Effects of sublethal glyphosate rates on fresh market tomato

Santos, Bielinski M.; Gilreath, James P.; Esmel, Camille E.; Siham, Myriam N.

doi:10.1016/j.cropro.2006.04.005

Cited by 8 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Sweetpotato injury was not affected by solution volume. This result differs from those reported in other vegetable crops, where crop injury increased as glyphosate rate increased (Felix et al 2011(Felix et al , 2012Gilreath et al 2000;McNaughton et al 2012;Santos et al 2007). The method of application utilized in the present study differed from other off-target glyphosate research in that applications were not made in a broadcast manner, and solution volume, not herbicide concentration, differed among treatments.…”

Section: Resultscontrasting

confidence: 91%

“…1, and marketable yields of plots receiving glyphosate solution volumes of 0.16, 0.32, or 0.48 mL did not differ from one another. As was the case with crop injury, this result differs from those reported in other vegetable crops, in which crop yield decreased as glyphosate rate increased (Felix et al 2011(Felix et al , 2012Gilreath et al 2000;McNaughton et al 2012;Santos et al 2007).…”

Section: Resultscontrasting

confidence: 87%

“…Applications by Felix et al (2011; and Gilreath et al (2000) were broadcast onto crop foliage with CO 2 -pressurized backpack sprayers. Santos et al (2007) exposed fresh market tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) transplants to sublethal doses of glyphosate by submerging the foliage in glyphosate solution (0 to 200 mg L -1 ) 1 d before transplanting, and reported decreased plant vigor, height, and yield with increasing glyphosate concentration.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Sweetpotato Response to Simulated Glyphosate Wick Drip

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Field studies were conducted in 2009 at Clinton, NC and 2014 at Pontotoc, MS to determine the influence of simulated glyphosate drip on sweetpotato yield and quality. Treatments consisted of three glyphosate solution (140 g ae L -1 ) drip volumes (0.16, 0.32 and 0.48 ml) by four application timings [(4 wk after transplanting (WAP); 6 WAP; 8 WAP; and 4 WAP followed by (fb) 6 WAP fb 8 WAP]. A non-treated check was included for comparison. Visual sweetpotato injury consisted of chlorosis at the shoot tips approximately 1 wk after treatment fb necrosis and stunting. At 6 WAP and 8 WAP, sweetpotato injury following glyphosate applied 4 WAP was 71 and 65%, respectively. Injury from glyphosate applied 4 WAP fb 6 WAP was 78%. Injury from glyphosate applied 6 WAP was 26% at 8 WAP. In 2009, jumbo, no. 1, canner, and marketable yield of the non-treated check were two to three times greater than glyphosate treatments (0.16, 0.32, 0.48 ml). Likewise, yield of the non-treated check was substantially greater than those treated with 0.16 to 0.48 ml glyphosate solution in 2014. In 2009 and 2014, sweetpotato yield of all grades increased as glyphosate application timing was delayed. In 2009, no. 1 yield from glyphosate 8 WAP (8,210 kg ha -1 ) was similar to the non-treated check. In 2009, there were no cracked storage roots in the non-treated check. However, sweetpotatoes receiving 0.16 to 0.48 ml glyphosate solution displayed 8 to 17%, 11 to 18%, 5 to 13%, and 11 to 16% cracking (by weight) in jumbo, no. 1, canner, and marketable storage roots, respectively. Compared to the non-treated check, glyphosate applied 4 WAP, 6 WAP, or 4 WAP fb 6 WAP fb 8 WAP had a greater percentage of cracked marketable sweetpotato storage roots. Nomenclature: Glyphosate; sweetpotato, Ipomoea batatas L. Lam. Key words: Root cracking, off-target, storage root.Estudios de campo fueron realizados en 2009 en Clinton, North Carolina y en 2014 en Pontotoc, Mississippi para determinar la influencia de goteo simulado con glyphosate sobre el rendimiento y la calidad de la batata. Los tratamientos consistieron de tres volúmenes de goteo (0.16, 0.32, y 0.48 ml) de solución de glyphosate (140 g ae L −1 ) y cuatro momentos de aplicación [4 semanas después del trasplante (WAP); 6 WAP; 8 WAP; y 4 WAP seguido por (fb) 6 WAP fb 8 WAP]. Un testigo sin tratamiento fue incluido para fines de comparación. El daño visualmente estimado de la batata consistió de clorosis en los ápices del tejido aéreo de la batata aproximadamente 1 semana después del tratamiento fb necrosis y crecimiento atrofiado. A 6 WAP y 8 WAP, el daño en la batata después de la aplicación de glyphosate 4 WAP fue 71 y 65%, respectivamente. El daño causado por glyphosate aplicado 4 WAP fb 6 WAP fue 78%. El daño con glyphosate aplicado 6 WAP fue 26% a 8 WAP. En 2009, los rendimientos jumbo, no. 1, canner, y comercializable del testigo sin tratamiento fueron dos a tres veces mayores que los tratamientos con glyphosate (0.16, 0.32, y 0.48 ml). De la misma manera, el rendimiento del testigo sin tratamiento fu...

show abstract

Section: Resultscontrasting

confidence: 91%

Section: Resultscontrasting

confidence: 87%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Sweetpotato Response to Simulated Glyphosate Wick Drip

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Diversos estudos têm evidenciado os efeitos negativos da deriva de glyphosate em: eucalipto (Tuffi Santos et al, 2005), algodoeiro (Yamashita & Guimarães, 2006), soja (Ellis & Griffin, 2002), milho (Magalhães et al, 2001), arroz irrigado (Ferreira et al, 2006), varjão (Parkia multijuga) , citros (Gravena et al, 2009), amendoim (Lassiter et al, 2007), tomate (Figueredo et al, 2007;Santos et al, 2007), coqueiro (Procópio et al, 2009) e pêssego (Tuffi Santos et al, 2006). Nesses trabalhos foram constatadas mudanças morfológicas e anatô-micas nas folhas, causando diminuição na absorção de nutrientes e favorecendo a incidência de doenças, além de, em muitos casos, provocar menor crescimento e produtividade das culturas.…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

Crescimento de cultivares de café arábica submetidos a doses do glyphosate

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

-This study evaluated the effects of glyphosate on the growth of three arabica coffee cultivars. A factorial (3 x 5) was arranged in a randomized block design with four replications, with treatments consisting of three coffee varieties: Catucaí Amarelo (2 SL), Oeiras (MG-6851) and Topázio (MG-1190) and five glyphosate doses (0, 57.6, 115.2, 230.4 and 460.8 g ha -1). The herbicide was applied when the coffee plants reached 21 pairs of leaves, before reaching their upper third ones. At 45 and 120 days after glyphosate application (DAA), increase in leaf area, stem diameter, number of leaves and plagiotropic branches was evaluated, being initially measured on the day the herbicide was applied, and plant intoxication rate at 10, 45 and 120 DAA. Dry matter of leaves, roots and stem, and root length and density were measured at 120 DAA. Symptoms of coffee plant intoxication caused by glyphosate were similar in different cultivars, being characterized by chlorosis and leaf narrowing. Increase in the number of leaves, plagiotropic branches and stem diameter, regardless of the cultivar, was not affected by glyphosate. Cultivar Topázio was the most sensitive to glyphosate, in terms of accumulation of leaf area, root dry matter and root density.

show abstract

“…It is frequently used in agricultural areas, especially in rice, corn and soybean fields, for garden care, forestlands, and to get rid of unwanted plants with large leaves in pastures and green areas (Dallegrave et al, 2003). Glyphosate is an herbicide that inhibits the synthesis of aromatic amino acids such as tryptophan, tyrosine and phenylalanine in plants (Santos et al, 2007). In plants, the enzyme 5-enolpyruvylshikimate 3phosphate synthase (EPSPS) is inhibited by glyphosate.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%