Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-swr86 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T09:00:45.007Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Light Intensity Is a Main Factor Affecting Fresh Market Spinach Tolerance for Phenmedipham

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

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

Abstract

The few available herbicides for fresh market spinach do not provide adequate weed control, and there is need for additional herbicide tools. Phenmedipham is registered for use in processing spinach but not in fresh spinach, because of potential injury and the short interval between application and spinach harvest. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the tolerance level of fresh spinach varieties to phenmedipham and evaluate the impact of light intensity on tolerance of spinach to phenmedipham. In the greenhouse, nine spinach varieties were treated with phenmedipham (0.55 kg ai ha−1). Spinach varieties exhibited a wide range of tolerance, and dry weights of treated plants ranged from 40 to 78% compared to the nontreated control. Based on the phenmedipham tolerance screen, two varieties with low (Nordic) and high (Regal) tolerance to phenmedipham were treated, then exposed to half (shaded) and full (nonshaded) sunlight. Nonshaded Nordic treated with phenmedipham had 65% lower dry weight compared to similarly treated plants grown under shade, suggesting that spinach tolerance to phenmedipham was mainly affected by light intensity. Measurements of electron transfer intensity in photosystem II also showed tolerance to phenmedipham that varied among spinach varieties and light intensity. The maximum values of electron transfer in photosystem II of Regal treated with phenmedipham were higher than those of similarly treated Nordic. In the field, phenmedipham was applied under varied light and temperature conditions. The impact of light intensity on yield of treated spinach was greater than the impact of temperature. Phenmedipham applied under high light conditions was more injurious than when applied under low light conditions. Results from this study can contribute to successful integration of phenmedipham into currently used fresh spinach weed management, which in turn can allow more efficient production of this crop.

Keywords

Phenmediphamspinach, Spinacia oleracea L. SPQOL‘Nordic’‘Regal’Fresh spinach yield loseslightphenmediphamselectivitytemperature
Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 64 , Issue 1 , March 2016 , pp. 146 - 153
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.)

Footnotes

Associate Editor for this paper: Muthukumar V. Bagavathiannan, The University of Queensland

References

Literature Cited

Abbaspoor, M, Streibig, JC (2005) Clodinafop changes the chlorophyll fluorescence induction curve. Weed Sci 53:1–9 Google Scholar
Abbaspoor, M, Streibig, JC (2007) Monitoring the efficacy and metabolism of phenylcarbamates in sugar beet and black nightshade by chlorophyll fluorescence parameters. Pest Manag Sci 63:576–585 Google Scholar
Anonymous (2013) Spin-Aid H specimen Label. http://www.agrian.com/labelcenter/results.cfm. Accessed May 9, 2014Google Scholar
Brain, RA, Hoberg, J, Hosmer, AJ, Wall, SB (2012) Influence of light intensity on the toxicity of atrazine to the submerged freshwater aquatic macrophyte Elodea canadensis . Ecotox Environ Safe 79:55–61.Google Scholar
[CA-DPR] California Department of Pesticide Regulation (2013) Summary of Pesticide Use Report Data 2011. http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur11rep/comrpt11.pdf Accessed June 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
Cumming, G (2009) Inference by eye: reading the overlap of independent confidence intervals. Stat Med 28:205–220 Google Scholar
Davies, HM, Merydith, A, Mende-Muller, L (1990) Metabolic detoxification of phenmedipham in leaf tissue of tolerant and susceptible species. Weed Sci 38:206–214 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
Follak, S, Hurle, K (2004) Recovery of non-target plants affected by airborne bromoxynil-octanoate and metribuzin. Weed Res 44:142–147 Google Scholar
Fufezan, C, Rutherford, AW, Liszkya, AK (2002) Singlet oxygen production in herbicide-treated photosystem II. FEBS Lett 532:407–410 Google Scholar
Genty, B, Briantais, JM, Baker, NR (1989) The relationship between the quantum yield of photosynthetic electron-transport and quenching of chlorophyll fluorescence. Biochim Biophys Acta 990:87–92 Google Scholar
Hess, FD (2000) Light-dependent herbicides: an overview. Weed Sci 48:160–170 Google Scholar
Kluth, S, Kruess, A, Tscharntke, T (2005) Effects of two pathogens on the performance of Cirsium arvense in a successional fallow. Weed Res 45:261–269 Google Scholar
Koike, ST, Cahn, M, Cantwell, M, Fennimore, SF, LeStrange, M, Natwick, E, Smith, RF, Takele, E (2011) Spinach production in California. University of California, Vegetable Research and Information Center. http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu/pdf/7212.pdf. Accessed May 26, 2015Google 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 April 20, 2014Google Scholar
Lati, RN, Rachuy, JS, Fennimore, SA (2015) Weed management in fresh market spinach (Spinacia oleracea) with phenmedipham and cycloate. Weed Technol 29:101–107 Google Scholar
Leon, RG, Tillman, BL (2015) Postemergence herbicide tolerance variation in peanut germplasm. Weed Sci 63:546–554 Google Scholar
Leon, RG, Unruh, JB, Brecke, BJ, Kenworthy, KE (2014) Characterization of fluazifop-P-butyl tolerance in zoysiagrass cultivars. Weed Technol 28:385–394 Google Scholar
Morelock, TE, Correll, JC (2008) Spinach breeding. Pages 183–212 in Prohens, J, Nuez, F, eds. Vegetables I. New York Springer Google Scholar
Norris, RF (1991) Sugarbeet tolerance and weed control efficacy with split applications of phenmedipham and desmedipham. Weed Res 31:317–331 Google Scholar
Norsworthy, JK, Smith, JP (2005) Tolerance of leafy greens to preemergence and postemergence herbicides. Weed Technol 19:724–730 Google Scholar
O'Sullivan, J, Zandstra, J, Sikkema, P (2002) Sweet corn (Zea mays) cultivar sensitivity to mesotrione. Weed Technol 16:421–425 Google Scholar
Roberts, AG, Gregor, W, Britt, RD, Kramer, DM (2003) Acceptor and donor-side interactions of phenolic inhibitors in photosystem II. Biochim Biophys Acta 1604:23–30 Google Scholar
Shem-Tov, S, Fennimore, SA (2003). Seasonal changes in annual bluegrass (Poa annua L.) germinability and emergence. Weed Sci 51:690–695 Google Scholar
Smith, RF, LeStrange, M, Fennimore, SA (2013) Integrated weed control in spinach. University of California, Pest Management Guidelines. Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources publication. http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/r732700111.html. Accessed May 11, 2014Google Scholar
Starke, RJ, Renner, KA (1996) Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) and sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris) response to triflusulfuron and desmedipham plus phenmedipham. Weed Technol 10:121–126 Google Scholar
Takele, E (2013) Spinach production: sample costs and profitability analysis. University of California. Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources publication. http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu/pdf/8032.pdf. Accessed June 18, 2014Google Scholar
[USDA] United States Department of Agriculture (2013) Vegetables: 2012 Summary. http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu.80/usda/. Accessed July 11, 2014Google Scholar
Wallace, RW, Petty, AK (2007) Differential response of processing spinach varieties to clopyralid tank-mixes. Weed Technol 21:678–682 Google Scholar