Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-skm99 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T09:20:05.693Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of Light on the Response of Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) and Two Weed Species to Metribuzin

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

M. K. Pritchard  and
G. F. Warren
M. K. Pritchard
Affiliation:
Dep. Hortic., Purdue Univ., West Lafayette, IN 47907
G. F. Warren
Affiliation:
Dep. Hortic., Purdue Univ., West Lafayette, IN 47907
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The response of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill. ‘Chico III’), jimsonweed (Datura stramonium L.), and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti Medic.) to postemergence applications of metribuzin [4-amino-6-tert-butyl-3-(methylthio)-as-triazin-5(4H)-one] applied after cloudy weather was determined by shading the plants artificially before field application of the herbicide. One day of 76% actual shade reduced the tolerance of tomato, jimsonweed, and velvetleaf to metribuzin, and 3 days of shade further reduced plant tolerance to the herbicide. The GR50 values showed that tomato was about 30 times more tolerant than jimsonweed and about 40 times more tolerant than velvetleaf to metribuzin. After 3 days of shade, 2 or 3 days of sunshine were required to return tomato to its full tolerance to metribuzin. After 3 days of cloudy weather, metribuzin applied at about 55% of the normal dose should control jimsonweed and velvetleaf. Weather conditions before postemergence applications of metribuzin will determine the appropriate timing of application and the herbicide dose.

Keywords

Artificial shadeherbicideweed controlenvironment
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 28 , Issue 2 , March 1980 , pp. 186 - 189
Copyright
Copyright © 1980 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. Beste, C. E. 1974. Weed control in transplanted tomatoes. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. 28:265–267.Google Scholar
2. Beste, C. E. 1976. The influence of solar radiation on the response of tomatoes to metribuzin. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 30:166.Google Scholar
3. Buchel, K. H. 1972. Mechanisms of action and structure activity relations of herbicides that inhibit photosynthesis. Pestic. Sci. 3:89–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Fedtke, C. 1972. Influence of photosynthesis-inhibiting herbicides on the regulation of crop plant metabolism. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 2:312–323.Google Scholar
5. Fortino, J. Jr. and Splittstoesser, W. E. 1974. Response of tomato to metribuzin. Weed Sci. 22:460–463.Google Scholar
6. Frear, D. S. 1968. Herbicide metabolism in plants. I. Purification and properties of UDP-glucose:arylamine N-glucosyl-transerase from soybean. Phytochemistry. 7:381–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Friesen, G. H. and Hamill, A. S. 1978. Influence of sunlight on metribuzin injury to transplanted tomatoes. Can. J. Plant Sci. 58:1115–1117.Google Scholar
8. Henne, R. C. 1975. Tolerance of tomato plants to postplanting metribuzin. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 29:214–218.Google Scholar
9. Henne, R. C. and Guest, R. T. 1974. Weed control in direct-seeded and transplanted tomatoes. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 28:257–259.Google Scholar
10. Phatak, S. C. 1975. Effect of shading combinations on metribuzin phytotoxicity to tomatoes. Abstr. 162. Weed Sci. Soc. Am., pp. 60–61.Google Scholar
11. Phatak, S. C. and Stephenson, G. R. 1973. Influence of light and temperature on metribuzin phytotoxicity to tomato. Can. J. Plant Sci. 53:843–847.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Silva, J. F. da and Warren, G. F. 1976. Effect of stage of growth on metribuzin tolerance. Weed Sci. 24:612–615.Google Scholar
13. Smith, A. E. and Wilkinson, R. E. 1974. Differential absorption, translocation and metabolism of metribuzin by soybean cultivars. Physiol. Plant. 32:253–257.Google Scholar
14. Stephenson, G. R., Dilley, D. R., and Ries, S. K. 1971. Influence of light and sucrose on N-glucosyl pyrazon formation in red beet. Weed Sci. 19:406–409.Google Scholar
15. Swanson, C. R., Kadunce, R. E., Hodgson, R. N., and Frear, D. S. 1966. Amiben metabolism in plants. I. Isolation and identification of an N-glucosyl complex. Weeds 14:319–323.Google Scholar
16. Wilcox, G. E., Kristof, S., and Baker, R. 1966. Tomato plant damage effects on development and fruit yield. Proc. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 89:571–576.Google Scholar