Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xfwgj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-20T00:59:20.188Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hydroponic Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) Response to Dicamba in the Nutrient Media1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Jerron T. Schmoll ,
S. Kent Harrison ,
Emilie E. Regnier  and
Mark A. Bennett
Jerron T. Schmoll*
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture and Crop Science; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210
S. Kent Harrison
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture and Crop Science; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210
Emilie E. Regnier
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture and Crop Science; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210
Mark A. Bennett
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture and Crop Science; The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: schmoll.1@osu.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A greenhouse study was conducted to determine the effects of sublethal dicamba concentrations in the nutrient media on hydroponically grown tomato plants. Tomato leaf area was the most sensitive vegetative growth parameter measured in response to dicamba concentrations, ranging from 0 to 22 µg/L. Leaf area was reduced 31 and 76%, and specific leaf weights, a relative measure of leaf thickness (g/cm2), increased 26 and 121% after 30-d exposure to dicamba concentrations of 2.2 and 22 µg/L, respectively. In long-term experiments conducted until plants produced first ripe fruit, regression analysis indicated leaf area reductions of 8 and 66% from initial dicamba concentrations of 1 and 10 µg/L, respectively. Reductions in total fruit fresh weight were highly correlated (r = 0.93) with leaf area reductions caused by dicamba. A hyperbolic regression model gave predicted losses in fruit fresh weight per plant of 6% at 1 µg/L dicamba and 73% at 10 µg/L dicamba (r2 = 0.87). Results generally indicated that the level of dicamba in the nutrient media of hydroponically grown tomatoes that produced no observable effect was ≤ 1 µg/L.

Keywords

Dicambatomato, Lycopersicon esculentum L. ‘Trust’Groundwater contaminationherbicide bioassayCID, centimeter inside diameterDAT, days after transplantEC, electrical conductivityPI, plant introduction
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 14 , Issue 3 , September 2000 , pp. 562 - 568
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

Ahrens, W. H., ed. 1994. Herbicide Handbook. 7th ed. Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of America. Champaign, IL52 pp.Google Scholar
Auch, D. E. and Arnold, W. E. 1978. Dicamba use and injury on soybeans (Glycine max) in South Dakota. Weed Sci. 26: 471–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlin, A. F., Huang, T. T., and Weigle, J. L. 1971. Influence of sublethal concentrations of 2,4-D on tomatoes and tomato juice. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 96: 138–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comfort, S. D., Inskeep, W. P., and Macur, R. E. 1992. Degradation and transport of dicamba in a clay soil. J. Environ. Qual. 21: 653–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbin, F. T. and Upchurch, R. P. 1967. Influence of pH on detoxification of herbicides in soils. Weeds 15: 370–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coyne, D. P. and Burnside, O. C. 1968. Differential Plant Injury and Yield Responses of Tomato Varieties to 2,4-D. Lincoln, NE: Nebraska Agricultural Experiment Station Research Bull. 226. 21 p.Google Scholar
DeLuca, T., Larson, J., Torma, L., and Algard, G. 1989. A Survey of Pesticide Residues in Groundwater in Montana. Helena, MT: Montana Department of Agriculture, Environmental Management Division Technical Rep. 89-1. 15 p.Google Scholar
Derksen, D. A. 1989. Dicamba, chlorsulfuron, and clopyralid as sprayer contaminates on sunflower (Helianthus annuus), mustard (Brassica juncea), and lentil (Lens culinaris), respectively. Weed Sci. 37: 616–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devine, M. D., Duke, S. O., and Fedtke, C. 1993. Physiology of Herbicide Action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PTR Prentice Hall. pp. 295–309.Google Scholar
Hahn, R. R., Burnside, O. C., and Lavy, T. L. 1969. Dissipation and phytotoxicity of dicamba. Weed Sci. 17: 3–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hallberg, G. 1985. Agricultural Chemicals and Ground Water in Iowa: Status Report 1985. Ames, IA: Iowa State University, Cooperative Extension Service ICES Circ. CE-2158q. 16 p.Google Scholar
Jones, J. B. Jr. 1997. Hydroponics: A Practical Guide for the Soilless Grower. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. 230 p.Google Scholar
Jordan, T. N. and Romanowski, R. R. 1974. Comparison of dicamba and 2,4-D injury to field-grown tomatoes. HortScience 9: 74–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krueger, J. P., Butz, R. G., Atallah, Y. H., and Cork, D. J. 1989. Isolation and identification of microorganisms for the degradation of dicamba. J. Agric. Food Chem. 37: 534–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krueger, J. P., Butz, R. G., and Cork, D. J. 1991. Aerobic and anaerobic soil metabolism of dicamba. J. Agric. Food Chem. 39: 995–999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyon, D. J. and Wilson, R. G. 1986. Sensitivity of field beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) to reduced rates of 2,4-D and dicamba. Weed Sci. 34: 953–956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magnusson, M. U. and Wyse, D. L. 1987. Tolerance of soybean (Glycine max) and sunflower (Helianthus annuus) to fall-applied dicamba. Weed Sci. 35: 846–852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, M. D., Mikkelsen, D. S., and Huffaker, R. C. 1962. Effect of stimulatory and inhibitory levels of 2,4-D, iron, and chelate supplements on juvenile growth of field beans. Crop Sci. 2: 111–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pike, D. R. and Knake, E. L. 1996. Field Corn and Soybean Pesticide use Summaries, 1991-1994. Urbana, IL: USDA, National Agricultural Statistical Service. 424 p.Google Scholar
Ritter, W. F. 1990. Pesticide contamination of ground water in the United States—a review. J. Environ. Sci. Health B. 25: 1–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robbins, W. A. and Taylor, W. S. 1957. Injury to canning tomatoes caused by 2,4-D. Proc. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 70: 373–378.Google Scholar
Short, T. H., El-Attal, A., and Keener, H. M. 1996. Development of growth response functions for hydroponic greenhouse tomato production. Proceedings of the ASAE Annual International Meeting. July 14-18, 1996. Paper No. 964001. Joseph, MI: American Society of Agricultural Engineers.Google Scholar
Smith, A. E. 1974. Breakdown of the herbicide dicamba and its degradation product 3,6- dichlorosalicylic acid in prairie soils. J. Agric. Food Chem. 22: 601–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snyder, R. G. 1999. Greenhouse Tomato Page & FAQ. URL: http://ext.msstate.edu/anr/plantsoil/vegfruit/tomato/ghtomato/faq.html. Accessed 1999 June.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 Press. pp. 29–55.Google Scholar
Taraban, R. H., Berry, D. F., Berry, D. A., and Walker, H. L. Jr. 1993. Degradation of dicamba by an anaerobic consortium enriched wetland soil. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 59: 2332–2334.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wall, D. A. 1994. Potato (Solanum tuberosum) response to simulated drift of dicamba, clopyralid, and tribenuron. Weed Sci. 42: 110–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, X., Li, B., Herman, P. L., and Weeks, D. P. 1997. A three-component enzyme system catalyzes the O demethylation of the herbicide dicamba in Pseudomonas maltophila DI-6. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 63: 1623–1626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weidenhamer, J. D., Triplett, G. B. Jr., and Sobotka, F. E. 1989. Dicamba injury to soybean. Agron. J. 81: 637–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wittwer, S. H. and Castilla, N. 1995. Protected cultivation of horticultural crops worldwide. HortTechnology 5: 6–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar