Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T20:17:19.992Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response of Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) and Onion (Allium cepa) to Several Postemergence Grass Herbicides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Jon R. Johnson  and
Herbert J. Hopen
Jon R. Johnson
Affiliation:
Dep. of Hortic., Univ. of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801
Herbert J. Hopen
Affiliation:
Dep. of Hortic., Univ. of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Sethoxydim {2-[1-(ethoxyimino)-butyl]-5-[2-ethylthio)propyl]-3-hydroxy-2-cyclohexene-1-one}, KK 80 {ethyl-4-[4-[4-(trifluoromethyl)phenoxy] phenoxy]-2-pentenoate}, and RO-13-8895 {acetone-0-2-[D-2-[δ,δ,δ-trifluoro-p-tolyl)-oxy] phenoxy] propionyl] oxime} did not injure plants visibly or reduce the yield of tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum L.). Diclofop LC [2,4-(2,4-dichlorophenoxy)phenoxy] propanoic acid] and diclofop HC in combination with oil or surfactant reduced tomato yield because tomatoes retained more of these spray solutions. No herbicide treatments injured onions (Allium cepa L.). All compounds controlled most grass weeds. Tomato plants grown at 29/18 C were injured more by some diclofop treatments than plants grown at 18/7 C. Cell membrane permeability of tomato plants treated with diclofop alone or in combination with adjuvants increased as visual injury symptoms became more severe.

Keywords

DiclofopsethoxydimKK 80RO – 13 – 8895
Type
Weed Control and Herbicide Technology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 32 , Issue 2 , March 1984 , pp. 168 - 173
Copyright
Copyright © 1984 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. Andersen, R. N. 1976. Response of monocotyledons to HOE 22870 and 23408. Weed Sci. 24:266–269.Google Scholar
2. Campbell, J. R. and Penner, D. 1982. Comparability of diclofop and sethoxydim with bentazon. Weed Sci. 30:458–462.Google Scholar
3. Chow, P. N. P. 1978. Selectivity and site of action in relation to field performance of diclofop. Weed Sci. 26:352–358.Google Scholar
4. Coleman-Harrell, M. E. and Lee, G. A. 1978. Influence of surfactants on the phytotoxicity of diclofop on wild oat under greenhouse and field conditions. Proc. Western Weed Sci. Soc. 31:77–81.Google Scholar
5. Cranmer, J. R. and Nalewaja, J. D. 1981. Environment and sethoxydim phytotoxicity. Proc. North. Cent. Weed Control Conf. 36:26.Google Scholar
6. Crowley, J. and Prendville, G. N. 1979. Effect of diclofop-methyl on leaf-cell membrane permeability in wild oat, barley, and wheat. Can. J. Plant Sci. 59:275–277.Google Scholar
7. Friesen, H. A., O'Sullivan, P. A., and Vanden Born, W. H. 1976. HOE 23408, a new selective herbicide for wild oats and green foxtail in wheat and barley. Can. J. Plant Sci. 56:567–578.Google Scholar
8. Lee, R. D. and Bendixen, L. E. 1981. Johnsongrass control trends with postemergent application of RO-13-8895, Fusilade, CGA 82725, and Poast. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 36:96.Google Scholar
9. McAvoy, W. J., Thompson, J. T., Steinert, W. G., Daniel, J. W., Vesecky, J. F., Hendric, L. W., Veenstra, M. A., Sciarappa, W. J., Schroeder, M., and Tasker, A. 1980. Selective postemergence perennial grass control with sethoxydim OH [2-N-(ethoxybutyrimidoyl)-5-(2-ethylthiopropyl)-3-hydroxy-2-cyclohexene-1-one]. Abstract, Weed Sci. Soc. of Amer. p. 13.Google Scholar
10. Putnam, A. R., Love, A. P., and Rice, R. P. Jr. 1974. Control of annual grasses in vegetable crops with HOE 23408 and HOE 22870. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 29:74.Google Scholar
11. Schrieber, M. M., Warren, G. F., and Orwick, P. L. 1979. Effect of wetting agent, stage of growth, and species on the selectivity of diclofop. Weed Sci. 27:679–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Steel, R. G. D. and Torrie, J. H. 1980. Principles and procedures of statistics. McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., New York. 633 pp.Google Scholar
13. Umeda, K. and Kapusta, G. 1981. Postemergence rhizome johnsongrass [Sorghum halepense (L.) Pers.] control in soybeans with BAS 9052 [2-(N-ethoxybutyrimidoyl)-5-(2-ethylthiopropyl)-3-hydroxy-2-cyclohexene-1-one], difenopenten, and mefluidide. Abstract, Weed Sci. Soc. of Amer. p. 11.Google Scholar
14. West, L. D., Dawson, J. H., and Appleby, A. P. 1980. Factors influencing barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) control with diclofop. Weed Sci. 28:366–371.Google Scholar
15. Wills, G. D. 1981. Effects of environment on the toxicity of BAS 9052 [2-(N-ethoxybutyrimidoyl)-5-(ethylthiopropyl)-3-hydroxy-2-cyclohexene-1-one] and KK 80 [ethyl-4-[4-[4-(trifluoromethyl)phenoxyl]-2-pentenoate] to common bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon L.). Abstract, Weed Sci. Soc. of Amer. p. 9.Google Scholar
16. Wu, C. and Santelmann, P. W. 1976. Phytotoxicity and soil activity of HOE 23408. Weed Sci. 24:601–604.Google Scholar