, with foliar exposure having greater activity. For POST treatments that were limited to foliage-only contact, a split application increased control up to 25% compared with a single application of the same total dosage. However, control remained inadequate because the rate required for 75% control (I75) was 157 and 121 g/ha for single and split applications, respectively. Halosulfuron sorption by a pine bark–based rooting substrate, as used in container production, was 96% of the amount applied. The propensity for surface-applied halosulfuron to be leached in this substrate was evaluated by eclipta bioassay. After 2 wk, with 23 cm of cumulative irrigation and rainfall, halosulfuron was detected 12 cm below the substrate surface. The propensity for substrate-adsorbed halosulfuron to return to the water phase may also contribute to PRE activity for eclipta control.

Keywords

Halosulfuroneclipta, Eclipta prostrata L., # ECLALHerbicide sorptionlog-logistic analysisorganic rooting substratesIx, x% growth inhibitionPOST, postemergencePRE, preemergenceWAT, weeks after treatment
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 20 , Issue 2 , June 2006 , pp. 361 - 367
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

Adams, F., Burmester, C., Hue, N. V., and Long, L. F. 1982. A comparison of column displacement and centrifugation methods of obtaining soil solution. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 44:733–735.Google Scholar
Altland, J. 2003. Weed control in container crops. Agrichem. Environ. News 202: Web page: http://www.aenews.wsu.edu. Accessed: June 12, 2005.Google Scholar
Altom, J. V. and Murray, D. S. 1996. Factors affecting eclipta seed germination. Weed Technol. 10:727–731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berchielli, D. L. and Gilliam, C. H. 1986. Weed competition in container-grown ornamentals. Hortscience 21:947.Google Scholar
Berchielli-Robertson, D. L., Gilliam, C. H., and Fare, D. C. 1989. Preemergence herbicide control of Eclipta alba in container-grown plants. Hortscience 24:779–781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gad, S. C. and Weil, C. S. 1989. Statistics for toxicologists. in Hayes, A. W., ed. Principles and Methods of Toxicology. New York: Raven. Pp. 435–484.Google Scholar
Goetz, A. J., Walker, R. H., Wehtje, G., and Hajek, B. F. 1989. Sorption and mobility of chlorimuron in Alabama soils. Weed Sci. 37:428–433.Google Scholar
Grey, T. L., Wehtje, G. R., Hajek, B. F., Gilliam, C. H., Keever, G. J., and Pace, P. 1996. Sorption, mobility, and filtration of metolachlor in container media. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 121:478–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harper, S. S. 1994. Sorption, desorption, and herbicide behavior in soil. Rev. Weed Sci. 6:207–255.Google Scholar
Hurt, T. R. and Vencill, W. K. 1994. Phytotoxicity and nutsedge control in woody and herbaceous ornamentals with Manage (MON-12037). J. Environ. Hortic. 12:135–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jepson, W. L. 1925. A Manual of the Flowering Plants of California. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley. 1238 p.Google Scholar
McCarty, L. B., Everest, J. W., Hall, D. W., Murphy, T. R., and Yelverton, F. 2001. Color Atlas of Turfgrass Weeds. Chelsea, MI: Sleeping Bear. 269 p.Google Scholar
Prostko, E. P. 2004. Eclipta Identification and Control in Peanut. Athens, CA: Cooperative Extension Service, University of Georgia, College of Agriculture and Environmental Science Circular 869.Google Scholar
Radford, A. E., Ahles, H. E., and Bell, C. R. 1987. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press. 1183 p.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1999. SAS/STAT User's Guide, Version 8. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis System Institute Inc. 3884 p.Google Scholar
Seefeldt, S. S., Jensen, J. E., and Fuerst, E. P. 1995. Log-logistic analysis of herbicide dose–response relationships. Weed Technol. 9:218–227.Google Scholar
Vencill, W. K., Richburg, J. S. III, Wilcut, J. W., and Hawf, L. R. 1995. Effect of MON-12037 of purple and yellow nutsedge. Weed Technol. 9:148–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weed Science Society of America (WSSA). 2002. Herbicide Handbook of the Weed Science Society of America, 8th ed. Lawrence, KS: WSSA. Pp. 235–237.Google Scholar
Webster, T. M. 2003. Weed survey—southern states. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 56:397.Google Scholar
Wehtje, G. R., Gilliam, C. H., and Hajek, B. F. 1993. Adsorption, desorption, and leaching of oxadiazon in container media and soil. Hortscience 28:126–128.Google Scholar
Wehtje, G. R., Gilliam, C. H., and Hajek, B. F. 1994. Adsorption, desorption, and leaching of oryzalin in container media and soil. Hortscience 29:824.Google Scholar