Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Plant Science Today (PST)

Research Articles

Vol. 13 No. sp3 (2026): Climate-Weed Nexus: Innovations for Sustainable Farming (CWIS 2025)

Herbicidal management of stem hemiparasite Dendrophthoe spp. in mango orchards

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.13448
Submitted
30 December 2025
Published
16-04-2026

Abstract

Dendrophthoe falcata is a stem hemiparasitic weed infesting tree crops. Manual removal of this parasitic weed is the common practice, often involving cutting the infested tree branches. However, it is labour-intensive and requires repeated removal due to regrowth. Even herbicidal sprays for selective control are unavailable and the use of conventional spraying methods often results in host toxicity. Hence, there is a need to develop targeted spraying methods. Therefore, a study was carried out during 2024–25 in a mango orchard at the College of Agriculture, Thrissur, in a completely randomized design (CRD), replicated thrice. The efficacy of various herbicides, application methods and sprayer types for controlling parasitic weed Dendrophthoe spp. on mango trees was studied. Treatments included foliar sprays of 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) Sodium (Na) salt 80 wettable powder (WP) (5 g L-1), 2,4-D amine 58 soluble liquid (SL) (10 mL L-1), 2,4-D Na salt 80 WP (5 g L-1) + copper sulfate (CuSO₄) (20 g L-1), glufosinate ammonium 13.5 SL (10 mL L-1), metribuzin 70 WP (5 g L-1), ethrel 39 SL (25 mL L-1) and metsulfuron methyl 20 WP (0.4 g L-1); 2,4-D Na salt (2 %) and metribuzin (2 %) as padding at host-parasite junction, physical removal and untreated check. Ethrel induced complete defoliation within 2–3 days, followed by 2,4-D + CuSO₄, glufosinate ammonium, metribuzin and metsulfuron methyl. Defoliation was completed by 3–4 weeks in 2,4-D spray. Padding treatments were ineffective and no visual symptoms of phytotoxicity or reduction in physiological parameters were observed. Herbicide sprays reduced soluble sugars, protein, relative leaf water content, membrane stability, chlorophyll and nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium (NPK) content of Dendrophthoe. Foliar sprays of 2,4-D Na salt or 2,4-D amine provided sustained control without regrowth, whereas other herbicides provided only temporary suppression. Herbicide deposition rate, spray coverage and weed control efficacy varied with sprayer type. Compared to battery-powered hydraulic, backpack manually operated and air-assisted sprayers, the electrostatic sprayer recorded the highest spray deposition rate (30.5 µL cm-2) and lowest spray volume, but was ineffective. Though the deposition rate was low (10 µL cm-2), the battery-powered hydraulic sprayer provided superior canopy wetting with high volume spray and complete control. Targeted foliar application of 2,4-D with optimised sprayer technology provided effective control of Dendrophthoe in mango orchards, without host phytotoxicity. The study revealed a significant role of spray volume in herbicide efficacy, despite the electrostatic sprayers being highly efficient for disease and pest management.

References

  1. 1. Sampathkumar R, Selvaraj R. Some new hosts for Dendrophthoe falcata (Linn. f.) Ettingh. (Loranthus longiflorus Desr.). J Bombay Nat Hist Soc. 1981;78(1):200–3.
  2. 2. Perry EJ. Broadleaf mistletoe in landscape trees. University of California Cooperative, Marin County Hortscript. 1995;14.
  3. 3. Torngren TS, Perry EJ, Elmore CL. Mistletoe control in shade trees. Univ. Calif. Agric. Nat. 1980.
  4. 4. Mathew D, Habeeburrahman PV. Base banding technique for the management of mistletoes (Loranthus falcatus L.f. and L. utui Molina) from perennial fruit trees. Arch Phytopathol Plant Prot. 2013;46(1):29–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/03235408.2012.731338
  5. 5. Package of practices recommendations: crops [Internet]. 15th ed. Thrissur: Kerala Agricultural University; 2016.
  6. 6. Thomas CG, Abraham CT. Methods in Weed Science. Thrissur: AICRP on Weed Control, Kerala Agricultural University; 2007. p.108.
  7. 7. Gopinath P, Parsad R, Joseph B, Adarsh VS. grapesAgri1: Collection of shiny apps for data analysis in agriculture. J Open Source Software. 2021;6(63):3437. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03437
  8. 8. Chander S, Kurian RM, Satisha J, Upreti KK, Laxman RH. Chemical interventions for advancing the fruiting season of sugar apple (Annona squamosa L.) cv. Balanagar. Int J Chem Stud. 2019;7(1):774–81.
  9. 9. Jhade R, Sawarkar S, Ambulkar P, Pannase S, Alawa SL. Foliar application of ethephon (ethrel) for quick defoliation in pomegranate (Punica granatum L.) var Bhagwa. Int J Chem Stud. 2019;7(2):497–1499.
  10. 10. Menzies BP. Seedling development and haustorial system of Loranthus micranthus Hook. f. Phytomorphology. 1954;4:397–409.
  11. 11. Grossmann K. Auxin herbicides: current status of mechanism and mode of action. Pest Manag Sci. 2010;66(2):113–20. https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.1860
  12. 12. Islam F, Farooq MA, Gill RA, Wang J, Yang C, Ali B, et al. 2,4-D attenuates salinity-induced toxicity by mediating anatomical changes, antioxidant capacity and cation transporters in the roots of rice cultivars. Sci Rep. 2017;7:10443. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-09708-x
  13. 13. Silva FB, Costa AC, Alves RRP, Megguer CA. Chlorophyll fluorescence as an indicator of cellular damage by glyphosate herbicide in Raphanus sativus L. plants. Am J Plant Sci. 2014;5(16):2509–19. https://doi.org/10.4236/ajps.2014.516265
  14. 14. Carriquiry IG, Silva V, Raevel F, Harkes P, Osman R, Bentancur O, et al. Effects of mixtures of herbicides on nutrient cycling and plant support considering current agriculture practices. Chemosphere. 2024;349:140925. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2023.140925
  15. 15. Patel BB, Singh MS, Mishra PK, Manes GS, Sharma KS, Mishra AM. Comparative evaluation of electrostatic sprayer for cotton crop. Int J Bioresour Stress Manag. 2016;7(5):1049–53. https://doi.org/10.23910/IJBSM/2016.7.5.1458
  16. 16. Feng PCC, Chiu T, Sammons RD, Ryerse JS. Droplet size affects glyphosate retention, absorption and translocation in corn. Weed Sci. 2003;51(3):443–8. https://doi.org/10.1614/0043-1745(2003)051[0443:DSAGRA]2.0.CO;2
  17. 17. Aneesha V, Dhalin D, Kumar KA, Jacob XK. Energy use efficacy of different sprayers on crop pest management. Curr J Appl Sci Technol. 2020;39(19):76–85. https://doi.org/10.9734/cjast/2020/v39i1930793
  18. 18. Subhagan SR, Dhalin D, Khtatawkar DS. Comparative evaluation of electrostatic sprayer with powered mist blower. Int J Eng Res Dev. 2016;12(8):4–11.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.