Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-wxk4p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-30T07:43:33.366Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reproductive Biology and Control of Solanum dimidiatum and Solanum carolinense

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Glenn Wehtje ,
John W. Wilcut ,
T. Vint Hicks  and
Gregory R. Sims
Glenn Wehtje
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron. and Soils, Alabama Agric. Exp. Stn., Auburn Univ., AL 36849
John W. Wilcut
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron. and Soils, Alabama Agric. Exp. Stn., Auburn Univ., AL 36849
T. Vint Hicks
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron. and Soils, Alabama Agric. Exp. Stn., Auburn Univ., AL 36849
Gregory R. Sims
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron. and Soils, Alabama Agric. Exp. Stn., Auburn Univ., AL 36849
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Studies were conducted to investigate the reproductive biology and herbicide response of horsenettle (Solanum carolinense L. # SOLCA) and robust horsenettle (Solanum dimidiatum Raf. # SOLDM) that are common in peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) production. Of these two species, horsenettle had a higher rate of seed germination, greater ability for seedling establishment in a competitive situation (pasture), greater ability to regenerate from smaller root fragments, and greater ability to regenerate from progressively greater depths in soil. Horsenettle was relatively more sensitive to glyphosate [N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine] (1.1 and 2.2 ai kg/ha), propylene glycol butyl ether esters of 2,4-D [(2,4-dichlorophenoxy)acetic acid] (0.8 and 1.7 ae kg/ha), and the ethanolamine salt of 2,4-D (1.7 ae kg/ha) than robust horsenettle. Conversely, robust horsenettle was more sensitive to dicamba [3,6-dichloro-2-methoxybenzoic acid)] (0.3 and 0.6 ae kg/ha). In a field study, dicamba applied annually in July or August for 2 yr at a rate of at least 1.1 kg/ha controlled 92% or more.

Keywords

Seed viabilityregeneration from roots

Information

Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 35 , Issue 3 , May 1987 , pp. 356 - 359
Copyright
Copyright © 1987 by the 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

1. Albert, W. B. 1960. Control of horsenettle (Solanum carolinense) in pastures. Weed Sci. 8:680–682.Google Scholar
2. Banks, P. A., Kirby, M. G., and Santelmann, P. W. 1977. Influence of postemergence and subsurface layered herbicides on horsenettle and peanuts. Weed Sci. 25:5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Buchanan, G. A. 1977. Weed biology and competition. Pages 25–41 in Truelove, B., ed. Research Methods in Weed Science, 2nd ed. South. Weed Sci. Soc., Auburn, AL 36849.Google Scholar
4. Correll, D. S. and Johnston, M. C. 1970. Manual of the Vascular Plants of Texas. Texas Research Foundation, Renner, TX. 1881 pp.Google Scholar
5. Illnicki, R. D. and Fertig, S. N. 1962. Life history studies as related to weed control in the Northeast horsenettle. Agric. Exp. Stn., Univ. Rhode Island. Bull. 368. 27 pp.Google Scholar
6. Radford, A. E., Ahles, H. E., and Bell, C. R. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. Univ. of North Carolina Press. 1183 pp.Google Scholar