Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-tnzcf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T12:44:19.177Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

2,4-D and Sclerotinia minor to control common dandelion

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Parry J. Schnick,
Sally M. Stewart-Wade and
Greg J. Boland
Parry J. Schnick
Affiliation:
Department of Environmental Biology, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada N1G 2W1
Sally M. Stewart-Wade
Affiliation:
Department of Environmental Biology, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada N1G 2W1
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Integration of two or more methods in a weed control strategy may produce a positive interaction. In this study, sequential applications of sublethal rates of 2,4-D and the plant pathogen Sclerotinia minor were assessed for integrated control of common dandelion. S. minor was prepared as a granular treatment of fungal-colonized barley grits. Treatments of 2,4-D (25 or 50% of the recommended field rate) and S. minor treatments (20, 40, or 60 g m–2 rate) were applied alone or sequentially with a 3 wk interval. Fourteen days after inoculation (DAI), sequential applications of either rate of 2,4-D with 40 or 60 g m–2 of S. minor caused greater damage than either treatment alone (P = 0.05). By 21 and 28 DAI, control from 60 g m–2 of S. minor alone was equivalent to any of the sequential treatments (P = 0.05). At all assessment times, the combination of either rate of 2,4-D and 20 or 40 g m–2 of S. minor caused damage equivalent to or greater than that caused by 60 g m–2 of S. minor alone (P = 0.05). According to Colby's test for interactions, 19 of 24 assessments of the sequential treatments were synergistic. Therefore, sequential treatments of sublethal rates of 2,4-D and S. minor can interact positively to increase damage. This synergistic interaction may reduce the rate of either component required for adequate levels of control, possibly decreasing the cost or volume of use of herbicides in traditional weed control strategies.

Keywords

2,4-Dbarley, Hordeum vulgarecommon dandelion, Taraxacum officinale Weber TAROFBioherbicidebiological controlmycoherbicideintegrated pest control

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 50 , Issue 2 , April 2002, pp. 173 - 178
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

Altman, J. and Campbell, C. L. 1977. Effects of herbicides on plant diseases. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 15:361–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anonymous. 1996. Description of the 0–9 rating scale used by Expert Committee on Weeds. Expert Committee on Weeds, Canada.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1997. Industry task force II on 2,4-D research data, http://www.24d.org/, January 8, 1998.Google Scholar
Ashton, F. M. and Crafts, A. S. 1981. Mode of Action of Herbicides. 2nd ed. New York: J. Wiley. pp. 272–302.Google Scholar
Boland, G. J. and Hall, R. 1994. Index of plant host of Sclerotinia sclerotiorum . Can. J. Plant Pathol. 16:93–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charudattan, R. 1986. Integrated control of waterhyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) with a pathogen, insects and herbicides. Weed Sci. 34:26–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charudattan, R. 1991. The mycoherbicide approach with plant pathogens. Pages 24–57 In TeBeest, D. O., ed. Microbial Control of Weeds. New York: Chapman and Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colby, S. R. 1967. Calculating synergistic and antagonistic responses of herbicide combinations. Weeds 15:20–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deacon, A. C. and Rutherford, P. P. 1972. Response of common dandelion root tissue to treatment with 2,4- and 3,5-dichlorophenoxyacetic acids. Phytochemistry (Oxf.) 11:3143–3148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grant, N. T., Prusinkiewicz, E., Mortensen, K., and Makowski, R. 1990. Herbicide interactions with Colletotrichum gloeosporioides f. sp. malvae a bioherbicide for round-leaved mallow (Malva pusilla) control. Weed Technol. 4:716–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greaves, M. P. and Sargent, J. A. 1986. Herbicide-induced microbial invasion of plant roots. Weed Sci. 34 (Suppl. 1): 50–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heiny, D. K. 1994. Field survival of Phoma proboscis and synergism with herbicides for control of field bindweed. Plant Dis. 78:1156–1164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodges, C. F. 1977. Postemergent herbicides and the biology of Drechslera sorokiniana: effects on conidial germination, vegetative growth and reproduction. Mycologia 69:1083–1094.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hofsten, C. G. von. 1954. Studies on the genus Taraxacum with special reference to the vulgaria group in Scandinavia. Stockholm, Sweden: LT's Förlag. 415 p. [English Summary]Google Scholar
Holm, L., Pancho, J. V., Herberger, J. P., and Plucknett, D. L. 1979. A Geographical Atlas of World Weeds. New York: J. Wiley. 359 p.Google Scholar
Johnston, A. and Booth, C. 1983. Plant Pathologist's Pocketbook. 2nd ed. Slough, U.K.: Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux. 394 p.Google Scholar
Melzer, M. S., Smith, E. A., and Boland, G. J. 1997. Index of plant host of Sclerotinia minor . Can. J. Plant Pathol. 19:272–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mortensen, K. 1998. Biological control of weeds using microorganisms. Pages 223–248 In Boland, G. J. and Kuykekendall, L. D., eds. Plant-Microbe Interactions and Biological Control. New York: Marcel Dekker.Google Scholar
Murphy, W. M., Gottleib, A. R., and Dugdale, D. T. 1985. The effects of Fusarium wilt and weed control on survival of birdsfoot trefoil. Can. J. Plant Sci. 65:329–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oka, I. N. and Pimentel, D. 1976. Herbicide (2,4-D) increases insect and pathogen pests on corn. Science 193:239–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riddel, G. E., Burpee, L. L., and Boland, G. J. 1991. Virulence of Sclerotinia sclerotiorum and S. minor on T. officinale (Taraxacum officinale). Weed Sci. 39:109–118.Google Scholar
Statistix® for Windows. 1996. Analytical Software. Version 1.0. Tallahassee, FL.Google Scholar
Surgeoner, G. A. and Roberts, W. 1993. Reducing pesticide use by 50% in the province of Ontario: challenges and progress. Pages 206–222 In Pimentel, D. and Lehman, H., eds. The Pesticide Question: Environment, Economics and Ethics. New York: Chapman and Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
TeBeest, D. O. 1996. Biological control of weeds with plant pathogens and microbial pesticides. Adv. Agron. 56:115–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witty, G. and Bing, A. 1985. Know your weeds. Long Island Horticulture News (March):3–4.Google Scholar
Wymore, L. A. and Watson, A. K. 1989. Interaction between a velvetleaf isolate of Colletotrichum coccodes and thidiazuron for velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) control on the field. Weed Sci. 37:478–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wymore, L. A., Watson, A. K., and Gotlieb, A. R. 1987. Interaction between Colletotrichum coccodes and thidiazuron for control of velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti). Weed Sci. 35:377–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar