Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-22dnz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T19:30:30.792Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response of Seeded and Transplanted Summer Squash to S-Metolachlor Applied at Planting and Postemergence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Lynn M. Sosnoskie ,
Amy L. Davis  and
A. Stanley Culpepper
Lynn M. Sosnoskie*
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Science, University of Georgia, Tifton, GA 31794
Amy L. Davis
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Science, University of Georgia, Tifton, GA 31794
A. Stanley Culpepper
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Science, University of Georgia, Tifton, GA 31794
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: lynnsos@uga.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field experiments were conducted in Georgia in 2004 and 2005 to evaluate the effects of S-metolachlor on summer squash fruit yield. Main treatment effects included summer squash cultivar (yellow or zucchini), planting method (seeded or transplanted) and herbicide program (nontreated control, S-metolachlor applied at planting and prior to transplanting [PRE] at 0.5 and 1.0 kg ai/ha, S-metolachlor applied postemergence [POST] 3 wk after planting [WAP] at 0.5 and 1.0 kg/ha, and S-metolachlor applied PRE at 0.5 kg/ha followed by POST at 0.5 kg/ha [PRE fb POST]). Fruit number and weight were measured 12 times during each growing season and the harvests combined into early (harvests 1 to 4), middle (harvests 5 to 8), late (harvests 9 to 12), and cumulative (harvests 1 to 12) yield categories. Mixed-models analyses were used to evaluate the effects of herbicide rate and timing, squash cultivar, and planting method on squash yield for each harvest period. Summer squash cultivar and planting method did not affect squash response to S-metolachlor. Averaged over squash cultivar and planting method, S-metolachlor applied PRE and PRE fb POST reduced fruit number and weight at the early harvest between 35 and 60%, middle harvest between 14 and 30%, and cumulative harvest between 14 and 22%. S-metolachlor applied POST at 0.5 kg/ha did not impact squash yield compared to the nontreated control at any harvest period, whereas 1.0 kg/ha reduced fruit number and weight at the middle harvest 14 and 20%, respectively. We propose that POST applications of S-metolachlor at 0.5 kg/ha or lower can be adopted for use in summer squash production in Georgia.

Keywords

S-metolachlor, summer squash, Cucurbita pepo L. ‘Enterprise’ and ‘Payroll’Vegetable sensitivity to herbicidescrop injurycrop tolerance
Type
Weed Management — Other Crops/Areas
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 22 , Issue 2 , June 2008 , pp. 253 - 256
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

