Abstract
Abstract Research was conducted at one site in 1999 and three sites in 2000 to evaluate the influence of incorporation equipment and application method on flue-cured tobacco response to sulfentrazone. Sulfentrazone was applied at one (1X) and two (2X) times the recommended use rates with no incorporation, incorporation with a finishing disk or incorporation with a field cultivator prior to bedding. An application also was made to the soil surface prior to transplanting (PRE-T). At both the 1X and 2X rates of sulfentrazone, no differences in stunting were observed due to application method before bedding. At the 1X rate, the level of stunting was similar for no incorporation before bedding, incorporation with the field cultivator, and the PRE-T application. However, at the 2X rate, all incorporation treatments had greater stunting than the PRE-T application; stunting was never greater than 9% with PRE-T treatments. Stunting varied greatly across locations, making general conclusions on stunting based on method of incorporation difficult. The results are consistent with observations from greenhouse experiments in 1999 and 2000 that evaluated the effects of placement of sulfentrazone-treated soil relative to the root ball on stunting of flue-cured tobacco transplants. When roots of transplants were placed in sulfentrazone treated soil at transplanting, significant injury was observed, but when roots grew into treated soil, little or no injury was observed. The results of both studies indicate that if incorporation is poor and/or concentrated areas of herbicide occur in the root zone as a result of bedding, injury can be observed. Therefore, PRE-T applications of sulfentrazone will be required to consistently reduce risk of injury.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 9
Claim · model-written summary
At both rates, pre-bedding application methods did not differ in stunting.
- Taxon
- flue-cured tobaccot0
- Treatment
- application method before beddinge0
- Outcome
- stuntinge0
- Direction
- no differencese0
- Qualifier
- At both the 1X and 2X rates of sulfentrazonee0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“At both the 1X and 2X rates of sulfentrazone, no differences in stunting were observed due to application method before bedding.”
t0“flue-cured tobacco”
Claim · model-written summary
At 1X, stunting was similar for no incorporation, field cultivator incorporation, and PRE-T.
Verbatim
e0“At the 1X rate, the level of stunting was similar for no incorporation before bedding, incorporation with the field cultivator, and the PRE-T application.”
t0“flue-cured tobacco”
Claim · model-written summary
At 2X, incorporation treatments caused greater stunting than PRE-T.
Verbatim
e0“at the 2X rate, all incorporation treatments had greater stunting than the PRE-T application”
t0“flue-cured tobacco”
Claim · model-written summary
PRE-T stunting never exceeded 9%.
Verbatim
e0“stunting was never greater than 9% with PRE-T treatments”
t0“flue-cured tobacco”
Claim · model-written summary
Stunting varied substantially by location.
Verbatim
e0“Stunting varied greatly across locations”
t0“flue-cured tobacco”
Claim · model-written summary
Placing transplant roots in treated soil caused significant injury.
- Taxon
- flue-cured tobaccot0
- Organ / stage
- rootse0
- Treatment
- roots of transplants were placed in sulfentrazone treated soil at transplantinge0
- Outcome
- injurye0
- Comparator
- when roots grew into treated soile0
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
e0“When roots of transplants were placed in sulfentrazone treated soil at transplanting, significant injury was observed, but when roots grew into treated soil, little or no injury was observed.”
t0“flue-cured tobacco”
Claim · model-written summary
Roots growing into treated soil showed little or no injury.
- Taxon
- flue-cured tobaccot0
- Treatment
- roots grew into treated soile0
- Outcome
- injurye0
- Direction
- little or noe0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“when roots grew into treated soil, little or no injury was observed”
t0“flue-cured tobacco”
Claim · model-written summary
Poor incorporation or concentrated herbicide in the root zone can produce injury.
Verbatim
e0“if incorporation is poor and/or concentrated areas of herbicide occur in the root zone as a result of bedding, injury can be observed”
t0“flue-cured tobacco”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend PRE-T sulfentrazone applications to consistently reduce injury risk.
Verbatim
e0“PRE-T applications of sulfentrazone will be required to consistently reduce risk of injury”
t0“flue-cured tobacco”
The same questions in other papers
sulfentrazone · crop injury · Nicotiana tabacum (tobacco)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- negative
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.