Next Article in Journal
Heat and Cold-Stressed Individuals of Pistacia lentiscus (Mastic Tree) Do Modify Their Secreting Profile
Previous Article in Journal
Plant Responses to Biotic and Abiotic Stresses: Crosstalk between Biochemistry and Ecophysiology
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Plants
Volume 11
Issue 23
10.3390/plants11233292
plants-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Weed Management Strategies for Tomato Plasticulture Production in Florida

by
Ruby Tiwari
,
Mahesh Bashyal
and
Ramdas Kanissery
*
Southwest Florida Research & Education Center, Horticultural Sciences Department, University of Florida—IFAS, 2685 State Road 29 N, Immokalee, FL 34142, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Plants 2022, 11(23), 3292; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11233292
Submission received: 21 September 2022 / Revised: 15 November 2022 / Accepted: 21 November 2022 / Published: 29 November 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Plant Protection and Biotic Interactions)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Florida is the top producer of fresh market tomatoes in the U.S., with an average production of 0.4 million metric tons. Tomatoes are commercially grown on plastic mulched raised beds in Southwest Florida, the primary production region in the state. Low tomato yield in plasticulture production is often associated with the poor control of nutsedge species. Nutsedge management, therefore, remains a critical production challenge for tomato growers in Florida. Sandy soil in this region promotes herbicide movement after heavy rainfall or irrigation, affecting weed suppression. This will also potentially impact the timely establishment of new tomato transplants and, consequently, the crop vigor if the herbicides get into the root zone. This review aims to present and discuss an overview of available options to safely manage major weeds of tomatoes, including nutsedge species, in plasticulture production. In addition, this review seeks to discuss an approach for utilizing herbicide adjuvants, such as spray deposition agents or oil binding agents, to improve herbicides’ efficacy and tomato crop safety by enhancing their retention in plastic mulched raised beds.

1. Introduction

Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) remains the second largest agricultural crop after Citrus (Citrus spp.) in Florida and contributes USD 426 million to the state economy [1]. Florida’s tomato production in 2021 totaled 693 million pounds with a production value of USD 324 million. Tomatoes were harvested from 21,000 acres in 2021, representing 8% of the total U.S. acreage [2]. On average, 96% of the entire Florida tomato production was sold to the fresh market in 2020 [1]. Fresh tomatoes are produced in Florida from October to June, with peak production occurring from November to January and April to May [3].
Weed management remains a significant production challenge for tomato growers in Florida and is very important for profitable production [4,5]. Weed infestation can reduce crop yield and quality as well as increase production and harvesting costs [6]. Weed populations reduce crop yields by competing for water, light, and nutrient resources and can act as a host for nematodes, disease, and insect pests [7]. For example, broadleaf weeds, including dogfennel and Bidens (Bidens alba), serve as a host for sting nematodes in Florida production regions [8]. Similarly, solanaceous weeds or nightshades serve as reservoir host plants for invasive tomato leaf miner Tuta absoluta Meyrick (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae) [9].
Several prior reports highlight nutsedge weed species, both yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus L.) and purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus L.), as the most significant and widespread weed in raised bed tomato plasticulture production [10,11]. These are herbaceous perennial weeds that spread rapidly in warm regions of the world. Yellow nutsedge can populate more extensive growing areas, including temperate regions, as it can tolerate colder temperatures than purple nutsedge [12]. Both of these nutsedges species are one of the most troublesome weeds in the southern U.S. Yield losses due to competition from nutsedge has been noted in several vegetable crops, which are provided in Table 1. Similarly, the impact of nutsedge on tomato and other crops belonging to the Solanaceae family has been pointed out in prior studies (Table 2).
A study by Holm, Plucknett, Pancho and Herberger [12] identified purple nutsedge as the world’s worst weed, while yellow nutsedge was ranked sixteenth. Sedges are considered to be the most troublesome weed species for Florida tomato production due to the lack of herbicide options, difficult-to-reach tubers, and their ability to penetrate plastic mulches [5,13,14,15,16]. Nutsedges are problematic because they spread quickly under the plastic mulch once the rhizome develops [17]. Previous research by Webster [18] reported the production of 3500 nutsedge shoots in a 22.1 m−2 patch from one purple nutsedge tuber under polyethylene mulch (PE) within 60 weeks. Plastic mulch is easily punctured by nutsedges’ pointed shoot tips and therefore does not adequately control these weeds [19]. Studies by Gilreath and Santos [20], Morales-Payan, Santos, Stall and Bewick [10], and Motis, et al. [21] reported that nutsedge density, resource competition, and timing of weed emergence could negatively affect tomato production.
The effects of the nutsedge population on tomato crop yield vary with the location and production method [10,11]. A purple nutsedge density of 200 shoots m−2 caused a 44% yield reduction in tomatoes under greenhouse conditions [10]. By contrast, some field studies in Florida reported that nutsedge growing on the plastic mulch bed did not impact tomato yield [11,22]. However, sedges remain a significant problem in tomato plasticulture production as the wild population of nutsedges spreads rapidly, reduces crop quality, affects mulch integrity, and increases labor costs associated with harvest and mulch removal [23]. Moreover, the allelopathic potential of nutsedge tubers has been documented to adversely affect the root and shoot growth of cucumbers and tomatoes [24,25]. The association between nutsedge and soil-borne pests, such as nematodes, has also been previously described in the literature [12,26]. Schroeder, et al. [27] reported that the density of the final nematode population and yellow nutsedge tuber number showed a significant positive linear relationship, suggesting an increase in tuber number with an increased nematode population.
Table
Table 1. Yield losses in vegetable crops from nutsedge interference.
Table 1. Yield losses in vegetable crops from nutsedge interference.
Weed aCrop bYield Loss cReference
Purple nutsedgeCucumber (Cucumis sativus L.)43%[28]
Purple nutsedgeCarrot (Daucus carota L.)50%[28]
Purple nutsedgeRadish (Raphanus sativus L.)100%[29]
Purple nutsedgeLettuce (Lactuca sativa L.)54%[30]
Purple nutsedgeGarlic (Allium sativum L.)52%[28]
Purple nutsedgeOnion (Allium cepa L.)89%[28]
Yellow nutsedgeAsparagus (Asparagus officinalis L.)16%[31]
Purple nutsedgeCilantro (Coriandrum annum L.)60%[32]
a Nutsedge species. b Affected vegetable crop. c Loss in the crop yield expressed in percentage (%).
Table
Table 2. Yield losses in solanaceous vegetable crops due to nutsedge interference.
Table 2. Yield losses in solanaceous vegetable crops due to nutsedge interference.
Weed a Crop bYield Loss cReference(s)
Purple nutsedgeTomato (Solanum lycopersicum)44%[10]
Purple nutsedgeBell pepper (Capsicum annum L.)73%[21,33]
Purple nutsedgeTomato (Solanum lycopersicum)53%[28]
Purple nutsedgeEggplant (Solanum melongena L.)22%[10]
Yellow nutsedge Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum)34%[34]
Purple nutsedge (Above-ground interface)Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum)9%[34]
Purple nutsedge (Below-ground interface)Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum)18%[34]
a Nutsedge species. b Affected solanaceous vegetable crop. c Loss in the crop yield expressed in percentage (%).

