Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T19:55:25.047Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of Multiple Applications of Simulated Quinclorac Drift Rates on Tomato

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Michael L. Lovelace ,
Ronald E. Talbert ,
Eric F. Scherder  and
Robert E. Hoagland
Michael L. Lovelace*
Affiliation:
USDA, AMS, LS, Seed Regulatory and Testing Branch, 801 Summit Crossing Place, Suite C, Gastonia, NC 28054
Ronald E. Talbert
Affiliation:
Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences, University of Arkansas, 1366 W. Altheimer Drive, Fayetteville, AR 72704
Eric F. Scherder
Affiliation:
AgriGold Hybrids, St. Francisville, IL 62460-9989
Robert E. Hoagland
Affiliation:
USDA–ARS, Southern Weed Science Research Unit, P.O. Box 350, Stoneville, MS 38776-0350
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Quinclorac drift has been speculated as the cause of injury to tomato crops throughout northeast Arkansas. In this study, we set out to determine whether tomato plant injury and yield reduction were correlated with simulated quinclorac drift. Experiments were carried out at Fayetteville, AR, in 1999 and 2000. Maximum plant injury (visual ratings) was about 20% when plants were treated with one, two, or three quinclorac applications (weekly intervals beginning at first flower) at 0.42 g ai ha−1 (0.001 times the normal use rate to simulate drift). Maximum plant injury ranged from 48 to 68% with quinclorac simulated drift treatment of 42 g ha−1. Overall, increasing quinclorac rate and number of applications increased tomato injury. In both years, tomato plant fresh-weight accumulation was not influenced by one, two, or three applications of quinclorac at 0.42 g ha−1 compared with the untreated control. In 1999, increasing the rate of quinclorac from 0.42 to 4.2 g ha−1 reduced plant fresh-weight accumulation. In 2000, there was no significant difference in plant fresh weight when plants were treated with quinclorac at 2.1 to 4.2 g ha−1. Evaluation of the herbicide rate effect indicated that quinclorac at 0.42 g ha−1 did not reduce tomato fruit yield (total weight of edible fruit) compared with the untreated control, but yield decreased as rate increased above 0.42 g ha−1. Increasing the number of applications generally decreased tomato yield, and overall as maximum visual plant injury increased, tomato yield reduction ALSo increased linearly. We conclude that quinclorac at simulated drift rates can adversely affect tomato plant growth and yield.

Keywords

Quincloractomato, Lycopersicon esculentum MillHerbicide driftauxinic herbicideepinasty
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 55 , Issue 2 , April 2007 , pp. 169 - 177
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