Bellinder, R.R., Binning, L.K., Yourstone, K.S., Bonanno, A.R., Gorske, S.F., Majek, B.A., Neary, P.E., Baron, J.J., Holmdal, J., and Wallace, R.W. 1993. Oxyfluorfen under clear polyethylene film controlled weeds in transplanted cucurbits. Weed Technol. 7:585–593.Google Scholar
Boatright, S.R. and McKissick, J.C. 2006. 2005 Farm Gate Vegetable Report. Athens, GA University of Georgia Center for Agribusiness and Economic Development. 91.Google Scholar
Boyhan, G.E., Granberry, D.M., and Kelley, W.T. 1999. Squash: Commercial Vegetable Production. http://www.pubs.caes.uga.edu/caespubs/pubcd/c527.htm. Accessed: December 13, 2007.Google Scholar
Coutts, B.A. and Jones, R.A. C. 2005. Incidence and distribution of viruses infecting cucurbit crops in the Northern Territory and Western Australia. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 56:847–858.Google Scholar
Culpepper, A.S., Batts, R.B., and Lewis, K.L. 2001. Watermelon (Citrullus lanatus) tolerance and weed management using halosulfuron at-plant and postemergence in Georgia and North Carolina. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 41:11–12.Google Scholar
Dale, T.M., Renner, K.A., and Kravchenko, A.N. 2006. Effect of herbicides on weed control and sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris) yield and quality. Weed Technol. 20:150–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, R.F. and Webster, T.M. 2005. Relative host status of selected weeds and crops for Meloidogyne incognita and Rotylenchulus reniformis. J. Cotton Sci. 9:41–46.Google Scholar
[FAO] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 2006. FAOSTAT Core Production Data. http://faostat.fao.org/site/291/default.aspx. Accessed: September 16, 2007.Google Scholar
Fennimore, S.A., Smith, R.F., and McGiffen, M.E. 2001. Weed management in fresh market spinach (Spinacia oleracea) with S-metolachlor. Weed Technol. 15:511–516.Google Scholar
Figueroa, R. and Kogan, M. 2005. Clomazone selectivity among six cucurbit crops. Agrosciencia. 39:611–618.Google Scholar
Frost, D.J., Gorske, S.F., and Wittmeyer, E.C. 1983. Summer squash tolerances to selected herbicides. Hortscience. 18:911–912.Google Scholar
Geier, P.W., Stahlman, P.W., and Frihauf, J.C. 2006. KIH-485 and S-metolachlor efficacy comparisons in conventional and no tillage corn. Weed Technol. 20:622–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grey, T.L., Bridges, D.C., and NeSmith, D.S. 2000. Tolerance of cucurbits to the herbicides clomazone, ethalfluralin and pendimethalin. I. Summer squash. Hortscience. 35:632–636.Google Scholar
Mallet, S.J. and Ashley, R.A. 1988. Determination of squash's tolerance to weed interference: a critical period study. Proc. Northeast Weed Sci. Soc. 42:204–208.Google Scholar
Monks, D.W. and Schultheis, J.R. 1998. Critical weed-free period for large crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis) in transplanted watermelon (Citrullus lanatus). Weed Sci. 46:530–532.Google Scholar
O'Connell, P.J., Harms, C.T., and Allen, J.R.F. 1998. Metolachlor, S-metolachlor and their role within sustainable weed-management. Crop Prot. 17:207–212.Google Scholar
Richardson, R.J., Whaley, C.M., Wilson, H.P., and Hines, T.E. 2004. Weed control and potato (Solanum tuberosum) tolerance with dimethenamid isomers and other herbicides. Am. J. Potato Res. 81:299–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SAS, 2003. SAS Procedures Guide. Version 9.1. Cary, NC SAS Institute.Google Scholar
Shaner, D.L., Brunk, G., Belles, D., Westra, P., and Nissen, S. 2006. Soil dissipation and biological activity of metolachlor and S-metolachlor in five soils. Pest Manag. Sci. 62:617–623.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Starke, K.D., Monks, D.W., Mitchem, W.E., and MacRae, A.W. 2006. Response of five summer squash (Cucurbita pepo) cultivars to halosulfuron. Weed Technol. 20:617–621.Google Scholar
[USDA-AMS] United States Department of Agriculture—Agricultural Marketing Service 1984. United States Standards for Grades of Summer Squash. http://www.ams.usda.gov/standards/squshsum.pdf. Accessed: December 12, 2007.Google Scholar
[USDA-NASS] United States Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service 2006. Quick Stats U.S. & All States Data—Vegetables. http://www.nass.usda.gov/. Accessed: October 31, 2007.Google Scholar
Wallace, W.W. and Bellinder, R.R. 1992. Alternative tillage and herbicide options for successful weed control in vegetables. Hortscience. 27:745–749.Google Scholar
Walters, S.A., Nolte, S.A., and Young, B.G. 2005. Influence of winter rye and preemergence herbicides on weed control in no-tillage zucchini squash production. HortTechnology. 15:238–243.Google Scholar
Webster, T.M. 2006. Weed survey—southern states: vegetable, fruit, and nut crops subsection. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 56:260–277.Google Scholar
Webster, T.M. and Culpepper, A.S. 2005. Halosulfuron has a variable effect on cucurbit growth and yield. Hortscience. 40:707–710.Google Scholar
Webster, T.M., Culpepper, A.S., and Johnson, W.C. III. 2003. Response of squash and cucumber cultivars to halosulfuron. Weed Technol. 17:173–176.Google Scholar
Williams, R.D. and Warren, G.F. 1975. Competition between purple nutsedge and vegetables. Weed Sci. 23:317–323.Google Scholar