Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T22:24:13.305Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tolerance of Processing Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) Varieties to Thifensulfuron-Methyl

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Katie Linder ,
Mohsen Mohseni-Moghadam ,
Joel Felix  and
Douglas Doohan
Katie Linder
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture and Crop Science, 1680 Madison Avenue, The Ohio State University, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, Wooster, OH 44691
Mohsen Mohseni-Moghadam
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture and Crop Science, 1680 Madison Avenue, The Ohio State University, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, Wooster, OH 44691
Joel Felix
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Science, 595 Onion Avenue, Oregon State University, Ontario, OR 97914
Douglas Doohan*
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture and Crop Science, 1680 Madison Avenue, The Ohio State University, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, Wooster, OH 44691
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field experiments were conducted at the Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center in Wooster, OH, in 2005, 2006, and 2007 to evaluate the tolerance of eight tomato varieties to thifensulfuron-methyl and POST control of broadleaf weeds. Herbicide treatments included thifensulfuron-methyl at 0, 6, and 12 g ai ha−1. In 2005, significant injury was observed in variety TR122244 at 1 and 3 wk after treatment (WAT). The highest crop injury in 2005 was 38% at 1 WAT for variety TR122244. However, this variety experienced a conflicting effect on crop marketable yield when treated with the low and high rates of thifensulfuron-methyl in 2005. Variety TR122244 had the highest crop injury, yet produced the highest marketable yield when treated with either rate of thifensulfuron-methyl. At 3 WAT in 2005, significant injury occurred in variety 11111120, with 13% injury recorded for both the high and low rates of thifensulfuron-methyl. No significant injury resulted from either rate of thifensulfuron-methyl at 1, 3, or 6 WAT in 2006 or 2007. However, in 2006 a significant marketable yield reduction was observed for variety 97045116 when treated with the high rate of thifensulfuron-methyl. No varieties experienced significant marketable yield effects or injury when treated with either rate of thifensulfuron-methyl in 2007. Registration of thifensulfuron-methyl herbicide is not recommended at this time because of the potential for crop stunting and yield reduction in certain tomato varieties.

Experimentos de campo fueron realizados en el Centro de Investigación y Desarrollo Agrícola de Ohio en Wooster, Ohio, en 2005, 2006, y 2007, para evaluar la tolerancia de ocho variedades de tomate a thifensulfuron-methyl y el control POST de malezas de hoja ancha. Los tratamientos con herbicidas incluyeron thifensulfuron-methyl a 0, 6, y 12 g ai ha−1. En 2005, se observó un daño significativo en la variedad TR122244 a 1 y 3 semanas después del tratamiento (WAT). El mayor daño en el cultivo, en 2015, fue 38% a 1 WAT para la variedad TR122244. Sin embargo, esta variedad experimentó un efecto contradictorio en relación al rendimiento comercializable del cultivo cuando se trató con las dosis baja y alta de thifensulfuron-methyl, en 2005. La variedad TR122244 tuvo el mayor daño, pero produjo el rendimiento comercializable más alto cuando fue tratada con cualquiera de las dosis de thifensulfuron-methyl usadas. A 3 WAT en 2005, ocurrió un daño significativo en la variedad 11111120, con un daño registrado de 13% tanto para la dosis de thifensulfuron-methyl alta como la baja. Ninguna dosis de thifensulfuron-methyl resultó en un daño significativo a 1, 3, ó 6 WAT en 2006 ó 2007. Sin embargo, en 2006 se observó una reducción significativa en el rendimiento comercializable para la variedad 97045116, cuando se trató con la dosis alta de thifensulfuron-methyl. Ninguna variedad experimentó efectos significativos sobre el rendimiento comercializable o el daño cuando se trató con thifensulfuron-methyl en 2007. El registro del herbicida thifensulfuron-methyl no está recomendado en este momento porque existe el potencial de retraso en el crecimiento del cultivo y de reducción del rendimiento en algunas variedades de tomate.

Keywords

Thifensulfuron-methyltomato, Solanum lycopersicum L.Crop tolerance
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 30 , Issue 1 , March 2016 , pp. 224 - 228
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.)

Footnotes

Associate Editor for this paper: Darren Robinson, University of Guelph.

References

Literature Cited

Ackley, JA, Henry, PW, Thomas, EH (1997) Rimsulfuron and metribuzin efficacy in transplanted tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum). Weed Technol 11:324–328 Google Scholar
Anonymous (2015) OARDC Weather System. http://www.oardc.ohio-state.edu/newweather/dailyinfo.asp?id=1. Accessed June 15, 2015Google Scholar
Askeew, SD, Wilcut, JW, Langston, VB (1999) Weed management in soybean (Glycine max) with preplant-incorporated herbicides and cloransulam. Weed Technol 13:276–262Google Scholar
Bond, W, Grundy, AC (2001) Non-chemical weed management in organic farming systems. Weed Res 41:383–405 Google Scholar
Buckelew, JK, Monks, DW, Jennings, KM, Hoyt, GD, Walls, RF (2006) Eastern black nightshade (Solanum ptycanthum) reproduction and interference in transplanted plasticulture tomato. Weed Sci 54:490–495 Google Scholar
Cramer, SG, Nyquist, WE, Walker, WM (1989) Least significant differences for combined analyses of experiments with two- and three-factor treatment designs. Agron J 81:665–672 Google Scholar
Garvey, PV, Meyers, SL, Monks, DW (2013) Influence of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) on the critical period for weed control in plasticulture-grown tomato. Weed Technol 27:165–170 Google Scholar
Hillger, DE, Weller, SC, Maynard, E, Gibson, KD (2006) Weed management systems in Indiana tomato production. Weed Sci 54:516–520 Google Scholar
Kruger, GR, Johnson, WG, Doohan, DJ, Weller, SC (2012) Dose response of glyphosate and dicamba on tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) injury. Weed Technol 26:256–260 Google Scholar
[NASS] National Agricultural Statistics Service (2013) Vegetables 2013 Summary. http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/VegeSumm/VegeSumm-03-27-2014.pdf. Accessed June 15, 2015Google Scholar
Pekarek, RA, Monks, DW, Jennings, KM, Hoyt, GD (2013) Bell pepper tolerance to imazosulfuron and thifensulfuron-methyl. Weed Technol 27:741–746 Google Scholar
Reddy, KN, Whiting, K (2000) Weed control and economic comparisons of glyphosate-resistant, sulfonylurea-tolerant, and conventional soybean (Glycine max) systems. Weed Technol 14:204–211 Google Scholar
Robinson, DE, Sikkema, PH, Hamill, AS (2006a) Weed control and cultivar tolerance in tomato to thifensulfuron-methyl. Acta Hortic 724:129–136 Google Scholar
Robinson, DE, Soltani, N, Hamill, AS, Sikkema, PH (2006b) Weed control in processing tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) with rimsulfuron and thifensulfuron applied alone or with chlorothalonil or copper pesticides. HortScience 41:1295–1297 Google Scholar
Schroeder, J (1998) Cucumber (Cucumis sativus) response to selected foliar and soil-applied sulfonylurea herbicides. Weed Technol 12:595–601 Google Scholar
Seliga, JP, Shattuck, VI (1995) Crop rotation affects the yield and nitrogen fertilization response in processing tomato. Sci Hortic 64:159–166 Google Scholar
Soltani, N, Robinson, DE, Hamill, AS, Bowley, S, Sikkema, PH (2005) Tolerance of processing tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) to thifensulfuron-methyl. Weed Technol 19:669–673 Google Scholar
Trader, BW, Wilson, HP, Hagood, ES, Hines, TE (2009) Halosulfuron resistance in smooth pigweed (Amaranthus hybridus) populations. Weed Technol 23:460–464 Google Scholar