2. Mulching Raised Beds

Mulching in agricultural production systems has long been studied and recognized for its positive influence on the growth and yield of both annual and perennial crops [35,36]. Previous studies have reported increased tomato yield under different mulches compared to a non-mulched raised bed where weeds were not controlled (Table 3). In vegetable production, polyethylene (PE) mulches combined with pre-emergence herbicides are still the most preferred weed management method, both in the field and under a controlled environment, due to its additional benefits such as water conservation and reduction of soil compaction [37]. A study by Anzalone, et al. [38] compared nutsedge control across various mulches and reported the highest percentage of nutsedge control in PE mulch (Table 4).
Mulch can also affect insect behaviors; previous research has reported that aphid numbers were reduced by clear, black, and white P.E. mulches compared to bare soil, which was partially attributed to the suppression of weed populations [39]. In addition, reflective mulch, such as metalized plastic mulch, has been used to repel aphids, thrips, and whiteflies from colonizing young crop plants [40]. Since aphids are the primary vectors for many pathogenic viruses in crops, the tendency to attract or repel certain insects from mulch materials can be crucial for disease prevention [39,41].
Alternatives to using conventional non-degradable P.E. mulch include biodegradable and photodegradable options, such as plant residues and films made of paper or biodegradable polymer. These biodegradable options could significantly reduce or even eliminate costs associated with the removal and disposal of materials after crop harvest seasons [42]. Paper-based biodegradable mulches demonstrated an almost 90% reduction in weed density and biomass while also providing reasonable control of nutsedge species [43]. However, paper mulch is not as popular as P.E. mulches, as the latter offers better handling properties, durability, and ability to prevent water loss. Numerous research works have been conducted to evaluate the viability of the process of coating paper mulch with polyhydroxyalkanoates. However, this makes paper mulch heavier than its plastic counterparts, thus needing extra care and time during installation to avoid damaging the mulch [44]. Plant residues such as barley straw are also options in organic vegetable farms. Although it provides water retention and weed suppression benefits, this low-cost mulch type is not as efficient as P.E. or paper counterparts and often leads to lower yield [38,44].
Table
Table 3. Impact of different mulching materials on tomato yield during the fall–winter season in Brazil [45].
Table 3. Impact of different mulching materials on tomato yield during the fall–winter season in Brazil [45].
Mulch Types aTomato Yield Increase bReference
Black plastic65.0%[45]
White plastic52.6%[45]
Rice straw47.1%[45]
a Mulch types used in tomato production. b Increase in the tomato crop yield compared to a non-mulched control, expressed in percentages (%).
Table
Table 4. Effectiveness of different types of mulches in controlling the purple nutsedge in tomato production systems (source: [38]).
Table 4. Effectiveness of different types of mulches in controlling the purple nutsedge in tomato production systems (source: [38]).
Mulch Types aNutsedge Control bReference
Paper mulch1%[38]
Biodegradable plastic34%[38]
Rice straw52%[38]
Polyethylene mulch81%[38]
Maize harvest residue52%[38]
Barley straw59%[38]
a Types of mulch used in tomato production for controlling nutsedge. b Nutsedge control compared to a non-mulched control, expressed in percentages (%).
The costs associated with the purchase, installation, removal, and disposal of mulch films from vegetable fields remain a major challenge when selecting mulching materials. Anderson, et al. [46] estimated that the removal cost of P.E. mulch within the United States could reach as high as USD 320/ha in the year 2021. At present, there are also growing concerns about the negative environmental impact of P.E. mulches. These P.E. mulches are made from non-renewable petroleum-based polymers. Due to strict regulations, the disposal of these mulches could pose a significant problem, as observed in European countries [43]. While the disposal cost is reduced by using biodegradable polymers, this mulching material is usually expensive. In addition, the speed of degradation is less than desirable when multiple crops are rotated seasonally on the same site [47]. Therefore, it is still more economically viable for most farms to use conventional P.E. mulch due to its lower market price.

3. Controlling Weeds under Plastic Mulch

There is a diverse community of weed species in Florida’s tomato production. However, purple nutsedge and yellow nutsedge remain the most problematic weeds for tomato plasticulture production throughout Southern Florida [12]. This necessitates a well-established multi-component weed management program to ensure economical production in the region. Proper herbicide selection is key to successful weed control, and this should be based on weed type, life cycle, herbicide mode of action, and its selectivity.
In the past, tomato growers relied heavily on methyl bromide for yellow nutsedge control until its ban in 2005 by the Montreal Protocol and U.S. Clean Air Act [48]. This ban has created a void for a soil fumigant with broad-spectrum activities and consistent nutsedge control, significantly limiting cost-effective weed control options for polyethylene-mulched tomato fields [49,50]. A combination of pre-plant soil fumigants and herbicides is essential to enhance nutsedge control in polyethylene-mulched vegetable crops [16,49,51,52]. Eure and Culpepper [53] suggested that pre-plant soil fumigation followed by (fb) pre- and post-emergence herbicide applications are required to provide effective yellow nutsedge control throughout the tomato growing season.
Tomato growers depend on fumigants, pre-emergence herbicides such as metribuzin (Mertribuzin 75 D.F. Herbicide, Makhtesim Agan of North America, Inc., Raleigh, NC, USA) and s-metolachlor, and post-emergence herbicides such as halosulfuron to control weeds. It is reported that a combination of 1,3-dichloropropene (Pic-Clor 60 Fumigant, TriEst Ag Group Inc., Greenville, NC, USA) and chloropicrin (Pic-Clor 60) (Telone C-35 Fumigant, TriEst Ag Group Inc.) is the most widely used fumigant in Florida. It can suppress weeds such as purple nutsedge [20]. Still, suppression tends to be inconsistent over time and space. Dimethyl disulfide (Paladin®, Arkema Inc., Exton, PA 19406, USA) provides more consistent nutsedge control than many other fumigants [54], but does not adequately control broadleaf weeds or grasses. It has also been reported that fumigation with dimethyl disulfide plus chloropicrin combined with pre-emergence s-metolachlor before polyethylene mulch installation controlled purple nutsedge; however, the control was poor during the late season [16].
Several pre-emergence herbicides have been registered for purple and yellow nutsedge control in tomato plasticulture production [55]. A few examples of these registered pre-emergent herbicides include fomesafen (Reflex®, Syngenta Crop Protection, Greensboro), sulfentrazone (Select®, FMC Corp., Philadelphia, PA, USA), and s-metolachlor (Dual Magnum®, Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, Greensboro, NC, USA) [56,57]. These herbicides are often used in plasticulture production systems to achieve season-long nutsedge control. However, neither sulfentrazone nor s-metolachlor persists long enough in the soil to provide control of late-emerging weeds such as nutsedge [56]. S-metolachlor and sulfentrazone application under polyethylene mulch can alleviate the need for in-season weed control, though this observed suppression is often temporary and inconsistent across locations [11,22]. Laboratory assays by Shaner [56] reported that the half-life of sulfentrazone ranged from 121 to 302 days, while the half-life in field conditions was about two years. Moreover, Shaner [58] reported that the half-life of sulfentrazone varies from 541 days in aerobic soil to 3000 days in anaerobic soil. Similarly, Sanyal and Kulshrestha [59] reported that the half-life of s-metolachlor widely ranged from 2.5 to 289 days.
Halosulfuron (Sandea®, Yuman, AZ, USA) has also been recently registered for pre-transplant (sprayed on raised beds before mulch application) and post-transplant (over the top of foliage) application for nutsedge control from the four-leaf stage until about 30 days before harvesting tomatoes [56,60]. It is the most common post-emergence herbicide applied for nutsedge control in tomatoes in Florida [61]. Field observations suggest that halosulfuron application can burn down purple nutsedge foliage while effectively reducing the quantity of tuber production and viability [62]. Again, this herbicide can provide in-season weed control when applied under the polyethylene mulch, though this suppression is usually temporary and inconsistent across sites [11,22]. Besides halosulfuron, other post-directed herbicides such as imazosulfuron (League®, Valent U.S.A. Corporation, P.O. Box 8025, Walnut Creek, CA, USA) and trifloxysulfuron (Monument®, Syngenta Crop Protection, Greensboro, NC, USA) are also safe for nutsedge control on tomatoes [52].
Adcock, et al. [63] reported that s-metolachlor followed by (fb) halosulfuron provided reasonable control for yellow nutsedge. Similarly, a study by Devkota, Norsworthy and Rainey [57] reported a 90% reduction in yellow nutsedge with pre-emergence s-metolachlor fb post-emergence trifloxysulfuron plus halosulfuron.

4. Managing Weeds between Raised Beds

In tomato plasticulture production, weeds, including broadleaf weeds and grasses, are problematic in the planting beds and on the bare ground between the plastic mulched raised beds [64]. In addition to competing with the main crop and causing yield reduction, the weeds in row middles can harbor nematodes (Meloidogyne spp.) and pathogens (Phytophthora capsici) [20,65,66,67].
There are some challenges associated with the pre-and post-transplanting herbicide application in vegetable row middles, specifically limited availability of registered products and the risk associated with the herbicide drift. In addition, there are only a few studies on the efficacy of herbicide application in row middles [64].
In a Florida study, Gilreath, et al. [68] reported 90–100% control for crabgrass [Digitaria ciliaris (Retz.) Koel.], pigweed (Amaranthus viridis L.), sida (Sida rhombifolia L.), and eclipta [Eclipta alba (L.) Hassk.] in row middles with a mix of metribuzin (Sencor® DF, Bayer CropScience, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA) + cinmethylin + paraquat and oxyfluorfen + cinmethylin + paraquat compared to the weedy check. Similarly, metribuzin combined with fluazifop-p (Fusilade® II, Syngenta Crop Protection, Greensboro, NC, USA) provided 70–100% weed control compared to the weedy check. However, cinmethylin is not registered for use in tomatoes in Florida [64].
Recent research in Florida showed no difference in weed density reduction when a post-emergence herbicide carfentrazone (Aim® 2EC, FMC Corp., Philadelphia, PA, USA) was applied without pre-emergence herbicides compared to the non-treated control plots. In contrast, paraquat, another post-emergence herbicide, reduced total weed density by 67% in the spring and 61% in the fall seasons when applied without pre-emergence herbicides [64]. Similarly, when the carfentrazone was tank mixed with pre-emergence herbicides such as flumioxazin or s-metolachlor, and when paraquat was tank mixed with flumioxazin, s-metolachlor, or metribuzin, there were 81 to 90% fewer broadleaf weeds, including wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum L.), Florida pusley [Richardia scabra (Moq.) Gomez], cutleaf primrose (Oenothera laciniata Hill), and lambsquarters (Chenopodium album L.), compared to the untreated control. Furthermore, pre-emergence s-metolachlor alone or tank mixes containing s-metolachlor reduced grass density by 62 to 88% compared to untreated control during spring in vegetable row middles [64]. Previous studies have reported a similar level of grass control with s-metolachlor alone or combined with flumioxazin [69,70].
A listing of various herbicides used for the weed control in Florida tomato plasticulture production is provided in Table 5.

5. Environmental Fate of Herbicides Utilized in Tomato Production

The fate and persistence of herbicides in the soil are determined by several factors, such as microbial degradation, chemical decomposition, adsorption on soil colloids, leaching, volatility, photodecomposition, and uptake by plants [72] (Figure 1).
Halosulfuron falls in the category of herbicides (mode of action group 2) that interfere with the enzyme acetolactate synthase (ALS). Acetolactate synthase synthesizes branched-chain amino acids, specifically valine, leucine, and isoleucine, which are essential for protein synthesis and plant growth [73]. These herbicides are absorbed in plant roots and foliage and readily translocated in the xylem and phloem. Sulfentrazone belongs to a group of herbicides known as Protoporphyrinogen Oxidase (PPO) inhibitors (mode of action group 14). These herbicides inhibit the activity of the enzyme protoporphyrinogen oxidase, which plays a crucial role in chlorophyll biosynthesis [73]. Moreover, these herbicides cause a significant increase in the level of porphyrin, which leads to rupture of plant cell membranes.
Microbial degradation is a major metabolic pathway of sulfonylurea herbicides degradation in the soil [74]. Microorganisms, primarily algae, fungi, actinomycetes, and bacteria, feed on organic matter, including organic herbicides, for energy and growth [72]. Increased persistence of sulfonylurea herbicides such as halosulfuron have been reported in soil of pH 7.0 and higher, with half-lives extending into years [75]. This is primarily attributed to an increase in anionic forms of sulfonylureas under basic soil conditions, resulting in decreased microbial degradation and dissipation. Soil adsorption for sulfonylurea herbicides such as halosulfuron has been reported to be negatively correlated with increasing pH and positively correlated with increased organic matter [75]. Similarly, Grey, et al. [76] indicated that halosulfuron dissipation was more rapid for bare soil than under low-density polyethylene mulch, which can probably be attributed to reduced microbial activity inside polyethylene mulches.
S-metolachlor is a very-long-chain fatty acid (VLCFA)-inhibiting herbicide. This group of herbicides interferes with the enzyme VLCFA synthase, which catalyzes the formation of long-chain fatty acids [77]. They impair cell division and shoot development in susceptible plants [78]. Bedmar, et al. [79] reported DT50 (time to reach 50% of initial concentration) for s-metolachlor to range from 82 to 141 days for A to C soil horizons for Typic Agriudolls soils in Argentina. Moreover, a negative correlation between DT50 values of s-metolachlor with soil organic carbon content has been reported in the literature [79,80]. Corroborating these findings, a recent study by Marín-Benito, et al. [81] reported slower dissipation and leaching of s-metolachlor in soils amended with green compost and pelletized manure compared to unamended soils. DT50 values of metolachlor were prolonged from 37.9 to 126 days to 49.5 to 135.9 days for two different soil types under soil sterilization in China, indicating that microbial degradation was the dominant pathway for metolachlor and s-metolachlor degradation in soils [80,82]. Similarly, several other studies [83,84] highlighted the role of microorganisms in mineralizing metolachlor by using herbicide as a sole source of carbon and energy for growth.
Sulfentrazone mobility in soil is affected by soil texture, with lesser mobility in clay loam (Rf or herbicide retention factor, ranging from 0.3 to 0.4) and greater mobility in loamy sand (Rf ranging from 0.5 to 0.8) [85]. Additionally, sulfentrazone movement was reported to be greater in soils with high pH and coarse texture such that the order of adsorption to soil was Sequatchie loam > Dothan loamy sand > Malden loamy sand > Commerce silty clay loam > Harkey clay loam [86]. Previous studies have reported DT50 for sulfentrazone to vary from 24 to 113 days in fine loamy soil in Tennessee and a half-life of 146.5 days on Typic Hapludox soils in Brazil [87,88]. Microbial degradation is considered the primary method of sulfentrazone dissipation in the soil, as reviewed by Martinez, Silva, Fay, Maia, Abakerli and Durrant [87]. It is likely that soil moisture and temperature also impact the degradation rate of sulfentrazone through the effect of these parameters on soil microbial activity. The majority of soil microorganisms are dormant at 4.4 °C, while temperatures ranging from 24 °C to 32 °C favor microbial activity [72]. Moreover, microbial activity is greater in warm, moist, well-aerated, and fertile soil and can quickly decompose these organic herbicides.

6. Improving Herbicide Use in Tomato Plasticulture Production

One of the major challenges associated with the chemical weed control options is a steady loss of active herbicide ingredients (a.i.) from the weed seed germination zone in soil [89,90,91]. Moreover, most pre-emergence herbicides do not control nutsedge species in tomato plasticulture production due to herbicide ineffectiveness and crop phytotoxicity [11,92]. Therefore, alternative and crop-safe weed management strategies are crucial to protect tomato crops from herbicide injury and provide adequate nutsedge suppression in tomato plasticulture production.
Adjuvants are soil and spray deposition agents for improving the efficacy of soil-applied herbicides. They also improve soil adsorption by keeping the a.i. in the weed suppression zone for longer, minimizing the risk of leaching into the tomato root zone where there is potential for crop injury (Figure 2) [93]. In some herbicides, adjuvants are already included in the formulations for sale, such as glyphosate (Roundup PowerMax®, Bayer Crop Sciences, Saint Louis, MO, USA), or they may be purchased separately and mixed with herbicides before use [94]. There are two main types of adjuvants categorized by their function, i.e., activator adjuvants and utility adjuvants. Activator adjuvants enhance an herbicide’s performance by increasing their absorption rate into targeted crops [95]. They increase the herbicide formulation’s ability to kill targeted weed species without affecting crops [96,97,98]. Utility adjuvants, also known as spray modifiers, alter herbicide dynamics (physical and chemical characteristics of spray mix) to improve application efficiency and provide adequate weed control [95]. They also alter the herbicide’s formulation to cover plant surfaces evenly, keeping it in contact with plant tissues without runoff [99]. Adding an appropriate adjuvant can reduce the herbicide application and minimize the costs for weed control [100].
A previous greenhouse study at the University of Florida (UF) by Abouziena, et al. [101] evaluated varying rates (0.84, 1.12, 1.68, and 2.24 kg ha−1) of bentazon (Basagran, BASF Corporation, 26 Davis Drive, Research Triangle, NC 27709, USA) effects alone or in combination (tank mixed) with the adjuvants ammonium sulfate (AMS), Induce (Induce, Helena Chemical Company, 225 Schilling Blvd., Collierville, TN 38017, USA), and Kinetic (Kinetic, Helena Chemical Company, Memphis, TN 38137, USA) on common cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium L.), black nightshade (Solanum nigrum L.), velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti Medik), and strangler vine [Morrenia odorata (Hook. & Arn.) Lindl.]. Black nightshade, a hard-to-control weed, was poorly controlled (<55%) at all rates of herbicide treatments, with or without adjuvants [101,102]. However, bentazon at its lowest rate plus adjuvant easily suppressed common cocklebur [101]. Similarly, a study conducted in far northern Queensland (Australia) reported that adding the oil-based adjuvant Grounded® (Helena Agri Enterprises, LLC) to a spray tank mixture of pre-emergence herbicides did not provide effective weed control in ratoon cane [103]. However, soil samples taken from the topsoil in the same study indicated a higher percentage of herbicide after rainfall events in the plots receiving the tank mix (herbicide plus Grounded®) compared to the control (without adjuvant) [103]. A preliminary study conducted at UF Southwest Florida Research and Education Center, Immokalee, FL, during the spring and fall of 2021, reported consistent reduction in purple nutsedge density when the pre-emergence herbicide s-metolachlor was mixed with Grounded® and sprayed on tomato beds under plastic mulch (unpublished data).

7. Conclusions and Future Directions

Yellow and purple nutsedge has been a major challenge for successful tomato plasticulture production in Florida. Their rhizomes produce multiple shoots with pointed tips that pierce plastic mulch, making harvest difficult. In addition, these weeds compete with the tomato crop for light and nutrient sources and can harbor nematodes or pathogens. Chemical weed control is a vital tool to control nutsedge spp. under plastic mulch. Because of cost-effectiveness, tomato growers primarily depend on herbicides for weed management. Many pre-emergence herbicides have been registered for nutsedge control under plastic mulch, yet their effectiveness has been inconsistent over time and space. Therefore, a combination of pre- and post-emergence herbicides have been mainly recommended for controlling nutsedge spp.
Pre-emergence herbicide application under plastic mulch may have a wide range of unintended consequences on tomatoes. Sandy soil of Florida, with its low organic content, increases risk of herbicide leaching into the crop’s root zone, potentially diminishing vigor of tomato crop transplants under plastic mulch. Applying a pre-emergence herbicide in combination with a soil-binding agent or adjuvant on raised bed plastic mulch could be a crop protection measure, while also limiting herbicide movement and prolonging the persistence of herbicide a.i. in soil, thereby providing adequate nutsedge suppression.
In summary, the best strategy to achieve season-long nutsedge control combines pre-emergence herbicides with well-planned post-transplant herbicide application [63,104]. Integrating pre-emergence herbicides with post-emergence applications would significantly reduce nutsedge density and biomass production, resulting in higher tomato yields. Moreover, combining herbicides with a soil-binding agent could be more effective than using chemicals only for Florida sandy soils. Future research to identify the most effective post-transplant herbicides for controlling nutsedge in plastic mulch tomato production would provide more tools to growers. With herbicide leaching posing a significant problem in Florida’s sandy soil, more studies are needed to understand the mobility and persistence of pre- and post-emergence herbicides under tomato plastic mulch beds.

Author Contributions

R.T., M.B. and R.K. contributed to the drafting and editing of this review article. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

