Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T12:01:22.319Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed Control in Direct-Seeded Tomato, Lycopersicon esculentum, for Transplants

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Norman C. Glaze
Norman C. Glaze*
Affiliation:
U.S. Dep. Agric., Agric. Res. Serv., Tifton, GA 31793
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Herbicides were evaluated alone, in combinations, or as sequential treatments on direct-seeded tomato each year from 1982 through 1984. Diphenamid at 4.5 kg ai/ha or napropamide at 1.1 to 2.2 kg ai/ha alone are registered but frequently do not control weeds adequately, particularly when yellow nutsedge and/or Florida pusley is common. Combinations or sequential treatments are necessary to overcome these weed problems in cropping systems. Metolachlor at 0.8 to 3.4 kg ai/ha injured direct-seeded tomato in proportion to the rate applied. Pendimethalin at 0.6 kg ai/ha also injured tomatoes. Fluazifop at 0.3 to 0.6 kg ae/ha and sethoxydim at 0.2 to 0.5 kg ai/ha effectively controlled annual grasses without injuring tomato seedlings. These herbicides would reduce competition and would increase harvesting efficiency where grass weeds are a problem.

Keywords

Diphenamid, N,N-dimethyl-α-phenylbenzeneacetamidefluazifop, (±)-2-[4-[[5-(trifluoromethyl)-2-pyridinyl] oxy] phenoxy] propanoic acidmetolachlor, 2-chloro-N-(2-ethyl-6-methylphenyl)-N-(2-methoxy-1-methylethyl)acetamidenapropamide, N,N-diethyl-2-(1-naphthalenyloxy)propanamidependimethalin, N-(1-ethylpropyl)-3,4-dimethyl-2,6-dinitrobenzenaminesethoxydim, 2-[1-(ethoxyimino)butyl]-5-[2-(ethylthio)propyl]-3-hydroxy-2-cyclohexen-1-oneFlorida pusley, Richardia scabra L. # RCHSCtomato, Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.yellow nutsedge, Cyperus esculentus L. # CYPESDiphenamidnapropamideyellow nutsedgeFlorida pusley
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 2 , Issue 3 , July 1988 , pp. 333 - 337
Copyright
Copyright © 1988 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. Fortino, J. Jr., and Splittstoesser, W. E. 1974. Response of tomato to metribuzin. Weed Sci. 22:460–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Fortino, J. Jr., and Splittstoesser, W. E. 1974. The use of metribuzin for weed control in tomato. Weed Sci. 22:615–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Gawronski, S. W. 1983. Tolerance of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) cultivars to metribuzin. Weed Sci. 31:525–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Glaze, N. C. 1983. Weed control in tomatoes direct-seeded for transplants. Abstr. Weed Sci. Soc. Am., p. 33.Google Scholar
5. Harrison, H. F. Jr., Bhatt, P., and Fassuliotis, G. 1983. Response of calli and seedlings of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) cultivars to metribuzin. Weed Sci. 31:533–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Mohammed, E. S., and Sweet, R. D. 1977. Growth of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.) and tomato at various densities. Abstr. Weed Sci., Soc. Am., p. 36.Google Scholar
7. Mohammed, E. S., and Sweet, R. D. 1978. Redroot pigweed (Amarantbus retroflexus L.) and tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum L.). Competition studies: I. Influence of plant densities. Abstr. Weed Sci. Soc. Am., p. 29.Google Scholar
8. Mohammed, E. S., and Sweet, R. D. 1978. Redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.) and tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum L.). Competition studies: II. Influence of moisture, nutrients and light. Abstr. Weed Sci. Soc. Am., p. 30.Google Scholar
9. Monaco, T. J. 1982. Postemergence grass herbicides in vegetable crops. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 35:141.Google Scholar
10. Phatak, S. C., and Glaze, N. C. 1977. Herbicide evaluation in tomatoes direct-seeded for transplants. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 30:152.Google Scholar
11. Pospichal, M. T., Burgis, D. S., and Locascio, S. J. 1976. Evaluation of napropamide for weed control in tomatoes and peppers. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 29:196–202.Google Scholar
12. Pritchard, M. K., and Warren, G. F. 1980. Effect of light on the response of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) and two weed species to metribuzin. Weed Sci. 28:186–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Rice, R. P. Jr. 1978. Environmental and edaphic influences on the selectivity of diphenamid in tomatoes. Abstr. Weed Sci. Soc. Am., p. 30.Google Scholar
14. Rice, R. P. Jr., and Putnam, A. R. 1980. Environmental influences on the selectivity of diphenamid in seeded tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum). Weed Sci. 28:176–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Stephenson, G. R., McLeod, J. E., and Phatak, S. C. 1976. Differential tolerance of tomato cultivars to metribuzin. Weed Sci. 24:161–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Stephenson, G. R., Phatak, S. C., Makowski, R.I., and Bouw, W. J. 1980. Phytotoxic interactions involving metribuzin and other pesticides in tomatoes. Can. J. Plant Sci. 60:167–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar