Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-fvjsw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T22:13:38.183Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Vegetable Response to Herbicides Applied to Low-Density Polyethylene Mulch Prior to Transplant

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

A. Stanley Culpepper,
Timothy L. Grey and
Theodore M. Webster
A. Stanley Culpepper*
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, University of Georgia, Tifton, GA 31793
Timothy L. Grey
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, University of Georgia, Tifton, GA 31793
Theodore M. Webster
Affiliation:
USDA/ARS, Tifton, GA 31793
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: stanley@uga.edu.
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Few herbicides are available for weed control in vegetable production systems using low-density polyethylene (LDPE) plastic mulch. With the elimination of methyl bromide for pest management and subsequent use of various alternative fumigants, the need for herbicides in vegetable production systems has increased. An experiment was conducted to evaluate tolerance of transplant summer squash and tomato to carfentrazone, flumioxazin, glyphosate, halosulfuron, or paraquat applied to the mulch prior to transplanting. After applying herbicides overtop of the mulch but prior to vegetable transplant, the mulch was either irrigated with 1.0 cm of water or not irrigated. Carfentrazone did not affect either crop regardless of irrigation. Irrigation readily removed glyphosate and paraquat from the mulch, as there was no adverse crop injury in these treatments. In the absence of irrigation, glyphosate and paraquat reduced squash diameter and tomato heights 18 to 34% at 3 wk after transplanting (WAT). Squash and tomato fruit numbers and fruit biomass (yield) were reduced 17 to 37%, and 25 to 33%, respectively. Halosulfuron reduced squash diameter and yield 71 to 74% and tomato heights and yields 16 to 37% when mulch was not irrigated prior to transplanting. After irrigating, halosulfuron had no affect on tomato, but reduced squash growth and yield 40 to 44%. Flumioxazin killed both crops when the mulch was not irrigated; and reduced squash yield 56% when irrigated. With irrigation, flumioxazin did not impact tomato fruit number, but did reduce tomato weight by 25%. These studies demonstrate the safety of carfentrazone, applied on mulch prior to transplanting either squash or tomato, regardless of irrigation, and also demonstrate the safety of glyphosate and paraquat if irrigated prior to transplanting. Conversely, flumioxazin should not be applied over mulch before transplanting either crop, regardless of irrigation. Halosulfuron application over mulch should be avoided before transplanting squash, regardless of irrigation, but can be applied prior to transplanting tomato if irrigated.

Keywords

Carfentrazoneflumioxazinglyphosatehalosulfuronparaquatsquash, Cucurbita pepo L. ‘Enterprise’tomato, Lycopersicon esculentum Mill ‘Amelia’Crop injurycrop toleranceherbicide removal from plastic mulchmethyl bromide alternatives

