Is Alanap L Still Registered For Cucumbers

Open access peer-reviewed chapter

Weed Interference and Management in Cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.)

Submitted: October 8th, 2020 Reviewed: July 20th, 2021 Published: October 6th, 2021

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.99564

Abstruse

Weed interference is a major trouble in cucumber farming, leading to 45–95% yield reduction. Weed command practices employed to avoid such losses are predominantly mitt weeding and herbicides awarding. All the weed control methods used in cucumber farming accept their own limitations. Hand weeding is tedious, time consuming and associated with high labor demands. Only few herbicides are registered for weed control in cucumber, and these herbicides does non provide season-long weed control when used lonely, neither can they control the unabridged weed spectrum with diverse physiology, morphology and time of emergence. Therefore, to optimize yield, financial and ecology costs and benefits, integrated weed management approaches are advocated. A skillful tillage operation, use of competitive cultivars, appropriate plant population and row spacing, application of pre and mail service emergence herbicides are of import in reducing weed density. The combination of these approaches provides effective weed command, and helps in environmental conservation. The world is now moving toward precision weed management techniques which involve remote sensing, modelling and use of robotics to command weeds. These technologies are the hereafter of weed management in crop production and have a substantial office to play in mod cucumber production. Right selection of 1 or more of these techniques with reference to environmental, socioeconomic, and geographic conditions will provide effective weed command in cucumber. Future inquiry should therefore exist focused on delivering data for the implementation of these approaches.

Keywords

Weed competition
manus weeding
herbicides
integrated weed management

Olumide Samuel Daramola*
- Department of Plant Physiology and Crop Production, Federal University of Agriculture Abeokuta, Ogun State, Nigeria

*Accost all correspondence to: olumidedara01@gmail.com

1. Introduction

Weeds are 1 of the virtually important pest that reduces ingather productivity. Weeds and ingather plants are very like in their demand for carbon dioxide and nitrogen from the temper, h2o and minerals from the soil and low-cal from the sun for their growth and development [1]. When weeds compete for these restrictive resources, the growth and development of crops are restricted, and their yield and productivity drastically reduced. The type and density of weed population, and the duration of weed-crop interference determines the magnitude of damage and yield loss inflicted by weeds on crop plants [ii, three]. Weed interference in cucumber results in loftier yield reduction in the range of 45–95% in dissimilar agro climatic weather [4, 5, 6]. Growers and agricultural experts throughout the globe consistently betoken that weeds are one of the most economically important pests of cucumber. Therefore, an effective weed direction strategy is recognized as a necessity for an economically feasible cucumber production [4, 6].

Currently, weed direction methods employed to reduce yield losses in cucumber are predominantly hand weeding and herbicides awarding [7]. However, these weed management systems take a number of limitations. Hand weeding is tedious, inefficient, fourth dimension consuming and associated with loftier labor demands [1, 7, eight]. In addition, labor for manual weeding is scarce and often too expensive [1, two, 9]. Consequently, farmers spend a big amount of time in weeding operation. Despite the effort expended in weeding by farmers, weed still cause considerable yield losses, because most of the weeding operations are not done during the critical period of weed interference, but well after the crop accept suffered irrevocable damage from weeds [4, 10]. Near weed competition in cucumber is a consequence of delayed first weeding during the early stage of crop growth [7, 11]. Moreover, the efficacy of hand weeding is often compromised by the continued moisture condition characteristics of the offset of the rainy season in many agro climatic zones. Manus weeding nether weather condition of irrigation or high rainfall frequently causes weed to re-root and re-establish, necessitating several rounds of weeding to keep cucumber weed-free and avert yield losses [5].

Herbicides are quite effective in suppressing weeds in cucumber if used properly [7]. Herbicides reduce drudgery and protect cucumber from early weed competition [4, 10]. However, just a few herbicides are registered for weed control in cucumber [12, 13]. Moreover, virtually bachelor herbicides do not provide season-long weed control when used alone, and single herbicide application may not control the entire weed spectrum with diverse physiology, morphology and time of emergence [4, 6, 14]. Although herbicide use alleviates the problem of labor for weeding, incorrect utilize may be injurious to the crop and bring almost other ecology problems [15, sixteen].

No-tillage, conventional tillage, stale seedbed, and mulching are other options currently utilized for weed control in cucumber [xv, 16, 17, xviii]. However, these weed control methods are limited and inefficient when used as a stand up-solitary weed management tactics [5]. Therefore, the adoption of integrated weed management (IWM) strategy is more advantageous than relying on one form of weed control. IWM involves the reduction of weed interference through a combination of two or more methods while maintaining acceptable crop yields, environment, social and economic wellbeing [1, 19]. Nonetheless, in literature, information on weed interference and management methods, especially IWM strategy for improved productivity of cucumber is very scattered and not available in the grade of a single document. Therefore, this book chapter is compiled to present all the available information into one document, which will be useful to all cucumber manufacture stakeholders like researchers, academicians, the extension community, industrialists, and growers. This book affiliate covers in detail the weed flora of cucumber, their affect on cucumber and yield losses due to weed interference, dissimilar methods of weed command and IWM management strategies in cucumber.

