Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T17:49:19.224Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of Integrated Practices for Common Purslane (Portulaca oleracea) Management in Lettuce (Lactuca sativa)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Milton J. Haar  and
Steven A. Fennimore
Milton J. Haar
Affiliation:
Department of Vegetable Crops and Weed Science, University of California at Davis, USDA-ARS 1636 East Alisal Street, Salinas, CA 93905
Steven A. Fennimore*
Affiliation:
Department of Vegetable Crops and Weed Science, University of California at Davis, USDA-ARS 1636 East Alisal Street, Salinas, CA 93905
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: safennimore@ucdavis.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Studies were conducted to develop a weed management strategy for common purslane in lettuce based on available cultural and chemical control methods and an understanding of common purslane biology. A wide-band application of bensulide or pronamide reduced common purslane emergence compared with the standard narrow band. Both narrow and wide bands of pronamide as well as a wide band of bensulide reduced the time required to thin and hoe lettuce. The wide-band pronamide treatment reduced thinning time more than did the narrow band. Overall, none of the herbicide weed management expenses were lower for pronamide treatments than for bensulide and the control. Wide-band bensulide reduced weed management expenses compared with the control, whereas narrow bands did not. Common purslane plants uprooted 1 or 2 wk after emergence (WAE) did not produce any viable seed. Plants uprooted 3 WAE produced from 1 to 60 viable seeds, and seed production increased rapidly from 4 to 6 WAE. Flame and 2% (v/v) glyphosate treatments reduced seed production by uprooted common purslane.

Keywords

Bensulidepronamidecommon purslane, Portulaca oleracea L. #3 POROLlettuce, Lactuca sativa LBanded herbicideweed seed productionDAT, days after treatmentGDD, growing degree dayWAE, weeks after emergence
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 17 , Issue 2 , June 2003 , pp. 229 - 233
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

Anonymous. 2002. Roundup Ultra sample label. 2002 Crop Protection Reference. New York: C&P. pp. 1623–1635.Google Scholar
Canevari, W. M. and Frate, C. A. 2002. UC Pest Management Guidelines: Dry Beans. University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources Publication 3446: Web page: online at http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu.Google Scholar
Connard, M. H. and Zimmerman, P. W. 1931. The origin of adventitious roots in cuttings of Portulaca oleracea L. Contrib. Boyce Thompson Inst. Plant Res. 3: 337–346.Google Scholar
Cudney, D. C., Bell, E., Smith, R. F., Lanini, W. T., LeStrange, M., Fennimore, S. A., and Bendixen, W. E. 2002. UC Pest Management Guidelines: Lettuce Integrated Weed Management. University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources Publication 3450: Web page: http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu.Google Scholar
Egley, G. H. 1974. Dormancy variation in common purslane seeds. Weed Sci. 22: 535–540.Google Scholar
Grabe, D. F. (ed.). 1970. Tetrazolium Testing Handbook for Agricultural Seeds. Contribution No. 29 to the Handbook on Seed Testing. Las Cruces, NM: The Association of Official Seed Analysts. 62 p.Google Scholar
Lanini, W. T. and LeStrange, M. 1991. Low-input management of weeds in vegetable fields. Calif. Agric. 45/ 1: 11–13.Google Scholar
Lauritzen, E. 1999. Monterey County Agricultural Commissioner's Crop Report. Monterey County, Salinas, CA: Monterey Agricultural Commissioner. 32 p.Google Scholar
Mayberry, K. 1999. Iceberg Lettuce Production Cost 1998–99. University of California Vegetable Research and Information Center: Web page: http://vric.ucdavis.edu/veginfo/veginfor.htm.Google Scholar
Miyanishi, K. and Cavers, P. B. 1980. The biology of Canadian weeds. 40. Portulaca oleracea L. Can. J. Plant Sci. 60: 953–963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miyanishi, K. and Cavers, P. B. 1981. Effects of hoeing and rototilling on some aspects of the population dynamics of pure stands of Portulaca oleracea L. (purslane). Weed Res. 21: 47–58.Google Scholar
Prather, T. S. 1996. Determining the Economic Impact of Using Varied Rates of Kerb in Combination with Hand Hoeing. Annual Report on Iceberg Lettuce Advisory Board. pp. 219–225.Google Scholar
Robbins, W. W., Bellue, M. K., and Ball, W. S. 1970. Weeds of California. California State Department of Agriculture. 173 p.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. Lettuce, Endive, and Chicory. New York: CAB International. pp. 79–89.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1988. SAS/STAT® User's Guide, Release 6.03. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 559 p.Google Scholar
University of California. 1990. Degree-Day Utility User's Guide Version 2.0. University of California Integrated Pest Management 9: Web page: http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/IPMPROJECT/software.html.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2000. Vegetables 1999 Summary:. Web page: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/fruit/pvg-bban/vgan0100.pdf.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, C. A. 1976. Growth characteristics of weediness in Portulaca oleracea L. Ecology 57: 964–974.Google Scholar