Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-vpsfw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T20:25:15.654Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Herbicide Activity in Close-spaced, Pickling Cucumbers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

T. J. Monaco  and
C. H. Miller
T. J. Monaco
Affiliation:
Dep. of Hort. Sci., North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
C. H. Miller
Affiliation:
Dep. of Hort. Sci., North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The response of close-spaced, pickling cucumbers (Cucumis sativus L.) to preplant incorporation treatments of O,O-diisopropyl phosphorodithioate S-ester with N-(2-mercaptoethyl)benzenesulfonamide (bensulide), N-butyl-N-ethyl α,α,α-trifluoro-2,6-dinitro-p-toluidine (benefin), and dimethyl tetrachloroterephthalate (DCPA) and preemergence applications of 4-(methylsulfonyl)-2,6-dinitro-N,N-dipropylaniline (nitralin) and the methyl ester of 3-amino-2,5-dichlorobenzoic acid (chloramben) has been evaluated over a 2-year period. DCPA and nitralin gave the best overall weed control, while benefin and the methyl ester of chloramben were less effective in controlling weeds. The poorest weed control performance was observed with bensulide. Nitralin, DCPA, benefin, and the methyl ester of chloramben caused crop injury if leaching rains followed application. Despite early herbicide injury, yields were usually not adversely affected.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 20 , Issue 6 , November 1972 , pp. 545 - 548
Copyright
Copyright © 1972 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

1. Barrentine, W. L. and Warren, G. F. 1971. Differential phytotoxicity of trifluralin and nitralin. Weed Sci. 19: 31–37.Google Scholar
2. Barry, J. R., Hernandez, T., and Etzel, W. W. 1968. Evaluation of herbicides for curcurbits. Proc. S. Weed Conf. 22:171–178.Google Scholar
3. Lange, A., May, D., Fisher, B., and Schweers, V. 1968. Weed control in cucurbits. Calif. Agr. 22(3):8–9.Google Scholar
4. Lange, A., Lavalleye, M., Agamalian, H., Fisher, B., Collins, B., and Klempen, H. 1969. Herbicides and sprinkler irrigation in vegetable crops. Calif. Agr. 23(5):8–10.Google Scholar
5. LeBaron, H. M. 1964. Chemical weed control in cucurbits. Proc. Northeast. Weed Contr. Conf. 18:45–49.Google Scholar
6. Miller, C. H. and Hughes, G. R. 1969. Harvest indices for pickling cucumbers in once-over harvested systems. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 94:485–487.Google Scholar
7. Nishimoto, R. K. and Warren, G. F. 1971. Site of uptake, movement and activity of DCPA. Weed Sci. 19: 152–155.Google Scholar
8. Ogle, W. L. 1968. A current evaluation of weed control in cucurbits. Proc. S. Weed Conf. 22:164–167.Google Scholar
9. Ogle, W. L. 1969. A further report on chemical weed control in cucumbers, cantaloupes and watermelons. Proc S. Weed Sci. Soc. 22:216–222.Google Scholar
10. Romanowski, R. R. and Tanaka, J. S. 1965. An evaluation of herbicides for use with cucumbers (Cucumis sativus) and watermelon (Citrillus vulgaris) in Hawaii. Hawaii Agr. Exp. Sta. Progr. Rep. 144, 30 p.Google Scholar