Funding was provided by the University of Florida.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Wenwen Liu and Stephanie Shea Teems for their assistance with the preparation of this paper.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. National Agricultural Statistics Service. Vegetables 2019 Summary; National Agricultural Statistics Service: Washington, DC, USA, 2020.
  2. National Agricultural Statistics Service. Southern Region News Release Vegetables; National Agricultural Statistics Service: Washington, DC, USA, 2022.
  3. National Agricultural Statistics Service. Vegetables 2017 Summary; National Agricultural Statistics Service: Washington, DC, USA, 2018.
  4. Guan, Z.; Biswas, T.; Wu, F. The U.S. Tomato Industry: An Overview of Production and Trade; University of Florida Extension: Gainesville, FL, USA, 2017; p. 4. [Google Scholar]
  5. Yu, J.; Sharpe, S.S.; Boyd, N.S. PRE herbicides and POST halosulfuron for purple nutsedge control in tomato grown in plasticulture systems. Weed Technol. 2020, 34, 642–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Bakht, T.; Khan, I.A. Integration of row spacing, mulching and herbicides on weed management in tomato. Pak. J. Bot. 2014, 46, 543–547. [Google Scholar]
  7. Schroeder, J.; Thomas, S.H.; Murray, L.W. Impacts of crop pests on weeds and weed–crop interactions. Weed Sci. 2005, 53, 918–922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Land, C.J.; Vallad, G.E.; Desaeger, J.; Van Santen, E.; Noling, J.; Lawrence, K. Supplemental Fumigant Placement Improves Root Knot and Fusarium Wilt Management for Tomatoes Produced on a Raised-Bed Plasticulture System in Florida’s Myakka Fine Sand. Plant Dis. 2022, 106, 73–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Desneux, N.; Luna, M.G.; Guillemaud, T.; Urbaneja, A. The invasive South American tomato pinworm, Tuta absoluta, continues to spread in Afro-Eurasia and beyond: The new threat to tomato world production. J. Pest Sci. 2011, 84, 403–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Morales-Payan, J.P.; Santos, B.M.; Stall, W.M.; Bewick, T.A. Effects of purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus) on tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) and bell pepper (Capsicum annuum) vegetative growth and fruit yield. Weed Technol. 1997, 11, 672–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Boyd, N.S. Evaluation of preemergence herbicides for purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus) control in tomato. Weed Technol. 2015, 29, 480–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Holm, L.G.; Plucknett, D.L.; Pancho, J.V.; Herberger, J.P. The World’s Worst Weeds. Distribution and Biology; University Press of Hawaii: Honolulu, HI, USA, 1977. [Google Scholar]
  13. Fennimore, S.A.; Boyd, N.S. Sustainable weed control in strawberry. In Weed Control; CRC Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2018; pp. 383–403. [Google Scholar]
  14. Van Wychen, L. Survey of the most common and troublesome weeds in broadleaf crops, fruits & vegetables in the United States and Canada. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Natl. Weed Surv. Dataset 2016, 5, 2017. Available online: http://wssa.net/wp-content/uploads/2016_Weed_Survey_Final.xlsx (accessed on 5 October 2017).
  15. Webster, T. Weed survey—Southern states: Vegetable, fruit and nut crops subsection (annual weed survey). Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 2010, 63, 246–257. [Google Scholar]
  16. Yu, J.; Sharpe, S.M.; Boyd, N.S. Fumigants alone or in combination with herbicide for weed management in bell pepper (Capsicum annuum). Crop Prot. 2019, 118, 31–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Stoller, E.; Sweet, R. Biology and life cycle of purple and yellow nutsedges (Cyperus rotundus and C. esculentus). Weed Technol. 1987, 1, 66–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Webster, T.M. Patch expansion of purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus) and yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus) with and without polyethylene mulch. Weed Sci. 2005, 53, 839–845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Gifford, E.M.; Bayer, D.E. Developmental anatomy of Cyperus esculentus (yellow nutsedge). Int. J. Plant Sci. 1995, 156, 622–629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Gilreath, J.P.; Santos, B.M. Efficacy of methyl bromide alternatives on purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus) control in tomato and pepper. Weed Technol. 2004, 18, 341–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Motis, T.N.; Locascio, S.J.; Gilreath, J.P.; Stall, W.M. Season-long interference of yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus) with polyethylene-mulched bell pepper (Capsicum annuum). Weed Technol. 2003, 17, 543–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Boyd, N.S.; Reed, T. Strawberry tolerance to bed-top and drip-applied preemergence herbicides. Weed Technol. 2016, 30, 492–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Preece, J.E.; Read, P.E.; Preece, J.E.; Read, P.E. Mulches; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 2005; pp. 281–291. [Google Scholar]
  24. Alsaadawi, I.; Salih, N. Allelopathic potential of Cyperus rotundas LI Interference with crops. Allelopath. J. 2009, 23, 297–303. [Google Scholar]
  25. Drost, D.C.; Doll, J.D. The allelopathic effect of yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus) on corn (Zea mays) and soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 1980, 28, 229–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Nickle, W.R. Manual of Agricultural Nematology; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  27. Schroeder, J.; Thomas, S.H.; Murray, L.W. Root-knot nematodes affect annual and perennial weed interactions with chile pepper. Weed Sci. 2004, 52, 28–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. William, R.D.; Warren, G.F. Competition between Purple Nutsedge and Vegetables. Weed Sci. 1975, 23, 317–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Santos, B.M.; Morales-Payan, J.P.; Stall, W.M.; Bewick, T.A. Influence of purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus) density and nitrogen rate on radish (Raphanus sativus) yield. Weed Sci. 1998, 46, 661–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Morales-Payan, J.; Santos, B.; Bewick, T. Purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus L.) interference on lettuce under different nitrogen levels. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 1996, 49, 201. [Google Scholar]
  31. Agamalian, H.S. Evaluation of norflurazon for the control of yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus) in established asparagus. Acta Hortic. 1993, 415, 285–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Morales-Payan, J.; Santos, B.; Bewick, T. Nitrogen effects on the competitive interactions of purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus L.) and cilantro. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 1996, 36, 69. [Google Scholar]
  33. Morales-Payan, J.P.; Santos, B.M.; Stall, W.M.; Bewick, T.A. Interference of Purple Nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus) Population Densities on Bell Pepper (Capsicum annuum) Yield as Influenced by Nitrogen. Weed Technol. 1998, 12, 230–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Morales-Payan, J.P.; Stall, W.M.; Shilling, D.G.; Charudattan, R.; Dusky, J.A.; Bewick, T.A. Above-and belowground interference of purple and yellow nutsedge (Cyperus spp.) with tomato. Weed Sci. 2003, 51, 181–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Magistad, O.; Farden, C.; Baldwin, W. Bagasse and paper mulches. J. Am. Soc. Agron. 2013, 27, 813–825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Schonbeck, M.W.; Evanylo, G.K. Effects of mulches on soil properties and tomato production I. Soil temperature, soil moisture and marketable yield. J. Sustain. Agric. 1998, 13, 55–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Amayreh, J.; Al-Abed, N. Developing crop coefficients for field-grown tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) under drip irrigation with black plastic mulch. Agric. Water Manag. 2005, 73, 247–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Anzalone, A.; Cirujeda, A.; Aibar, J.; Pardo, G.; Zaragoza, C. Effect of biodegradable mulch materials on weed control in processing tomatoes. Weed Technol. 2010, 24, 369–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Farias-Larios, J.; Orozco-Santos, M. Effect of polyethylene mulch colour on aphid populations, soil temperature, fruit quality, and yield of watermelon under tropical conditions. N. Z. J. Crop Hortic. Sci. 1997, 25, 369–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Croxton, S.D.; Stansly, P.A. Metalized polyethylene mulch to repel Asian citrus psyllid, slow spread of huanglongbing and improve growth of new citrus plantings. Pest Manag. Sci. 2014, 70, 318–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Orozco-Santos, M.; Perez-Zamora, O.; Lopez-Arriaga, O. Effect of transparent mulch on insect populations, virus diseases, soil temperature, and yield of cantaloup in a tropical region. N. Z. J. Crop Hortic. Sci. 1995, 23, 199–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Kasirajan, S.; Ngouajio, M. Polyethylene and biodegradable mulches for agricultural applications: A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2012, 32, 501–529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Tofanelli, M.B.; Wortman, S.E. Benchmarking the agronomic performance of biodegradable mulches against polyethylene mulch film: A meta-analysis. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Cirujeda, A.; Aibar, J.; Anzalone, Á.; Martín-Closas, L.; Meco, R.; Moreno, M.M.; Pardo, A.; Pelacho, A.M.; Rojo, F.; Royo-Esnal, A. Biodegradable mulch instead of polyethylene for weed control of processing tomato production. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2012, 32, 889–897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Mendonça, S.R.; Ávila, M.C.R.; Vital, R.G.; Evangelista, Z.R.; Pontes, N.d.C.; Nascimento, A.d.R. The effect of different mulching on tomato development and yield. Sci. Hortic. 2021, 275, 109657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Anderson, D.F.; Garisto, M.-A.; Bourrut, J.-C.; Schonbeck, M.W.; Jaye, R.; Wurzberger, A.; DeGregorio, R. Evaluation of a paper mulch made from recycled materials as an alternative to plastic film mulch for vegetables. J. Sustain. Agric. 1996, 7, 39–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Olsen, J.; Gounder, R. Alternatives to polyethylene mulch film—A field assessment of transported materials in capsicum (Capsicum annuum L.). Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 2001, 41, 93–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Locascio, S.J.; Gilreath, J.P.; Dickson, D.; Kucharek, T.A.; Jones, J.; Noling, J. Fumigant alternatives to methyl bromide for polyethylene-mulched. HortScience 1997, 32, 1208–1211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Hanson, B.; Shrestha, A. Weed control with methyl bromide alternatives. CAB Rev. Perspect. Agric. Vet. Sci. Nutr. Nat. Resour 2006, 1, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Culpepper, A.S.; Grey, T.L.; Webster, T.M. Vegetable response to herbicides applied to low-density polyethylene mulch prior to transplant. Weed Technol. 2009, 23, 444–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Dayton, D.M.; Chaudhari, S.; Jennings, K.M.; Monks, D.W.; Hoyt, G.W. Effect of drip-applied metam-sodium and S-metolachlor on yellow nutsedge and common purslane in polyethylene-mulched bell pepper and tomato. Weed Technol. 2017, 31, 421–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Jennings, K.M. Tolerance of Fresh-Market Tomato to Postemergence-Directed Imazosulfuron, Halosulfuron, and Trifloxysulfuron. Weed Technol. 2010, 24, 117–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Eure, P.M.; Culpepper, A.S. Bell pepper and weed response to dimethyl disulfide plus chloropicrin and herbicide systems. Weed Technol. 2017, 31, 694–700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. McAvoy, T.; Freeman, J.H. Yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus) control with reduced rates of dimethyl disulfide in combination with totally impermeable film. Weed Technol. 2013, 27, 515–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Pereira, W.; Crabtree, G.; William, R.D. Herbicide action on purple and yellow nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus and C. esculentus). Weed Technol. 1987, 1, 92–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Shaner, D.L. Herbicide Handbook, 10th ed.; Weed Science Society of America: Champaign, IL, USA, 2014; p. 513. [Google Scholar]
  57. Devkota, P.; Norsworthy, J.K.; Rainey, R. Efficacy and economics of herbicide programs compared to methyl bromide for weed control in polyethylene-mulched tomato. Weed Technol. 2013, 27, 580–589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Shaner, D.L. Field dissipation of sulfentrazone and pendimethalin in Colorado. Weed Technol. 2012, 26, 633–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Sanyal, D.; Kulshrestha, G. Effects of repeated metolachlor applications on its persistence in field soil and degradation kinetics in mixed microbial cultures. Biol. Fertil. Soils 1999, 30, 124–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Haar, M.; Fennimore, S.; McGiffen, M.; Lanini, W.; Bell, C. Evaluation of preemergence herbicides in vegetable crops. Horttechnology 2002, 12, 95–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Mohseni-Moghadam, M.; Doohan, D. Fomesafen Crop Tolerance and Weed Control in Processing Tomato. Weed Technol. 2017, 31, 441–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Webster, T.M.; Grey, T.L. Halosulfuron reduced purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus) tuber production and viability. Weed Sci. 2014, 62, 637–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Adcock, C.W.; Foshee, W.G.; Wehtje, G.R.; Gilliam, C.H. Herbicide combinations in tomato to prevent nutsedge (Cyperus esulentus) punctures in plastic mulch for multi-cropping systems. Weed Technol. 2008, 22, 136–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Boyd, N.S. Pre-and postemergence herbicides for row middle weed control in vegetable plasticulture production systems. Weed Technol. 2016, 30, 949–957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Rich, J.; Brito, J.; Kaur, R.; Ferrell, J. Weed species as hosts of Meloidogyne: A review. Nematropica 2009, 39, 157–185. [Google Scholar]
  66. Wisler, G.C.; Norris, R.F. Interactions between weeds and cultivated plants as related to management of plant pathogens. Weed Sci. 2005, 53, 914–917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. French-Monar, R.D.; Jones, J.B.; Roberts, P.D. Characterization of Phytophthora capsici associated with roots of weeds on Florida vegetable farms. Plant Dis. 2006, 90, 345–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Gilreath, J.; Stall, W.; Locascio, S. Weed control in tomato row middles. In Proceedings of the Florida State Horticultural Society, Orlando, FL, USA, 2–5 November 1987; pp. 232–235. [Google Scholar]
  69. Clewis, S.B.; Everman, W.J.; Jordan, D.L.; Wilcut, J.W. Weed management in North Carolina peanuts (Arachis hypogaea) with S-metolachlor, diclosulam, flumioxazin, and sulfentrazone systems. Weed Technol. 2007, 21, 629–635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Pannacci, E.; Graziani, F.; Covarelli, G. Use of herbicide mixtures for pre and post-emergence weed control in sunflower (Helianthus annuus). Crop Prot. 2007, 26, 1150–1157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Boyd, N.S.; Kanissery, R.; Dittmar, P.J. Weed Management in Tomato; University of Florida Extension: Gainesville, FL, USA, 2019; p. 5. [Google Scholar]
  72. Klingman, G.C.; Ashton, F.M.; Noordhoff, L.J. Weed Science: Principles and Practice; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1981. [Google Scholar]
  73. Das, S.K.; Mondal, T. Mode of action of herbicides and recent trends in development: A reappraisal. Int. J. Agric. Soil Sci. 2014, 2, 27–32. [Google Scholar]
  74. Devi, R.; Duhan, A.; Punia, S.S.; Yadav, D.B. Degradation dynamics of halosulfuron-methyl in two textured soils. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2019, 102, 246–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Grey, T.L.; McCullough, P.E. Sulfonylurea herbicides’ fate in soil: Dissipation, mobility, and other processes. Weed Technol. 2012, 26, 579–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Grey, T.L.; Vencill, W.K.; Mantripagada, N.; Culpepper, A.S. Residual herbicide dissipation from soil covered with low-density polyethylene mulch or left bare. Weed Sci. 2007, 55, 638–643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Matthes, B.; Schmalfuß, J.; Böger, P. Chloroacetamide mode of action, II: Inhibition of very long chain fatty acid synthesis in higher plants. Z. Für Nat. C 1998, 53, 1004–1011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Senseman, S.A. Herbicide Handbook; Weed Science Society of America: Lawrence, KS, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  79. Bedmar, F.; Gimenez, D.; Costa, J.L.; Daniel, P.E. Persistence of acetochlor, atrazine, and S-metolachlor in surface and subsurface horizons of 2 typic argiudolls under no-tillage. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2017, 36, 3065–3073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Long, Y.; Li, R.; Wu, X. Degradation of S-metolachlor in soil as affected by environmental factors. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2014, 14, 189–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Marín-Benito, J.M.; Herrero-Hernández, E.; Ordax, J.M.; Sánchez-Martín, M.J.; Rodríguez-Cruz, M.S. The role of two organic amendments to modify the environmental fate of S-metolachlor in agricultural soils. Environ. Res. 2021, 195, 110871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Wu, X.; Li, M.; Long, Y.; Liu, R.; Yu, Y.; Fang, H.; Li, S. Effects of adsorption on degradation and bioavailability of metolachlor in soil. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2011, 11, 83–97. [Google Scholar]
  83. Munoz, A.; Koskinen, W.C.; Cox, L.a.; Sadowsky, M.J. Biodegradation and mineralization of metolachlor and alachlor by Candida xestobii. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2011, 59, 619–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Kanissery, R.; Liu, W.; Tiwari, R.; Sims, G. Impact of Soil Aeration on the Environmental Fate of Pre-Emergent Herbicide Metolachlor. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 8567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Grey, T.L.; Walker, R.H.; Wehtje, G.R.; Hancock, H.G. Sulfentrazone adsorption and mobility as affected by soil and pH. Weed Sci. 1997, 45, 733–738. [Google Scholar]
  86. Ohmes, G.A.; Mueller, T.C. Sulfentrazone adsorption and mobility in surface soil of the southern United States. Weed Technol. 2007, 21, 796–800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Martinez, C.O.; Silva, C.M.M.; Fay, E.F.; Maia, A.d.H.N.; Abakerli, R.B.; Durrant, L.R. Degradation of the herbicide sulfentrazone in a Brazilian Typic Hapludox soil. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2008, 40, 879–886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  88. Mueller, T.C.; Boswell, B.W.; Mueller, S.S.; Steckel, L.E. Dissipation of fomesafen, saflufenacil, sulfentrazone, and flumioxazin from a Tennessee soil under field conditions. Weed Sci. 2014, 62, 664–671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Fontanelli, M.; Martelloni, L.; Raffaelli, M.; Frasconi, C.; Ginanni, M.; Peruzzi, A. Weed management in autumn fresh market spinach: A nonchemical alternative. HortTechnology 2015, 25, 177–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  90. Heap, I. Global perspective of herbicide-resistant weeds. Pest Manag. Sci. 2014, 70, 1306–1315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Pannacci, E.; Lattanzi, B.; Tei, F. Non-chemical weed management strategies in minor crops: A review. Crop Prot. 2017, 96, 44–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Hasanuzzaman, M.; Mohsin, S.M.; Bhuyan, M.B.; Bhuiyan, T.F.; Anee, T.I.; Masud, A.A.C.; Nahar, K. Phytotoxicity, environmental and health hazards of herbicides: Challenges and ways forward. In Agrochemicals Detection, Treatment and Remediation; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020; pp. 55–99. [Google Scholar]
  93. Martins, D.; Gonçalves, C.G.; Silva Junior, A.C.d. Winter mulches and chemical control on weeds in maize. Rev. Ciência Agronômica 2016, 47, 649–657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  94. Pringnitz, B. Clearing Up Confusion on Adjuvants and Additives. Iowa State University Extension Agronomy. 1998. Available online: http://www.weeds/iastate.edu/mgmt/qtr98-2/cropoils.htm (accessed on 20 January 2015).
  95. McWhorter, C. The use of adjuvants. Adjuv. Herbic. 1982, 11–25. Available online: https://cir.nii.ac.jp/crid/1570009750785890304 (accessed on 20 September 2022).
  96. DiTomaso, J.M. Barriers to foliar penetration and uptake of herbicides. In Proceedings of the California Weed Science Society, Anaheim, CA, USA, 11–13 January 1999; pp. 150–155. [Google Scholar]
  97. Hull, H. Action of adjuvants on plant surfaces. Adjuv. Herbic. 1982, 26–67. [Google Scholar]
  98. Hess, F.D.; Foy, C.L. Interaction of surfactants with plant cuticles. Weed Technol. 2000, 14, 807–813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. de Oliveira, G.F.P.B.; Langaro, A.C.; Simões Araujo, A.L.; Pimpinato, R.F.; Tornisielo, V.L.; de Pinho, C.F. Sorption and desorption of pendimethalin alone and mixed with adjuvant in soil and sugarcane straw. J. Environ. Sci. Health Part B 2020, 55, 1114–1120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  100. Green, J. Increasing efficiency with adjuvants and herbicide mixtures. In Proceedings of the First International Weed Control Congress, Melbourne, AU, USA; 1992; pp. 187–192. [Google Scholar]
  101. Abouziena, H.F.H.; Sharma, S.D.; Singh, M. Impact of adjuvants on bentazon efficacy on selected broadleaf weeds. Crop Prot. 2009, 28, 1081–1085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Bellinder, R.R.; Arsenovic, M.; Shah, D.A.; Rauch, B.J. Effect of weed growth stage and adjuvant on the efficacy of fomesafen and bentazon. Weed Sci. 2003, 51, 1016–1021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Fillols, E.; Davis, A. Effect of the soil-binding adjuvant Grounded® on herbicide efficacy and runoff losses in bare soil in ratoons. In Proceedings of the Australian Society of Sugar Cane Technologists 2021, Bundaber, Australia, 20–23 April 2021; pp. 555–562. [Google Scholar]
  104. Dittmar, P.J.; Monks, D.W.; Jennings, K.M.; Booker, F.L. Tolerance of tomato to herbicides applied through drip irrigation. Weed Technol. 2012, 26, 684–690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Plants 11 03292 g001 550
Figure 1. Schematic representation of factors determining herbicide fate in soil.
Figure 1. Schematic representation of factors determining herbicide fate in soil.
Plants 11 03292 g001
Plants 11 03292 g002 550
Figure 2. Schematic illustration of adjuvant use with soil-applied herbicides for effective weed suppression and enhanced crop safety.
Figure 2. Schematic illustration of adjuvant use with soil-applied herbicides for effective weed suppression and enhanced crop safety.
Plants 11 03292 g002
Table
Table 5. Chemical weed control options in tomato plasticulture production systems. Source: [71].
Table 5. Chemical weed control options in tomato plasticulture production systems. Source: [71].
Herbicide a.i. aTrade Name bMode of Action GroupApplication Timing c,dRate (lbs. a.i./acre)
Carfentrazone(Aim®) 2 EC or 1.9 EW Up to 2 fl. oz.14Post-emergence0.031
ClethodimSelectMax1Post-emergence0.9–2.5
GlyphosateRoundup9Pre-transplant; Post-emergence0.3–1
EPTCEptam® 7E8Pre-transplant2.62–3.5
Halosulfuron(Sandea®, ProfineTM) 75 DG2Pre-transplant; Post-emergence0.024–0.036
LactofenCobra®14Post-emergence0.25–0.5
S-metolachlorDual Magnum®15Pre-emergence1–1.3
MetribuzinSencor DF5Pre-transplant0.25–0.5
ParaquatGramoxone 22Post-emergence0.62–0.94
TrifluralinTreflan HFP3Pre-transplant0.5
Oxyfluorfen(Goal®) 2 XL 1–2 pt. (GoalTender®) 4 E 0.5–1 pt.14Pre-transplant0.25–0.5
Flumioxazin(Chateau®) 51 WDG Up to 4 oz.14Pre-emergenceUp to 0.128
Pendimethalin(Prowl® H2O) 3.8 1.0–1.5 pt.3Pre-transplant0.48–0.72
SulfentrazoneSpartan FL 4F 2.25–6.0 fl. oz.14Pre-transplant0.07–0.19
Diquat(Reglone®) 1.5 pt.22Post-emergence0.38
Imazosulfuron(LeagueTM) 0.5 DF 4–6.4 oz.2Post-emergence0.19–0.3
Rimsulfuron(Matrix® FNV, Matrix® SG, PruvinTM) 25 WDG 1.0–2.0 oz.2Pre-emergence or post-emergence0.02–0.03
Sethoxydim(Poast®) 1.5 EC 1.0–1.5 pt.1Post-emergence0.19–0.28
Trifloxysulfuron(Envoke®) 75 DG 0.1–0.2 oz.2Post-transplant0.0047–0.0094
Fomesafen (Reflex®) 2 SC 1–1.5 pt.14Pre-transplant 0.25–0.38
Napropamide (Devrinol)50 DF 2–4 lb.15Pre-transplant1–2
a a.i.: active ingredient. b Including but not limited to these products. c Pre- and post-transplant indicates before and after tomato transplant, respectively. d Pre- and post-emergence indicates before and after weed emergence, respectively.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Tiwari, R.; Bashyal, M.; Kanissery, R. Weed Management Strategies for Tomato Plasticulture Production in Florida. Plants 2022, 11, 3292. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11233292

AMA Style

Tiwari R, Bashyal M, Kanissery R. Weed Management Strategies for Tomato Plasticulture Production in Florida. Plants. 2022; 11(23):3292. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11233292

Chicago/Turabian Style

Tiwari, Ruby, Mahesh Bashyal, and Ramdas Kanissery. 2022. "Weed Management Strategies for Tomato Plasticulture Production in Florida" Plants 11, no. 23: 3292. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11233292

APA Style

Tiwari, R., Bashyal, M., & Kanissery, R. (2022). Weed Management Strategies for Tomato Plasticulture Production in Florida. Plants, 11(23), 3292. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11233292

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop