Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T08:54:50.299Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bell Pepper (Capsicum annuum) Tolerance to Imazosulfuron and Thifensulfuron-Methyl

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Ryan A. Pekarek ,
David W. Monks ,
Katherine M. Jennings  and
Greg D. Hoyt
Ryan A. Pekarek
Affiliation:
Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695
David W. Monks*
Affiliation:
Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695
Katherine M. Jennings
Affiliation:
Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695
Greg D. Hoyt
Affiliation:
Department of Soil Science, North Carolina State University, Mountain Horticultural Crops Research and Extension Center, 455 Research Drive, Mills River, NC 28732
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Greenhouse and field studies were conducted to evaluate bell pepper tolerance to the sulfonylurea herbicides imazosulfuron and thifensulfuron-methyl. Imazosulfuron was applied at 56, 112, 224, 336, or 448 g ai ha−1. Thifensulfuron-methyl was applied at 2.6, 5.3, 10.5, 21.0, or 31.6 g ai ha−1. In the greenhouse over 2 yr, bell pepper injury due to imazosulfuron POST ranged from 12 to 27%. Reductions in plant height and numbers of nodes, buds, flowers, and fruits were generally minor or not observed. Injury from thifensulfuron-methyl POST ranged from 40 to 60% in the greenhouse. Similar trends were observed for leaf chlorosis and distortion. Thifensulfuron-methyl tended to decrease numbers of buds, flowers, and fruits in the greenhouse. In the field at three sites, bell pepper injury due to imazosulfuron applied POST-directed (POST-DIR) was less than 10% at all rating times, and height and yield were not affected. Total and marketable yield averaged 40,300 and 35,810 kg ha−1, respectively, across environments and years. Bell pepper injury from thifensulfuron-methyl applied POST-DIR in the field was less than 20% with all rates and less than 10% when rates less than 10.6 g ai ha−1 thifensulfuron-methyl were applied. Bell pepper stand (plants ha−1) or height was not affected by thifensulfuron-methyl. Thifensulfuron-methyl did not affect total bell pepper yield (39,310 kg ha−1 averaged across environments); however, reductions in Fancy grade yield were observed. No. 1 and cull yield grades tended to increase with increasing thifensulfuron-methyl rate, apparently compensating for lost Fancy yield.

Se realizaron estudios de invernadero y de campo para evaluar la tolerancia del pimentón a los herbicidas sulfonylurea imazosulfuron y thifensulfuron-methyl. Se aplicó imazosulfuron a 56, 112, 224, 336, ó 448 g ai ha−1. Thifensulfuron-methyl fue aplicado a 2.6, 5.3, 10.5, 21.0, ó 31.6 g ai ha−1. En el invernadero y durante 2 años, el daño en el pimentón causado por imazosulfuron POST varió de 12 a 27%. Las reducciones en altura de planta, número de nudos, yemas, flores, y frutos fue generalmente menor o no se observó del todo. El daño debido a thifensulfuron-methyl tendió a reducir el número de yemas, flores, y frutos en el invernadero. En el campo en tres localidades, el daño en el pimentón causado por imazosulfuron aplicado POST-dirigido (POST-DIR) fue menor a 10% en todos los momentos de evaluación, y ni la altura ni el rendimiento fueron afectados. El rendimiento total y comercializable promedió 40,300 y 35,810 kg ha−1, respectivamente, al promediarse ambientes y años. El daño del pimentón debido a thifensulfuron-methyl aplicado POST-DIR en campo, fue menos de 20% con cualquiera de las dosis y menor a 10% cuando las dosis aplicadas fueron inferiores a 10.6 g ai ha−1 de thifensulfuron-methyl. El establecimiento (plantas ha−1) o la altura del planta del pimentón no fueron afectados por thifensulfuron-methyl. Thifensulfuron-methyl no afectó el rendimiento total del pimentón (39,310 kg ha−1 promediado para los diferentes ambientes). Sin embargo, se observaron reducciones en el rendimiento del grado 'Fancy'. Los grados No. 1 y 'cull' tendieron a incrementar con la dosis de thifensulfuron-methyl, aparentemente compensando por las pérdidas de rendimiento 'Fancy'.

Keywords

Imazosulfuronthifensulfuron-methylbell pepperCapsicum annuum L. ‘Heritage'ALS inhibitor herbicidecrop toleranceherbicideintegrated weed managementsulfonylurea
Type
Weed Management—Other Crops/Areas
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 27 , Issue 4 , December 2013 , pp. 741 - 746
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

Ackley, J. A., Wilson, H. P., and Hines, T. E. 1998. Weed management in transplanted bell pepper (Capsicum frutescens) with clomazone and rimsulfuron. Weed Technol. 12:458–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adigun, J. A., Lagoke, S. T., and Karikari, S. K. 1991. Chemical weed control in irrigated sweet pepper (Capsicum annuum L.). Trop. Pest Manag. 37:155–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amador-Ramirez, M. D. 2002. Critical period of weed control in transplanted chilli pepper. Weed Res. 42:203–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anonymous. 2011. League herbicide product label. Valent U.S.A. Corporation Publication LEA 0001. Walnut Creek, CA Valent U.S.A. 9 p.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2012. Envoke herbicide product label. Syngenta Publication SCP 1132A-L1F 1210. Greensboro, NC Syngenta. 44 p.Google Scholar
Buckelew, J. K., Monks, D. W., and Jennings, K. M. 2007. Response of transplanted plasticulture tomato to post-directed thifensulfuron and trifloxysulfuron. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 60:142.Google Scholar
Buker, R. S. III., Rathinasabapathi, B., Stall, W. M., MacDonald, G., and Olson, S. M. 2004. Physiological basis for differential tolerance of tomato and pepper to rimsulfuron and halosulfuron: site of action study. Weed Sci. 52:201–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fu, R. and Ashley, R. A. 2006. Interference of large crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis), redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus), and hairy galinsoga (Galinsoga ciliate) with bell pepper. Weed Sci. 54:364–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonzalez Ponce, R. and Santin, I. 2004. Effects of early weed infestation on growth, yield, and nitrogen nutrition of pepper. J. Plant Nutr. 27:651–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, H. F. and Fery, R. L. 1998. Response of leading bell pepper varieties to bentazon herbicides. HortScience. 33:318–320.Google Scholar
Henry, G. M. and Sladek, B. S. 2008. Control of yellow and purple nutsedge in bermudagrass turf with V-10142. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 61:125.Google Scholar
Jennings, K. M. 2010. Tolerance of fresh-market tomato to postemergence-directed imazosulfuron, halosulfuron, and trifloxysulfuron. Weed Technol. 24:117–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemble, J. M., ed. 2012. Southeastern U.S. Vegetable Crop Handbook. Lincolnshire, IL Vance Publishing Corp, North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service. 260 p.Google Scholar
Lanini, W. T. and Le Strange, M. 1994. Weed control economics in bell pepper (Capsicum annuum) with napropamide and hand weeding. Weed Technol. 8:530–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Motis, T. N., Locascio, S. J., and Gilreath, J. P. 2004. Critical yellow nutsedge-free period for polyethylene-mulched bell pepper. HortScience. 39:1045–1049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Motis, T. N., Locascio, S. J., Gilreath, J. P., and Stall, W. M. 2003. Season-long interference of yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus) with polyethylene-mulched bell pepper (Capsicum annuum). Weed Technol. 17:543–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noling, J. W. and Gilreath, J. P. 2002a. Methyl Bromide: Progress and Problems Identifying Alternatives, Vol. I. University of Florida Extension. 16 p.Google Scholar
Noling, J. W. and Gilreath, J. P. 2002b. Methyl Bromide: Progress and Problems Identifying Alternatives, Vol. II. University of Florida Extension. 18 p.Google Scholar
Norsworthy, J. K., Oliveira, M. J., Jha, P., Malik, M., Buckelew, J. K., Jennings, K. M., and Monks, D. W. 2008. Palmer amaranth and large crabgrass growth with plasticulture-grown bell pepper. Weed Technol. 22:296–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scarponi, L., Esposito, A., and Tomassini, C. 2001. Factors of tolerance to rimsulfuron in four pepper (Capsicum annum L.) lines. Agronomie. 21:419–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schroeder, J. 1992. Oxyfluorfen for directed postemergence weed control in chile peppers (Capsicum annuum). Weed Technol. 6:1010–1014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[USDA-AMS] United States Department of Agriculture–Agricultural Marketing Service. 2005. United States Standards for Grades of Sweet Peppers. http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5050318. Accessed June 6, 2013.Google Scholar
VanGessel, M. J., Ayeni, A. O., and Majek, B. A. 2000. Optimum glyphosate timing with or without residual herbicides in glyphosate-resistant soybean (Glycine max) under full-season conventional tillage. Weed Technol. 14:140–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolff, D. W., Collins, W. W., and Monaco, T. J. 1992. Inheritance of tolerance to the herbicide bentazon in peppers (Capsicum annuum L.). J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 117:985–990.Google Scholar