Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T09:04:33.379Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of Metribuzin Placement on the Foliage of Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) and Jimsonweed (Datura stramonium)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

J. Ray Frank  and
C. Edward Beste
J. Ray Frank
Affiliation:
Weed Sci. Res., Agric. Res. Serv., U.S. Dep. Agric., Frederick, MD 21701
C. Edward Beste
Affiliation:
Dep. Hortic., Univ. of Maryland, Veg. Res. Farm, Salisbury, MD 21801
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Fifty-day-old jimsonweeds (Datura stramonium L.) were susceptible and tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) tolerant to soil-applied metribuzin [4-amino-6-tert-butyl-3-(methylthio)-as-triazin-5(4H)-one] at 0.25 and 0.50 kg/ha. Spray applications of 0.50 kg/ha metribuzin to jimsonweed foliage, or to both foliage and soil, reduced jimsonweed height growth 39 and 66%, respectively; whereas, tomato height was reduced 57 and 50% by the two placement methods, respectively. Metribuzin applied to a basal leaf appeared to move both basipetally and acropetally in jimsonweed, but only basipetally in tomato. Metribuzin applied to tomato leaves reduced growth 28% more when leaves had been abraded than when not abraded. Differential translocation appeared to be a major factor in selectivity. Directed sprays of metribuzin at 0.3 and 0.6 kg/ha on the lower 75% of jimsonweed leaves provided control in the field without injury to tomatoes.

Keywords

Necrosischlorosisphytotoxicitydirected spraydrops
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 31 , Issue 4 , July 1983 , pp. 445 - 449
Copyright
Copyright © 1983 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.)

References

Literature Cited

1. Ashley, R. A. 1975. Timing of applications of metribuzin to transplanted tomatoes. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 29:211–213.Google Scholar
2. Beste, C. E. 1974. Weed control in transplanted tomatoes. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 28:265–269.Google Scholar
3. Chappell, W. E. and Link, L. A. 1977. Evaluation of herbicides in no-tillage production of burley tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum). Weed Sci. 25:511–514.Google Scholar
4. da Silva, J. F. and Warren, G. F. 1976. Effect of stage of growth on metribuzin tolerance. Weed Sci. 24:612–615.Google Scholar
5. Fortino, J. Jr. and Splittstoesser, W. E. 1974. Response of tomato to metribuzin. Weed Sci. 22:460–463.Google Scholar
6. Fortino, J. Jr. and Splittstoesser, W. E. 1974. The use of metribuzin for weed control in tomato. Weed Sci. 22:615–619.Google Scholar
7. Graf, G. T. and Ogg, A. G. Jr. 1976. Differential response of potato cultivars to metribuzin. Weed Sci. 24:137–139.Google Scholar
8. Henne, R. C. and Guest, R. T. 1974. Tolerance of tomato plants to post planting metribuzin. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 28:253–256.Google Scholar
9. Jackson, G. C. and Sierra, C. 1975. Tolerance of tomato cultivars to postemergent application of Lexone (metribuzin). XIII Annu. Meeting Caribbean Food Crops Soc., Univ. of West Indies, St. Augustine, Trinidad, July 7–12, 1975. pp. 1–10.Google Scholar
10. Kolbe, W. and Zimmer, K. 1972. Studies on chemical control of weeds with the soil-applied and foliar-acting herbicide Sencor$rg in potatoes and vegetables, with consideration to varietal tolerance. Pflanzenschutz-Nachr. 25:210–276.Google Scholar
11. Phatak, S. C. and Stephenson, G. R. 1973. Influence of light and temperature on metribuzin phytotoxicity to tomato. Can. J. Plant Sci. 53:843–847.Google Scholar
12. Stephenson, G. R., McLeod, J. E., and Phatak, S. C. 1976. Differential tolerance of tomato cultivars to metribuzin. Weed Sci. 24:161–165.Google Scholar