Horticultural Weed Control Report
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Horticultural Weed Control Report 2003 and 2004 Web downloads Ed Peachey, Senior Research Assistant Horticultural Weed Science Phone: 541-737-3152 Peacheye@science.oregonstate.edu Ray D. William, Extension Horticultural Weed Specialist Phone: 541-737-5441 Williamr@ science.oregonstate.edu Lee Ann Julson Extension Secretary Not intended or authorized for publication Data contained in this report are compiled annually as an aide to complete minor crop registrations for horticultural crops and to communicate our results to colleagues and funding sources. Data are neither intended nor authorized for publication. Information and interpretation cannot be construed as recommendations for application of any herbicide or weed control practice mentioned in this report. Contributors Susan Aldrich-Markham Yamhill Co. Extension, McMinnville Chris Boerboom Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison Glenn Fisher Extension Entomologist, OSU Diane Kaufman NWREC, Aurora, OR Gina Koskela NWREC, Aurora, OR Judy Kowalski NWREC, Aurora, OR Robin Ludy Research Assistant, Botany & Plant Pathology Dept., OSU Carol Smith Professor of Weed Science, Crop and Soil Science Dept., OSU Dan McGrath Marion County Extension, Salem, OR Bob McReynolds Dist. Ext. Agent, NWREC, Aurora, OR James R. Myers Baggett-Frazier Professor of Vegetable Breeding and Genetics, Horticulture Dept., OSU Cindy Ocamb Pathologist, Botany and Plant Pathology Mary Powelson Botany and Plant Pathology, OSU David Rupp Bioresource Engineering, OSU John Selker Bioresource Engineering, OSU Alex Stone Horticulture, OSU Jon Umble Graduate Student, Entomology Ray D. William Extension Horticultural Weed Specialist, OSU Special thanks to these cooperators and facilitators Jim Ammon, Wilbur Ellis, Jefferson Corey Antrim, Antrim Farms Jim Belden, Stayton Roger Fitts, Independence Randy Hopson, OSU Vegetable Res. Farm Manager. Clifford Horning, Horning Farms, Monroe Doug Kuenzi, Wilbur Ellis, Jefferson Sam Sweeney, Dayton Many thanks to student and summer workers Daniel Rackham Martin Histand Financial Support or Supplies for this Research Provided by: Agriculture Research Foundation, Corvallis, OR BASF Dow Agro Sciences Oregon Processed Vegetable Commission Western Region IPM Project, USDA National Frozen Foods NORPAC Syngenta TABLE OF CONTENTS Weed Biology Predicting Hairy Nightshade Growth in Snap Beans......................................................................1 Influence of Tillage System on Hairy Nightshade Recruitment and Seed Germination, Mortality, and Dormancy.................................................................................................................6 Factors Controlling Emergence Potential of Wild Proso Millet..........................................7 Vegetables Beets ..............................................................................................................................................................8 Broccoli ......................................................................................................................................................25 Rhubarb ......................................................................................................................................................31 Snap Beans .................................................................................................................................................... Weed Control with Raptor and Surfactants in Snap Beans...........................................................33 Snap Bean Tolerance to Raptor Herbicide Under Imposed Adverse Conditions ......................36 Effect of Raptor and Basagran Herbicides on Hairy and Black Nightshade Control................42 Squash.........................................................................................................................................................43 Sweet Corn Controlling Wild Proso Millet in Sweet Corn.................................................................................47 Distinct Efficacy in Sweet Corn with Cultivation and Tankmixes ..............................................49 Weed and Sweet Corn Response to Option, Accent, and Callisto Herbicides ...........................56 Inter-regional Sweet Corn Herbicide Tolerance Evaluation .........................................................58 Small Fruits Strawberries Evaluation of Promising Weed Control Strategies in Newly Established Strawberries ...........63 Evaluation of Promising Weed Control Strategies in Established Strawberries........................67 Blackberries................................................................................................................................................... Evaluation of New Herbicides for Use in Newly Planted Blackberries......................................71 Evaluation of New Herbicides for Use in Blackberries.................................................................75 Water Quality Tillage System and Herbicide Placement Effects on Potential Losses of Metolachlor in Sweet Corn............................................................................................................................................................78 Effect of Nurse Crops on Soil and Pesticide Loss in Newly-planted Grass Seed.............................80 Other Herbicide and irrigation effects on weeds and root rot in sweet corn.......................................... 2003.......................................................................................................................................................86 2004.......................................................................................................................................................92 Vapam effect on root rot in corn.......................................................................................................114 1 The Report Results from vegetation management trials involving horticultural crops conducted during the past year are compiled and reported by faculty members of the Oregon Agricultural Experiment Station, the Oregon State Extension Service, and colleagues who cooperated from adjacent states along with local enterprises. This work was conducted throughout Oregon and involved many individuals. The contributors sincerely appreciate the cooperative efforts of the many growers, university employees, and local representatives of the production and agrochemical industries. We also gratefully acknowledge financial assistance from individual growers, grower organizations, and companies that contributed to this work. Information and Evaluation Crops were grown at the experimental farms using accepted cultural practices (within the limits of experimentation) or trials were conducted on growers' fields. Most experiments were designed as randomized complete blocks with three to five replications. Herbicide treatments were applied uniformly with CO2 precision plot sprayers. Unless otherwise indicated, preplant herbicide applications were incorporated with a PTO vertical tine rotary tiller operated at a depth of approximately two inches. After critical application stages, crops were irrigated with overhead sprinklers at weekly intervals or as needed. Crop and weed responses are primarily visual evaluations of growth reduction, ranging from 0-100 percent with 100 as the maximum response for each rating. Phytotoxicity ratings are usually 1-10 with 10 being severe herbicide injury symptoms such as chlorosis or leaf deformation. Additional data such as crop yields are reported for some studies and may be reported in either English or metric systems. Abbreviations DAP Days after planting WBP Weeks before planting WAP Weeks after planting WAT Weeks after treatment PRE/PES Preemergence herbicide application/preemergence surface PPS Post-plant surface PPI Preplant incorporated herbicide application lb/A Active ingredient per acre no./A Number per acre 2 Developing an Integrated Management Tool to Predict Hairy Nightshade Growth in Snap Beans E. Peachey, Horticulture Department Summary • Hairy nightshade (HNS) removal for 3 weeks after planting (WAP) eliminated berry production in all plantings except the 2nd planting in both years of the study. • Four weeks of removal was needed when beans were planted on May 21, 2003 and May 19, 2004 to eliminate berry production. • Plants flowered slower in early plantings but degree day requirements did not differ significantly for the time to first flower. • HNS seedlings that emerged from May 20 to June 3 had the greatest potential to produce berries that could significantly impact crop quality. Introduction Raptor herbicide effectively controls weeds in snap beans; tolerance is acceptable and weed control is very good. Disadvantages of using Raptor are cost and crop rotation restrictions. Raptor controls black and hairy nightshade (HNS) very well, but in some cases, Raptor may not be needed because nightshade may have emerged too late to produce berries or seeds. The difficulty is predicting when Raptor is needed based on the potential for nightshade berry production. The objective of this study was to determine when intervention with postemergence herbicides or cultivation would preclude hairy nightshade berry or seed production. Procedures Snap beans were planted every two weeks beginning on May 7 and May 4 in 2003 and 2004, respectively. Treflan was applied and incorporated before snap beans were planted to eliminate grasses and broadleaves, but allow emergence of hairy nightshade.