Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-tj2md Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T23:01:24.673Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Horsenettle (Solanum carolinense) Control With a Field Corn (Zea mays) Weed Management Program

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Cory M. Whaley
Affiliation:
Plant and Soil Sciences Department, University of Delaware, Research and Education Center, Georgetown, DE 19947
Mark J. Vangessel*
Affiliation:
Plant and Soil Sciences Department, University of Delaware, Research and Education Center, Georgetown, DE 19947
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: mjv@udel.edu.

Abstract

Field studies were conducted at three sites in Delaware from 1997 to 1999 to evaluate fall glyphosate applications followed by postemergence (POST) field corn herbicides on horsenettle control and shoot densities. The fall treatments were either no fall treatment or 2.2 kg ai/ha glyphosate as a preharvest treatment in soybean at least 2 wk prior to frost. POST treatments were applied the following spring in no-tillage field corn 4 wk after planting (WAP) and included glyphosate, CGA 152005 plus primisulfuron plus dicamba, halosulfuron plus dicamba, atrazine plus dicamba, nicosulfuron plus rimsulfuron plus atrazine plus dicamba, or nicosulfuron plus dicamba. The fall glyphosate application delayed horsenettle shoot emergence in the spring and resulted in > 90% control at the time of POST in-crop applications. At 11 WAP, the highest horsenettle control was observed with a fall glyphosate application followed by POST in-crop treatments of CGA 152005 plus primisulfuron plus dicamba, halosulfuron plus dicamba, or nicosulfuron plus rimsulfuron plus dicamba and no fall treatment followed by CGA 152005 plus primisulfuron plus dicamba.

Type
Research
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

Anderson, W. P. 1999. Perennial Weeds: Characteristics and Identification of Selected Herbaceous Species. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press. pp. 149156.Google Scholar
Banks, P. A., Kirby, M. G., and Santelmann, P. W. 1977. Influence of postemergence and subsurface layered herbicides on horsenettle and peanuts. Weed Sci. 25: 518.Google Scholar
Banks, P. A. and Santelmann, P. W. 1978. Influence of subsurface layered herbicides on horsenettle (Solanum carolinense) and various crops. Agron. J. 70: 58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhowmik, P. C. 1994. Biology and control of common milkweed (Asclepias syriaca). Rev. Weed Sci. 6: 227250.Google Scholar
Carlson, S. J. and Donald, W. W. 1988. Fall-applied glyphosate for Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) control in spring wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Technol. 2: 445455.Google Scholar
Donald, W. W. 1990. Management and control of Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense). Rev. Weed Sci. 5: 193250.Google Scholar
Donald, W. W. 1993. Retreatment with fall-applied herbicides for Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) control. Weed Sci. 41: 434440.Google Scholar
Gorrell, R. M., Bingham, S. W., and Foy, C. L. 1981. Control of horsenettle (Solanum carolinense) fleshy roots in pastures. Weed Sci. 29: 586589.Google Scholar
Gorrell, R. M., Bingham, S. W., and Foy, C. L. 1988. Translocation and fate of dicamba, picloram, and triclopyr in horsenettle (Solanum carolinense). Weed Sci. 36: 447452.Google Scholar
Hackett, N. M., Murray, D. S., and Weeks, D. L. 1987. Interference of horsenettle (Solanum carolinense) with peanuts (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Sci. 35: 780784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ilnicki, R. D., Tisdell, T. F., Fertig, S. N., and Furrer, A. H. Jr. 1962. Life History Studies as Related to Weed Control in the Northeast-Horsenettle. Agric. Exp. Stn. Univ. Rhode Island Bull. No. 368. 27 p.Google Scholar
Kee, W. C. Jr., Glancey, J. L., and Wooten, T. L. 1997. The lima bean: a vegetable crop for processing. HortTechnology 7: 119128.Google Scholar
Muenscher, W.C.L. 1955. Weeds. New York: MacMillan. 506 p.Google Scholar
Nichols, R. L., Cardina, J., Lynch, R. L., Minton, N. A., and Wells, H. D. 1992. Insects, nematodes, and pathogens associated with horsenettle (Solanum carolinense) in bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) pastures. Weed Sci. 40: 320325.Google Scholar
Pritchard, E. J. and Prote, W. S. 1921. Relation of horsenettle (Solanum carolinense) to leafspot (Septoria lycopersii). J. Agric. Res. 21: 501506.Google Scholar
Prostko, E. P., Ingerson-Mahar, J., and Majek, B. A. 1994. Postemergence horsenettle (Solanum carolinense) control in field corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 8: 441444.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1982. SAS User's Guide. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 956 p.Google Scholar
Shaw, D. R. and Mack, R. E. 1991. Application timing of herbicides for control of redvine (Brunnichia ovata). Weed Technol. 5: 125129.Google Scholar
Smith, A. E. and Calvert, G. V. 1980. Factors influencing the control of horsenettle in perennial pastures. Univ. Ga. Res. Bull. 255: 115.Google Scholar
VanGessel, M. J. 1999. Control of perennial weed species as seedlings with soil-applied herbicides. Weed Technol. 13: 425428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallis, R. L. 1951. Potato psyllid selection of host plants. J. Econ. Entomol. 44: 815817.Google Scholar
Wehtje, G., Wilcut, J. W., Hicks, T. V., and Sims, G. R. 1987. Reproductive biology and control of Solanum dimidiatum and Solanum carolinense . Weed Sci. 35: 356359.Google Scholar
Whaley, C. M. and VanGessel, M. J. 2002. Effect of fall herbicide treatments and horsenettle (Solanum carolinense) senescence on control. Weed Technol. 16: 301308.Google Scholar