Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T08:33:06.668Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Flue-cured tobacco tolerance to S-metolachlor

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 June 2020

Andrew M. Clapp ,
Matthew C. Vann Open the ORCID record for Matthew C. Vann [Opens in a new window] ,
Charles W. Cahoon Jr. ,
David L. Jordan ,
Loren R. Fisher  and
Matthew D. Inman
Andrew M. Clapp
Affiliation:
Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
Matthew C. Vann*
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor and Tobacco Extension Specialist, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
Charles W. Cahoon Jr.
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor and Extension Weed Specialist, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
David L. Jordan
Affiliation:
William Neal Reynolds Professor, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
Loren R. Fisher
Affiliation:
Professor and Assistant Director North Carolina Agriculture Research Service, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Raleigh, NC, USA
Matthew D. Inman
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor and Extension Tobacco Specialist, Plant and Environmental Sciences Department, Clemson University, Florence, SC, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Matthew C. Vann, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, North Carolina State University, Campus Box 7620, Raleigh, NC27695 Email: matthew_vann@ncsu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Currently, there are seven herbicides labeled for U.S. tobacco production; however, additional modes of action are greatly needed in order to reduce the risk of herbicide resistance. Field experiments were conducted at five locations during the 2017 and 2018 growing seasons to evaluate flue-cured tobacco tolerance to S-metolachlor applied pretransplanting incorporated (PTI) and pretransplanting (PRETR) at 1.07 (1×) and 2.14 (2×) kg ai ha−1. Severe injury was observed 6 wk after transplanting at the Whiteville environment in 2017 when S-metolachlor was applied PTI. End-of-season plant heights from PTI treatments at Whiteville were likewise reduced by 9% to 29% compared with nontreated controls, although cured leaf yield and value were reduced only when S-metolachlor was applied PTI at the 2× rate. Severe growth reduction was also observed at the Kinston location in 2018 where S-metolachlor was applied at the 2× rate. End-of-season plant heights were reduced 11% (PTI, 2×) and 20% (PRETR, 2×) compared with nontreated control plants. Cured leaf yield was reduced in Kinston when S-metolachlor was applied PRETR at the 2× rate; however, treatments did not impact cured leaf quality or value. Visual injury and reductions in stalk height, yield, quality, and value were not observed at the other three locations. Ultimately, it appears that injury potential from S-metolachlor is promoted by coarse soil texture and high early-season precipitation close to transplanting, both of which were documented at the Whiteville and Kinston locations. To reduce plant injury and the negative impacts to leaf yield and value, application rates lower than 1.07 kg ha−1 may be required in these scenarios.

Keywords

S-metolachlortobaccoNicotiana tabacum L. NITAcrop tolerancepretransplantingpretransplanting incorporatedresidual
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 34 , Issue 6 , December 2020 , pp. 843 - 848
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2020

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.)

Footnotes

Associate Editor: Barry Brecke, University of Florida

References

Abukari, IA, Shankle, MW, Reddy, KR (2015) S-metolachlor and rainfall effects on sweetpotato (Ipomoea batatas L. [Lam]) growth and development. Sci Hortic-Amsterdam 185:98–104 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anonymous (2019) Dual Magnum® herbicide label. http://www.cdms.net/ldat/ld0iA013.pdf. Accessed: January 25, 2019Google Scholar
Bollman, SL, Sprague, CL (2008) Tolerance of 12 sugarbeet varieties to applications of S-metolachlor and dimethenamid-P. Weed Technol 22:699–706 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowman, DT, Tart, AG, Wernsman, EA, Corbin, TC (1988) Revised North Carolina grade index for flue-cured tobacco. Tobacco Sci 32:39–40 Google Scholar
Brown, B, Snell, W (2017) U.S. tobacco situation and outlook. Pages 1–10 in Fisher, LR, ed., 2017 Flue-Cured Tobacco Guide. Raleigh: North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service Google Scholar
Cahoon, CW, York, AC, Jordan, DL, Everman, WJ, Seagroves, RW (2014) An alternative to multiple protoporphyrinogen oxidase inhibitor applications in no-till cotton. Weed Technol 28:58–71 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, WK, Hawks, SN , Jr., eds (2013) Principles of Flue-Cured Tobacco Production. 2nd ed. Raleigh, NC: WK Collins. 128 pGoogle Scholar
Davis, RE (1976) A combined automated procedure for the determination of reducing sugars and nicotine alkaloids in tobacco products using a new reducing sugar method. Tobacco Sci 20:139–144 Google Scholar
Fennimore, SA, Smith, RF, McGriffen, ME (2001) Weed management in fresh market spinach (Spinacia oleracea) with S-metolachlor. Weed Technol 15:511–516 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, LR, ed (2017) 2017 Flue-Cured Tobacco Guide. Raleigh: North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service. 203 pGoogle Scholar
Fisher, LR, Burke, IC, Price, AJ, Smith, WD, Wilcut, JW (2006) Uptake, translocation, and metabolism of root absorbed sulfentrazone and sulfentrazone plus clomazone in flue-cured tobacco transplants. Weed Technol 20:898–902 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, LR, Smith, WD, Wilcut, JW (2003a) Effects of incorporation equipment, application method, and soil placement of sulfentrazone on injury to flue-cured tobacco. Tobacco Sci 46:1–4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, LR, Smith, WD, Wilcut, JW (2003b) Effect of sulfentrazone rate and application method on weed control and stunting in flue-cured tobacco. Tobacco Sci 46:12–16 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, LR, Vann, MC, Barnes, K (2017) Selecting a variety. Pages 18–43 in Fisher, LR, ed. 2017 Flue-Cured Tobacco Guide. Raleigh: North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service Google Scholar
Gannon, TW, Hixson, AC, Weber, JB, Shi, W, Yelverton, FH (2013) Sorption of Simazine and S-metolachlor to soils from a chronosequence of turfgrass systems. Weed Sci 61:508–514 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heap, I (2019) Weeds Resistant to PPO inhibitors (E/14). http://www.weedscience.org/Summary/MOA.aspx?MOAID=8. Accessed: February 17, 2020Google Scholar
Henry, JB, Vann, MC, Lewis, RS (2019) Agronomic practices affecting nicotine concentration in flue-cured tobacco: A review. Agron J 111:3067–3075 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lati, RN, Mou, B, Rachuy, JS, Smith, RF, Dara, SK, Daugovis, O, Fennimore, SA (2015) Weed management in transplanted lettuce with pendimethalin and S-metolachlor. Weed Technol 29:827–834 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahoney, DJ (2019) Biology and management of Palmer amaranth in North Carolina. Ph.D dissertation. Raleigh: North Carolina State University. 120 pGoogle Scholar
Meyers, SL, Jennings, KM, Monks, DW (2012) Response of sweetpotato cultivars to S-metolachlor rate and application time. Weed Technol 26:474–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peedin, GF (1999) Production practices: flue-cured tobacco. Pages 104–142 in Davis, DL, Neilsen, MT, eds. Tobacco: Production, Chemistry and Technology. Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell Science Ltd Google Scholar
Place, G, Ammons, A, Everman, W (2018) Herbicide Resistant Weed Updates. https://catawba.ces.ncsu.edu/2018/04/herbicide-resistant-weed-updates/. Accessed: January 28, 2019Google Scholar
Procópio, SO, Silca, AA, Santos, JB, Ferreira, LR, Miranda, GV, Siqueira, JG (2001) Effects of the initial irrigation on the S-metolachlor herbicide leaching depth in different types of soils. Planta Daninha 19:409–417 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaner, DL, Jachetta, JJ, Senseman, S, Burke, I, Hanson, B, Jugulam, M, Tan, S, Reynolds, J, Strek, H, McAllister, R, et al. (2014) Herbicide Handbook. 10 th ed. Lawrence, KS: Weed Science Society of America. 513 p Google Scholar
Sikkema, PH, Shropshire, C, Soltani, N (2009) Response of dry bean to pre-plant incorporated and pre-emergence applications of S-metolachlor and fomesafen. Crop Prot 28:744–748 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soltani, N, Shropshire, C, Cowan, T, Sikkema, P (2004) Tolerance of black beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) to soil applications of S-metolachlor and imazethapyr. Weed Technol 18:111–118 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2018) Crop Values - 2017 Summary. https://downloads.usda.library.cornell.edu/usda-esmis/files/k35694332/7h149s08f/qz20sv884/CropValuSu-02-23-2018.pdf. Accessed: February 17, 2020Google Scholar
Vann, MC, Fisher, LR, Inman, MD (2019) Sustainable weed control in tobacco. Pages 367–382 in Korres, NE, Burgos, NR, Duke, SO, eds. Weed Control: Sustainability, Hazards and Risks in Cropping Systems Worldwide. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis Google Scholar
Vann, MC, Fisher, LR, Inman, MD, Seagroves, RW, Whitley, DS (2017) Managing weeds. Pages 77–96 in 2017 Flue-Cured Tobacco Guide. Raleigh: North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service Google Scholar
Webster, TM (2013) Weed Survey – Southern States: 2013 Broadleaf Crops Subsection (Cotton, Peanut, Soybean, Tobacco, and Forestry). http://www.swss.ws/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Southern-Weed-Survey-2013-Tables-BL-Crops.pdf. Accessed: February 17, 2020Google Scholar
Zemolin, CR, Avila, LA, Cassol, GV, Massey, JH, Camargo, ER (2014) Environmental fate of S-metolachlor – a review. Planta Daninha 32:655–664 CrossRefGoogle Scholar