Moss Competition Dynamics and Suppression Technologies in Wild Blueberry Production

Figures & data

FIGURE 1 Presence of common haircap moss (Polytrichum commune) in wild blueberry fields (left) and suppression obtained with autumn applications of Chateau® (a.i., flumioxazin) (upper right side of the right picture) (color figure available online).

TABLE 1 Type and Relative Abundance of Mosses Observed in Wild Blueberry Fields in Nova Scotia during the 2009 Growing Season

Botanical name	Common name	Frequency observed in wild blueberry fields (%)
Polytrichum commune Hedw.	Common hair cap moss	92.3
Polytrichum formosum Hedw.	Juniper hair cap moss	2.24
Dicranum flagellare Hedw.	Broom moss	2.17
Sphagnum fuscum Shim.	Common brown sphagnum	1.06
Dicranum scoparium Hedw.	Brook moss	0.713
Other		1.52

TABLE 2 P. commune Moss Suppression Influences Blueberry Stem Density, Stem Height, Stem Dry Weight, and Harvestable Berry Yield of Wild Blueberries at a Commercial Field Located Near Mount Thom, Nova Scotia

	Blueberry stem density (stems·m^−2)		Blueberry stem height (cm)
Moss removal level (%)	Vegetative phase of production July 2008	Cropping phase of production June 2009	Vegetative phase of production July 2008	Cropping phase of production June 2009
0	127Bc ^z	107Ac	14.8Ac	15.1Ac
33	361Bb	286Abc	16.4Ab	16.6Abc
66	442Bab	504Ab	18.5Aab	17.9Ab
100	586Ba	701Aa	20.6Aa	21.3Aa
ANOVA results	Sampling time (p = 0.0238) Moss removal (p < 0.0001)		Moss removal (p = 0.0349)
	Blueberry stem weight (dry weight basis: g·stem^−1)
	Vegetative phase of production July 2008	Cropping phase of production June 2009	Harvestable berry yield (fresh weight basis: g berries·m^−2)
0	0.503Ab ^z	0.481Ac	108c
33	0.628Aab	0.614Ab	326b
66	0.692Aab	0.701Ab	447ab
100	0.731Aa	0.812Aa	529a
ANOVA results	Moss removal (p = 0.0016)		Moss removal (p < 0.0001)
^zMean separation was completed using Tukey's mean separation procedure. Capital letters represent significant differences between sampling dates in the vegetative and cropping phase of production. Lowercase letters indicate significant differences due to the level of moss removal that occurred.

TABLE 3 Influence of Autumn Applications of Chateau® (a.i., Flumioxazin) on Moss Suppression and Resulting Wild Blueberry Growth and Development

	Visible signs of phytotoxicity to target weed (moss) ^z	Visible signs of phytotoxicity to blueberry ^z	Blueberry stem density (stems·225 cm^−2)	Blueberry stem height (cm)	Number of set berries per stem	Harvestable yield (g·m^−2)
Wild Blueberry Research Centre (Debert)
Control (untreated)	0.2b ^z	0a	8.7b	12.1b	4.8b	283b
Chateau®(Applied at 840 g product∙ha^−1)	9.2a	0a	13.2a	16.8a	9.2a	497a
ANOVA results	Treatment	NS	Treatment	Treatment	Treatment	Treatment
	(p < 0.0001)		(p = 0.0501)	(p = 0.0012)	(p < 0.0001)	(p < 0.0001)
Farmington (commercial field)
Control (untreated)	0.3b	0a	9.1b	16.8a	5.2b	296b
Chateau®(Applied at 840 g product∙ha^−1)	8.9a	0a	14.2a	20.6a	11.5a	478a
ANOVA results	Treatment	NS	Treatment	Treatment	Treatment	Treatment
	(p < 0.0001)		(p = 0.0472)	(p = 0.0338)	(p = 0.0295)	(p < 0.0001)
^zAn injury rating of 0 indicated no injury, values of 4 to 5 indicated severe stunting (i.e., no growth since treatment), values of 6 to 7 indicated stunting and chlorosis, and values of 9 to10 indicated necrosis (i.e., no growth since treatment and tissue death).

TABLE 4 Influence of Chateau® (a.i., Flumioxazin) Application Rate on Moss Suppression and Resulting Wild Blueberry Growth and Development

	Visible signs of phytotoxicty to target weed (moss) ^z	Visible signs of phytotoxicity to blueberry ^z	Blueberry stem density (stems·225 cm^−2)	Blueberry stem height (cm) ^x
Control (untreated)	0c	0	8.7b	18.1
Chateau®(applied at 210 g product∙ha^−1)	5.1b	0	9.0b	17.9
Chateau®(applied at 420 g product∙ha^−1)	8.4ab	0	10.9ab	18.5
Chateau®(applied at 840 g product∙ha^−1)	9.9a	0	12.1a	18.6
ANOVA results	Treatment	NS	Treatment	NS
	(p < 0.0001)		(p = 0.0382)
^zAn injury rating of 0 indicated no injury, values of 4 to 5 indicated severe stunting (i.e., no growth since treatment), values of 6 to 7 indicated stunting and chlorosis, and values of 9 to10 indicated necrosis (i.e., no growth since treatment and tissue death).
^xA non-significant treatment effect on stem height of blueberries in the vegetative phase of production was present.