Hostname: page-component-669899f699-g7b4s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-30T19:38:30.396Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rimsulfuron and Metribuzin Efficacy in Transplanted Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

John A. Ackley ,
Henry P. Wilson  and
Thomas E. Hines
John A. Ackley
Affiliation:
Eastern Shore Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Painter, VA 23420
Henry P. Wilson
Affiliation:
Eastern Shore Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Painter, VA 23420
Thomas E. Hines
Affiliation:
Eastern Shore Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Painter, VA 23420
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In field studies in 1991, 1992, and 1993, rimsulfuron at 26 and 35 g ai/ha, sequentially at 26 g/ha, at 26 g/ha plus metribuzin at 280 g ai/ha, and metribuzin at 280 g/ha were evaluated POST for weed control in transplanted ‘Agriset’ tomato. Common lambsquarters was controlled by rimsulfuron at 35 g/ha. Rimsulfuron plus metribuzin gave consistent control of common ragweed, but jimsonweed control was inconsistent and goosegrass control was generally low. Rimsulfuron treatments caused slight (< 12%) temporary injury to new terminal growth of tomato. Yield of tomato fruit was consistently high in the metribuzin, metribuzin plus rimsulfuron, and rimsulfuron sequential treatments. In greenhouse studies, giant foxtail and large crabgrass control by rimsulfuron was above 95 and 85%, respectively, but goosegrass was not controlled. Height of four tomato cultivars was not reduced, but dry weight of ‘Floradade’ and ‘Sunbeam’ was reduced by rimsulfuron.

Keywords

common lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. # CHEALPostemergenceAmaranthus hybridusAmbrosia artemsiifoliaChenopodium albumDatura stramoniumDigitaria sanguinalisEleusine indicaSetaria faberiAMACHAMBELCHEALDATSTDIGSAELEINSETFADAP, days after plantingfb, followed byWAT, weeks after treatment
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 11 , Issue 2 , June 1997 , pp. 324 - 328
Copyright
Copyright © 1997 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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

Ackley, J. A., Wilson, H. P., and Hines, T. E. 1994. Weed management in tomatoes with rimsulfuron. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 34:64.Google Scholar
Ackley, J. A., Wilson, H. P., and Hines, T. E. 1995. Rimsulfuron applications in transplanted hell peppers. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 35:61.Google Scholar
Ackley, J. A., Wilson, H. P., and Hines, T. E. 1996a. Weed management programs in potato (Solanum tuberosum) with rimsulfuron. Weed Technol. 10:354–358.Google Scholar
Ackley, J. A., Wilson, H. P., and Hines, T. E. 1996b. Efficacy of rimsulfuron and metribuzin in potato (Solanum tuberosum). Weed Technol. 10:475–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beste, C. E., Frank, J. R., Bruckart, W. L., Johnson, D. R., and Potts, W. E. 1992. Yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus) control in tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) with Puccinia canaliculata and pebulate. Weed Technol. 6:980–984.Google Scholar
Bewick, T. A., Smith, K. E., Stall, W. M., and Olsen, S. M. 1995. Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) cultivar and weed sensitivity to DPX-E9636. Weed Technol. 9:499–503.Google Scholar
Fortino, J. and Splittstoesser, W. E. 1974. Response of tomato to metribuzin. Weed Sci. 22:460–463.Google Scholar
Frank, J. R. and Beste, C. E. 1985. Effects of metribuzin placement on the foliage of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) and jimsonweed (Datura stramonium). Weed Sci. 31:445–449.Google Scholar
Freisen, G. H. 1979. Weed interference in transplanted tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum). Weed Sci. 27:11–13.Google Scholar
Glaze, N. C. 1990. Weed control in direct-seeded tomato for transplant production. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 30:70.Google Scholar
Green, J. M. and Green, J. H. 1993. Surfactant structure and concentration strongly affect rimsulfuron activity. Weed Technol. 7:633–640.Google Scholar
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
Leep, D. C., Green, J. M., and Kral, W. C. 1991. DPX-E9636: a new herbicide for potatoes. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 48:116.Google Scholar
Manley, B. S., Wilson, H. P., and Hines, T. E. 1996. Smooth pigweed (Amaranthus hybridus) and livid amaranth (A. lividus) response to several imidazolinone and sulfonylurea herbicides. Weed Technol. 10:835–841.Google Scholar
McGiffen, M. E., Masiunas, J. B., and Hesketh, J. D. 1992. Competition for light between tomatoes and nightshades (Solanum nigrum or S. ptycanthum). Weed Sci. 40:220–226.Google Scholar
Perez, F.G.M. and Matsiunas, J. B. 1990. Eastern black nightshade (Solanum ptycanthum) interference in processing tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum). Weed Sci. 38:385–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weaver, S. E., Smits, N., and Tan, C. S. 1987. Estimating yield losses of tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum) caused by nightshade (Solanum spp.) interference. Weed Sci. 35:163–168.Google Scholar
Weaver, S. E. and Tan, C. S. 1983. Critical period of weed interference in transplanted tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum): growth analysis. Weed Sci. 31:476–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar