Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-p5m67 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-29T13:51:07.932Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of Selected Herbicides on Ozone Injury in Tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

J. J. Reilly  and
L. D. Moore
J. J. Reilly
Affiliation:
Southern Piedmont Res. and Continuing Ed. Center, Blackstone, VA 23824 and Dep. Plant Pathol. and Physiol, Blacksburg, VA 24061
L. D. Moore
Affiliation:
Southern Piedmont Res. and Continuing Ed. Center, Blackstone, VA 23824 and Dep. Plant Pathol. and Physiol, Blacksburg, VA 24061
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field experiments were conducted over a 4-yr period to determine the influence of selected herbicides on ozone injury in tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum L.). Isopropalin (2,6-dinitro-N,N-dipropylcumidine), pebulate (S-propyl butylethylthiocarbamate), and diphenamid (N,N-dimethyl-2,2-diphenylacetamide) were applied at the recommended rates of 1.7, 4.5, and 4.5 kg/ha, respectively. Treatment of tobacco plants with isopropalin or diphenamid reduced oxidant injury for the first 2 to 4 weeks after transplanting, but not later in the season. Pebulate had no consistent affect on the sensitivity of tobacco to ozone.

Keywords

Nicotiana tabacum L.herbicide protectionozone

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 30 , Issue 3 , May 1982 , pp. 260 - 263
Copyright
Copyright © 1982 by the Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

1. Carney, A. W., Stephenson, G. R., Ormrod, D. P., and Ashton, G. C. 1973. Ozone-herbicide interactions in crop plants. Weed Sci. 21:508–511.Google Scholar
2. Cathey, H. M. and Heggestad, H. E. 1972. Reduction of ozone damage to Petunia hybrida Vilm. by use of growth regulating chemicals and tolerant cultivars. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 97:695–700.Google Scholar
3. Feder, W. A. 1970. Plant response to chronic exposure of low levels of oxidant type air pollution. Environ. Pollut. 1:73–79.Google Scholar
4. Freebairn, H. T. 1963. Uptake and movement of 1-C14 ascorbic acid in bean leaves. Physiol. Plant 16:517–522.Google Scholar
5. Gale, J. and Hagan, R. M. 1966. Plant antitranspirants. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. 17:269–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Golab, T. and Althaus, W. A. 1975. Transformation of isopropalin in soil and plants. Weed Sci. 23:165–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Heck, W. W. 1968. Factors influencing expression of oxidant damage to plants. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 6:165–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Heggestad, H. E. and Middleton, J. T. 1959. Ozone in high concentrations as cause of tobacco leaf injury. Science 129:208–210.Google Scholar
9. Hill, A. C., Pack, M. R., Treshow, M., Downs, R. J., and Transtrum, L. G. 1961. Plant injury induced by ozone. Phytopathology 51:356–363.Google Scholar
10. Janutolo, D. B. and Stipes, R. J. 1979. Response of aggressive versus non-aggressive isolates of Ceratocystis ulmi to benzimidazole carbamate fungitoxicants. Va. J. Sci. 30:132–134.Google Scholar
11. Jones, J. L. 1981. 1981 Flue-cured tobacco production guide. Va. Coop. Ext. Serv., SP-39. 56 pp.Google Scholar
12. Ledbetter, M. C., Zimmerman, P. W., and Hitchcock, A. E. 1959. The histopathological effects of ozone on plant foliage. Contrib. Boyce Thompson Inst. 20:275–282.Google Scholar
13. Lee, T. T. 1965. Chemical regulation of ozone susceptibility in Nicotiana tabacum . Can. J. Bot. 44:487–496.Google Scholar
14. Menser, H. A. 1967. Response of plants to air pollutants. III. A relation between ascorbic acid levels and ozone susceptibility of light-preconditioned tobacco plants. Plant Physiol. 39:564–567.Google Scholar
15. Menser, H. A., Heggestad, H. E., and Street, O. E. 1963. Response of plants to air pollutants. II. Effects of ozone concentration and leaf maturity on injury to Nicotiana tabacum . Phytopathology 53:1304–1308.Google Scholar
16. Papple, D. J. and Ormrod, D. P. 1977. Comparative efficacy of ozone-injury suppression by benomyl and carboxin on turfgrasses. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 102:792–796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Pellissier, M., Lacasse, M. L., and Cole, H. Jr. 1972. Effectiveness of benomyl-folicate treatments in reducing ozone injury to pinto bean. J. Air Pollut. Control Assoc. 22:722–725.Google Scholar
18. Probst, G. W., Golab, T., and Wright, W. L. 1975. Dinitroanilines. Pages 389–500 in Kearney, P. C. and Kaufman, D. O., eds. Herbicides, Chemistry, Degradation, and Mode of Action. 2nd ed., Vol. I., Marcel Dekker, Publ. New York.Google Scholar
19. Rich, S. 1964. Ozone damage to plants. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 2:253–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20. Sung, S. S. and Moore, L. D. 1979. The influence of three herbicides on the sensitivity of greenhouse-grown flue-cured tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum) plants to ozone. Weed Sci. 27:167–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21. Taylor, G. S. and Rich, S. 1974. Ozone injury to tobacco in the field influenced by soil treatments with benomyl and carboxin. Phytopathology 64:814–817.Google Scholar
22. Terrill, T. R., Reilly, J. J., and Moore, L. D. 1977. Influence of genotype on oxidant injury ratings of flue-cured tobacco as measured at two locations in two years. Tob. Sci. 21:29–30.Google Scholar
23. Tomlinson, H. and Rich, S. 1973. Anti-senescent compounds reduce injury and steroid changes in ozonated leaves and their chloroplasts. Phytopathology 63:903–906.Google Scholar
24. Turner, N. C., Rich, S., and Tomlinson, H. 1962. Stomatal conductance, fleck injury, and growth of tobacco cultivars varying in ozone tolerance. Phytopathology 62:63–67.Google Scholar
25. Walker, E. K. 1961. Chemical control of weather fleck in fluecured tobacco. Plant Dis. Rep. 45:583–586.Google Scholar
26. Wolf, D. D., Carson, E. W., and Brown, R. H. 1972. Leaf area index and specific leaf area determinations. J. Agric. Ed. 1:24–27.Google Scholar