Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-p566r Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-29T02:02:36.130Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Tolerance of Maryland-Type Tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum) to Sulfentrazone

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Ronald L. Ritter*
Affiliation:
Department of Natural Resource Sciences and Landscape Architecture, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742-5821
Hiwot Menbere
Affiliation:
Department of Natural Resource Sciences and Landscape Architecture, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742-5821
Bahram Momen
Affiliation:
Department of Natural Resource Sciences and Landscape Architecture, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742-5821
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: rr24@umail.umd.edu

Abstract

Field experiments were conducted from 2000 to 2002 at the Southern Maryland Research and Education Facility located in Upper Marlboro, MD to evaluate PPI and preemergence/prior-to-transplanting (PRE-T) applications of sulfentrazone in combination with clomazone or pendimethalin on crop injury and yield of Maryland-type tobacco. Pendimethalin was also evaluated alone. The highest levels of tobacco injury in 2000 occurred 3 wk after treatment (WAT) with PPI applications of sulfentrazone plus pendimethalin at 0.35 + 0.84 and 0.42 + 0.84 kg ai/ha, averaging 37 and 28%, respectively. In 2001, PPI applications of sulfentrazone plus clomazone at 0.42 + 0.84 kg/ha or sulfentrazone plus pendimethalin at 0.42 + 0.84 kg/ha caused 18 and 12% injury, respectively, 3 WAT. Injury in 2002 with all treatments averaged 7% or less 3 WAT. Greater rainfall through 3 WAT occurred in 2000 than in 2001 or 2002, likely contributing to the higher injury in 2000. Tobacco yields were generally similar among herbicide treatments in 2000 and 2001, and tobacco yields for all herbicide treatments were similar in 2002. The quality index was similar in 2000 and 2001, and varied slightly in 2002 among all herbicide treatments. Although a lower price was calculated for the nontreated controls, price did not vary among most herbicide treatments each year. This research shows that injury to Maryland-type tobacco can occur with sulfentrazone in combination with clomazone or pendimethalin, particularly when incorporated, and when high rainfall occurs soon after transplanting. However, injury is transient and generally has no negative influence on tobacco yield, quality, or price.

Type
Research Article
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

Aycock, M. K. and McKee, C. G. 1996. Revised quality index for Maryland tobacco. Tob. Sci. 40:5657.Google Scholar
Bailey, W. A., Wilson, H. P., and Hines, T. E. 2002. Response of potato (Solanum tuberosum) and selected weeds to sulfentrazone. Weed Technol. 16:651658.Google Scholar
Breeden, G. K., Rhodes, G. N. Jr., and Mueller, T. C. 1999. Influence of application variables on performance of Spartan in tobacco. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 52:20.Google Scholar
Bridges, D. C. and Stephenson, M. G. 1991. Weed control and tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum) tolerance with fomesafen. Weed Technol. 5:868872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bryson, C. T. 1989. Economic losses due to weeds in southern states. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 42:385392.Google Scholar
Chaudhry, G. A., Chaudhry, M. H., and Fareed, M. 1978. Weed competition and its effects on the yield components in tobacco crop. Pak. Tob. 2:1921.Google Scholar
Collins, W. K., Hawks, S. N. Jr., and Kittrell, B. U. 1972. Effects of three herbicides on weed control, yield and value of flue-cured tobacco. Tob. Sci. 16:127128.Google Scholar
Ellis, J. M. and Griffin, J. L. 2002. Benefits of soil-applied herbicides in glyphosate-resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 16:541547.Google Scholar
Ellis, R., Rhodes, G. N., Sims, B., and Mueller, T. C. 1999. Weed control in no-till tobacco production systems. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 52:1920.Google Scholar
Gooden, D. T. and Murdock, E. C. 1999. Response of flue-cured tobacco to Spartan (sulfentrazone) at five locations. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 52:1819.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. 30:14.Google Scholar
Hancock, H. G. 1998. Spartan DF performance in tobacco. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 51:34.Google Scholar
Hauser, E. W. and Miles, J. D. 1975. Flue-cured tobacco yield and quality as affected by weed control methods. Weed Res. 15:211215.Google Scholar
Hawks, S. N. Jr. 1978. Principles of flue-cured tobacco production. in Hawks, S. N., ed. Principles of Flue-Cured Tobacco Production. 2nd ed. Raleigh: North Carolina State University Cooperative Extension. pp. 154156.Google Scholar
Hawks, S. N. Jr. and Collins, W. K. 1970. Effects of a herbicide and levels of cultivation on yield and value of flue-cured tobacco. Tob. Sci. 14:170172.Google Scholar
Hawks, S. N. Jr. and Collins, W. K. 1983. Principles of flue-cured tobacco production. in Hawks, S. N. and Collins, W. K., eds. Principles of Flue-Cured Tobacco Production. 5th ed. Raleigh: North Carolina State University Cooperative Extension. Pp. 205220.Google Scholar
Ritter, R. L., Hagood, E. S., Swann, C. W., Wilson, H. P., Curran, W. S., Majek, B. A., Van Gessel, M., and Chandran, R. S. 2004. Weed control in field crops. in University of Maryland ed. Pest Management Recommendations for Field Crops, Ext. Bull. 237. College Park: University of Maryland Cooperative Extension. Pp. 2175 to 2–177.Google Scholar
Vidrine, P. R., Griffin, J. L., Jordan, D. L., and Reynolds, D. B. 1996. Broadleaf weed control in soybean (Glycine max) with sulfentrazone. Weed Technol. 10:762765.Google Scholar
Walker, E. R., Mueller, T. C., Rhodes, G. N. Jr., and Hayes, R. M. 1998. Spartan for weed control in tobacco. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 51:32.Google Scholar
Walls, F. R. Jr., Worsham, A. D., Collins, W. K., Corbin, F. T., and Bradley, J. R. 1987. Evaluation of imazaquin for weed control in flue-cured tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum). Weed Sci. 35:824829.Google Scholar
Wehtje, G. R., Walker, R. H., Grey, T. L., and Hancock, H. G. 1997. Response of purple (Cyperus rotundus) and yellow nutsedges (Cyperus esculentus) to selective placement of sulfentrazone. Weed Sci. 45:382387.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. E., Nissen, S. J., and Thompson, A. 2002. Potato (Solanum tuberosum) variety and weed response to sulfentrazone and flumioxazin. Weed Technol. 16:567574.Google Scholar
Womack, R. 2002. Spartan incorporation. in Womack, R., ed. The Flue Cured Tobacco Farmer, February 2002. Pp. 89.Google Scholar