Hostname: page-component-669899f699-7xsfk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-28T04:21:14.675Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed Management in Lettuce (Lactuca Sativa) with Preplant Irrigation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Shachar Shem-Tov ,
Steve A. Fennimore  and
W. Thomas Lanini
Shachar Shem-Tov*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences University of California Davis, 1636 East Alisal Street, Salinas, CA 93905
Steve A. Fennimore
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences University of California Davis, 1636 East Alisal Street, Salinas, CA 93905
W. Thomas Lanini
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences University of California Davis, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: sshemtov@ucdavis.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

During dry weather, preplant irrigation of raised beds followed by shallow tillage to create a smooth planting bed is necessary to establish a good lettuce stand. Depletion of germinable weed seeds in the top 5 cm of soil by the sequence of preplant irrigation, followed 7 to 14 d later by shallow tillage to prepare a seedbed, reduces weed density in the subsequent crop. Preplant irrigation and tillage reduces weed density and, when used together with preplant herbicide, provides effective weed control in the cropping season. Preplant and in-crop weed densities resulting from furrow or sprinkler preplant irrigation, followed by shallow tillage and lettuce planting 7 or 14 d later, were compared with the no preplant irrigation control. During the 14-d preplant period, up to 127 weeds/m2 emerged and were removed by shallow tillage before crop planting. Preplant irrigation and shallow tillage reduced in-crop weed density by up to 77% and reduced hand-weeding and crop-thinning time by up to 50% compared with the no preplant irrigation and no herbicide control. Delaying tillage for 14 d following preplant irrigation provided sufficient time for adequate heat unit accumulation (>120 growing degree days, base 10 C), allowing for many weeds to germinate and be killed by shallow tillage. However, 7 d between preplant irrigation and tillage resulted in less heat unit accumulation (<50 growing degree days, base 10 C) and less weed germination before tillage. Preplant irrigation together with pronamide at either 0.67 or 1.34 kg ai/ha reduced weed density compared with the no preplant irrigation. Effective use of preplant irrigation and preplant weed removal may increase the consistency of weed control with lower pronamide rates. Preplant irrigation followed by shallow tillage is an effective cultural practice to control in-crop weeds for conventional lettuce production.

Keywords

Pronamideburning nettle, Urtica urens L. #3 URTURhenbit, Laminum amplexicaule L. # LAMAMCultural weed controlfurrow-irrigationpreplant weed removalsprinkler-irrigationvegetablesdf, degree-of-freedomGDD, growing degree-days
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 20 , Issue 4 , December 2006 , pp. 1058 - 1065
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

Agamalian, H. S. 2002. Lettuce. in Kurtz, E.A., ed. Principles of Weed Control in California. 3rd ed. Fresno, CA Thompson Publications. 382–385.Google Scholar
Bell, C. E. 1995. Broccoli (Brassica oleracea var. botrytis) yield loss from Italian ryegrass (Lolium perenne) interference. Weed Sci. 43:117–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, C. E., Fennimore, S. A., and McGiffen, M. E. Jr. et al. 2000. My view: vegetable herbicides and the Food Quality Protection Act. Weed Sci. 48:1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bond, W. and Grundy, A. 2001. Non-chemical weed management in organic farming systems. Weed Res. 41:383–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[CDMS] Crop Data Management Systems, Inc 2006. Pronamide sample label. Web page: http://www.cdms.net/manuf/1prod.asp?pd=6015&1c=1. Accessed: January 20, 2006.Google Scholar
Clark, M. S., Horwath, W. R., Shennan, C., Scow, K. W., Lanini, W. T., and Ferris, H. 1999. Nitrogen, weeds and water as yield-limiting factors in conventional, low-input, and organic tomato system. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 73:257–270.Google Scholar
Cook, T. D. 1978. Soil Survey of Monterey County, California. Washington, DC Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.Google Scholar
Fennimore, S. A. and Jackson, L. E. 2003. Organic amendments and tillage effects on vegetable field weed emergence and seedbanks. Weed Technol. 17:42–50.Google Scholar
Fennimore, S. A., Smith, R. F., and McGiffen, M. E. Jr. 2001. Weed management in fresh market spinach with S-metolachlor. Weed Technol. 15:511–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haar, M. J. and Fennimore, S. A. 2003. Evaluation of integrated practices for common purslane (Portulaca oleracea) management in lettuce (Lactuca sativa). Weed Technol. 17:229–233.Google Scholar
Klonsky, K. 2000. Forces impacting the production of organic foods. Agric. Hum. Values 17:233–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchinson, I., Colosi, J., and Lewin, R. A. 1984. The biology of Canadian weeds, 63: Sonchus asper (L.) Hill and S. oleraceus . Can. J. Plant Sci. 64:731–744.Google Scholar
Lanini, W. T. and LeStrange, M. 1991. Low-input management of weeds in vegetable fields. Calif. Agric. 45/1:11–13.Google Scholar
Lonsbary, S. K., O'Sullivan, J., and Swanton, C. J. 2003. Stale-seedbed as a weed management alternative for machine-harvested cucumbers (Cucumis sativas). Weed Technol. 17:724–730.Google Scholar
Masiunas, J., McGiffen, M., Wilen, C., Bell, C., Lanini, T., Derr, J., and Kolasani, G. 1997. Integrated weed management in horticultural crops. in McGiffen, M.E., ed. Weed Management in Horticultural Crops. Alexandria, VA American Society of Horticultural Science Press. 1–16.Google Scholar
[PMSP-Lettuce] Pest Management Strategic Plans–Lettuce 2003. Pest Management Strategic Plans for California and Arizona Lettuce Production 2003. National Information System for the Regional IPM Centers: Web page: http://www.ipmcenters.org/pmp/pmsp. Accessed: September 25, 2006.Google Scholar
Radosevich, S. R. and Holt, J. S. 1984. Weed Ecology: Implications for Vegetation Management. New York J. Wiley. 265.Google Scholar
Ryder, E. J. 1999. Crop Production Science in Horticulture 9: Lettuce, Endive and Chicory. Wallingford, UK CABI. 79–89.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems 1991. SAS/STAT User's Guide. 4th ed, Volume 2. Cary, NC Statistical Analysis Systems Institute.Google Scholar
Shaner, D. L. 2000. The impact of glyphosate-tolerant crops on the use of other herbicides and on resistance management. Pest. Manag. Sci. 56:320–326.3.0.CO;2-B>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shem-Tov, S. and Fennimore, S. A. 2002. Seasonal variation in weed emergence densities in California vegetable fields. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. 42:82.Google Scholar
Shem-Tov, S. and Fennimore, S. A. 2003. Seasonal changes in annual bluegrass (Poa annua L.) germinability and emergence. Weed Sci. 51:690–695.Google Scholar
Tourte, L. and Smith, R. 2001. Sample of Production Costs for Romaine Lettuce in Monterey and Santa Cruz Counties. Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of California, Davis: Web page: http://www.agecon.ucdavis.edu/uploads/cost_return_articles/letrom2001.pdf. Accessed: January 20, 2006.Google Scholar
Tourte, L., Smith, R. F., Klonsky, K., and De Moura, R. 2004. Sample production costs to produce organic leaf lettuce. Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of California, Davis: Web page: http://www.agecon.ucdavis.edu/uploads/cost_return_articles/lettuceorgcc2004.pdf. Accessed: January DD, 2006.Google Scholar
Yenish, J. P., Doll, J. D., and Buhler, D. D. 1992. Effects of tillage on vertical distribution and viability of weed seed in soil. Weed Sci. 40:429–433.Google Scholar