• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Copyright
 Introduction
 Results
 Tables






Group Title: Research report - Bradenton GCREC - BRA1987-11
Title: Control of nightshade and other weeds in row middles of mulched tomato, fall 1985
CITATION PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE PAGE TEXT
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00067768/00001
 Material Information
Title: Control of nightshade and other weeds in row middles of mulched tomato, fall 1985
Series Title: Bradenton GCREC research report
Physical Description: 4, 11 leaves : ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Gilreath, J. P ( James Preston ), 1947-
Gulf Coast Research and Education Center (Bradenton, Fla.)
Publisher: Gulf Coast Research & Education Center, IFAS, University of Florida
Place of Publication: Bradenton FL
Publication Date: 1987
 Subjects
Subject: Tomatoes -- Weed control -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Weeds -- Control -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Tomatoes -- Growth -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Statement of Responsibility: J.P. Gilreath.
General Note: Caption title.
General Note: "March 1987."
Funding: Florida Historical Agriculture and Rural Life
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00067768
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: Marston Science Library, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida
Holding Location: Florida Agricultural Experiment Station, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, and the Engineering and Industrial Experiment Station; Institute for Food and Agricultural Services (IFAS), University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved, Board of Trustees of the University of Florida
Resource Identifier: oclc - 73692624

Table of Contents
    Copyright
        Copyright
    Introduction
        Page 1
        Page 2
    Results
        Page 3
        Page 4
    Tables
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
Full Text





HISTORIC NOTE


The publications in this collection do
not reflect current scientific knowledge
or recommendations. These texts
represent the historic publishing
record of the Institute for Food and
Agricultural Sciences and should be
used only to trace the historic work of
the Institute and its staff. Current IFAS
research may be found on the
Electronic Data Information Source
(EDIS)

site maintained by the Florida
Cooperative Extension Service.






Copyright 2005, Board of Trustees, University
of Florida







)
Central Science
/ /Gulf Coast Research & Education enter Library
C IFAS, University of Florid
5007 60th Street East MAY 18 1987
Bradenton, Florida 34203
University. of F hod1da
Bradenton GCREC Research Report BRA1987-11 Mnersyrch 1 87

Control of Nightshade and Other Weeds
in Row Middles of Mulched Tomato
Fall 1985

J.P. Gilreath1

Pre- and posttransplant applications of herbicides were made to transplanted,
mulched, and staked 'Sunny' tomato in the fall of 1985. Ten plants were
transplanted on 12 August 1985 into 20 foot long single bed plots which were
arranged in a randomized complete block design with 4 replications. Plants were
planted 1.5 feet apart in a single row on 30 inches wide, 6 inches high beds
spaced 9 feet apart on centers. The treated area of each plot consisted of row
middles 39 inches wide on either side of the bed for a total of 130 square feet.
Soil in the experimental area was an EauGallie fine sand with a pH of 6.9 and 0.7%
organic matter content. The experimental area was fumigated with 250 lb./acre of
MC-33 to control nematodes, diseases and undesired weeds. Irrigation consisted of
continuous application of water via seepage irrigation (the principal irrigation
system in this area). Fertilizer was applied preplant to supply a total of 250 lb
N, 80 lb. P, and 300 lb. K per acre. Normal disease and insect control practices
were maintained for the season. Weather during the production season was mostly
normal for the area, with the exception of a 4 day period from 1 Sept. to 4 Sept.
when Hurricane Elena occupied the Gulf of Mexico and deposited approximately 3
inches of rain on the plots and blasted them with sporadic winds of up to 50 miles
per hour.
Treatments applied are described in Table A. Herbicides were applied with a CO2
back pack sprayer. Initial pretransplant applications were made 9 August 1985 with
the exception of Amiben which was applied 12 August. The initial application of
Paraquat to treatment 2 was made 4 September 1987 as was the first application of
PP005 to treatments 6 and 11. The first postemergence application of Paraquat in
treatments 3, 5, 10 and 12 and application of PP005 in treatment 4 were made 24
September to weeds which were 4 to 6 inches in height, and a second application of
Paraquat in treatment 2 was made 10 October 1985. An additional application of
Goal was applied to treatment 7 plots on 4 November 1985.

Tomato plant vigor was evaluated 16 Sept. 1985 using a pretransformed 0 to 10
rating scale where 0 indicates all plants were dead and 10 represents no injury.
Weed control by species was evaluated 4 times: 16 Sept., 7 Nov., and 2 Dec. 1985.
Weed control was evaluated using a pretransformed 0 to 10 rating scale where 0
indicates no control and 10 represents complete control. Principal weeds in the
test area and their relative proportions were 25% crabgrass (Digitaria ciliaris),

1Associate Professor of Weed Science.









