Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T23:06:40.422Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Processing Tomato and Weed Response to Flufenacet plus Metribuzin

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Peter H. Sikkema ,
Allan S. Hamill ,
Mirwais M. Qaderi  and
Colleen Doucet
Peter H. Sikkema
Affiliation:
Weed Scientist, Ridgetown College, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, Ontario, Canada N0P 2C0
Allan S. Hamill*
Affiliation:
Research Scientist and former Postdoctoral Researcher, Greenhouse and Processing Crops Research Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Harrow, Ontario, Canada N0R 1G0
Mirwais M. Qaderi
Affiliation:
Research Associate, Department of Biology, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada N6A 5B7
Colleen Doucet
Affiliation:
Research Scientist and former Postdoctoral Researcher, Greenhouse and Processing Crops Research Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Harrow, Ontario, Canada N0R 1G0
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field experiments were conducted in 1998, 1999, and 2000 at two locations (Harrow and Ridgetown) in southwestern Ontario to determine the biologically effective rates (I90) of a commercial formulation of flufenacet plus metribuzin for weed control and processing tomato tolerance. At the proposed label use rate, flufenacet plus metribuzin provided excellent (≥90%) early-season (22 to 29 d after planting) control of velvetleaf, good (80 to 89%) control of barnyardgrass and redroot pigweed, and fair (60 to 79%) control of common lambsquarters. Flufenacet plus metribuzin provided fair late-season (59 to 97 d after planting) control of redroot pigweed and common lambsquarters and poor (≤59%) control of barnyardgrass and velvetleaf. At Harrow and Ridgetown, I90 values for early-season weed control ranged from 70 to 1,300 g ai/ha and 50 to 1,900 g ai/ha, respectively. Flufenacet plus metribuzin provided poor weed control at Ridgetown. This result was not attributable to higher weed density or particular weed species but may have been caused by lack of rainfall and too low application rates for the medium-textured soil type. It is estimated that flufenacet plus metribuzin at 1,400 g/ha can control green foxtail season-long, whereas barnyardgrass and common lambsquarters would require 1,900 g/ha. Season-long control of velvetleaf and redroot pigweed would require application rates of 3,200 and 7,100 g/ha, respectively. Only slight early-season crop injury was observed, which was not reflected in yields. Optimum yields of tomatoes were obtained at Harrow at rates lower or slightly higher than the registered rates for corn and soybean. Tomato yields were higher at Harrow than at Ridgetown, which may have been due to differences in soil texture. Tomatoes grown in a medium-textured (Ridgetown) soil appeared to be less competitive against weeds than those grown in a coarse-textured soil (Harrow).

Keywords

Flufenacetmetribuzinbarnyardgrass, Echinochloa crusgalli (L.) P. Beauv. # ECHCGcommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. # CHEALgreen foxtail, Setaria viridis (L.) P. Beauv. # SETVIredroot pigweed, Amaranthus retroflexus L. # AMAREvelvetleaf, Abutilon theophrasti Medik # ABUTHcorn, Zea mays L.soybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr.tomato, Lycospersicon esculentum Mill. ‘Heinz 9478’Crop injurypreplant incorporatedspecific herbicide rateweed densityIWM, integrated weed management
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 18 , Issue 3 , September 2004 , pp. 801 - 809
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

Cousens, R. 1985. An empirical model relating crop yield to weed and crop density and a statistical comparison with other models. J. Agric. Sci 105:513–521.Google Scholar
Dieleman, A., Hamill, A. S., Fox, G. C., and Swanton, C. J. 1996. Decision rules for postemergence control of pigweed (Amaranthus spp.) in soybean (Glycine max) grown in two soil types in south-western Ontario. Weed Sci. 44:16–132.Google Scholar
Green, J. M. 1991. Maximizing herbicide efficiency with mixtures and expert systems. Weed Technol. 5:894–897.Google Scholar
Hamill, A. S., Knezevic, S. Z., Chandler, K., Sikkema, P. H., Tardif, F. J., Shrestha, A., and Swanton, C. J. 2000. Weed control in glufosinate-resistant corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 14:578–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopkins, J. A., Donaldson, F. S., Komm, D. A., Palrang, A. T., Rudolph, R. D., and Bloomberg, J. R. 1998. Performance of Axiom™ in field corn in the southern United States. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 51:223–224.Google Scholar
Knezevic, S. Z., Sikkema, P. H., Tardif, F., Hamill, A. S., Chandler, K., and Swanton, C. J. 1998. Biologically effective dose and selectivity of RPA 201772 for preemergence weed control in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 12:670–676.Google Scholar
[OMAFRA] Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. 1999. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food. Farm Values of Commercial Fruit and Vegetable Crops: Web page: http://www.gov.on.ca/OMAFRA/english/stats/hort/fruitveg.html. Accessed: September 2000.Google Scholar
[OMAFRA] Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. 2002. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food. Guide to Weed Control 2002. Publ. 75. Toronto, Ontario: Queens Printer.Google Scholar
Pettygrove, G. S., Upadhyaya, S. K., Young, J. A., Miyao, E. M., and Pelletier, M. G. 1999. Tomato yield variability related to soil texture and inadequate phosphorus supply. Better Crops 83:7–9.Google Scholar
[PMRA] Pest Management Regulatory Agency. 2000. Regulatory Note: Flufenacet. Web page: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/pmra-arla/english/MenuPages/New_NC.htm. Accessed: November 2000.Google Scholar
Seefeldt, S. S., Jensen, J. E., and Fuerst, E. P. 1995. Log-logistic analysis of herbicide dose-response relationships. Weed Technol. 9:218–227.Google Scholar
Sikkema, P. H., Knezevic, S. Z., Hamill, A. S., Tardif, F. J., Chandler, K., and Swanton, C. J. 1999. Biologically effective dose and selectivity of SAN 1269H (BAS 662H) for weed control in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 13:283–289.Google Scholar
Streibig, J. C., Rudemo, M., and Jensen, J. E. 1993. Dose-response curves and statistical models. in Streibig, J. C. and Kudsk, P., eds. Herbicide Bioassays. Boca Raton, FL: CRC. Pp. 29–55.Google Scholar
Wall, D. A. 1996. Effect of cultivar selection on metribuzin efficacy in field pea (Pisum sativum). Can. J. Plant Sci 76:531–535.Google Scholar
Weaver, S. E. and Tan, C. S. 1983. Critical period of weed interference in transplanted tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum): growth analysis. Weed Sci. 31:476–481.Google Scholar
Zar, J. H. 1999. Biostatistical Analysis. 4th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Pp. 282–451.Google Scholar