Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T06:14:47.207Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of Imazaquin for Weed Control in Flue-Cured Tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Frank R. Walls Jr. ,
A. Douglas Worsham ,
William K. Collins ,
Frederick T. Corbin  and
J. R. Bradley
Frank R. Walls Jr.
Affiliation:
Crop Sci. Dep., N.C. State Univ., Raleigh, NC 27695
A. Douglas Worsham
Affiliation:
Crop Sci. Dep., N.C. State Univ., Raleigh, NC 27695
William K. Collins
Affiliation:
Crop Sci. Dep., N.C. State Univ., Raleigh, NC 27695
Frederick T. Corbin
Affiliation:
Crop Sci. Dep., N.C. State Univ., Raleigh, NC 27695
J. R. Bradley
Affiliation:
Entomology Dep., N.C. State Univ., Raleigh, NC 27695
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Imazaquin {2-[4,5-dihydro-4-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-5-oxo-1H-imidazol-2-yl]-3-quinolinecarboxylic acid} was evaluated in the field for weed control in flue-cured tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum L.) during 1983 and 1984. The 75 DG formulation of imazaquin was used at 0.28 and 0.42 kg ai/ha. Methods of application were: preplant incorporated, over the top immediately after transplanting, postbed incorporated, and early postemergence. Imazaquin controlled 90%, or better, of common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album L. # CHEAL), common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. # AMBEL), redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L. # AMARE), spiny amaranth (Amaranthus spinosus L. # AMASP), ivyleaf morningglory [Ipomoea hederacea (L.) Jacq. # IPOHE], sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia L. # CASOB), and prickly sida (Sida spinosa L. # SIDSP) with all application methods except early postemergence. It controlled 80 to 89% of large crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis L. # DIGSA) by the soil-applied methods. Postemergence applications of imazaquin controlled common ragweed, pigweed spp., ivyleaf morningglory, prickly sida, and sicklepod. Imazaquin was less effective postemergence on lambsquarters and large crabgrass. Tobacco tolerated use of imazaquin by all methods of application except preplant incorporation.

Keywords

Crop qualitycrop yieldAMASSAMBELCASOBCHEALDIGSAIPOHESIDSP
Type
Weed Control and Herbicide Technolgy
Information
Weed Science , Volume 35 , Issue 6 , November 1987 , pp. 824 - 829
Copyright
Copyright © 1987 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. Ahn, D. N. 1980. Study of competition between annual weeds and tobacco of a native variety, Jonginyeub. Korea Tob. Res. Inst. Res. Bull. 2:45–54.Google Scholar
2. Bryson, C. T. 1985. Economic losses due to weeds. Res. Rep. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 38:116–118.Google Scholar
3. Chaudy, G. A., Chaudhry, M. H., and Fareed, M. 1978. Weed competition and its effect on the yield components in tobacco crop. Pak. Tob. 2:19–21.Google Scholar
4. Collins, W. K., Hawks, S. N. Jr., and Kittrell, B. U. 1972. Effects of three herbicides on weed control, yield, and value of fluecured tobacco. Tob. Sci. 16:127–128.Google Scholar
5. Elmore, C. D. 1983. Weed survey–Southern States. Res. Rep. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 36:148–184.Google Scholar
6. Harvey, W. R., Stahr, H. M., and Smith, W. C. 1969. Automated determination of reducing sugars and nicotine alkaloids on the same extract of tobacco leaf. Tob. Sci. 13:13–15.Google Scholar
7. Hauser, E. W. and Miles, J. D. 1985. Flue-cured tobacco yields and quality as affected by weed control methods. Weed Res. 15:211–215.Google Scholar
8. Hawks, S. N. Jr. 1978. Pages 154–156 in Principles of Flue-Cured Tobacco Production. 2nd ed. S. N. Hawks, Raleigh, NC.Google Scholar
9. Hawks, S. N. Jr., and Collins, W. K. 1983. Pages 205–220 in Principles of Flue-Cured Tobacco Production. Hawks and Collins, Raleigh, NC.Google Scholar
10. Lewis, W. M., Coble, H. D., and Worsham, A. D. 1983. Chemical weed control in field crops. Pages 193–205 in 1983 North Carolina Agricultural Chemicals Manual. School of Agric. and Life Sci. North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh.Google Scholar
11. Lignowski, E. M. 1985. Imazaquin. Development status and plans. Abstr. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 38:63.Google Scholar
12. Martin, R. K. 1984. Scepter herbicide (AC 252,214) results of 1983 field trials in the southern region. Abstr. Proc. South. Weed Sci. 37:377.Google Scholar
13. Norris, B. E. Jr. and Walker, R. H. 1984. Responses of weed species (FABACEAE) to DPX-F6025 and AC 252,214 applied postemergence. Abstr. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 37:70.Google Scholar
14. Pepper, M. N., Walker, R. H., and Harris, J. R. 1985. Application methods and rate effects with DPX-F6025 and imazaquin. Abstr. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 38:71.Google Scholar
15. Risley, M. A. and Oliver, L. R. 1984. Influence of application method of AC 252,214 on a spectrum of weed species. Abstr. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 37:72.Google Scholar
16. Rodrigues, E. B. and Worsham, A. D. 1973. Herbicides for flue-cured tobacco. I. Weed control, methods of soil incorporation, yield, and value of tobacco. Tob. Sci. 17:155–158.Google Scholar
17. Wernsman, E. A. and Price, E. L. 1975. North Carolina grade index for flue-cured tobacco. Tob. Sci. 19:111.Google Scholar
18. Worsham, A. D. 1970. Herbicide performance in flue-cured tobacco. Weed Sci. 18:648–652.Google Scholar