40% nightshade (Solanum americanum), 20% slender pigweed (Amaranthus viridis),10%
eclipta (Eclipta alba), and the remaining 5% was composed of cutleaf evening
primrose (Onoethera laciniata), common purslane (Portulaca oleracea), and yellow
nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus). Fruit were harvested and graded 3 times: 6 Nov., 19
Nov., 4 Dec. 1985.




Table A. List of treatments applied to mulched 'Sunny' tomato middles. Fall 1985.


Treatment Rate (lb.a.i./A) No. of Appl.


Weedy check -
Paraquatx 0.50 2
Devrinolw + 2.0 2
Paraquatx 0.50 1
Lexonew + 0.50 1
PP005X 0.25 1
Lexonew + 0.50 1
Cinchw + 0.60 2
Paraquatx 0.50 1
Lexonev + 0.50 1
PP005v 0.25 1
Goalw + 0.50 1
Goalx 0.50 1
Goalw 0.75 1
Goalw 1.0 1
GoalW + 0.50 1
Cinchw,x+ 0.60 2
Paraquatx 0.50 1
Goalv + 0.50 1
PP005v 0.125 1
Amibenw 3.0 2
(10G) +
Paraquatx 0.50 2


XApplied postemergence as a directed spray.

WApplied pretransplant.

VApplied as a tank mix postemergence, directed.
PP005 included 1% (v/v) Agridex.


Applications which contained









Results

None of the herbicide treatments affected tomato plant vigor (Table 1).

Excellent early season grass control was obtained with paraquat, Lexone + PP005,
and Goal + PP005, whereas control with Lexone + Cinch, and Goal + Cinch was
marginally acceptable (acceptable is considered a rating of 7.0 or higher) (Table
1). None of the remaining herbicide treatments provided acceptable control of
crabgrass. Paraquat, Lexone, and Lexone + PP005 gave excellent control of eclipta;
however, control with Devrinol and Lexone + Cinch was marginal. Nightshade growth
was vigorous and only paraquat, Goal, alone and in combination with Cinch or PP005,
land Lexone tank mixed with PP005 controlled this aggressive weed pest. Cutleaf
evening primrose was present to a small extent at this time and was controlled well
by paraquat and treatments containing Lexone.

By midseason, multiple applications, including addition of paraquat to several
treatments, were required for many of the treatments. At this time, control of
DIGSP (WSSA computer code, see footnote at bottom of Table 2 for identification of
code names) was excellent with paraquat, Devrinol + paraquat, Lexone + Cinch +
paraquat, and Goal + Cinch + paraquat, and good with Amiben + Paraquat (Table 2).
Pigweed (AMAVI) control was excellent with these same treatments and was good with
treatments containing either Lexone or Goal. Nightshade (SOLAM) control had
decreased to an unacceptable level with single applications of Goal alone and was
barely acceptable with 2 applications of Goal at this time. Only where Goal was
tank mixed with other herbicides was good control observed. Control of eclipta
(ECLAL) was excellent with paraquat, Devrinol + paraquat, Lexone + Cinch +
paraquat, and Goal + Cinch + paraquat. Comparable control of ECLAL was also
obtained with Amiben + paraquat; however, control was only good. Common purslane
(POROL) control was excellent with paraquat and Amiben + paraquat, but was not
acceptable with any of the other herbicide treatments. Only paraquat and Goal +
Cinch + paraquat provided acceptable, albeit marginal control of yellow nutsedge
(CYPES) and that was marginal at that.

By the end of the season, the only treatments to provide acceptable control of
crabgrass (DIGSP) were paraquat, Devrinol + paraquat, Lexone + PP005, Lexone +
Cinch + paraquat, and Goal + Cinch + paraquat, and these treatments generally
provided excellent control (Table 3). All of the herbicide treatments provided
acceptable control of pigweed (AMAVI) with only the single applications of Goal
being marginally acceptable and the remaining treatments providing excellent
control. Effective control of nightshade (SOLAM) was only provided where Goal was
applied twice indicating residual activity of Goal in low organic matter sands was
insufficient to provided season-long control of nightshade. Devrinol + paraquat
was the only treatment to provide excellent season-long control of eclipta (ECLAL).