2. Weed flora of cucumber

Diverse weed species infest cucumber but the extent of harm inflicted on cucumber crop varies with the type of weed species involved. A complete list of weed flora in cucumber grown in different agro climatic zones around the earth is presented in Table 1. Nonetheless, major problematic weeds in cucumber include broad-leaved weed species such every bit members of the families Amaranthaceae ( Amaranthus retroflexus , Amaranthus spinosus , Amaranthus hybridus, Chenopodium album ) Compositae ( Tridax procumbens , Bidens pilosa, Xanthium strumarium, Ambrosia spp ); Euphobiaceae ( Euphorbia heterophylla , Euphorbia hirta ); Convolvulaceae ( Ipomoea spp , convolvulus arvensis ); Portulacaceae ( Portulaca oleracea, Purtulaca pilosa ); Solanaceae ( Solanum carolinense Solanum nigrum ), grasses weed species of the family Poaceae ( Cynodon dactylon , Sorghum halepense, Echinochloa crusgalli, Seteria verticillata, Digitaria spp, Paspalum spp, Panicum maximum ) and sedges of the family Cyperaceae including Cyperus rotundus, and Cyperus esculentus [24, 27, 28, 29]. The major feature of these weed species is their widespread existence and difficulty in management. Almanac broad-leaved weeds similar Amaranthus spp, Chenopodium anthology, Solanum nigrum, Portulaca oleracea and Euphorbia spp crusade serious damage to cucumber due to their rapid spread, product of many seeds, loftier efficiency in h2o use and net photosynthesis [iv, 5, 24, 27]. Just i–2 plants of Amaranthus spp per square one thousand growing with cucumber throughout the crop life bicycle can reduce yield past 10%, while five–7 plants of Amaranthus spp per square yard tin reduce cucumber yield by 50% [5]. The occurrence of many biotypes of this weed specie and its resistance to sulfonylurea herbicides also complicates its management [25]. Chenopodium album is able to outgrow cucumber and compete with the crop for nutrients, light and moisture. Its rapid growth and institution charge per unit makes it difficult to control by tillage [20]. Solanum nigrum also grows rapidly and is able to out compete with cucumber vines. It is also capable of hosting pest such as white fly [20, 25]. Portulaca oleracea spreads chop-chop due in part to its big seed it production. It also harbors pest such every bit caterpillar moths and spread quickly between the ingather rows [20]. Bidens pilosa is some other broad-leaved weed specie with great adaptability and i of the nearly difficult to command in cucumber [20]. Its principal features are: the extensive formation of achenes, high h2o use efficiency in region of prolonged drought stress and dormancy which facilitates its viability in the soil. Bidens pilosa is also resistant to herbicides that inhibit the acetolactate synthase, which farther makes it hard to control in cucumber [20, xxx].

Weeds	References
Abutilon theophrasti Medicus	[twenty, 21]
Adconopus compressus	[5, 22]
Ageratum conyzoides	[22, 23]
Ambrosia artemisiifolia L.	[5, xx, 23]
Amaranthus hybridus 50.	[5, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26]
Amaranthus spinosus 50.	[five, 23, 24, 25]
Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats.	[iv, 23, 24, 25]
Amaranthus lividus L.	[five, 24, 25]
Amaranthus retroflexus 50.	[23, 24, 25]
Ambrosia artemisiifolia L.	[22, 23]
Anodacristata 50.	[20, 24]
Aspilia Africana	[22]
Axonopus compressors (Sw.) P. Beauv	[22, 27]
Bidens pilosa	[22, 23, 27]
Boerhavia diffusa (Linn).	[22, 27]
Chenopodium album 50.	[20, 22, 23]
Chloris pilosa Schumach	[27]
Chromoleana odorata ( Fifty.) R.M. King and Robinson	[22]
Chrysopogan aciculatus (Retz.) Trin.	[27]
Combretum hispidum Laws.	[27]
Commelina benghalensis (Burn.)	[20, 24]
Commelina diffusa L.	[22]
Commelina errecta L.	[24]
Convolvulus arvensis L.	[23]
Coronopus didymus	[27]
Croton hirtus 50'Herit	[23]
Crupheacarth agenensis	[24]
Cynodon dactylon L.	[22, 23, 24]
Cyperus esculentus L.	[five, 23, 24]
Cyperus rotundus L.	[5, 20, 22, 23, 26]
Digitaria horizontalis Willd.	[24]
Echinochloa crusgalli	[23]
Euphorbia heterophylla L.	[27]
Euphorbia hirta	[27]
Euphorbia glomerifera	[27]
Eleusine indica L.	[22]
Emilia sonchifolia	[20, 24]
Emilia coceinea	[22, 24]
Eragrostis atrovirens	[22]
Galinsoga spp	[twenty]
Impereta cylindrical	[27]
Ipomoea spp	[26]
Ipomea triloba 50.	[27]
Jamaica vervain	[27]
Laportea aestuans	[22]
Mimosa diplotricha C. Wright ex Sauuville	[22]
Mimosa pudica	[22]
Paspalum conjugatum	[22]
Paspalum scrobiculatum L.	[27]
Panicum maximum Jacq.	[22]
Portulaca pilosa	[27]
Portulaca oleracea	[20, 23]
Phyllantus samarus	[22, 23]
Seteria verticillata	[23]
Spigelia anthelmia L.	[23, 27]
Sida acuta	[22]
Solanum carolinense	[24]
Solanum nigrum	[23, 24]
Sonchus oleraceus	[24]
Sorghum halepense	[23],
Starchyptophetae ayenesis	[22]
Talinum triangulare (Jacq.) Willd.	[twenty]
Tribulus terrestris L.	[23]
Tridax procumbens	[22]
Xanthium strumarium L.	[5, 20]

Tabular array i.

A listing of weed flora of cucumber.

Generally, annual weeds are the main problem in cucumber but perennials such as Cyperus rotundus, Cyperus esculentus , Sorghum halepense Cynodon dactylon and convolvulus arvensis are also difficult to control and possess considerable issues to cucumber [24, 25, 27, 29]. These weed species remain alive for more than one year in spite of producing seeds in the growing season proceeding the dry flavour and, therefore crusade meaning damage to cucumber. They are difficult to control because they have the chapters to survive adverse weather condition past forming extensive clandestine vegetative structures such every bit rhizomes and stolon [31]. Cyperus rotundus, and Cyperus esculentus can reproduce sexually and asexually by rhizomes and tubers, and therefore exert significant competition for moisture, carbon dioxide, lite and nutrient in add-on to their allelopathic effects [31]. Competition and allelopathic furnishings of Cyperus rotundus at high density may reduce cucumber yields as much as 83% [32].

three. Upshot of weed interference on cucumber

Weed interference is the detrimental effects of weed on crop resulting from their interaction with each other. Weeds are considered equally the near harmful pest of crops, and their interaction with crops have considerable consequences on the economy, order, and the environment [33]. They limit crop productivity and profitability, alter the ecosystem part and hamper the sustainability of the agricultural system. Yield losses and reduced profitability due to weed interference is considered 1 of the major trouble in cucumber production [x]. Even with advanced technologies, producers record high losses due to weed interference. According to estimates, betwixt 45–95% potential yields of cucumber is lost due to weed interference depending on the type and density of weeds growing in the crop community, duration of weed interference, stage of ingather growth at which the interference takes place and the ingather variety [4, 22]. Generally, losses due to weed interference in cucumber tin either be direct or indirect. Straight losses due to weed interference includes damages acquired by weed'southward allelopathic interaction with cucumber and competition for growth resources such as nutrients, water, light and infinite [5, 10]. Weed interference affects cucumber production indirectly past sheltering ingather pest and diseases, interfering with timeliness and efficiency of harvest, increasing harvest difficulties, reducing fruit quality and consequently increasing the cost of processing [34, 35]. Weeds are potential source for diseases and pest including powdery mildew ( Podosphaera xanthii ), viscid stem blight ( Didymella bryoniae ), fungal root rot (including Pythium, Rhizoctonia and Fusarium ), thrips (Thrips palmi) which may be hosted by a variety of weeds including Portulaca spp, Amaranthus spp , Gomphrena celosioides and white wing [36, 37, 38, 39].

Weed interference in cucumber begins during the very early on stages of vegetative growth [five]. Unfortunately, cucumber is not a strong competitor at the early stage, therefore weeds out grow them during the early stage of ingather growth, resulting in loftier yield reduction [iv]. Weeds that germinates at the same time as cucumber such as almanac weeds like Amaranthus spp , Xanthium strumarium and Ambrosia artemisiifolia grows faster and maintain canopy above and below the top of cucumber. Hence, these weeds intercept photosynthetically active radiation at the expense of the crop, resulting in reduced yield [40, 41]. Furthermore, weed-inflicted shading of cucumber flowers promotes bloom abortion. Although cucumber becomes less vulnerable to weed competition after the vines run out or when they become well established, the crop may take a few more than weeks to shut canopy. Weeds that sally during this period may complicate harvest past concealing fruit or hampering manual picking with prickly leafage, or entangling vines, and promote fungal diseases past limiting air apportionment. Solanum carolinense is a host for cucumber powdery mildew fungus ( Erysiphecichor acearum ), and many common weeds such as Amaranthus spp and Cyperus spp tin carry cucumber mosaic virus [42].

four. Disquisitional period of weed command (CPWC) in cucumber

The CPWC is a period in the ingather growth wheel during which weeds must be controlled to prevent quantitative and qualitative yield losses [21]. It is the period when a crop is near sensitive to weed contest and therefore the time interval when information technology is necessary to maintain wed-free condition to preclude an unacceptable reduction in potential yield [23]. It denote the optimum timing of weed removal to preclude potential yield loss. From practical standpoint, crop yield losses from weed interference before or after the CPWC volition be of limited interest. This ways that weeds that are present before or emerge afterwards the CPWC do not cause meaning yield loss [43]. Studies conducted on cucumber [v, 44] have shown that weed infestation during the CPWC imposes irreversible loss and damage on the final yield, while weed control before or after the CPWC did not better fruit yield compared with crops kept weed-costless but during the CPWC [45, 46]. Weed control recommendations in cucumber are therefore made on the basis of the CPWC because they indicate the optimum fourth dimension for implementing and maintaining weed control at reduced price [47]. Although published research piece of work on weed interference and CPWC in cucumber are very limited in the literature, the few available studies [four, five, 45, 48] have shown that the CPWC in cucumber varies across environs (location, soil, climate and management), infesting constitute community (species, density and population), ingather (cultivar, spacing and density), growing seasons and years [44, 45, 46, 47, 48].

In the U.s.a., the CPWC in cucumber was estimated to exist between 4 and six weeks after sowing [49, 50, 51]. In another study, it was determined that cucumber maintained weed-free for every bit little as ii weeks afterward sowing (WAS) produced yield similar to the flavour-long weed-free treatment [52]. The author found that a unmarried weeding either 3 or 4 WAS was sufficient to prevent yield loss for cucumber planted on ane.2 m row spacing, and ended that no CPWC existed. Conversely, cucumber in a narrow row spacing had a 3 to iv WAS CPWC [52]. It was reported that the CPWC for cucumber was longer at a higher establish population than in a lower plant population [52]. In Canada, the CPWC for cucumber was determined to be between 12 to 36 days later on sowing (DAS) with a mixed population of common ragweed and common lambsquarters [45]. In Brazil, information technology was found that the CPWC was between 3 to 7 WAS [53]. Due to the disparities in the results of the CPWC from ane study and location to the other, it has been recommended that critical period of weed interference should be determined specifically for a particular region considering the weed limerick and climatic condition in order to provide precise data for growers [54].

5. Weed management in cucumber

5.1 Preventive weed direction

Preventive measures of weed control is an important role of weed management that has gained attention among cucumber growers and weed scientist in contempo time. Preventive weed control involves techniques and practices that hinders the build-up of weed species [55]. These involves clean cultivation through the employ of make clean water, seeds and fertilizer, and keeping the farm environment costless from weeds and their seeds [56]. It is necessary to begin preventive weed command during the year before the kickoff of cucumber production and use cucumber seeds free from weed seeds to promote a weed-complimentary cucumber ingather in the preceding season. The selected field must be relatively gratuitous from weed species such equally nut sedges, Bermuda grass, morning glories and Johnson grass. Seed prepare by pigweeds, common cocklebur and other ambitious annual weeds must also exist avoided as a precautionary measure to achieve a weed-free cucumber field [49]. Other preventive weed management measures in cucumber includes non growing cucumber the yr after some other annual vegetable with like tillage cultivation and harvest schedules, especially in a highly infested field. Tillage dormant tin also exist used to reduce the weed seed bank in cucumber fields that are heavily infested with weeds. The pick of cucumber variety can also affect the level of weed infestation. Hence, vigorous varieties with practiced adaptation to the prevailing local conditions and practiced foliage to suppress weed should be selected [49, 56]. Optimum weather that give cucumber a competitive reward over the weed species must exist provided to forestall build-upwardly of weed species. Fertilizer application method and timing must be manipulated in such a way that the nutrients are bachelor to the crop rather than the weeds. In-row drip irrigation and fertigation can exist used to water and apply nutrients to the cucumber and not the inter-row weeds [42]. Measures should likewise be taken to use h2o free from weed seeds. Large amount of rapidly available nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium fertilizers that can stimulate excessive weed growth in nutrient responsive weeds such as pigweeds common cocklebur, common ragweed and lambs quarters should be avoided [42]. Many weed species have higher h2o use efficiency than cucumber, hence inundation irrigation should be avoided because they provide conducive environment for weed to flourish. Furthermore, weeds should be removed before they set seeds to avoid weed seed spread in the cucumber crop. Removing weeds in their early growth stages prevents them from setting seeds and spreading these to other areas of the field. Therefore, it is necessary to remove weeds the kickoff time they have been noticed [42, 49, 56].

5.ii Cultural weed direction

Cultural weed control is among the nigh of import ways of weed management used easily by most cucumber farmers. Cultural control is the use of mutual practices such equally ingather rotation, variation of crop row spacing, competitive cultivars adjusted to climate and regional conditions, live mulches, embrace crops etc. for the proper direction of weeds, water and soil [57]. There has been a growing interest in cultural weed control methods during the last two decades as a result of the increasing business organisation of pesticide employ. Cultural practices are regarded as the second most environmentally friendly weed control method next to preventive measures. Cultural techniques help the cucumber farmers to reduce the cost of weed management. These techniques can impact weed-ingather interaction and inter-relationship particularly during the disquisitional period of weed control. These techniques provides favorable and conducive environment for the growth of cucumber and requite the ingather a competitive reward over infesting weed species. Cultural weed command methods are easy and toll–effective in cucumber production. Crop rotation, primary tillage, soil solarization, high plant population and manipulation of sowing dates and row spacing are cultural techniques that tin easily control weeds in cucumber production [21, 46, 50].

5.2.ane Crop rotation

Ingather rotation enhances cucumber productivity by improving weed command and soil productivity. Continuous cultivation and tillage systems accept negative interaction with each other and results in a shift in weed species composition with consequence difficulty in weed management [58]. A shift from cucumber to other crops of different life cycle, physiology and morphology serves every bit an important means of preventive weed control when cucumber is grown over time in the aforementioned field [42]. This practice has potential to reduce weed density and biomass, particularly when a competitive crop is rotated and an effective direct weed command cultivation system is applied [5, 41]. On the other mitt, continues cropping increases the take chances of resistant weeds as a result of the application of similar cultural practices and herbicides of aforementioned chemistry for longer periods [21]. Wide-leaf weeds which are difficult to control in cucumber and other vegetables can be controlled readily in cereal crops. Ingather rotation is particularly important in cucumber production because of its affliction control benefit and weed control flexibility [59]. Cucumber-lycopersicon esculentum, cucumber-pepper and cucumber-eggplants, rotation in farmers' fields showed that the rotation of cucumber with other vegetable crops is agronomically practicable, sustainable, and an eco-friendly technique for better weed control and economic benefits [59, threescore].

5.2.2 Primary tillage

Primary tillage is an integral part of cucumber production system that enhances field preparation for planting functioning. The tillage system used directly affect soil construction, constitute available moisture and intensity of weed problem. Soil inversion during tillage is considered to be very benign for weed control [61]. The implement used and the depth of the tillage operation determines the touch of master tillage in cucumber farming. The utilise of moldboard plough is an effective way to reduce weed density during the early growth stages of the cucumber crop [61, 62]. Weed densities and biomass are usually college in zero or minimum cultivation systems than in conventional tillage systems that involves the utilise mold plough [10, 61, 62, 63]. It was reported that cucumbers planted into no tillage rye had greater weed size compared to conventional tillage [61]. Reduced tillage was also reported to encourage increased perennial weed species in weed population in cucumber fields compared with conventional tillage [61, 62].

v.2.three Stale seedbed

The utilise of stale seedbed is another cultural practice for suppressing weeds in cucumber. A stale seedbed is defined as a seedbed prepared several days, weeks, or month prior to planting or transplanting a crop [64]. In this method, resurgent weeds in ploughed field are controlled by the use of tillage while irrigation or rain are used to stimulate weed seed germination. The flush of young seedlings is then killed by using shallow tillage or herbicides [65]. This method has been successfully used to reduce competition of several weed species including Palmer amaranth , and yellow nutsedge in cucumber [32]. Stale seed bed reduced weed infestation with the applications of glyphosate and paraquat on the seedbeds to command emerged weeds [66].

5.ii.4 Soil solarization

Soil solarization is another non-chemic weed control technique in cucumber production. This technique involves hydrothermal disinfection of moist soil by transparent polyethylene sheets during the hot summers. These sheets entrap the sunlight and increment the temperature of upper layers of the soil by viii–12 °C compared with the non-mulch soil. The elevated temperature kills some of the seeds and breaks the dormancy of others. While the solar scorching kills the newly emerged weed seedlings [67]. Soil solarization is a simple, non-chancy method that avoids the utilise of any toxic materials, does not contaminate the site and therefore suited for organic cucumber farming. The effectiveness of this method of weed control has been reported in cucumber crop [68, 69]. Soil solarization proved to be an excellent method for complete command of parasitic weed specie such every bit Egyptian broomrape ( Orobanche aegyptiaca ) and other weed species such as Sorghum virgatum, Chenopodium anthology, and Purtulaca oleracea infestation in cucumber [68, 69, 70].

v.ii.5 Constitute density and row spacing

Manipulation of crop row spacing and planting density can restrict weed seed germination and raise the crop competitive ability confronting weeds [71]. Narrow row spacing and high plant densities are important techniques in enhancing cucumber competitiveness and suppressing weed growth [xvi, 72, 73]. These techniques are very cost-effective and environmental friendly. When the optimum plant population density is used through appropriate row spacing, cucumber ingather is able to develop canopy cover and hence competitive reward over emerging weed seedlings [73]. Narrow row spacing is known to suppress weed growth by endmost crop canopy earlier than wide spacing. Early canopy cover by closely spaced cucumber has been shown to smother weeds, hence reducing weed-crop competition [16, 74]. Cucumber planted at narrow plant spacing of one grand × 0.iii m resulted in before canopy closure and better weed suppression than those planted at one m × 0.half-dozen m and i m × 0.9 m [73]. In another report, spacing of 75 cm × 25 cm resulted in weed density and biomass suppression compared to spacing of 75 cm × 50 cm and 75 cm × 75 cm in cucumber [73]. Herbicides work well with narrow spacing as it impacts the weeds by decreasing their vigor due to high contest with the cucumber plants in narrow row planting compared to the wide row planting [73, 74].

Advertising

vi. Mechanical weed management

Mechanical weed management involves the physical removal of weeds from the field by hand pulling or through the use of farm tools and implements such as hand hoes, cutlasses, cultivators, choppers, mowers disks or weeders [75, 76]. Mechanical weed management is i of the oldest weed control practice. It involves the practices of main and secondary tillage. With mechanical weed management, weeds in fallow fields are killed and the weed seeds cached in deep soil layers where they cannot emerge. Mechanical weed command in cucumber also involves plowing or disking to destroy weeds past exposing them to variations in light, moisture and temperature [77]. Secondary tillage practices such equally harrowing is as well used to dislodge and shred weeds in cucumber field. Although these practices destroys weed apace, they practise non provide flavor-long effect because some weed seeds are still nowadays close to the soil surface [77]. It is therefore imperative to utilize mechanical weed direction earlier or during early on flowering to prevent the production of large quantity of weed seed, and engage follow-up weed control practices to achieve effective weed control. The best practise is usually to cultivate cucumber at the preliminary stage of weed growth when the weeds are notwithstanding physiologically immature to exert significant competition with the ingather [65]. Mechanical weed control cannot be used as the singular method of weed management because information technology may provide favorable conditions for emergence and dispersal of dormant weed seeds. Information technology also impact the soil structure negatively resulting in soil dryness and compaction [65]. Hence, mechanical weed control must be used only as a supplement to other weed control practices within the context of integrated weed direction.

vii. Chemical weed management

Chemic weed management in cucumber is mainly through the utilize of herbicides of dissimilar active ingredients. Although just limited herbicides are registered and bachelor for weed control in cucumber, herbicides are an essential component of a successful weed command program in cucumber production [78]. These herbicides either pre-emergence or post-emergence, when applied at correct dosage and advisable timing hampers weed growth and development [half-dozen, 7]. Herbicides use in cucumber reduces drudgery and labor requirement, and makes weed control easy, efficient and economic. It also improves soil structure past boosting soil wet and reducing soil erosion. However, constructive weed control with the apply of herbicides is limited by the potential for crop injury from registered herbicides [7, 28,]. Herbicides application at too loftier rate can damage cucumber while too low charge per unit will non provide the expected weed control [5]. Best results from herbicides application in cucumber are obtained when the weeds are at their highest susceptible stages and the crop is at its highest tolerance stages. Selection of a suitable herbicide programme for cucumber depends on the population, growth stage, biological science and environmental of the infesting weed species [x, 14, 15]. Much of chemical weed control in cucumber revolves around two key herbicides: ethalfluralin and clomazone which gives a reasonable control over nearly weeds [20]. Both herbicides are safe to apply on cucumber and are mostly applied pre-emergence for grass and broadleaved weed control [34]. Pre-emergence and post-emergence herbicides are used for effective weed control in cucumber. Pre-emergence herbicides can be applied before the planting of cucumber. These herbicides remain active in soil and provide command of weeds earlier they sally. Nonetheless, pre-emergence herbicides should be used with extreme care as they can damage the cucumber seedlings [5, 20]. Although pre-emergence herbicides such as North-one-naphthylphthalamic acid (naptalam) provides satisfactory control of the grasses and broadleaved weeds, erratic performance of the herbicide was observed in cucumber [79, 80]. Cucumbers were tolerant to iii.4 to 4.five kg/ha of naptalam practical immediately later seeding only were injured by applications at emergence or vining [79, 80]. Reduced yields and crop injury with pre-emergence applications of CDEC at 4.5 kg/ha was also reported in cucumber [79, 80].

Registered herbicides for broadleaf weed control in cucumber include halosulfuron, clomazone, ethalfluralin, bensulide, paraquat, carfentrazone and glyphosate. Glyphosate, paraquat, and carfentrazone are constructive on Palmer amaranth when practical every bit postal service-emergence herbicide. However, these herbicides are only registered in cucumber for non-selective control of emerged weeds pre-plant, pre, or postal service along the ingather rows with the utilise of spray baby-sit [81, 82, 83]. These herbicides lack residual control and have limitations when practical postal service-directed [20], including the failure to command weeds beneath or closes to the crop canopy. Therefore, additional post herbicides that are non-toxic to the ingather would exist benign. Halosulfuron is registered for pre and post-emergence command of some Amaranth species [84] just does non give an effective post-emergence control of Palmer amaranth [85]. Clomazone has poor efficacy on Palmer amaranth when applied alone [85, 86]. Ethalfluralin applied as pre-emergence herbicide provides good early flavour control of Palmer amaranth [87]. Bensulide is an herbicide used as pre-emergence in cucumber and tin can exist tank-mixed with naptalam. Bensulide primarily controls annual grasses, with suppression of just three broadleaf weeds [88]. Bensulide may persist in the soil for months, which may issue in potential injury to cucumber [34].

Farmers also often use a combination of clomazone and ethalfluralin for weed direction in their cucumber production. Clomazone practical lone suppresses several almanac broadleaf weeds and grasses. Clomazone controls galinsoga species (Galinsoga spp.), common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album 50.), spurred anoda (Anodacristata L.), and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti Medicus.) [xx]. Still, the herbicide has potential to injure cucumber and adjacent vegetation every bit a result of volatilization and drift. Ref. [46] constitute that clomazone acquired chlorosis in cucumber plants, though recovery was rapid. Like to clomazone, ethalfluralin provides efficient control of many broadleaf and grass weeds and may injure cucumber. Carpetweed ( Mollugo verticillata 50.), mutual lambsquarters, pigweed spp. ( Amaranthus spp.), common purslane ( Portulaca oleracea 50.), and almanac grasses are controlled by ethalfluralin. Injury to cucumber from ethalfluralin differs from that of clomazone in that stunting of plants and thinning of institute stand up may occur. A major factor that increases injury from ethalfluralin in cucumber is rainfall, irrigation and increased seeding depth [34, 88]. Combination of clomazone and ethalfluralin provided first-class command of annual grass and broadleaf weeds. Ref. [46] reported that applying clomazone and ethalfluralin together controlled hairy nightshade ( Solanum sarrachoides Sendt.), redroot pigweed ( Amaranthus retroflexus L.) and smartweed (Polygonoum persicaria Fifty.) improve than either herbicide alone. Although this herbicide combination is constructive against a number of weed species, they accept picayune to no activeness on weed species such equally shine pigweed ( Amaranthus hybridus L.), morning glory species ( Ipomoea spp.), and yellow nut sedge (Cyperus esculentus Fifty.) weed species which interferes with harvesting and reduce cucumber fruit quality [26].

8. Integrated weed management in cucumber

Integrated weed management is the major component of a sustainable cucumber farming. Considering the multifariousness of weed problem, no single method, whether physical, mechanical or chemical can provide the desired level of efficiency nether all situation [xix]. Hence, cucumber growers should focus on adopting integrated weed management system to widen weed control spectrum and efficiency in a sustainable, economic, and ecology manner. Integrated weed direction involves coordinated use of multiple tactics for optimizing the control of all classes of weed in an ecological and economical sound style [43]. These tactics tin be direct weed control through concrete (transmission and mechanical tillage/state training), chemical and biological means [6]. It could also be indirect control through cultural or agronomic practices such as planting pattern, fertilization timing and placement method, sowing time, row spacing, seed rate, crop cultivar type, intercropping and embrace crops [7]. These methods can influence either weed density (i.e. the number of individuals per unit expanse) and/or weed development (biomass production and soil cover). Information technology is always recommended to use all available options in combination to achieve better control of weeds.

9. Conclusions

Cucumber is a hard ingather to manage as it is susceptible to the assail of numerous weeds, disease pathogens, and insect pests. Weeds reduces cucumber yield and deteriorate fruit quality. Unfortunately, cucumber is non a strong competitor against weeds particularly during the early growth stage. Hence, it is necessary to control weeds to obtain increased yield and loftier quality fruit from cucumber. All the weed command methods take their own shortcomings and cannot exist used as a stand up-lonely tactics to manage weeds in cucumber efficiently. Manual weed have the constraint of loftier cost and labor shortage, mechanical options have their own limitations considering of the increase in fuel cost, and their employ is non practicable within cucumber rows and on large farm sizes. Chemical control on the other hand are always expressive, and only a few herbicides are registered for weed control in cucumber. Moreover, the few bachelor herbicides cannot control the entire weed spectrum and provide flavour-long weed control when used alone. No unmarried weed control method can provide 100% command; therefore, there is a need to adopt an integrated weed management approach to control weeds in cucumber. A good tillage operation and land preparation, the use of a competitive cucumber cultivar and advisable constitute population and row spacing, application of pre-emergence herbicides, application of postal service-emergence herbicides specially forth crop rows with the utilize of spray baby-sit are important in reducing weed density. The combination of these approaches provides effective weed control, improves fruit quality, and helps in environmental conservation. The world is now moving toward precision weed management techniques which involve remote sensing, modelling and utilise of robotics to control weeds. These technologies are the future of weed direction in crop production and accept a substantial role to play in mod cucumber production systems. Right selection of one or more of these techniques with reference to environmental, socioeconomic, and geographic conditions will provide constructive weed control in cucumber.

References

i. Daramola OS, Adigun JA, Adeyemi OR. Efficacy and economics of integrated weed direction in Chilli pepper. Journal of Crop Improvement. 2021;35(1): 38-50
2. Chauhan BS, Singh RG, Mahajan One thousand. Ecology and management of weeds under conservation agriculture: A review. Crop Protection. 2012;38:57-65
three. Daramola Bone. Timing of weed management and yield penalty due to delayed weed management in soybean. Planta Daninha. 2020;38(iii):1-7
four. McGowen SJ, Jennings KM, Chaudhari Due south, Monks DW, Schultheis JR, Reberg-Horton C. Critical Period for Palmer Amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) Control in Pickling Cucumber. Weed Technology. 2018;32:586-591. DOI: 10.1017/wet.2018.58
five. Berry AD, Stall WM, Rathinasabapathi B, Macdonald GE, Charudattan R. Smoothen pigweed (Amaranthus hybridusFifty.) and livid amaranth (Amaranthus lividus) interference with cucumber (Cucumis sativus). Weed Engineering. 2006;20:227-231
half-dozen. Webster TM. Weed survey–southern states: vegetable, fruit, and nut crops subsection. In: Proceeding of Southward Weed Scientific discipline Society 2006;63:246-257
7. Holmes GJ, Monks DW, Schultheis JR, Sorensen KA, Thornton AC, Toth SJ. Crop profile for cucumbers in North Carolina. 2005.https://ipm.ces.ncsu.edu/ipm-ingather-profiles/
eight. Daramola OS, Adigun JA, Adeyemi OR, Adejuyigbe CO. Effect of row spacing and weed control methods on weed population dynamics in soybean. International Periodical of Pest Management. 2020b;67(1):1-17
9. Daramola OS, Adigun JA, Adeyemi OR, Olorunmaiye PM. Efficacy and economic comparison of weed management in tomato. International Journal of Vegetable Science 2020a;26(5):18-25
10. Ugwunna RU, Ochekwu EB, Anyanwu DI. Effectiveness of the Primextra Golden in decision-making weeds of Cucumber (Cucumis SativusFifty.). Periodical of Engineering science and Environmental Management.2015;98
eleven. Trader BW, Wilson HP, Hines TE. Halosulfuron helps control several broadleaf weeds in cucumber and pumpkin. Weed Engineering science. 2007;21:966– 971
12. Tickes B. Arizona Veg IPM: Melon weed control. Retrieved from Farm Press 2012:http://world wide web.westernfarmpress.com
13. Sosnoskie L, Hanson B, Lanini WT. Melon tolerance and weed control with new herbicides. California: University of California 2013
14. Horak MJ, Loughin TM. Growth analysis of 4 Amaranthus species. Weed Scientific discipline. 2000;48:347-355
15. Shiboleth YM, Arazi T, Wang Y, Gal-on A. A new approach for weed control in a cucurbit field employing an attenuated poty virus vector for herbicide resistance. Journal of Biotechnology. 2001;37-46
sixteen. Larry DK and Herbert JH. Institute Density and Herbicides Affect Cucumber Productivity Journal of America Society of Horticultural Scientific discipline. 2000;117(1):48-53. 1992
17. Nweke IA, Orji EC, Ijearu SI. The effect of staking and constitute spacing on the growth and yield of cucumber (Cucumis stativusL.) Journal of Ecology Scientific discipline, Toxicology and Food Technology. 2013;iii:2319-2402
eighteen. Ekwu LG, Utobo EB, Onyesola CA. Vegetative and Yield Response of Cucumber to Staking and Nitrogen Fertilizer Application. Technology. 2007;19(4):7509-7519
19. Swanton CJ, O'Sullivan J, Robinson DE. The critical weed-free catamenia in carrot. Weed Science. 2010;58:229-233
20. Anonymous. Ingather Protection Reference, 18 ed. C & P Printing, New York 2002
21. Tursun IE, Akinci MS, Ahmet U. Estimating Fourth dimension of Weed Emergence in Cucumber (Cucumis sativus50.) Nihat Turkish Periodical of Agriculture - Food Science and Applied science. 2015;3(five):271-278
22. Wiro KO, Iyagba AG. Influence of weeding frequency and poultry manure on the growth and yield of cucumber (cucumis sativus) in the humid region of Nigeria International Journal of Advanced Scientific Research. 2020;5(5):9-15
23. Tomlinson JA, Anne LC. Weed plants as sources of cucumber mosaic virus. Annals of practical biology. 1970;66: 11-16
24. Webster TM. Weed survey—southern states: vegetable, fruit and nut crops subsection. In: Proceeding of South Weed Scientific discipline Lodge 2000;55:237-258
25. Poston DH, Wilson HP, Hines TE. Imidazolinone resistance in several Amaranthus hybridus populations. Weed Science. 2000;48: 508-513
26. Liebl RA, Norman MA, Mechanism of clomazone selectivity in corn (Zea maysL.), soybean (Glycine max), shine pigweed (Amaranthus hybridus), and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti). Weed Scientific discipline. 1991;39:329-332
27. Ngouajio MG, Wang G, Hausbeck MK. Changes in pickling cucumber yield and economic value in response to planting density. Ingather Scientific discipline. 2006;46:1570-1575
28. Ando Grand, Grumet R. Evaluation of contradistinct cucumber plant architecture as a means to reduce Phytophthora capsici disease incidence on cucumber fruit. Journal of American Society of Horticultural Science. 2006;131:491-498
29. Tepe I. Yabancı otlarla mücadele. SİDAS Medya ltd. Şti. VAN 2014
30. Aspiazu I, Sediyama T, Ribeiro Jr, Silva AA, Concenco G, Galon, L, Ferreira EA Araujo WF. Characteristic associated to photosynthesis and water of weed species. Planta Daninha. 2010;x:347-353
31. Daugovish O, Thil DC, Shaft B. Modelling competition between wild oat and xanthous mustard Weed science. 2003;34: 102-109
32. Johnson 3 WC, Mullinix, Jr. BJ. Cyperus esculentus interference in Cucumis sativus. Weed Science. 1999;47:327-331
33. Altland J. Weed control in container crops: A guide to effective weed management through preventive measures. Oregun State Academy Extension Service, 2003;8
34. Grey TL, Bridges DC, NeSmith DS. Tolerance of curcubits to the herbicides Clomazone, Ethalfluralin and Pendimethalin. Two. Watermelon. Hort Scientific discipline. 2000;35: 637-641
35. Jerzykiewicz J, Klobus One thousand. Effect of triazine and urea-type herbicides on photosynthetic apparatus in cucumber leaves. Acta Societatis botanicorum poloniae. 2007;76(1) 43-47
36. Nagle J. Melon thrips. Section of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation {Qld} 2008;http://www.dpi.qld.gov.au/4790_11215htm
37. Webb E. Avert the silver lining. Vegetables Australia July/Baronial: 2008;24-25
38. McDougall South. Primefacts: Silverleaf whitefly in vegetables. Industry and Investment NSW 2009
39. Watson A, Napier T. Primefacts: diseases of cucurbit crops. Industry and Investment NSW 2009http://www/dpi.nsw.gov.au/_data/assets/pdf_file/0003/290244/diseases-curcurbit-vegetables.pdf
40. Adam KL. Squash bug and squash vine tapping: Organic controls [Online]. ATTRA Publication IP298. National Sustainable Agronomics Data Service 2006. Bachelor at:https://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/summaries/summary.php?pub=138
41. Webster TM. Weed survey – Southern states. Vegetable, fruit and nut crops subsection. Proceedings of the Southern Weed Science Society 2006;59: 260-277
42. Webster, T. M. 2006. Weed survey – Southern states. Vegetable, fruit and nut crops subsection. Proceedings of the Southern Weed Scientific discipline Society 59: 260-277
43. Knezevic SZ, Evans SP, Blankenship EE, Van Acker RC, Lindquist JL. Disquisitional catamenia for weed control: The concept and data analysis. Weed Science. 2013;l:773-786
44. Ngouajio Chiliad, Mennan H. Weed populations and pickling cucumber (Cucumis sativus) yield under summer and winter embrace crop systems. Ingather Protection 2005; 24:521-234
45. Friesen GH. Weed interference in pickling cucumbers (Cucumis sativus). Weed Science. 1978;26:626-628
46. Alkhaatib K, Kadir S, Libbey C. broadleaf weed control with clomazone in pickling cucumber (Cucumis sativus). Weed Applied science, 2005;9:166-172
