Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T05:27:19.019Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dark Tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum) Tolerance to Trifloxysulfuron and Halosulfuron

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

William A. Bailey
William A. Bailey*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, University of Kentucky, Research and Education Center, Princeton, KY 42445
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: abailey@uky.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field experiments were conducted at two locations in 2003 and 2004 to determine dark tobacco tolerance and weed control from postemergence over-the-top (POT) and postemergence-directed (PD) applications of trifloxysulfuron and halosulfuron. Trifloxysulfuron was applied at 3.6 or 5.3 g ai/ha and halosulfuron was applied at 36 or 53 g ai/ha. Trifloxysulfuron POT injured ‘Narrowleaf Madole’ dark tobacco 16 to 33% and halosulfuron POT caused 32 to 33% injury at 1 wk after treatment (WAT). Tobacco plant height at 1 WAT with POT applications was also reduced by up to 31% at one of two locations. Tobacco injury from POT applications had dissipated to 6 to 12% by 4 WAT. Despite extensive early-season injury, most POT herbicide applications did not significantly reduce tobacco yield, mean grade index, and gross revenue compared to tobacco that only received pretransplant applications of sulfentrazone plus clomazone. Dark tobacco was much more tolerant to PD applications of either herbicide, with no more than 4% injury observed at 1 WAT. Neither herbicide controlled horsenettle more than 57% at either application rate or method. Although trifloxysulfuron and halosulfuron could contribute to tobacco weed control programs by providing postemergence control of several common weed species, PD applications would be the only acceptable method of application due to excessive injury observed from POT applications of these herbicides.

Keywords

Clomazonehalosulfuronsulfentrazonetrifloxysulfuronhorsenettle, Solanum carolinense L. SOLCAdark tobacco, Nicotiana tabacum L. ‘Narrowleaf Madole’Gross revenuemean grade indextobacco injurytobacco yield
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 21 , Issue 4 , December 2007 , pp. 1016 - 1022
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

Anonymous 2003. Official Schedule of Loan Values for Type 22 Dark Fire-cured Tobacco. Springfield, TN Eastern Dark-Fired Growers Association, in cooperation with Tobacco Division, Farm Service Agency, U.S. Department of Agriculture.Google Scholar
Anonymous 2004. Official Schedule of Loan Values for Type 22 Dark Fire-cured Tobacco. Springfield, TN Eastern Dark-Fired Growers Association, in cooperation with Tobacco Division, Farm Service Agency, U.S. Department of Agriculture.Google Scholar
Anonymous 2006a. Command 3ME herbicide label. EPA Reg. No. 279-3158. Philadelphia, PA FMC. 13.Google Scholar
Anonymous 2006b. Envoke herbicide label. EPA Reg. No. 100-1132. Greensboro, NC Syngenta Crop Protection. 7.Google Scholar
Anonymous 2006c. Permit Product Label. St. Louis, MO Monsanto. 7.Google Scholar
Anonymous 2006d. Spartan 4F herbicide label. EPA Reg. No. 279-3220. Philadelphia, PA FMC. 9.Google Scholar
Bailey, W. A. 2004. Basic principles of dark tobacco production in Kentucky and Tennessee. Pages 23–24. in. Proceedings of the 41st Tobacco Worker's Conference. Nashville, TN Tobacco Worker's Conference.Google Scholar
Bailey, W. A., Fisher, L. R., Wilcut, J. W., Smith, W. D., and Langston, V. B. 2001. Tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum) tolerance to pre-transplant and postemergence applications of diclosulam. Tob. Sci. 45:26–29.Google Scholar
Bridges, D. C. and Stephenson, M. G. 1991. Weed control and tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum) tolerance with fomesafen. Weed Technol. 5:868–872.Google Scholar
Chaudhry, G. A., Chaudhry, M. H., and Fareed, M. 1978. Weed competition and its effects on the yield components in a tobacco crop. Pak. Tob. 2:19–21.Google Scholar
Fisher, L. R., Smith, W. D., and Wilcut, J. W. 2004. Effect of sulfentrazone rate and application method on weed control and stunting in flue-cured tobacco. Tob. Sci. 46:12–16.Google Scholar
Frans, R., Talbert, R., Marx, D., and Crowley, H. 1986. Experimental design and techniques for measuring and analyzing plant responses to weed control practices. Pages 29–46. in Camper, N.D. ed. Research Methods in Weed Science. 3rd ed. Champaign, IL Southern Weed Science Society.Google Scholar
Hagood, E. S. Jr and Komm, D. A. 1987. Effect of rate and timing of imazaquin application on the growth and yield of flue-cured tobacco. Tob. Sci. 30:1–4.Google Scholar
Hauser, E. W. and Miles, J. D. 1975. Flue-cured tobacco yield and quality as affected by weed control methods. Weed Res. 15:211–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawks, S. N. Jr and Collins, W. K. 1993. Principles of Flue-Cured Tobacco Production. 1st ed. Raleigh, NC North Carolina State University. 158–176.Google Scholar
Melton, T. A. 2001. Control of tobacco mosaic virus on flue-cured tobacco. Tobacco Disease Note No. 1. Raleigh, NC North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service.Google Scholar
Miller, R. D. and Legg, P. D. 1990. A grade index for type 22 and 23 fire-cured tobacco. Tob. Sci. 34:102–104.Google Scholar
Parker, R. G., Fisher, L. R., and Priest, J. A. 2007. Managing weeds. Pages 100. in. North Carolina Flue-cured Tobacco Production Guide. Raleigh, NC North Carolina State University.Google Scholar
Ray, T. B. 1984. Site of action of chlorsulfuron: inhibition of valine and isoleucine synthesis in plants. Plant Physiol. 75:827–831.Google Scholar
Ritter, R. L., Menbere, H., and Momen, B. 2005. Tolerance of Maryland-type tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum) to sulfentrazone. Weed Technol. 19:885–890.Google Scholar
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture 1986. Official Standard Grades, Kentucky and Tennessee Fire-Cured Tobacco U.S. Types 22, 23, and Foreign Type 96. Washington, DC U.S. Department of Agriculture, Tobacco Division, Agricultural Marketing Service.Google Scholar
[USDA, NASS] United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service 2006. http://www.nass.usda.gov. Accessed: December 2, 2006.Google Scholar
Walls, F. R. Jr, Worsham, A. D., Collins, W. K., Corbin, F. T., and Bradley, J. R. Jr. 1993. Evaluation of imazaquin for weed control in flue-cured tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum). Weed Sci. 35:824–829.Google Scholar
Webster, E. P. 2001. Economic losses due to weeds in southern states. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 54:260–270.Google Scholar