As previously indicated, fruit were harvested and graded three times. Few
differences existed in number or weight of fruit per size grade or total.
Significantly more size 7x7 fruit were produced at the first harvest in plots
treated with paraquat than in the weedy check or most of the other treatments with
no other differences observed for number of fruit at the first harvest (Table 4).
In the same harvest, more weight of size 7x6 fruit were produced with Lexone +
PP005 than with Goal + Goal or Goal + PP005 (Table 5). Differences such as these
are not commercially important because they represent smaller fruit which has
relatively low value. There were no differences in number of fruit produced in
either of the two remaining harvests (Tables 6 and 8). Goal (1.0 lb. rate)









produced more weight of 7x7 fruit than the other treatments, whereas the 0.75 lb.
rate produced more 7x6 fruit than the other treatments (Table 7). These increases
in fruit weight were not accompanied by a corresponding decrease in larger size
fruit. No differences in fruit weight were observed among the treatments for the
third harvest (Table 9). When number and weight of fruit were totaled over the
season, no differences existed (Table 10 and 11), indicating herbicide treatments
had no effect on fruit yield when applied to row middles of mulched tomatoes.

Generally, none of the treatments affected fruit yield. Goal provided excellent
nightshade control; however, 2 applications were required to provide full-season
control. Additionally, Goal is weak on grass weeds and requires the addition of a
herbicide such as Cinch to fill that void and provide season-long control.

Mention of a specific proprietary product does not constitute an endorsement by the
author or the University of Florida. Growers are encouraged to consult their
county extension agent for specific recommendations of labeled compounds.









Table 1. Effect of herbicide treatments on plant vigor and weed control in row
middles of mulched, transplanted 'Sunny' tomatoes. Bradenton, FL. September 16,
1985.


Rate Vigor Weed control ratingY
Treatment (lb.a.i./A) rating Grass Eclipta Nightshade CEPI


Weedy check -- 10.0 au 0.0 du 0.0 c 0.0 d 0.0 d
Paraquatx 0.50 9.8 a 9.2 a 9.9 a 9.0 a 10.0 a
Devrinolw 2.0 9.9 a 5.2 bc 7.0 ab 0.0 d 0.0 d
Lexonew 0.50 9.6 a 5.2 bc 9.0 a 0.0 d 9.8 a
LexoneW+ 0.50 9.6 a 7.2 b 7.2 ab 2.5 c 10.0 a
Cinchw 0.60
Lexonev + 0.50 10.0 a 10.0 a 10.0 a 10.0 a 10.0 a
PP005V 0.25
Goalw 0.50 9.8 a 5.6 bc 0.8 c 10.0 a 1.0 cd
Goalv 0.50
Goalw 0.75 10.0 a 5.9 b 4.0 bc 10.0 a 1.3 cd
Goalw 1.0 9.8 a 6.2 b 1.5 c 9.8 a 4.8 b
Goalw + 0.50 10.0 a 7.0 b 3.8 bc 10.0 a 1.5 cd
SCinchw 0.60
Goalv + 0.50 10.0 a 9.9 a 3.5 bc 9.8 a 4.0 bc
PP005V 0.125
Amibenw 3.0 9.8 a 3.8 c 1.0 c 6.0 b 0.0 d
(10G)


CEP = cutleaf evening primrose.
I
ZVigor was evaluated using a pretransformed 0 to 10 rating scale where 0 indicates
all plants were dead and 10 represents no injury, optimum growth.

YWeed control was evaluated using a pretransformed 0 to 10 rating scale where 0
indicates no control and 10 represents complete control.

XApplied postemergence as a directed spray.

WApplied pretransplant.

VApplied as a tank mix postemergence, directed. Applications which contained PP005
included 1% (v/v) Agridex.

uMeans within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different
at the 5% level of significance as determined by Duncan's new multiple range test.









Table 2. Effect of herbicide treatments on weed control in row middles of mulched,
transplanted 'Sunny' tomatoes. Bradenton, FL. 7 November 1985.


Rate No. of Weedz control ratingY
Treatment (lb.a.i./A) Appl. DIGSP AMAVI SOLAN ECLAL POROL CYPES


Weedycheck -- 0.0 du 1.0 c 0.0 e 2.5 b 2.5 b 0.0 d
Paraquatx 0.50 2 9.6 a 10.0 a 7.6 ab 9.6 a 9.1 a 7.0 ab
DevrinolW+ 2.0 2 9.0 a 9.4 ab 2.1 de 9.8 a 3.8 ab 5.6 abc
Paraquatx 0.50 1
Lexonew+ 0.50 1 7.5 bc 8.1 b 0.0 e 1.0 bc 0.0 b 0.0 b
PP005X 0.25 1
Lexonew 0.50 1 9.4 a 9.5 ab 6.8 ab 9.6 a 4.6 ab 4.0 a-d
Cinchw 0.60 2
Paraquatx 0.50 1
LexoneV+ 0.50 1 6.4 c 9.0 ab 3.6 cd 7.4 a 3.0 b 3.9 a-d
PP005V+ 0.25 1
Goalw+ 0.50 1 0.0 d 8.2 ab 7.8 ab 0.8 bc 2.0 b 0.0 d
Goalx 0.50 1
Goalw 0.75 1 0.0 d 8.2 ab 5.1 bc 3.0 b 4.5 ab 2.8 bcd
Goalw 1.0 1 0.8 d 8.1 b 5.2 bc 2.0 bc 0.8 b 3.0 bcd
Goalw+ 0.50 1 9.4 a 9.9 ab 9.0 a 9.1 a 5.0 ab 7.6 a
Cinchw,x+ 0.60 2
Paraquatx 0.50 1
GoalV+ 0.50 1 7.2 bc 9.6 ab 9.0 a 0.8 bc 2.2 b 2.2 cd
PP005V 0.125 1
Amibenw 3.0 2 8.5 ab 9.4 ab 8.5 a 8.3 a 9.2 a 3.8 a-d
(10G)+
iParaquatx 0.50 2


ZWeed species were DIGSP, Digitaria
Solanum americanum; ECLAL, Eclipta
Cyperus esculentus.


ciliaris; AMAVI, Amaranthus viridis; SOLAM,
alba; POROL, Portulaca oleracea; and CYPES,


YWeed control was evaluated using a pretransformed 0 to 10 rating scale where 0
indicates no control and 10 represents complete control.

xApplied postemergence as a directed spray.

WApplied pretransplant.

VApplied as a tank mix postemergence, directed. Applications which contained
PP005 included 1% (v/v) Agridex.

uMeans within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly
different at the 5% level of significance as determined by Duncan's new
multiple range test.









Table 3. Effect of herbicide treatments on weed control in row middles of mulched,
transplanted 'Sunny' tomatoes. Bradenton, FL. 2 December 1985.


Rate No. of Weedz control ratingY
Treatment (lb.a.i./A) Appl. DIGSP AMAVI SOLAM ECLAL POROL CYPES


Weedy check -- 0.5 eu 2.0 e 0.0 d 0.0 e -- --
Paraquatx 0.50 2 9.4 a 10.0 a 5.9 b 7.2 ab --
Devrinolw + 2.0 2 9.0 a 9.6 a 2.0 cd 9.4 a -- --
Paraquatx 0.50 1
Lexonew + 0.50 1 8.9 a 8.1 bcd 0.0 d 1.2 de -- --
PP005x 0.25 1
Lexone" + 0.50 1 9.1 a 9.6 ab 3.2 c 6.5 b -- --
CinchW + 0.60 2
Paraquatx 0.50 1
LexoneV+ 0.50 1 1.5 de 8.1 bcd 0.0 d 3.5 cd -- --
PP005V 0.25 1
Goal" + 0.50 1 4.5 c 8.8 a-d 8.2 a 4.0 c --
Goalx 0.50 1
Goalw 0.75 1 0.0 e 7.9 cd 1.5 cd 0.0 e --
Goalw 1.0 1 0.0 e 7.5 d 2.5 c 0.0 e -- -
Goal" + 0.50 1 8.2 ab 9.4 abc 6.6 ab 7.8 ab -- --
Cinchw,x + 0.60 2
Paraquatx 0.50 1
GoalV+ 0.50 1 2.5 d 9.0 abc 6.8 ab 0.0 e --
PP005V 0.125 1
Amibenw 3.0 2 6.8 b 9.1 abc 6.5 ab 3.9 c -- --
(10G) +
Paraquatx 0.50 2


ZWeed species were DIGSP, Digitaria ciliaris; AMAVI, Amaranthus viridis; SOLAM,
Solanum americanum; ECLAL, Eclipta alba; POROL, Portulaca oleracea; and CYPES,
Cyperus esculentus.

YWeed control was evaluated using a pretransformed 0 to 10 rating scale where 0
indicates no control and 10 represents complete control.

XApplied postemergence as a directed spray.

WApplied pretransplant.

vApplied as a tank mix postemergence, directed. Applications which contained PPO05
included 1% (v/v) Agridex.

uMeans within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different
at the 5% level of significance as determined by Duncan's new multiple range test.









Table 4. Effect of herbicide treatments on fruit yield in mulched, transplanted


'Sunny' tomatoes.


Bradenton, FL. 6 November 1985.


Rate No. of Number of fruit per grade per plot
Treatment (lb.a.i./A) Appl. Cull 7x7 7x6 6x6 5x6 Total


Weedy check -- 3.5 au 3.2 b 13.6 a 13.0 a 10.8 a 41.0 a
Paraquatx 0.50 2 8.8 a 9.0 a 19.5 a 20.0 a 13.0 a 67.5 a
DevrinolW+ 2.0 2 3.0 a 1.5 b 23.2 a 18.8 a 22.5 a 66.8 a
Paraquatx 0.50 1
LexoneW+ 0.50 1 8.5 a 3.2 b 15.2 a 12.2 a 12.5 a 48.0 a
PP005X 0.25 1
Lexonew+ 0.50 1 6.2 a 2.0 b 15.9 a 16.0 a 13.5 a 48.5 a
CinchW+ 0.60 2
Paraquatx 0.50 1
JexoneV+ 0.50 1 4.2 a 3.8 b 15.0 a 26.0 a 10.8 a 45.8 a
PP005V 0.25 1
Goal"+ 0.50 1 7.0 a 2.2 b 11.6 a 8.5 a 10.2 a 34.2 a
Goalx 0.50 1
Goalw 0.75 1 8.8 a 4.2 ab 24.1 a 26.0 a 20.0 a 72.5 a
Goalw 1.0 1 6.0 a 2.5 b 13.4 a 14.8 a 8.2 a 42.5 a
GoalW+ 0.50 1 10.0 a 4.8 ab 19.0 a 14.2 a 15.0 a 58.0 a
Cinchw,x+ 0.60 2
Paraquatx 0.50 1
Goalv+ 0.50 1 10.5 a 2.0 b 11.0 a 10.5 a 7.5 a 37.2 a
Amibenw 3.0 2 8.2 a 3.0 b 20.4 a 18.5 a 23.5 a 67.2 a
(10G) +
Paraquatx 0.50 2


WApplied pretransplant.

VApplied as a tank mix postemergence, directed. Applications which contained PP005
included 1% (v/v) Agridex.

uMeans within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different
at the 5% level of significance as determined by Duncan's new multiple range test.









Table 5. Effect of herbicide treatments on fruit yield in mulched,transplanted
'Sunny' tomatoes. Bradenton, FL. 6 November 1985.


Rate No. of Weight (lb.) of fruit per grade per plot
Treatment (lb.a.i./A) Appl. Cull 7x7 7x6 6x6 5x6 Total


Weedy check -- 1.3 au 0.8 a 2.7 ab 4.6 a 4.7 a 13.6 a
Paraquatx 0.50 2 2.6 a 1.0 a 4.6 ab 6.4 a 5.6 a 19.5 a
Devrinolw + 2.0 2 3.0 a 0.2 a 3.8 ab 6.2 a 9.8 a 23.1 a
Paraquatx 0.50 1
Lexonew + 0.50 1 2.0 a 0.6 a 7.6 a 4.0 a 5.6 a 15.2 a
PP005X 0.25 1
Lexonew + 0.50 1 1.6 a 0.4 a 2.8 ab 5.4 a 5.8 a 15.9 a
Cinchw + 0.60 2
Paraquatx 0.50 1
Lexonev + 0.50 1 1.2 a 0.8 a 2.9 ab 5.8 a 4.6 a 15.0 a
PP005V 0.25 1
Goalw + 0.50 1 2.4 a 0.4 a 1.5 b 2.6 a 4.6 a 11.6 a
Goalx 0.50 1
Goalw 0.75 1 2.6 a 0.9 a 5.3 ab 8.5 a 8.8 a 24.1 a
Goalw 1.0 1 1.7 a 0.5 a 2.8 ab 4.8 a 3.7 a 13.4 a
Goalw + 0.50 1 3.0 a 1.0 a 3.8 ab 4.6 a 6.6 a 19.0 a
Cinch ,x + 0.60 2
Paraquatx 0.50 1
Goalv + 0.50 1 2.4 a 0.4 a 1.8 b 3.4 a 3.2 a 11.0 a
PP005V 0.125 1
Amibenw 3.0 2 2.6 a 0.6 a 3.7 ab 6.4 a 10.0 a 20.4 a
(10G) +
Paraquatx 0.50 2


XApplied postemergence as a directed spray.

