Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T06:10:31.607Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) Cultivar and Weed Sensitivity to DPX-E9636

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Thomas A. Bewick
Affiliation:
Hortic. Sci. Dep., Univ. of Florida, Gainesville
Kenneth Smith
Affiliation:
Hortic. Sci. Dep., Univ. of Florida, Gainesville
William M. Stall
Affiliation:
Hortic. Sci. Dep., Univ. of Florida, Gainesville
Steven M. Olson
Affiliation:
North Florida Res. and Educ. Center, Quincy

Abstract

Sensitivity of 49 tomato cultivars and four weeds to DPX-E9636 was determined in greenhouse experiments. Cultivar tolerance varied from completely tolerant to intolerant. The most efficacious application method in greenhouse experiments was early POST for the weeds tested (yellow nutsedge, prostrate eclipta, and paraquat-resistant and -sensitive American black nightshade). Paraquat-resistant American black nightshade was 123 times more sensitive to DPX-E9636 than the paraquat-sensitive biotype. Under field conditions and at 0, 36, or 72 g ai/ha applied one week after transplanting, tomato cultivars showed no response to DPX-E9636 in visual vigor ratings 3 wk treatment, or in shoot fresh or dry weight 4 wk after treatment.

Type
Research
Copyright
Copyright © 1995 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.)

References

Literature Cited

1. Beste, C. E., Frank, J. R., Bruckhart, W. L., Johnson, D. R., and Potts, W. E. 1992. Yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus) control in tomato with Puccinina canaliculata and pebulate. Weed Technol. 6:980984.Google Scholar
2. Bewick, T. A., Kostewicz, S. R., Stall, W. M., Shilling, D. G., and Smith, K. 1990. Interaction of cupric hydroxide, paraquat, and biotype of American black nightshade (Solanum americanum). Weed Sci. 38:634638.Google Scholar
3. Bewick, T. A., Stall, W. M., Kostewicz, S. R., and Smith, K. 1991. Alternatives for control of paraquat tolerant American black nightshade (Solanum americanum). Weed Technol. 5:6165.Google Scholar
4. Freisen, G. H. 1979. Weed interference in transplanted tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum). Weed Sci. 27:1113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Gorski, S. F. and Wertz, M. K. 1987. Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) and eastern black nightshade (Solanum ptycanthum) tolerance to acifluorfen. Weed Technol. 1:278281.Google Scholar
6. Leep, D. C., Green, J. M. and Kral, W. C. 1991. DPX-E9636: A new herbicide for potatoes. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 31:10.Google Scholar
7. Masiunas, J. B. 1989. Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) tolerance to diphenyl ether herbicides applied postemergence. Weed Technol. 3:602607.Google Scholar
8. McGiffen, M. E. Jr. and Masiunas, J. B. 1991. Postemergence control of broadleaf weeds in tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum). Weed Technol. 5:739745.Google Scholar
9. Perez, F G. and Masiunas, J. B. 1990. Eastern black nightshade (Solanum ptycanthum)— interference in processing tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum). Weed Sci. 38:385388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Weaver, S. E., Smits, N., and Tan, C. S. 1987. Estimating yield loss of tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum) caused by nightshade (Solanum spp.). Weed Sci. 35:163168.Google Scholar
11. Weaver, S. E. and Tan, C. S. 1983. Critical period of weed interference in transplanted tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum): growth analysis. Weed Sci. 31:476481.Google Scholar