Information

Type
Weed Management—Techniques
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 23 , Issue 3 , September 2009, pp. 444 - 449
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. 1996. Yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus) control POST with acetolactate synthase-inhibiting herbicides. Weed Technol 10:576–580.Google Scholar
Anonymous 2008a. Aim™ Section 2(ee) Georgia herbicide specimen label. EPA Reg. No. 279-3241. www.cdms.net/LDat/ld5L1002.pdf. Accessed: March 27, 2009. Philadelphia: FMC Corporation Agricultural Products Group. 1.Google Scholar
Anonymous 2008b. Alanap™ herbicide specimen label. EPA Reg. No. 400-49. Middlebury, CT: Chemtura USA Corp. 3.Google Scholar
Anonymous 2008c. Gramoxone Inteon™ herbicide specimen label. EPA Reg. No. 100-1074. Greensboro, NC: Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., Ag Products. 35.Google Scholar
Anonymous 2008d. Roundup Weathermax™ herbicide specimen label. EPA Reg. No. 524-537. St. Louis, MO: Monsanto Co. 23.Google Scholar
Anonymous 2008e. Sandea™ herbicide specimen label. EPA Reg. No. 10163-254. Yuma, AZ: Gowan Co. 21.Google Scholar
Barber, L. T., Wilson, D. G., Kirkpatrick, M. T., and Reynolds, D. B. 2003. Postdirected options in Roundup Ready cotton. Proc. South. Weed. Sci. Soc 56:16.Google Scholar
Buker, R. S. III, Stall, W. M., Rathinasabapathi, B., MacDonald, G., and Olson, S. M. 2000. Interactions of oxamy with halosulfuron in tomato. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 53:63.Google Scholar
Carey, F. 2004. Valor herbicide: a new, unique tool for weed control in cotton. Pages 113. in. Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conference. Memphis, TN Nation Cotton Council of America.Google Scholar
Chachalis, D., Reddy, K. N., Elmore, C. D., and Steele, M. L. 2001. Herbicide efficacy, leaf structure, and spray droplet contact angle among Ipomoea species and smallflower morningglory. Weed Sci 49:628–634.Google Scholar
Culpepper, A. S., Grey, T., and Webster, T. M. 2006. Purple nutsedge response to methyl bromide alternative fumigants applied under eight types of mulch. Proc. South. Weed Science Soc 59:148.Google Scholar
Culpepper, A. S., Webster, T. M., York, A. C., Barentine, R. M., and Mullinix, B. Jr. 2004. Glyphosate/MSMA mixtures in glyphosate-resistant cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). J. Cotton Sci 8:124–129. www.cotton.org/journal/2004-08/2/upload/jcs08-124.pdf. Accessed: March 27, 2009.Google Scholar
Gilreath, J. P. and Duranceau, S. J. 1986. Photodegradation of paraquat applied to polyethylene mulch film. HortScience 21:1145–1146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilreath, J. P., Noling, J. W., and Santos, B. M. 2004. Methyl bromide alternatives for bell pepper (Capsicum annuum) and cucumber (Cucumis sativus) rotations. Crop Prot 23:347–351.Google Scholar
Gilreath, J. P. and Santos, B. M. 2004. Bioassys on glyphosate residue toxicity and photodegradation on polyethylene mulch. Soil Crop Sci. Soc. Fla. Proc 63:21–24.Google Scholar
Grey, T. L., Culpepper, A. S., Vencill, W. K., and Webster, T. M. 2009. Herbicide dissipation from low density polyethylene mulch. Weed Sci 57:351–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacRae, A. W. and Culpepper, A. S. 2006. Bell pepper and purple nutsedge response to DMDS alone and in combination with other fumigants. Proc. Weed Sci. Soc 59:145.Google Scholar
MacRae, A. W. and Culpepper, A. S. 2007. Weed management update for cantaloupe, cucumber, squash, and watermelon. Pages 50. In Kelley, W. T. Proceedings of the 2007 Southeast Regional Vegetable Conference.Google Scholar
McCloskey, W. B. 2003. Using post-directed herbicides, Aim, Envoke, and Valor, alone and in tank mixes mixtures with glyphosate for broadleaf weed control in Arizona cotton. Pages 2265. in. Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conference. Memphis, TN Nation Cotton Council of America.Google Scholar
McIntosh, M. S. 1983. Analysis of combined experiments. Agron. J. 75:153–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKissick, J. 2006. 2005 Georgia Farm Gate Vegetable Report. Athens, GA: The University of Georgia. Area Report No. 06-04. 1–90.Google Scholar
Mize, T. W., Mitchell, H. R., and Crumby, T. 2002. Aim herbicide/harvest aid for rapid weed control in cotton—research and commercial results. Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conference. Memphis, TN: Nation Cotton Council of America.Google Scholar
Ragsdale, N. N. and Wheeler, W. B. 1995. Methyl bromide: risks, benefits and current status in pest control. Rev. Pestic. Toxicol 3:21–44.Google Scholar
SAS 2003. SAS Procedures Guide. Version 9.1. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.Google Scholar
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture 1999. EPA updates the environmental impact of methyl bromide. United States Department of Agriculture Newsletter. http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/np/mba/jan99/epa.htm. Accessed: March 27, 2009.Google Scholar
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture 2007A. United States standards for grades of summer squash. United States Department of Agriculture. http:/www.ams.usda.gov/standards/vegfm.htm. Accessed: March 27, 2009.Google Scholar
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture 2007B. United States standards for grades of fresh tomatoes. United States Department of Agriculture. http:/www.ams.usda.gov/standards/vegfm.htm. Accessed: March 27, 2009.Google Scholar
Webster, T. M. 2006. Weed survey—Southern states: vegetable, fruit, and nut crops subsection. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 59:260–277.Google Scholar
Webster, T. M., Csinos, A. S., Johnson, A. W., Dowler, C. C., Sumner, D. R., and Fery, R. L. 2001. Methyl bromide alternatives in a bell pepper-squash rotation. Crop Prot 20:605–614.Google Scholar
Webster, T. M., Culpepper, A. S., and Johnson, W. C. III. 2003. Response of squash and cucumber cultivars to halosulfuron. Weed Technol 17:173–176.Google Scholar
Wilson, S. G. and Culpepper, A. S. 2003. Managing large pitted morningglory (Ipomoea lacunosa) in Roundup Ready cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) with layby herbicides. Pages 2289. in Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conference in Memphis, TN: Nation Cotton Council of America.Google Scholar