WApplied pretransplant.

VApplied as a tank mix postemergence, directed.
included 1% (v/v) Agridex.


Applications which contained PP005


UMeans within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different
at the 5% level of significance as determined by Duncan's new multiple range test.









Table 6. Effect of herbicide treatments on fruit yield in mulched, transplanted
'Sunny' tomatoes. Bradenton, FL. 19 November 1985.


Rate No. of Number of fruit per grade per plot
Treatment (lb.a.i./A) Appl. Cull 7x7 7x6 6x6 5x6 Total


Weedy check -- 19.2 au 26.2 a 81.0 a 61.2 a 14.8 a 202.5 a
Paraquatx 0.50 2 37.5 a 26.5 a 64.8 a 46.2 a 15.8 a 190.8 a
Devrinolw + 2.0 2 20.0 a 27.5 a 77.0 a 51.5 a 22.2 a 198.2 a
Paraquatx 0.50 1
Lexonew + 0.50 1 37.5 a 21.5 a 73.5 a 46.2 a 11.2 a 190.0 a
PP005X 0.25 1
Jexonew + 0.50 1 26.5 a 23.2 a 63.2 a 47.0 a 16.2 a 176.2 a
Cinch'w + 0.60 2
Paraquatx 0.50 1
Lexonev + 0.50 1 22.5 a 16.0 a 86.5 a 48.4 a 19.8 a 193.1 a
' PP005V 0.25 1
Goalw + 0.50 1 31.2 a 25.5 a 51.0 a 48.2 a 19.0 a 175.0 a
Goalx 0.50 1
Goalw 0.75 1 22.5 a 21.0 a 68.5 a 61.8 a 22.0 a 195.8 a
Goalw 1.0 1 19.5 a 33.2 a 75.5 a 60.8 a 10.0 a 199.0 a
Goalw + 0.50 1 35.5 a 29.8 a 86.0 a 56.0 a 18.2 a 225.5 a
Cinchw,x + 0.60 2
Paraquatx 0.50 1
Goalv + 0.50 1 44.2 a 22.5 a 74.5 a 48.5 a 17.8 a 207.5 a
PP005V 0.125 1
Amibenw 3.0 2 31.5 a 27.2 a 67.0 a 42.0 a 13.5 a 181.2 a
(10G) +
Paraquatx 0.50 2


WApplied pretransplant.

VApplied as a tank mix postemergence, directed. Applications which contained PP005
included 1% (v/v) Agridex.

UMeans within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different
at the 5% level of significance as determined by Duncan's new multiple range test.









Table 7. Effect of herbicide treatments on fruit yield in mulched, transplanted
'Sunny' tomatoes. Bradenton, FL. 19 November 1985.


Rate No. of Weight (Ib.) of fruit per grade per plot
Treatment (lb.a.i./A) Appl. Cull 7x7 7x6 6x6 5x6 Total


Weedy check -- 4.3 au 5.2 b 20.8 b 19.9 a 6.4 a 56.6 a
Paraquatx 0.50 2 7.4 a 5.1 b 16.1 b 14.8 a 6.9 a 50.2 a
Devrinolw + 2.0 2 4.0 a 5.4 b 18.6 b 16.8 a 9.5 a 54.3 a
Paraquatx 0.50 1
Lexonew + 0.50 1 6.5 a 4.2 b 17.9 b 14.7 a 4.8 a 48.0 a
PP005X 0.25 1
Lexonew + 0.50 1 6.4 a 4.5 b 16.3 b 15.6 a 7.2 a 50.0 a
Cinch" + 0.60 2
Paraquatx 0.50 1
Lexonev + 0.50 1 4.5 a 7.7 b 21.3 b 20.0 a 8.5 a 62.0 a
PP005V 0.25 1
Goalw + 0.50 1 6.0 a 4.0 b 13.2 b 13.9 a 8.0 a 45.0 a
Goalx 0.50 1
Goalw 0.75 1 4.5 a 3.8 b 57.0 a 20.0 a 9.2 a 94.5 a
Goalw 1.0 1 5.4 a 19.9 a 18.0 b 17.9 a 4.2 a 65.4 a
Goalw + 0.50 1 6.8 a 5.6 b 20.7 b 18.0 a 7.8 a 59.0 a
Cinchw,x + 0.60 2
Paraquatx 0.50 1
Goalv + 0.50 1 8.2 a 6.2 b 18.7 b 15.9 a 7.6 a 56.6 a
PP005V 0.125 1
Amibenw 3.0 2 7.0 a 5.4 b 16.7 b 13.7 a 5.6 a 48.4 a
(10G) +
Paraquatx 0.50 2


XApplied postemergence as a directed spray.