47. Horak MJ, Loughin TM. Growth analysis of iv Amaranthus species. Weed scientific discipline. 2000;48(3): 347-355
48. Meyers SL, Monks DW, Schultheis JR, Jennings KM. Interference of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in sweet tater. Weed Scientific discipline. 2010;58:199-203
49. Peet K. Sustainable practices for vegetable product in the South. Focus Publishing, R. Pullins Company, Newburyport, MA. 1996
l. Noble D. Working toward better cucurbits: Weed management strategies for the coming flavour 2009 [Online]. Available at:http://world wide web.growingmagazine.com/fruits/working-toward-amend-cucurbit
51. Stall WM. Weed command in cucurbit crops (muskmelon, cucumber, squash, and watermelon 2009. Available athttp://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/wg029
52. Weaver SE. Critical period of weed competition in iii vegetable crops in relation to management practices. Weed Enquiry. 1984;24(5)317-325
53. William RD, Warren GF. Contest betwixt regal nutsedge and vegetables. Weed Scientific discipline. 1975;23:317-323
54. Schultheis JR, Wehner TC, Walters SC. Optimum planting density and harvest stage for piffling-foliage and normal-leaf cucumbers for once-over harvest. Canadian Journal of Plant Scientific discipline. 1998; 78: 333-340
55. Riar DS, Norsworthy JK, Steckel LE, Stephenson IV DO, Eubank TW, Bond J, Scott RC. Adoption of best direction practices for herbicide-resistant weeds in midsouthern United States cotton, rice, and soybean. Weed Technology. 2003;27:788-797
56. Connolly B. Saving cucurbit seed. The Natural Farmer 2005;2(65): thirteen-15. Available online athttp://world wide web.nofa.org/tnf/pdfs/Summer2005.pdf(verified 18 July, 2011)
57. Maynard DN, Hochmuth GJ. Knott's handbook for vegetable growers, 1997;4th ed. John Wiley and Sons, New York
58. University of California at Davis. Cucurbits: Integrated weed management. 2008:http://world wide web.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/r116700111.html
59. Xiao X, Cheng Z, Meng H, Khan MA and Li H, Intercropping with garlic alleviated continuous cropping obstacle of cucumber in plastic tunnel. Acta Agricultura Science. 2012;62:696-705
60. Ando One thousand, Grumet R. Evaluation of altered cucumber institute architecture as a means to reduce Phytophthora capsici disease incidence on cucumber fruit. Journal of American Lodge of Horticultural Scientific discipline. 2006;131:491-498
61. Wang G, Ngouajio M. Integration of embrace ingather, conservation tillage, and low herbicide charge per unit for machine-harvested pickling cucumbers. Horticultural Science. 2008 43:1770-1774
62. Swaider M, Ware GW, MacCollum S. "Commercial Cucumber Production." B's Cucumber Pages. Interstate Publishers Inc., v Sept. 2015;17
63. Uko I, Onunwa AO, Ndukwe PC, Ezennia OL. Soil physico-chemical properties, cucumber (cucumis sativus50.) growth and yield as influenced by land grooming and weed control methods . Nigerian journal of crop science. 2019;6(1):14-20
64. Lonsbary SK, O'Sullivan J, Swanton JC. Stale seedbed as a weed direction alternative for machine-harvested cucumber. Weed applied science. 2009;17: 724-730
65. Dogan MN, Jabran One thousand, Unay A. Integrated weed management in cotton. In: Recent Advances in Weed Direction (ed. B. Chauhan and G. Mahajan), 2015;197-222. New York, NY: Springerhttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-1019-9_9
66. Noll CJ. Chemical weeding of cucumber in a stale seedbed. Proc. Due north Due east Weed Science Society. 1978;32:230-232
67. Hosmani MM, Meti SS. Non-chemic means of weed management in crop oduction. Integrated weed direction for sustainable agriculture. 1993;1:299-305. In: Proceedings of a conference held at the Department of Agronomy, CCS Haryana Agronomical University, Hisar, Haryana, Bharat
68. Ashrafi ZY, Hassan M, Alizadeh H, Sedigheh Due south. Effect of soil solarization on the control of Egyptian broomrape (Orobanche aegyptiaca) and yield improvement of cucumber (Cucumis sativus) grown in greenhouse. Bulgaria Journal of Agricultural Science. 2008; 14: 583- 591
69. El-Sayed SF, Abdel-Wahab, A, El-Taweel, H. Effect of Bio-fertilization and Sterilization on Cucumber Production under Plastic House Conditions Middle East Journal of Agriculture. 2016;5(2):186-200
seventy. Qasem, JR, Kasrawi, MA. Variation of resistance to broomrape (Orobanche ramosa) in tomatoes. Euphytica, 1995;81: 109-114
71. Eslami, Southward.V. Weed direction in conservation agricultural systems. In: Recent Advances in Weed Management. 2005;87-124. New York, NY: Springerhttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-1019-9_5
72. Sunday O, Udensi UE, Nwachukwu JC. Response of Cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.) and Weeds to Plant Spacing and Weeding Regimes in a Humid Forest Agro-Ecology of Southeastern Nigeria International Journal of Found and Soil Science. 2018;22(1):1-13
73. Sanni KO, Adenubi OO. Influence of intra row spacing on weed suppression in cucumber (Cucumis sativus) production in humid rainforest agroecological zone of lagos, Nigeria. Global Journal of Ecology. 2020;5(1):038-043. DOI:https://dx.doi.org/10.17352/gje.000018
74. Vikram KK, Ameta KD, Suresh KT, Akshay C, Suman Thou, Satveer Y. Result of spacing and training on growth and yield of polyhouse grown cucumber (Cucumis sativus50.). International Periodical of Microbiology and Applied Science. 2017;6(8):299-304
75. Lègère A, Samson Northward, Rioux R. Perennial weeds in conservation cultivation systems: More of an issue than in conventional tillage systems? Proceedings of 1993 Brighton Conference - Weeds. 1993;747-752
76. Melander B. Mechanical weed command in transplanted sugar beet. Proceedings of the 4th Workshop of the EWRS Working Grouping on Physical and Cultural Weed Command, Elspeet The Netherlands, 2000;25
77. Seaman A. product guide for organic cucumbers and squash. NYS IPM Publication 2009;135. Cornell University and the New York State IPM Plan. (Available online at:http://world wide web.nysipm.cornell.edu/organic_guide/cucurbit.pdf)
78. Mitchem WE, Monks DW. Cucumber (Cucumis sativus) response to bentazon and halosulfuron. WSSA Abstracts. 1997;37:20
79. Romanowski RR, Tanaka JS. An evaluation of herbicides for utilise with cucumbers (Cucumis sativus) and watermelon (Citrillus vulgaris) in Hawaii. Ha waii Agr. Exp. Sta. Progr. Rep. 1965;144:30
80. Lange AD,. May B, Fisher F, schweers V. Weed control in cucurbits. Calif. Agr. 1968;22(3):eight-9
81. Anonymous. Roundup Powermax® herbicide label. St. Louis, MO: Monsanto Visitor. 2012a;56
82. Anonymous. Gramoxone® SL herbicide label. Greensboro, NC: Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC. 2011b;55
83. Anonymous. Aim® EC herbicide characterization. Philadelphia, PA: FMC Corporation. 2011a;16
84. Anonymous. Sandea® herbicide characterization. Yuma, AZ: Gowan Visitor. 2012b;22
85. Norsworthy JK, Meister CW. Tolerance of cantaloupe to postemergence applications of rimsulfuron and halosulfuron. Weed Engineering. 2007;21:30-36
86. Meyers SL, Jennings KM, Monks DW. Herbicide-based weed management programs for Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in sweet potato. Weed Technology. 2013;27:331-340
87. Shrefler JW, Brandenberger LP, Webber CL Iii, Roberts West, Payton ME, Wells LK. Mail weed control using halosulfuron in direct-seeded watermelon. Weed Technology 2007;19:706-712
88. Derr JF Monaco TJ. Ethalfluralin activity in cucmber. Weed science. 1982; xxx(v):498-502

Written By

Olumide Samuel Daramola

Submitted: Oct 8th, 2020 Reviewed: July 20th, 2021 Published: Oct 6th, 2021

© 2021 The Writer(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License, which permits unrestricted utilize, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.