Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T23:56:30.620Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed Control and Tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum) Tolerance with Fomesafen

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

David C. Bridges  and
Michael G. Stephenson
David C. Bridges
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Univ. Ga., Griffin, GA 30223-1797
Michael G. Stephenson
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, Nematodes, Weeds and Crops Unit, Tifton, GA 31793
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Research was conducted to determine the tolerance of flue-cured tobacco to fomesafen and the potential for weed control in tobacco with fomesafen. Treatments consisted of fomesafen at 0.4 or 0.6 kg ai ha–1 applied pretransplant incorporated (PTI), pretransplant (PRE-T), post-transplant (POS-T), postemergence-over-top (POT), or post-directed (PD). Tobacco injury within 30 d of application was as high as 30%, but tobacco recovered and few significant differences in tobacco yield, grade index, or price were observed except where fomesafen was applied PTI at 0.6 kg ha–1. Tobacco tolerance relative to time of application was generally PRE-T = POT > POS-T = PTI. Florida pusley and large crabgrass control was > 80% for all fomesafen treatments. Yellow and purple nutsedge control was approximately 30% before cultivation.

Keywords

Fomesafen, 5-[2-chloro-4-(trifluoromethyl)phenoxy]-N-(methylsulfonyl)-2-nitrobenzamideFlorida pusley (Richardia scabra L. ♯ RCHSC)large crabgrass [Digitaria sanquinalis (L.) Scop. ♯ DIGSA]purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus L. ♯ CYPRO)yellow nutsedge, (Cyperus esculentus L. ♯ CYPES)tobacco, (Nicotiana tabacum L. ‘McNair 944’)
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 5 , Issue 4 , December 1991 , pp. 868 - 872
Copyright
Copyright © 1990 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. Anonymous. 1989. Statistics of cotton, tobacco, sugar crops, and honey, p. 61 in Agricultural Statistics 1989. United States Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402.Google Scholar
2. Bryson, C. T. 1989. Economic losses due to weeds in southern states. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 42:385–392.Google Scholar
3. Bullock, F. D. 1990. Weed management, p. 47–49 in 1991 Georgia Tobacco Growers Guide. Univ. Ga. Coop. Ext. Serv. Bull. MP419, Athens, GA 30602.Google Scholar
4. Gaines, T. P. 1971. Chemical methods of tobacco plant analysis. Univ. Ga. Coll. Agric. Exp. Stn. Res. Rep. 97, Athens, GA 30602.Google Scholar
5. Hauser, E. W., and Miles, J. D. 1985. Flue-cured tobacco yields and quality as affected by weed control methods. Weed Res. 15:211–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Masiunas, J. B. 1989. Tomato tolerance to diphenyl ether herbicides applied postemergence. Weed Technol. 3:602–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Millhollon, R. W. 1990. Preemergence and postemergence control of itchgrass in sugarcane. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 43:86.Google Scholar
8. Teasdale, J. R. 1987. Selectivity of diphenyl ether herbicides between tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) and eastern black nightshade (Solanum ptycanthum). Weed Technol. 1:165–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Walls, F. R. Jr., Worsham, A. D., Collins, W. K., Corbin, F. T., and Bradley, J. R. 1987. Evaluation of imazaquin for weed control in flue-cured tobacco. Weed Sci. 35:824–829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Wernsman, E. A., and Price, E. L. 1975. North Carolina grade index for flue-cured tobacco. Tob. Sci. 19:119.Google Scholar