WApplied pretransplant.

VApplied as a tank mix postemergence, directed.
included 1% (v/v) Agridex.


Applications which contained PP005


UMeans within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different
at the 5% level of significance as determined by Duncan's new multiple range test.









Table 8. Effect of herbicide treatments on fruit yield in mulched,transplanted
'Sunny' tomatoes. Bradenton, FL. 4 December 1985.


Rate No. of Number of fruit per grade per plot
Treatment (lb.a.i./A) Appl. Cull 7x7 7x6 6x6 5x6 Total


Weedy check -- 36 au 32 a 60 a 12 a 1 a 142 a
Paraquatx 0.50 2 42 a 50 a 65 a 15 a 0 a 172 a
Devrinolw + 2.0 2 52 a 44 a 58 a 13 a 0 a 167 a
Paraquatx 0.50 1
Lexonew + 0.50 1 37 a 45 a 67 a 19 a 1 a 169 a
PPO05X 0.25 1
Lexonew + 0.50 1 43 a 51 a 72 a 24 a 2 a 193 a
Cinchw + 0.60 2
Paraquatx 0.50 1
Lexonev + 0.50 1 37 a 48 a 68 a 21 a 1 a 174 a
PP005V 0.25 1
Goal" + 0.50 1 30 a 36 a 60 a 17 a 1 a 144 a
Goalx 0.50 1
Goal" 0.75 1 39 a 28 a 45 a 16 a 1 a 130 a
Goalw 1.0 1 41 a 40 a 54 a 14 a 1 a 150 a
Goal" + 0.50 1 43 a 38 a 54 a 13 a 1 a 149 a
Cinchw,x + 0.60 2
Paraquatx 0.50 1
Goalv + 0.50 1 52 a 48 a 65 a 13 a 1 a 179 a
PP005V 0.125 1
Amiben" 3.0 2 46 a 45 a 70 a 12 a 0 a 173 a
(10G) +
Paraquatx 0.50 2


WApplied pretransplant.

VApplied as a tank mix postemergence, directed. Applications which contained PP005
Included 1% (v/v) Agridex.

uMeans within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different
at the 5% level of significance as determined by Duncan's new multiple range test.









Table 9. Effect of herbicide treatments on fruit yield in mulched, transplanted


'Sunny' tomatoes.


Bradenton, FL.


4 December 1985.


Rate No. of Weight (lb.) of fruit per grade per plot
Treatment (lb.a.i./A) Appl. Cull 7x7 7x6 6x6 5x6 Total


Weedy check -- 6.3 au 6.4 a 14.8 a 3.6 a 0.2 a 31.4 a
Paraquatx 0.50 2 6.9 a 10.0 a 15.6 a 4.8 a 0.0 a 37.2 a
Devrinolw + 2.0 2 9.2 a 8.8 a 14.2 a 4.1 a 0.0 a 36.4 a
Paraquatx 0.50 1
Lexonew + 0.50 1 6.7 a 9.2 a 16.4 a 5.9 a 0.3 a 38.5 a
PP005X 0.25 1
Lexonew + 0.50 1 8.4 a 10.2 a 17.7 a 7.6 a 0.8 a 44.7 a
Cinchw + 0.60 2
Paraquatx 0.50 1
Lexonev + 0.50 1 6.9 a 9.4 a 16.4 a 6.9 a 0.3 a 39.8 a
PP005V 0.25 1
Goalw + 0.50 1 6.0 a 7.2 a 14.6 a 3.9 a 0.4 a 32.0 a
Goalx 0.50 1
Goalw 0.75 1 6.7 a 5.9 a 10.9 a 4.9 a 0.5 a 28.9 a
Goal" 1.0 1 6.9 a 8.2 a 13.6 a 10.8 a 0.4 a 39.8 a
Goalw + 0.50 1 8.0 a 7.8 a 13.2 a 4.1 a 0.2 a 33.2 a
Cinchw,x + 0.60 2
Paraquatx 0.50 1
Goalv + 0.50 1 9.6 a 9.7 a 15.6 a 4.1 a 0.4 a 39.4 a
PP005V 0.125 1
Amibenw 3.0 2 8.2 a 8.9 a 16.8 a 3.8 a 0.1 a 37.8 a
(10G) +
Paraquatx 0.50 2


XApplied postemergence as a directed spray.

WApplied pretransplant.

VApplied as a tank mix postemergence, directed. Applications which contained PP005
included 1% (v/v) Agridex.

UMeans within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different
at the 5% level of significance as determined by Duncan's new multiple range test.









Table 10. Effect of herbicide treatments on seasonal total fruit yield in mulched,
transplanted 'Sunny' tomatoes. Bradenton, FL. Fall 1985.


Rate No. of Number of fruit per grade per plot
Treatment (Ib.a.i./A) Appl. Cull 7x7 7x6 6x6 5x6 Total


Ieedy check -- 59 au 62 a 152 a 86 a 26 a 385 a
Paraquatx 0.50 2 88 a 86 a 146 a 82 a 29 a 430 a
Devrinolw + 2.0 2 82 a 73 a 150 a 84 a 45 a 432 a
Paraquatx 0.50 1
Lexonew + 0.50 1 83 a 70 a 152 a 78 a 24 a 407 a
PP005X 0.25 1
Lexonew + 0.50 1 76 a 76 a 146 a 87 a 32 a 418 a
Cinchw + 0.60 2
Paraquatx 0.50 1
Lexonev + 0.50 1 64 a 67 a 165 a 86 a 31 a 413 a
SPP005 0.25 1
Goal" + 0.50 1 68 a 63 a 117 a 74 a 30 a 353 a
Goalx 0.50 1
Goalw 0.75 1 70 a 54 a 127 a 104 a 43 a 398 a
Goalw 1.0 1 66 a 76 a 140 a 89 a 20 a 392 a
Goal" + 0.50 1 89 a 73 a 154 a 83 a 34 a 432 a
SCinchW,x + 0.60 2
Paraquatx 0.50 1
Goalv + 0.50 1 107 a 72 a 146 a 72 a 26 a 424 a
PP005V 0.125 1
Amibenw 3.0 2 86 a 75 a 151 a 73 a 37 a 421 a
(10G) +
Paraquatx 0.50 2


wApplied pretransplant.

VApplied as a tank mix postemergence, directed. Applications which contained PP005
included 1% (v/v) Agridex.

uMeans within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different
at the 5% level of significance as determined by Duncan's new multiple range test.









Table 11. Effect of herbicide treatments on seasonal total fruit yield in mulched,


transplanted 'Sunny' tomatoes. Bradenton, FL.


Fall 1985.


Rate No. of Weight (Ib.) of fruit per grade per plot
Treatment (Ib.a.i./A) Appl. Cull 7x7 7x6 6x6 5x6 Total


Weedy check -- 11.9 au 12.4 a 38.3 a 28.2 a 11.2 a 102.0 a
Paraquatx 0.50 2 16.9 a 16.1 a 36.2 a 26.0 a 12.5 a 107.6 a
Devrinolw + 2.0 2 16.2 a 14.5 a 36.5 a 27.1 a 19.4 a 113.7 a
Paraquatx 0.50 1
Lexonew + 0.50 1 15.1 a 14.0 a 41.9 a 24.6 a 10.7 a 106.4 a
SPP005 0.25 1
Lexonew + 0.50 1 16.4 a 15.0 a 36.7 a 28.6 a 13.8 a 110.7 a
Cinchw + 0.60 2
Paraquatx 0.50 1
Lexonev + 0.50 1 12.7 a 17.8 a 40.6 a 32.6 a 13.5 a 117.2 a
PP005V 0.25 1
Goalw + 0.50 1 14.4 a 11.6 a 29.2 a 20.5 a 13.0 a 88.6 a
Goalx 0.50 1
Goalw 0.75 1 13.9 a 10.7 a 73.2 a 33.4 a 18.4 a 149.5 a
Goalw 1.0 1 14.0 a 28.6 a 34.3 a 33.5 a 8.3 a 118.7 a
Goal" + 0.50 1 17.9 a 14.4 a 37.7 a 26.6 a 14.7 a 111.4 a
CinchW,x + 0.60 2
Paraquatx 0.50 1
Goalv + 0.50 1 20.2 a 16.3 a 36.0 a 23.4 a 11.2 a 107.2 a
SPP005 0.125 1
Amibenw 3.0 2 17.8 a 14.9 a 37.2 a 23.9 a 15.7 a 109.5 a
(10G) +
Paraquatx 0.50 2


XApplied postemergence as a directed spray.

WApplied pretransplant.

VApplied as a tank mix postemergence, directed. Applications which contained PP005
included 1% (v/v) Agridex.

uMeans within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different
at the 5% level of significance as determined by Duncan's new multiple range test.




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs