Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-wxvwp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T06:33:30.867Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tolerance of Processing Tomato to Thifensulfuron-Methyl

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Nader Soltani,
Darren E. Robinson,
Allan S. Hamill,
Stephen Bowley and
Peter H. Sikkema
Nader Soltani*
Affiliation:
Ridgetown College, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, ON, Canada N0P 2C0
Darren E. Robinson
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada N1G 2W1
Allan S. Hamill
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Harrow, ON, Canada N0R 1G0
Stephen Bowley
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada N1G 2W1
Peter H. Sikkema
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada N1G 2W1
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: nsoltani@ridgetownc.uoguelph.ca
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Limited information exists on the tolerance of processing tomato to postemergence (POST) application of thifensulfuron-methyl. The tolerance of 13 processing tomato varieties, ‘CC337’, ‘H9144’, ‘H9314’, ‘H9478’, ‘H9492’, ‘H9553’, ‘H9909’, ‘N1069’, ‘N1082’, ‘N1480E’, ‘N1480L’, ‘N1522’, and ‘PETO696’, to POST applications of thifensulfuron-methyl at the maximum use rate (6 g ai/ha) and twice the maximum use rate (12 g/ha) for soybean was evaluated at two Ontario locations in 2001 and 2002. At 7 days after treatment (DAT), thifensulfuron applied POST caused 0.2 to 1% visible injury to CC337, H9144, N1082, N1522, and PETO696 at the high rate. H9553, H9909, N1069, and N1480E were the most sensitive to POST thifensulfuron-methyl, with visible injury ranging from 1 to 6% at the high rate. There was no visible injury to H9314, H9478, H9492, or N1480L at either application rate of thifensulfuron-methyl. By 28 DAT, no visible injury was noted to any variety, except for H9909, N1069, and N1480L, which showed minimal (<2%) visible injury. There were no adverse effects on shoot dry weight and marketable yield for any variety at either rate. Although thifensulfuron-methyl applied POST caused minimal and transient injury to the varieties tested, more tolerance trials with other fresh and processing tomato varieties are required to confirm these initial results.

Keywords

Thifensulfuron-methyltomato, Lycopersicon esculentumCrop tolerancetomato injurypostemergence herbicidesyieldprocessing tomatoDAT, days after treatmentOM, organic matterPOST, postemergence

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 19 , Issue 3 , September 2005, pp. 669 - 673
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

Ackley, J. A., Wilson, H. P., and Hines, T. E. 1997. Rimsulfuron and metribuzin efficacy in transplanted tomato (Lycopersicum esculentus). Weed Technol. 11:324–328.Google Scholar
Al-Khatib, K., Mink, G. I., and Parker, R. 1992. Detection and tracking airborne herbicide by using bio-indicator plants. Proc. West. Weed Sci. Soc. 45:27–31.Google Scholar
Al-Khatib, K., Mink, G. I., Reisenauer, G., Parker, R., Westberg, H., and Lamb, B. 1993. Development of a biologically based system for detection and tracking airborne herbicide. Weed Technol. 7:404–410.Google Scholar
Askew, S. D., Wilcut, J. W., and Langston, V. B. 1999. Weed management in soybean (Glycine max) with preplant-incorporated herbicides and cloransulam-methyl. Weed Technol. 13:276–282.Google Scholar
Barstow, B. B. and Chernicky, J. P. 1988. Cantaloupe (Cucumis melo L.) responses to chlorsulfuron. Proc. West. Weed Sci. Soc. 41:168.Google Scholar
Bartlett, M. S. 1947. The use of transformations. Biometrics 3:39–52.Google Scholar
Boucounis, T. G., Whitwell, T., and Toler, J. E. 1990. Correlation of bioassay crop growth with cinmethylin and chlorimuron application rates for two soils. HortScience 25:536–538.Google Scholar
Hager, A. and Renner, K. A. 1994. Common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) control in soybean (Glycine max) with bentazon as influenced by imazethapyr or thifensulfuron tank mixes. Weed Technol. 8:766–771.Google Scholar
Kleifeld, Y., Goldwasser, Y., Herzlinger, G., Golan, S., and Chilf, T. 1996. Selective control of Orobanche aegyptiaca in tomato with sulfonylurea herbicides. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 36:70.Google Scholar
[OMAF] Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food. 2001. Vegetable Production Recommendations. Publ. 363. Toronto, ON, Canada: Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food.Google Scholar
[OMAF] Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food. 2002. Farm Values of Commercial Fruit and Vegetable Crops. Web page: http://www.gov.on.ca/OMAFRA/english/stats/hort/fruitveg.html. Accessed: July 10, 2004.Google Scholar
[OMAF] Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food. 2004. Guide to Weed Control. Publ. 75. Toronto, ON, Canada: Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food. 348 p.Google Scholar
Pavlova, N. N., Ustimenko, N. V., Nazarova, T. A., Makeev, A. M., and Chkaniov, D. I. 1992. Cause of different cucumber sensitivities to 2,4-D and chlorsulfuron when treating different plant organs. Fiziol. Biokhim. Kul't. Rast. 24:86–91.Google Scholar
Reddy, N. K. and Whiting, K. 2000. Weed control and economic comparisons of glyphosate-resistant, sulfonylurea-tolerant, and conventional soybean (Glycine max) systems. Weed Technol. 14:204–211.Google Scholar
Sarmah, A. K. and Sabadie, J. 2002. Hydrolysis of sulfonylurea herbicides in soils and aqueous solutions: a review. J. Agric. Food Chem. 50:6253–6265.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1999. The SAS System for Windows. Release 8.0. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute.Google Scholar
Schroeder, J. 1998. Cucumber (Cucumis sativus) response to selected foliar and soil applied sulfonylurea herbicides. Weed Technol. 12:595–601.Google Scholar
Sozeri, S. 1996. Effects of some sulfonylurea group herbicides on growth of melon, watermelon, cucumber, tomato and pepper. J. Turk. Phytopathol. 25:83–88.Google Scholar
Vencill, W. K. 2002. Herbicide Handbook. 8th ed. Lawrence, KS: Weed Science Society of America. Pp. 88–91.Google Scholar
Vicari, A., Catizone, P., and Zimdahl, R. L. 1991. Bio-activity, degradation and mobility of chlorsulfuron in soil. Riv. Agron. 3:400–406.Google Scholar
Wilson, H. P., Monks, D. W., Hines, T. E., and Mills, R. J. 2001. Responses of potato (Solanum tuberosum), tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum), and several weeds to ASC-67040 herbicide. Weed Technol. 15:271–276.Google Scholar