[AASS] Arkansas Agricultural Statistics Service 2003. Arkansas Agricultural Statistics for 2003. Available from: http://www.nass.usda.gov/ar/fnvgtomt.PDF or Cooperative Extension Service, AASC, 2301 South University Avenue, Room 103, Little Rock, AR 72204. Publication MP 409.Google Scholar
Akesson, N. B. and Yates, W. E. 1987. Effect of weather factors on the application of herbicides. Pages 335–344. in McWhorter, C.G., Gebhardt, M.R. eds. Monograph Series of the Weed Science Society of America: Methods of Applying Herbicides, Volume 4. Champaign, IL Weed Science Society of America.Google Scholar
Anonymous, , 1996. Survey Report of Tomato Symptoms. Little Rock, AR Arkansas State Plant Board.Google Scholar
Bansal, R. K., Walker, J. T., and Mattice, J. 1999. Memo: A study of Facet (quinclorac) drift and its impact on tomatoes: first year report. Fayetteville, AR Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, University of Arkansas. 64.Google Scholar
Barrentine, W. L. and Street, J. E. 1993. Soybean Response to Quinclorac and Triclopyr. Pages 12. Mississippi State Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station Bulletin 995.Google Scholar
Behrens, R. and Lueschen, W. E. 1979. Dicamba volatility. Weed Sci. 27:486–493.Google Scholar
Breeze, V. G. and van Rensburg, E. 1992. Uptake of herbicide [14C] 2,4-D iso-octyl in the vapor phase by tomato and lettuce plants and some effects on growth and phytotoxicity. Ann. Appl. Biol. 120:493–500.Google Scholar
De Barreda, D. G., Lorenzo, E., Carbonell, E. A., Cases, B., and Munoz, N. 1993. Use of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) seedlings to detect bensulfuron and quinclorac residues in water. Weed Technol. 7:376–381.Google Scholar
Eastin, E. F. 1989. Quinclorac activity in rice as influenced by time of application. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 42:70.Google Scholar
Gilreath, J. P., Chase, C. A., and Locascio, S. J. 2001a. Crop injury from sublethal rates of herbicide, I: tomato. Hortscience. 36:669–673.Google Scholar
Gilreath, J. P., Chase, C. A., and Locascio, S. J. 2001b. Crop injury from sublethal rates of herbicide, III: pepper. Hortscience. 36:677–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grossmann, K. 1998. Quinclorac belongs to a new class of highly selective auxin herbicides. Weed Sci. 46:707–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, G. L., Mourer, C. R., and Shibamoto, T. 1997. Development of determination method for carbofuran and oxydemeton-methyl in ambient air. J. Agric. Food Chem. 45:4347–4350.Google Scholar
Hemphill, D. D. and Montgomery, M. L. 1981. Response of vegetable crops to sublethal applications of 2,4-D. Weed Sci. 29:632–635.Google Scholar
Romanowski, R. R. 1980. Simulated drift studies with herbicides on field-grown tomato. Hortscience. 15:793–794.Google Scholar
Sciumbato, A. S., Senseman, S. A., Ross, J., Mueller, T. C., Chandler, J. M., Cothren, J. T., and Kirk, I. W. 2005. Effects of 2,4-D formulation and quinclorac spray droplet size and deposition. Weed Technol. 19:1030–1036.Google Scholar
Seiber, J. N., McChesney, M. M., and Woodrow, J. E. 1989. Airborne residues resulting from use of methyl parathion, molinate and thiobencarb on rice in the Sacramento Valley, California. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 8:577–588.Google Scholar
Snipes, C. E., Street, J. E., and Mueller, T. C. 1992. Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) injury from simulated quinclorac drift. Weed Sci. 40:106–109.Google Scholar
Stauber, L. G., Nastasi, P., Smith, R. J. Jr., Baltazar, A. M., and Talbert, R. E. 1991. Barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) and bearded sprangletop (Leptochloa fascicularis) control in rice (Oryza sativa). Weed Technol. 5:337–344.Google Scholar
Street, J. E. and Mueller, T. C. 1993. Rice (Oryza sativa) weed control with soil applications of quinclorac. Weed Technol. 7:600–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talbert, R. E., Tierney, M. J., Carey, V. F. III, Kit, M. J., and Burgos, N. R. 1994. Field Evaluations of Herbicides on Small Fruit, Vegetable and Ornamental Crops, 1993. Fayetteville, AR Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station Research Series 440. 10.Google Scholar
[USDA–NASS] U.S. Department of Agriculture–National Agricultural Statistics Service 2001. Agricultural Chemical Usage: 2000 Field Crops Summary. http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/other/pcu-bb/agcs0501.pdf.Google Scholar
van Rensburg, E. and Breeze, V. G. 1990. Uptake and development of phytotoxicity following exposure to vapour of the herbicide 14C 2,4-D-butyl by tomato and lettuce plants. J. Environ. Exp. Bot. 30:405–414.Google Scholar
Vencill, W. K. 2002. Herbicide Handbook, 8th ed. Lawrence, KS Weed Science. Society of America. 386–387.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, P. W., Hitchcock, A. E., and Kirkpatrick, H. 1953. Methods for determining relative volatility of esters of 2,4-D and other growth regulants based on response of tomato plants. Weeds. 2:254–261.Google Scholar
Zwick, W., Walter, H., and Ludwig, J. 1987. Quinclorac (BAS 514 H), a new herbicide in rice for control of [Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) Beauv.] and other weeds. Abstr. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. 27:85.Google Scholar