Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T02:17:25.607Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sulfentrazone Carryover to Vegetables and Cotton

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Ryan A. Pekarek ,
Paul V. Garvey ,
David W. Monks ,
Katherine M. Jennings  and
Andrew W. Macrae
Ryan A. Pekarek*
Affiliation:
Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, Box 7609, Raleigh, NC 27695
Paul V. Garvey
Affiliation:
Agricultural Systems Associates, Kinston, NC 28504
David W. Monks
Affiliation:
Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, Box 7609, Raleigh, NC 27695
Katherine M. Jennings
Affiliation:
Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, Box 7609, Raleigh, NC 27695
Andrew W. Macrae
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture, University of Florida, Gulf Coast Research and Education Center, 14625 County Road 672, Wimauma, FL 33598
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Sulfentrazone is commonly used for weed control in soybeans and tobacco, and vegetable crops and cotton are often rotated with soybeans and tobacco. Studies were conducted to evaluate the potential for sulfentrazone to carryover and injure several vegetable crops and cotton. Sulfentrazone was applied PRE to soybean at 0, 210, 420, and 840 g ai/ha before planting bell pepper, cabbage, cotton, cucumber, onion, snap bean, squash, sweet potato, tomato, and watermelon. Cotton, known to be susceptible to sulfentrazone carryover, was included as an indicator species. Cotton injury ranged from 14 to 18% with a 32% loss of yield in 1 of 2 yr when the labeled use rate of sulfentrazone (210 g/ha) was applied to the preceding crop. High use rates of sulfentrazone caused at least 50% injury with yield loss ranging from 36 to 100%. Bell pepper, snap bean, onion, tomato, and watermelon were injured < 18% by sulfentrazone at 840 g/ha. Squash was injured < 3% and < 36% by sulfentrazone at 210 and 840 g/ha, respectively. Yield of these crops was not affected regardless of sulfentrazone rate. Cabbage and cucumber were injured < 13% by sulfentrazone at 210 and 420 g/ha, and yields were not affected. Sulfentrazone at 840 g/ha injured cabbage up to 46% and reduced yield in 1 of 2 yr. Sulfentrazone injured cucumber up to 63% and reduced yield of No. 2 grade fruits. Sulfentrazone at 210 and 420 g/ha injured sweet potato < 6% and did not affect yield. Sulfentrazone at 840 g/ha injured sweet potato 14% and reduced total yield 26%. Our results suggest little to no adverse effect on bell pepper, cabbage, cucumber, onion, snap bean, squash, sweet potato, tomato, or watermelon from sulfentrazone applied at registered use rates during the preceding year.

El sulfentrazone es comúnmente usado en el control de malezas en cultivos de soya y tabaco, hortalizas, algodón y muchas veces en la rotación de soya y tabaco. Se realizaron estudios para evaluar el potencial del sulfentrazone en daños posteriores a los siguientes cultivos de hortaliza y algodón. El sulfentrazone fue pre-aplicado a la soya en dosis de 0, 210, 420 y 840 ai/ha en la pre-siembra de pimientos, col, algodón, pepino, cebolla, judía verde, calabacín, camote, tomate y sandía. El algodón conocido por ser susceptible a la aplicación de sulfentrazone fue incluido como una especie indicadora (testigo). Los daños en el algodón fluctuaron del 14 al 18% con un 32% de reducción en el rendimiento para el año 1 y 2 cuando se utilizó en el cultivo anterior la dosis de sulfentrazone recomendada en la etiqueta (210 g/ha). El uso de dosis mayores de sulfentrazone, causó al menos 50% de daño con una pérdida de rendimiento que va del 36 al 100%. El pimiento, la judía verde, la cebolla, el tomate y la sandía sufrieron daños de menos del 18% por sulfentrazone aplicado a una dosis de 840g/ha. El calabacín sufrió un daño menor al 3% y menor al 36% por sulfentrazone aplicado en dosis de 210 y 840 g/ha respectivamente. El rendimiento de estos cultivos no fue afectado independientemente de la dosis aplicada de sulfentrazone. La col y el pepino fueron afectados en menos del 13% por el sulfentrazone aplicado en dosis de 210 y 420 g/ha y los rendimientos no fueron afectados. En el caso de la col el sulfentrazone aplicado en dosis de 840 g/ha tuvo un daño de más del 46% y redujo sus rendimientos en el año 1 y 2. El pepino sufrió daños en más del 63% y redujo su rendimiento en sus frutos de calidad número 2. En el caso del camote, las dosis de sulfentrazone aplicado de entre 210 y 420 g/ha tuvieron daños de menos del 16% y no se afectó su rendimiento. El sulfentrazone aplicado a 840 g/ha en el mismo cultivo tuvo un daño de 14% y redujo su rendimiento en un 26%. Nuestros resultados sugieren efectos de leves a no adversos en el pimiento, col, pepino, cebolla, judía verde, calabacín, camote, tomate y sandía cuando el sulfentrazone se aplicó en las dosis registradas en el año anterior.

Keywords

Sulfentrazonebell pepper, Capsicum annuum L. ‘Jupiter’ cabbage, Brassica oleracea L. var. capitata ‘Conquest’cotton, Gossypium hirsutum L. ‘DP-51’cucumber, Cucumis sativus L. ‘Calypso’onion, Allium cepa L. var. cepa ‘Tuffball’snap bean, Phaseolus vulgaris L. ‘Strike’soybean, Glycine max (L.) Merrill ‘9711’squash, Cucurbita pepo L. ‘Early Prolific’sweet potato, Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam. ‘Beauregard’tobacco, Nicotiana tabacum L.tomato, Lycopersicon esculentum Mill. ‘Mountain Spring’watermelon, Citrullus lanatus (Thumb.) Matsum and Nakai ‘Sangria’Bell peppercabbagecottoncucumberherbicidepersistenceonionrotationrotational cropsnap beansoybeansquashsoil residuessweet potatotobaccotomatowatermelon
Type
Weed Management—Other Crops/Areas
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 24 , Issue 1 , March 2010 , pp. 20 - 24
Copyright
Copyright © 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

Anonymous, 2008. Spartan 4F Herbicide. Crop Data Management Systems. http://www.cdms.net/LDat/ld3LT010.pdf. Accessed: September 9, 2008.Google Scholar
Dayan, F. E., Armstrong, B. M., and Weete, J. D. 1998. Inhibitory activity of sulfentrazone and its metabolic derivatives on soybean (Glycine max) protoporphyrinogen oxidase. J. Agric. Food Chem 46:2024–2029.Google Scholar
Dayan, F. E. and Duke, S. O. 1997. Phytotoxicity of protoporphyrinogen oxidase inhibitors: phenomenology, mode of action, and mechanisms of resistance. Pages 11–35. In Roe, R. M., Burton, J. D., and Kuhr, R. J. Herbicide Activity: Toxicology, Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. Washington, DC: IOS.Google Scholar
Dayan, F. E., Green, H. M., Weete, J. D., and Hancock, H. G. 1996a. Postemergence activity of sulfentrazone: effects of surfactants and leaf surfaces. Weed Sci 44:797–803.Google Scholar
Dayan, F. E., Weete, J. D., Duke, S. O., and Hancock, H. G. 1997. Soybean (Glycine max) cultivar differences in response to sulfentrazone. Weed Sci 45:634–641.Google Scholar
Dayan, F. E., Weete, J. D., and Hancock, H. G. 1996. Physiological basis for differential sensitivity to sulfentrazone by sicklepod (Senna obtusifolia) and coffee senna (Cassia occidentalis). Weed Sci 44:12–17.Google Scholar
Ferrell, J. A., Witt, W. W., and Vencill, W. K. 2003. Sulfentrazone absorption by plant roots increases as soil or solution pH decreases. Weed Sci 51:826–830.Google Scholar
Greenland, R. G. 2003. Injury to vegetable crops from herbicides applied in previous years. Weed Technol 17:73–78.Google Scholar
Grey, T. L., Walker, R. H., Wehtje, G. R., Adams, J. Jr., Dayan, F. E., Weete, J. D., Hancock, H. G., and Kwon, O. 2000. Behavior of sulfentrazone in ionic exchange resins, electrophoresis gels, and cation-saturated soils. Weed Sci 48:239–247.Google Scholar
Holmes, G. and Kemble, J. M. 2008. Southeastern U.S. Vegetable Crop Handbook. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State Cooperative Extension Service. 280 p.Google Scholar
Main, C. L., Mueller, T. C., Hayes, R. M., Wilcut, J. W., Peeper, T. F., Talbert, R. E., and Witt, W. W. 2004. Sulfentrazone persistence in southern soils: bioavailable concentration and effect on a rotational cotton crop. Weed Technol 18:346–352.Google Scholar
Miller, T. W. 2003. Effect of several herbicides on green pea (Pisum sativum) and subsequent crops. Weed Technol 17:731–737.Google Scholar
[NCDA&CS] North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 2008. Crops: Acres, Yield, Production, and Value, 2005–2006, North Carolina. http://www.ncagr.gov/stats/2007AgStat/CropsAcresYieldProdValueNC.pdf. Accessed: February 26, 2009.Google Scholar
Ohmes, G. A., Hayes, R. M., and Mueller, T. C. 2000. Sulfentrazone dissipation in a Tennessee soil. Weed Sci 14:100–105.Google Scholar
Smith, W. D., Wood, S., and Fisher, L. R., coord. au. 2007. Managing nutrients. Pages 70–96. in. Flue-Cured Tobacco Guide. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service.Google Scholar
[USDA-AMS] United States Department of Agriculture Agricultural Marketing Service 2008. Grading, Certification, and Verification. http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/ams.fetchTemplateData.do?template=TemplateG&navID=GradingCertificationandVerfication&leftNav=GradingCertificationandVerfication&page=Standards&description=Standards&acct=AMSPW. Accessed: August 11, 2008.Google Scholar
Vencill, W. K. 2002. Herbicide Handbook. 8th ed. Lawrence, KS: Weed Science Society of America. 405–406.Google Scholar