Effect of Two Formulations of Sufentrazone on Weed Control in Tobacco (Nicotiana Tabacum L)
Field studies were done to compare the weed control efficacy of a wettable granular formulation (Authority 75 WG) and a suspension concentrate formulation (Authority 48 SC) of the herbicide sulfentrazone. A 6 x 2 factorial experiment was laid out in a split plot design to evaluate the effect of the...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Asian journal of agriculture and rural development 2013-01, Vol.3 (1), p.1-6 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 6 |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 1 |
container_title | Asian journal of agriculture and rural development |
container_volume | 3 |
creator | Mashayamombe, Bertha K Mazarura, Upenyu Chiteka, Albert |
description | Field studies were done to compare the weed control efficacy of a wettable granular formulation (Authority 75 WG) and a suspension concentrate formulation (Authority 48 SC) of the herbicide sulfentrazone. A 6 x 2 factorial experiment was laid out in a split plot design to evaluate the effect of the two herbicides on the weed control efficacy in tobacco. The first factor was herbicide which had 6 levels and the second factor was weeding which had 2 levels. One rate of the wettable granular formulation at 0.225 kg/ha, four different rates of the suspension concentrate formulation at 0.165, 185, 0.205 and 0.225 kg a.i. /ha and the untreated control were tested. These were split into two weeding levels (weedy and weed free). The weed free plots were weeded every other week for 12 weeks beginning two weeks after transplanting tobacco. The treatments were combined to give 6 treatments for each main plot. These were replicated four times. This work reported efficacy data from the weedy plots. Weed counts were measured at 4 and 8 weeks after transplanting (WAP) and weed dry-mass at 8WAP. Results show that both formulations at all tested rates poorly controlled broadleaf and grass weeds while nutsedge control was excellent. This study showed that the rates used were too low to effectively control grasses and broadleaved weeds while they were adequate for control of nutsedge. We therefore suggest that this material fills an important niche as a nutsedge material with post emergent nutsedge control. Further work should look at herbicide mixtures in order to improve grass and broadleaf control. |
doi_str_mv | 10.22004/ag.econ.198026 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_umn_a</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_umn_agecon_oai_ageconsearch_umn_edu_198026</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1500799462</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-g1346-ec719ee3be3cc34ff480de39ab9f62ea3d8470b8c73cb7e23f3e419f237f52543</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdUE1Lw0AUXETBUnv2uuClHlL3Kx97lNKqUPRgxIOHsNm8rSnpPs1mEfz1prQn3-UN82YG3hByzdlCCMbUndkuwKJfcF0wkZ2RiRBCJUpJeT5iyVTCVZpeklkIOzaOVlwWekI-Vs6BHSg6Wv4gXWO_j50ZWvThwL1GB37ozS96oOjpO0BDlzhS2NHW0xJrYy3S-XNrcWiNN7Q0IxX3dHN7RS6c6QLMTntK3tarcvmYbF4enpb3m2TLpcoSsDnXALIGaa1UzqmCNSC1qbXLBBjZFCpndWFzaeschHQSFNdOyNylIlVySvgxN-59ZbaHHio07QkGML39rA43aGJ1LGj0zI-erx6_I4Sh2rfBQtcZDxhDxVPGcq1VJkbpzT_pDmPvx48qrnjGi0KrQv4B1mB1RA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1416188948</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Effect of Two Formulations of Sufentrazone on Weed Control in Tobacco (Nicotiana Tabacum L)</title><source>EZB Electronic Journals Library</source><creator>Mashayamombe, Bertha K ; Mazarura, Upenyu ; Chiteka, Albert</creator><creatorcontrib>Mashayamombe, Bertha K ; Mazarura, Upenyu ; Chiteka, Albert</creatorcontrib><description>Field studies were done to compare the weed control efficacy of a wettable granular formulation (Authority 75 WG) and a suspension concentrate formulation (Authority 48 SC) of the herbicide sulfentrazone. A 6 x 2 factorial experiment was laid out in a split plot design to evaluate the effect of the two herbicides on the weed control efficacy in tobacco. The first factor was herbicide which had 6 levels and the second factor was weeding which had 2 levels. One rate of the wettable granular formulation at 0.225 kg/ha, four different rates of the suspension concentrate formulation at 0.165, 185, 0.205 and 0.225 kg a.i. /ha and the untreated control were tested. These were split into two weeding levels (weedy and weed free). The weed free plots were weeded every other week for 12 weeks beginning two weeks after transplanting tobacco. The treatments were combined to give 6 treatments for each main plot. These were replicated four times. This work reported efficacy data from the weedy plots. Weed counts were measured at 4 and 8 weeks after transplanting (WAP) and weed dry-mass at 8WAP. Results show that both formulations at all tested rates poorly controlled broadleaf and grass weeds while nutsedge control was excellent. This study showed that the rates used were too low to effectively control grasses and broadleaved weeds while they were adequate for control of nutsedge. We therefore suggest that this material fills an important niche as a nutsedge material with post emergent nutsedge control. Further work should look at herbicide mixtures in order to improve grass and broadleaf control.</description><edition>393</edition><identifier>ISSN: 2304-1455</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 2224-4433</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2224-4433</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.198026</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Karachi: Asian Economic and Social Society</publisher><subject>Agricultural Finance ; Broadleaf weeds ; efficacy ; grass weeds ; Health Economics and Policy ; Nicotiana tabacum ; phytotoxicity ; residues ; sedges</subject><ispartof>Asian journal of agriculture and rural development, 2013-01, Vol.3 (1), p.1-6</ispartof><rights>Copyright Asian Economic and Social Society 2013</rights><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>230,314,780,784,885,27922,27923</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Mashayamombe, Bertha K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mazarura, Upenyu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chiteka, Albert</creatorcontrib><title>Effect of Two Formulations of Sufentrazone on Weed Control in Tobacco (Nicotiana Tabacum L)</title><title>Asian journal of agriculture and rural development</title><description>Field studies were done to compare the weed control efficacy of a wettable granular formulation (Authority 75 WG) and a suspension concentrate formulation (Authority 48 SC) of the herbicide sulfentrazone. A 6 x 2 factorial experiment was laid out in a split plot design to evaluate the effect of the two herbicides on the weed control efficacy in tobacco. The first factor was herbicide which had 6 levels and the second factor was weeding which had 2 levels. One rate of the wettable granular formulation at 0.225 kg/ha, four different rates of the suspension concentrate formulation at 0.165, 185, 0.205 and 0.225 kg a.i. /ha and the untreated control were tested. These were split into two weeding levels (weedy and weed free). The weed free plots were weeded every other week for 12 weeks beginning two weeks after transplanting tobacco. The treatments were combined to give 6 treatments for each main plot. These were replicated four times. This work reported efficacy data from the weedy plots. Weed counts were measured at 4 and 8 weeks after transplanting (WAP) and weed dry-mass at 8WAP. Results show that both formulations at all tested rates poorly controlled broadleaf and grass weeds while nutsedge control was excellent. This study showed that the rates used were too low to effectively control grasses and broadleaved weeds while they were adequate for control of nutsedge. We therefore suggest that this material fills an important niche as a nutsedge material with post emergent nutsedge control. Further work should look at herbicide mixtures in order to improve grass and broadleaf control.</description><subject>Agricultural Finance</subject><subject>Broadleaf weeds</subject><subject>efficacy</subject><subject>grass weeds</subject><subject>Health Economics and Policy</subject><subject>Nicotiana tabacum</subject><subject>phytotoxicity</subject><subject>residues</subject><subject>sedges</subject><issn>2304-1455</issn><issn>2224-4433</issn><issn>2224-4433</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2013</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>JAG</sourceid><recordid>eNpdUE1Lw0AUXETBUnv2uuClHlL3Kx97lNKqUPRgxIOHsNm8rSnpPs1mEfz1prQn3-UN82YG3hByzdlCCMbUndkuwKJfcF0wkZ2RiRBCJUpJeT5iyVTCVZpeklkIOzaOVlwWekI-Vs6BHSg6Wv4gXWO_j50ZWvThwL1GB37ozS96oOjpO0BDlzhS2NHW0xJrYy3S-XNrcWiNN7Q0IxX3dHN7RS6c6QLMTntK3tarcvmYbF4enpb3m2TLpcoSsDnXALIGaa1UzqmCNSC1qbXLBBjZFCpndWFzaeschHQSFNdOyNylIlVySvgxN-59ZbaHHio07QkGML39rA43aGJ1LGj0zI-erx6_I4Sh2rfBQtcZDxhDxVPGcq1VJkbpzT_pDmPvx48qrnjGi0KrQv4B1mB1RA</recordid><startdate>20130101</startdate><enddate>20130101</enddate><creator>Mashayamombe, Bertha K</creator><creator>Mazarura, Upenyu</creator><creator>Chiteka, Albert</creator><general>Asian Economic and Social Society</general><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>SOI</scope><scope>JAG</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20130101</creationdate><title>Effect of Two Formulations of Sufentrazone on Weed Control in Tobacco (Nicotiana Tabacum L)</title><author>Mashayamombe, Bertha K ; Mazarura, Upenyu ; Chiteka, Albert</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-g1346-ec719ee3be3cc34ff480de39ab9f62ea3d8470b8c73cb7e23f3e419f237f52543</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2013</creationdate><topic>Agricultural Finance</topic><topic>Broadleaf weeds</topic><topic>efficacy</topic><topic>grass weeds</topic><topic>Health Economics and Policy</topic><topic>Nicotiana tabacum</topic><topic>phytotoxicity</topic><topic>residues</topic><topic>sedges</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Mashayamombe, Bertha K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mazarura, Upenyu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chiteka, Albert</creatorcontrib><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3)</collection><collection>Agriculture Science Database</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>AgEcon</collection><jtitle>Asian journal of agriculture and rural development</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Mashayamombe, Bertha K</au><au>Mazarura, Upenyu</au><au>Chiteka, Albert</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Effect of Two Formulations of Sufentrazone on Weed Control in Tobacco (Nicotiana Tabacum L)</atitle><jtitle>Asian journal of agriculture and rural development</jtitle><date>2013-01-01</date><risdate>2013</risdate><volume>3</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>1</spage><epage>6</epage><pages>1-6</pages><issn>2304-1455</issn><issn>2224-4433</issn><eissn>2224-4433</eissn><abstract>Field studies were done to compare the weed control efficacy of a wettable granular formulation (Authority 75 WG) and a suspension concentrate formulation (Authority 48 SC) of the herbicide sulfentrazone. A 6 x 2 factorial experiment was laid out in a split plot design to evaluate the effect of the two herbicides on the weed control efficacy in tobacco. The first factor was herbicide which had 6 levels and the second factor was weeding which had 2 levels. One rate of the wettable granular formulation at 0.225 kg/ha, four different rates of the suspension concentrate formulation at 0.165, 185, 0.205 and 0.225 kg a.i. /ha and the untreated control were tested. These were split into two weeding levels (weedy and weed free). The weed free plots were weeded every other week for 12 weeks beginning two weeks after transplanting tobacco. The treatments were combined to give 6 treatments for each main plot. These were replicated four times. This work reported efficacy data from the weedy plots. Weed counts were measured at 4 and 8 weeks after transplanting (WAP) and weed dry-mass at 8WAP. Results show that both formulations at all tested rates poorly controlled broadleaf and grass weeds while nutsedge control was excellent. This study showed that the rates used were too low to effectively control grasses and broadleaved weeds while they were adequate for control of nutsedge. We therefore suggest that this material fills an important niche as a nutsedge material with post emergent nutsedge control. Further work should look at herbicide mixtures in order to improve grass and broadleaf control.</abstract><cop>Karachi</cop><pub>Asian Economic and Social Society</pub><doi>10.22004/ag.econ.198026</doi><tpages>6</tpages><edition>393</edition><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 2304-1455 |
ispartof | Asian journal of agriculture and rural development, 2013-01, Vol.3 (1), p.1-6 |
issn | 2304-1455 2224-4433 2224-4433 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_umn_agecon_oai_ageconsearch_umn_edu_198026 |
source | EZB Electronic Journals Library |
subjects | Agricultural Finance Broadleaf weeds efficacy grass weeds Health Economics and Policy Nicotiana tabacum phytotoxicity residues sedges |
title | Effect of Two Formulations of Sufentrazone on Weed Control in Tobacco (Nicotiana Tabacum L) |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-14T14%3A57%3A32IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_umn_a&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Effect%20of%20Two%20Formulations%20of%20Sufentrazone%20on%20Weed%20Control%20in%20Tobacco%20(Nicotiana%20Tabacum%20L)&rft.jtitle=Asian%20journal%20of%20agriculture%20and%20rural%20development&rft.au=Mashayamombe,%20Bertha%20K&rft.date=2013-01-01&rft.volume=3&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=1&rft.epage=6&rft.pages=1-6&rft.issn=2304-1455&rft.eissn=2224-4433&rft_id=info:doi/10.22004/ag.econ.198026&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_umn_a%3E1500799462%3C/proquest_umn_a%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1416188948&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |