Translator Disclaimer
1 November 2012 Tolerance of Tomato to Herbicides Applied through Drip Irrigation
Peter J. Dittmar, David W. Monks, Katherine M. Jennings, Fitzgerald L. Booker
Author Affiliations +

Greenhouse and field studies were conducted to determine tolerance of tomato to halosulfuron, imazosulfuron, and trifloxysulfuron herbicides applied through drip irrigation. In greenhouse studies, PRE- and POST-applied trifloxysulfuron caused greater tomato injury (14 and 54% injury, respectively) than PRE- and POST-applied halosulfuron (5 and 26% injury, respectively) or imazosulfuron (5 and 23% injury, respectively). All herbicide treatments in the greenhouse studies caused greater injury to tomato than the nontreated. Greater tomato injury was observed in the greenhouse from herbicides applied POST than when soil applied. Tomato injury from POST-applied halosulfuron, imazosulfuron, or trifloxysulfuron followed a linear relationship, with tomato injury increasing with increasing herbicide rate. Tomato photosynthetic rate did not differ among the herbicide treatments (32.7 to 55.0 μmol m−2 s−1) and the nontreated (38.0 to 55.0 μmol m−2 s−1). At 5 to 16 days after treatment (DAT), tomato treated with imazosulfuron POST (0.26 to 0.46 cm s−1) or trifloxysulfuron POST (0.27 to 0.51 cm s−1) had lower stomatal conductance compared to the stomatal conductance of the nontreated tomato (0.65 to 0.76 cm s−1). Chlorophyll content did not differ among treatments at 0 to 6 DAT. At 7 to 12 DAT, tomato treated with imazosulfuron POST (34.0 to 40.1 SPAD) and trifloxysulfuron POST (35.0 to 41.6 SPAD) had lower chlorophyll content compared to the nontreated (39.1 to 48.1 SPAD). In 2008 and 2009 field studies, no tomato injury was observed. Herbicide, herbicide application method, and herbicide rate had no effect on tomato height (73 to 77 cm 14 DAT, 79 to 84 cm 21 DAT) and total fruit yield (62,722 to 80,328 kg ha−1).

Nomenclature: Halosulfuron; imazosulfuron; trifloxysulfuron; tomato; Solanum lycopersicum L.

Se realizaron estudios de invernadero y de campo para determinar la tolerancia del tomate a halosulfuron, imazosulfuron y trifloxysulfuron aplicados a travõs de un sistema de riego por goteo. En los estudios de invernadero, trifloxysulfuron aplicado PRE y POST causõ más dańo al tomate (14 y 54%, respectivamente) que halosulfuron aplicado PRE y POST (5 y 26%, respectivamente) o imazosulfuron (5 y 23%, respectivamente). En los estudios de invernadero, todos los tratamientos de herbicidas causaron mayor daño al tomate que el testigo no-tratado. En el invernadero cuando se aplicaron los herbicidas POST, se observõ un mayor daño que cuando se aplicaron al suelo. El daño al tomate causado por halosulfuron, imazosulfuron o trifloxysulfuron aplicados POST siguiõ una relaciõn lineal, incrementándose el daño al tomate conforme incrementõ la dosis del herbicida. La tasa fotosintõtica del tomate no difiriõ entre los tratamientos de herbicidas (32.7 a 55.0 mol m-2 s-1) y el testigo no-tratado (38.0 a 55.0 mol m-2 s-1). De 5 a 16 dúas despuõs del tratamiento (DAT), el tomate tratado con imazosulfuron POST (0.26 a 0.46 cm s-1) o trifloxysulfuron (0.27 a 0.52 cm s-1) tuvo una menor conductancia estomática comparado con el tomate no-tratado (0.65 a 0.76 cm s-1). El contenido de clorofila no difiriõ entre tratamientos de 0 a 6 DAT. De 7 a 12 DAT, el tomate tratado con imazosulfuron POST (34.0 a 40.1 SPAD) and trifloxysulfuron (35.0 a 41.6 SPAD) tuvo un menor contenido de clorofila comparado con el testigo no-tratado (39.1 a 48.1 SPAD). En los estudios de campo en 2008 y 2009, no se observõ ningún daño al tomate. El herbicida, el mõtodo de aplicaciõn del herbicida y la dosis del herbicida no tuvieron efecto sobre la altura del tomate (73 a 77 cm 14 DAT, 79 a 84 cm 21 DAT) y el rendimiento total de fruto (62,722 a 80,328 kg ha-1).

Peter J. Dittmar, David W. Monks, Katherine M. Jennings, and Fitzgerald L. Booker "Tolerance of Tomato to Herbicides Applied through Drip Irrigation," Weed Technology 26(4), 684-690, (1 November 2012).
Received: 9 December 2011; Accepted: 1 May 2012; Published: 1 November 2012

Application method
drip applied
methyl bromide alternatives
Get copyright permission
Back to Top