Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T04:49:12.306Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pepper and Tomato Root Uptake of Paraquat and Flumioxazin

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Nathan S. Boyd
Nathan S. Boyd*
Affiliation:
Gulf Coast Research and Education Center, University of Florida, Wimauma, FL 33598
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Fresh market pepper and tomato are important crops in Florida. Production primarily occurs on raised beds covered with plastic mulch. Weeds emerging between the rows are often controlled with multiple applications of burndown and soil-residual herbicides. Crop damage attributed to root uptake of herbicides applied between the rows has been reported. An experiment was conducted in a greenhouse at the Gulf Coast Research and Education Center to examine the effect of root uptake of paraquat and paraquat tank-mixed with flumioxazin on pepper and tomato growth and yield. Herbicides were applied via subsurface irrigation at 0.0625×, 0.125×, 0.25×, 0.5×, 1×, 2×, 4×, 8×, and 16× labeled rates. The 1× rate was based on the estimated label rate that would be applied per plant in the field and was 0.122 g ai plant−1 (1,542 g ai ha−1) and 0.011 g ai plant−1 (143 g ai ha−1) for paraquat and flumioxazin, respectively. Root uptake caused necrosis of the veins, followed by complete tissue death at higher rates. The percentage of crop damage increased with herbicide rate for both species (P < 0.0001), with greater damage observed at the lower rates with the tank mix than with the paraquat alone. A reduction in shoot biomass and fruit yield of both crops was observed following root uptake. These results suggest that uptake of paraquat or paraquat tank-mixed with flumioxazin by pepper and tomato roots in a field situation is possible.

El pimentón y el tomate para mercado fresco son cultivos importantes en Florida. La producción se da primariamente en camas elevadas con cobertura plástica. Las malezas emergen entre las hileras y son frecuentemente controladas con múltiples aplicaciones de herbicidas de amplio espectro y herbicidas residuales. Se ha reportado el daño al cultivo atribuido a la absorción por la raíz de herbicidas aplicados entre las hileras de siembra. Se realizó un experimento en un invernadero en el Centro de Investigación y Educación de la Costa del Golfo para examinar la absorción por la raíz de paraquat y paraquat en mezcla en tanque con flumioxazin en pimentón y tomate, y su efecto en el crecimiento y el rendimiento de estos cultivos. Los herbicidas fueron aplicados vía riego subterráneo a 0.0625×, 0.25×, 0.5×, 1×, 2×, 4×, 8×, and 16× de la dosis de etiqueta. La dosis 1× se basó en el estimado de la dosis de etiqueta que sería aplicada por planta en el campo y fue 0,122 g ai planta−1 (1,542 g ai ha−1) y 0.011 g ai planta−1 (143 g ai ha−1) para paraquat y flumioxazin, respectivamente. La absorción por la raíz causó necrosis de las venas, seguido de la muerte de tejidos a dosis altas. El porcentaje de daño al cultivo aumentó con la dosis de herbicida para ambas especies (P<0.0001), observándose un mayor daño a dosis bajas con la mezcla en tanque que con paraquat solo. Se observó una reducción en la biomasa aérea y en el rendimiento de fruto para ambos cultivos después de la absorción por la raíz. Estos resultados sugieren que la absorción de paraquat o paraquat en mezcla en tanque con flumioxazin por las raíces de pimentón y tomate es posible en una situación de campo.

Keywords

Flumioxazinparaquatpepper, Capsicum annuum L.tomato, Lycopersicon esculentum L.Herbicide absorptionplasticulturetranslocationvein necrosis
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 28 , Issue 4 , December 2014 , pp. 626 - 632
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

Alister, C, Rojas, S, Gomez, P, Kogan, M (2008) Dissipation and movement of flumioxazin in soil at four field sites in Chile. Pest Manag Sci 64:579–583 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crespo, AM, MacRae, AW, Alves, C, Jacoby, TP, Kelly, RO (2013) Tomato root uptake of carfentrazone. Weed Technol 27:497–501 Google Scholar
Culpepper, AS, Grey, TL, Webster, TM (2009) Vegetable response to herbicides applied to low-density polyethylene mulch prior to transplant. Weed Technol 23:444–449 Google Scholar
Damanakis, DSH, Drennan, JD, Fryer, JD, Holly, K (1970a) Availability to plants of paraquat adsorbed on soil or sprayed on vegetation. Weed Res 10:305–315 Google Scholar
Damanakis, DSH, Drennan, JD, Fryer, JD, Holly, K (1970b) The toxicity of paraquat to a range of species following uptake by the roots. Weed Res 10:278–283 Google Scholar
DiTomaso, JM, Hart, JJ, Kochian, LV (1993) Compartmentation analysis of paraquat fluxes in maize roots as a means of estimating the rate of vacuolar accumulation and translocation to shoots. Plant Physiol 102:467–472 Google Scholar
Ferrell, JA, Vencill, WK (2003) Flumioxazin soil persistence and mineralization in laboratory experiments. J Agric Food Chem 51:4719–4721 Google Scholar
Fryer, JD, Hance, RJ, Ludwig, JW (1975) Long-term persistence of paraquat in a sandy loam soil. Weed Res 15:189–194 Google Scholar
Gevao, B, Semple, KT, Jones, KC (2000) Bound pesticide residues in soils: a review. Environ Pollut 108:3–14 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grey, TL, Vencill, WK, Webster, TM, Culpepper, AS (2009) Herbicide dissipation from low density polyethylene mulch. Weed Sci 57:351–356 Google Scholar
Khan, SU, Belanger, A, Hogue, EJ, Hamilton, HA, Mathur, SP (1976) Residues of paraquat and linuron in an organic soil and their uptake by onions, lettuce, and carrots. Can J Soil Sci 56:407–412 Google Scholar
Roberts, TR, Dyson, JS, Lane, MCG (2002) Deactivation of the biological activity of paraquat in the soil environment: a review of long-term environmental fate. J Agric Food Chem 50:3623–3631 Google Scholar
Senseman, SA, ed (2007) Herbicide Handbook. 9th edn. Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of America. Pp 188–190 Google Scholar
Slade, P (1966) The fate of paraquat applied to plants. Weed Res 6:158–167 Google Scholar
Tucker, BV, Pack, DE, Ospenson, JN, Omid, A, Thomas, WD Jr. (1969) Paraquat soil bonding and plant response. Weed Sci 17:448–451 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiedman, SJ, Appleby, AP (1972) Plant growth stimulation by sublethal concentrations of herbicides. Weed Res 12:65–74 Google Scholar