• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Phytotoxicity of tobacco transplanted...
 Method and procedures
 Results
 Summary and conclusions






Group Title: Mimeo report - North Florida Experiment Station, University of Florida - 57-1
Title: Phytotoxicity of tobacco transplanting solutions
CITATION PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE PAGE TEXT
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00073281/00001
 Material Information
Title: Phytotoxicity of tobacco transplanting solutions
Series Title: NFES mimeo report
Physical Description: 4 leaves : ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Tappan, William B., 1928-
North Florida Experiment Station
Publisher: North Florida Experiment Station
Place of Publication: Quincy Fla
Publication Date: 1956
 Subjects
Subject: Tobacco -- Growth -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Tobacco -- Transplanting -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Statement of Responsibility: by William B. Tappan.
General Note: Caption title.
General Note: "July 23, 1956."
Funding: NFES mimeo rpt. ;
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00073281
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 - 82547204

Table of Contents
    Phytotoxicity of tobacco transplanted solutions
        Page 1
    Method and procedures
        Page 2
    Results
        Page 3
    Summary and conclusions
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
Full Text


NORTH FLORIDA EXPERIMENT STATION
Quincy, Florida

July 23, 1956


NFES MIMEO REPORT 57-1


PHYTOTOXICITY OF TOBACCO TRANSPLANTING SOLUTIONS

by William B. Tappan
Assistant Entomologist
Field experiments in 1956 were designed to determine the effect of various
chlordane formulations on Dixie Shade tobacco when applied in transplanting solutions.
Special attention was given possible damage caused by solvents and emulsifiers
contained in the emulsifiable concentrates. Also, a small plot test was made to
ascertain the role of method of application in causing foliage injury.

Materials tested included one wettable powder (40 percent) and six emulsifiable
concentrates (8 pounds actual per gallon). The formulations (by weight) were as
follows:


Emulsion No. 1


Emulsion No. 2


Emulsion No. 3



Emulsion No. 4


Emulsion No. 5



Emulsion No. 6


Wettable Powder

Solution mixing equipment
a ~amboo agitator.


Chlordane
Xylene
Emulsifier


- Chlordane
Xylene
Emulsifier

Chlordane
Isopropyl alcohol 52%)
Isopropyl acetate 48%)
Emulsifier

S Chlordane
Methyl ethyl ketone
Emulsifier

Chlordane
Aromatic petroleum
derivative
Emulsifier

- Chlordane
Kerosene
Emulsifier

- Chlordane
Carrier


72.00%
20.02%
7.98%

72.00%
18.00%
10.00%

75.00%
18.00%
7.00%

75.00%
18.00%
7.00%


40.00%
60.00%


consisted of 29 glass jugs of five-gallon capacity and


Five enamel buckets of two and one-half gallon capacity were used to transport
the solution to the test plots. Applications were made with five enamel dippers of
16-ounce capacity.


/6d
165 37 ,
ho 4S7 I





-2-


Acetone followed by a water rinse, was used to clean the mixing and application
equipment after each treatment.

METHOD AND PROCEDURE
Experimental Design.--The experiment was composed of two tests. The first, a
field test, consisted of seven treatments at four levels of concentration and a check.
The second, a small plot test, consisted of three treatments at four levels of
concentration and a check.

Field plots were of randomized block design, replicated three times. Each plot
consisted of one row, 32 feet long and contained 32 plants. All plots were situated
underneath a cheese cloth shade.

The small plot test was also of random design, replicated three times. However,
each plot contained only two plants and had no cheese cloth covering.

Mixing Transplant Solutions.-Five gallons of each treatment concentration were
mixed for test purposes. The solutions were kept well agitated during the entire
application period.

Amounts of each formulation used to prepare-five gallons of transplant -solution
were as follows: ."

Emulsions
Level of Concentration Amount Used*

2 ozs. actual/50 gals. of water 6.0 ml.
4 ozs. actual/50 gals. of water 12.0 ml.
8 ozs. actual/50 gals. of water 24.0 ml.
12 ozs. actual/50 gals. of water 36.0 ml.

Wettable Powder
Level of Concentration Amount Used*

2 ozs. actual/50 gals. of water 14.2 g.
4 ozs. actual/50 gals. of water 28.4 g.
8 ozs. actual/50 gals. of water 56.7 g.
12 ozs. actual/50 gals. of water 85.1 g.

*All figures have been rounded to the nearest milliliter or tenth
of gram, as the case may be.

Phytotoxicity Rating.--A rating system was devised for each of the two tests.
The field system was based on visual foliage injury and plant stunting. The field
rating was as follows:

1 None to slight injury or slight stunting
2 Moderate injury or moderate stunting
3 Heavy injury or heavy stunting
4 Severe injury or severe stunting
5 Very severe injury or very severe stunting or plant dead.
The small plot rating was based on visual foliage injury alone. The system was
as below:
0 No injury
1 Slight injury
2 Moderate injury
3 Heavy injury
4 Severe injury





-3-


Growth records were made in the field test to evaluate stunting more accurately.

Test Methods.-Field treatments were applied directly following setting of the
tobacco transplants. Each concentration level was applied at the rate of 400 gallons
per acre or four ounces per plant. No attempt was made to prevent the transplant
solution from coming in contact with the plant foliage.

Applications in the small plot test were the same as those for the field test.
Two methods of application were used, however. In Method One, the solution was
applied directly.on the bud, whereas in Method Two# the application was made at the
base of the plant.

Phytotoxicity readings were made at one-week intervals starting three weeks
after treatment. Three field and two small plot test readings were made. HoWever,
only one small plot reading was presented in Table 2.

Plant height readings (in inches) were recorded on days when phytotoxicity
readings were taken. Measurements were made of each plant from ground level to the
base of the bud. Only field test records were kept as the small plot test did not
have sufficient number of test plants for accurate analysis.

RESULTS
Field Test.-Phytotoxicity was evident as foliage injury and stunting. The first
symptoms of soliage injury began appearing two weeks after treatments were applied.
One week later, April 16, 1956, both stunting and leaf injury were noticeable.
(See Table 1.)

Four weeks after application, April 24, 1956, treatments began showing the most
significant difference at the 12-ounce concentration. Plant stunting was not as
prominent as leaf injury at that time. (See Table 1.)

On May 1, 1956, phytotoxicity ratings showed significance at the 4- and 12-ounce
concentrations in all but three of the treatments. Two-ounce concentrations gave
significant results in four of seven treatments applied. (See Table 1.) Again stunt-
ing was not as pronounced as was foliage injury.-

As compared to the checks, all treatments showed a reduction in plant growth on
April 24 and May 1, 1956. The two-ounce concentration in any treatment did not differ
significantly from the checks. Plant height was gradually reduced as the concentra-
tion increased only in Emulsion No. 2 and the Wettable Powder treatments.

The same characteristic foliage symptoms resulted on all plots treated with either
the emulsions or wettable powder. Therefore, the solvents and emulsifiers apparently
did not cause any phytotoxic reaction.

Small Plot Test.--All plants treated by applying the transplant solution on the
bud showed leaf symptoms of phytotoxicity. The plants treated by applying the solu-
tion around the base had no leaf injury.

Each treatment applied on the bud caused increasing foliage phytotoxicity as the
concentration of chlordane increased. The severest injury occurred at the 12-ounce
concentration. (See Table 2.)

No phytotoxic effect could be attributed to solvents and emulsifiers contained
in the emulsifiable concentrates. Again foliage symptoms, similar to those in the
field test, were observed on plots treated with the emulsions as well as the wettable
powder.






Observationa.--Foliage injury in both tests was of three distinct types. The
severe type resembled a dogs tongue. One side of the leaf was much narrower than
the other and tended to curve in a crescent shape& The surface of the leaf was rough
to touch. The veins ran throughout the leaf in irregular patterns. No chlorosis was
evident. The moderate type was characterized by pitted leaf surface and indented
edges. Some vein irregularities and slight chlorosis along the indented edges were
evident in most cases. The slight injury type was sometimes hard to detect. The
leaf tips and narrow margins of the edges showed some pitting and small identations.
Very slight chlorosis also was evident in the pitted areas No Veif irregularities
were noticed.

The time required for leaf symptoms to appear corresponds to the time required
for new leaves to form t'rom the bud. It should be noted here, that older leaves
outside the bud Very seldom showed symptoms of phytotoxicity. That fact tends to
indicate that the transplant solution is most detrimental to young growth. Additional
evidence showed that the phytotoxic condition was more prevalent on the first leaves
formed from the bud after treatment. Leaves from succeeding buds showed no injury
symptoms, thus indicating that chlordane is not translocated within the plant. Also,
that leaves damaged are those located near the base of the plant and of little
commercial value.

As far as could be detected, there was apparently little, if any, phytotoxic
difference between the formulations tested.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Transplanting solutions containing 2, 4, 8, and 12 ounces of actual chlordane per
50 gallons of water caused damage to tobacco transplants, when applied at the rate of
400 gallons per acre or four ounces per plant. The resulting damage was in the form
of foliage injury and plant stunting.

In field tests, two ounces of actual per 50 gallons of water was significantly
toxic in four of seven treatments applied. As compared to the checks, all field
treatments caused a reduction in plant growth.

Data from both field and small plot tests showed that solvents and emulsifiers
were apparently not responsible for injury in any treatment. This was attributed to
low concentrations of both in the test formulations. If the experimental materials
had contained perhaps 50 percent or more of solvents and emulsifiers, then plant
injury caused by them may have resulted.

The small plot test indicates that the method of application of transplant solu-
tions was directly related to foliage injury. Solutions applied on the bud caused
4ir'-y at each concentration level. Severest injury resulted from the 12-ounce con-
centration treatments. No foliage injury was found when solutions were applied at
base of the plant.

Older plant leaves seldom showed injury, but the young bud leaves proved to be
susceptible.

The number of leaves damaged per plant did not appear to be commercially signifi-
Leaves injured were on the lower portion of the plant and probably would never
harvested for market. Therefore, commercial damage most likely would appear as
Yields resulting from stunted plants. Further investigations of the foregoing
seem necessary next year (1957).

Of the seven materials studied, no one formulation could be rated better or worse
the others.
WBT
7/23/56
100 cc









NORTH FIORIDA EXPERIMENT STATION
Quincy, Florida
TABLE I Effect of Chlordane Transplant Solutions on Growth of Tobacco.


: Ounces : : Distorted : :
Material : actual per : Number dead plants : plants (Total : Phytotoxicity Rating Plant height inches
: 50 gals. : (Total 3 reps.) : 3 reps.) : (Ave. 3 reps.) (Ave. 3 reps.)
: water : 4/10 : 4/16 : 5/1 : 4/24 :: : 4/24 : 5/1 4/16 : 4/24 : 5/1


Emulsion No. 1



Emulsion No. 2



Emulsion No. 3



Emulsion No. 4



Emulsion No. 5



Emulsion No. 6


Wettable
Powder


2
4
8
12
2
4
8
12
2
4
8
12
2
4
8
12
2
4
8
12
2
4
8
12


1.81
1.83
1.58
2.02
1.58
1.73
1.99
2.14*V
1.60
2.02
2.16-*
2.00
1.98
1.70
2.05*
2.24**
1.55
1.95
2.09*
2.10*
1.48
2.20*-
1.51
2.12'
1.85
1.83
2.29**
2.11*


1.33
1.36
1.32
1.59*-


1.30
1.32*
1.35*
1.50**


1.31 1.31
1.35 1.36*
1.36 1.46**
1.66,* 1.55**
1.26 1.27
1.47* 1.33*
1.59** 1.44**
1.603P- 1.50**
1.47* 1.44**
1.39 1.35*
1.43 1.32*
1.66* 1.51**
1.26 1.36*
1.42 1.41*
1.41 1.43**
1.43 1.47**


1.27
1.50*
1.26
1.66-*
1.42
1.46*
1.53*
1.72**


1.48**
1.52*A
1.26
1.52**
1.39*
1.41*
1.46*.-
1.59**


Untreated Water


1 2 2


LSD .05%*
ISD .01%-*


1.48 1.07 1.02 2.93 4.85 9.82
.56 .37 .30 .59 .96 2.0
.74 .49 .40 .80 1.28 2.


2.88
2.55
2.76
2.60
2.78
2.57
2.67
2.51
3.04
2.52
2.54
2.66
2.72
2.60
2.94
2.40*
2.91
2.74
2.88
2.59
3.00
2.35*
2.97
2.50
2.89
2.69
2.64
2.55


4.31
3.97
4.10
3.65*
4.08
3.86*
4.04
3.78*
4.52
3.61*
3.93
3.92
3.86*
4.07
4.31
3.60*
4.25
3.91
4.34
3.83*
4.22
3.39**
4.77
3.68*
4.20
4.07
3.92
3.80*


8.67
7.93
8.40
6.93**
8.65
8.53
8.52
7.42*
9.43
6.9431
7.66-*
7.63*
7.83
7.99
8.33
6.75**
8.68
7.41*
8.35
7.40*
8.13
6.69-*
8.93
6.93*-
8.36
8.07
7.55*
7.02**


Check





- -A


NORTH FLORIDA EXPERIMET STATION
Quincy, Florida


TABLE 2: Effect of Method of Application of
Growth of Tobacco.


Chlordane Transplant Solutions on


: Method : Oz. actual t Distorted Plants : Phytotoxicity
Material : of : per 50 : (Total 3 Reps.) : Rating (Ave. 3
: Application : gallons water : 5/23 t Reps.) 5/23

Emulsion No.2 On bud 2 6 140
4 6 18
8 6 2.7
12 6 3.5
Base of Plant 2 0 0
4 0 0
8 0 0
12 0 0
Emnusion No04 On bud 2 6 1.2
4 6 1.8
8 6 2.5
S12 6 3.2
Base of Plant 2 0 0
4 0 0
8 0 0
12 0 0
Wettable On bud 2 6 1.0
Powder 4 6 1.8
8 6 2.8
12 6 3.8
Base of Plant 2 0 0
4 0 0
8 0 0
12 0 0
Check On bud Untreated 0 0
Base of Plant Water 0 0
Base of Plant 0 O




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