Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T16:48:38.257Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Differential Response of Six Sweet Potato (Ipomoea batatas) Cultivars to Metribuzin

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Howard F. Harrison Jr. ,
Alfred Jones  and
Philip D. Dukes
Howard F. Harrison Jr.
Affiliation:
U.S. Vegetable Lab., Agric. Res. Serv., U.S. Dep. Agric., Charleston, SC 29407
Alfred Jones
Affiliation:
U.S. Vegetable Lab., Agric. Res. Serv., U.S. Dep. Agric., Charleston, SC 29407
Philip D. Dukes
Affiliation:
U.S. Vegetable Lab., Agric. Res. Serv., U.S. Dep. Agric., Charleston, SC 29407
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The sweet potato [Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam.] cultivars ‘Jewel’, ‘Centennial’, ‘Caromex’, and breeding lines ‘W-70’, ‘W-152’, and ‘Tinian’ (PI 153655) were evaluated for metribuzin [4-amino-6-tert-butyl-3-(methylthio)-as–triazin5(4H)-one] tolerance in greenhouse and field studies. Tinian was the most tolerant line. Its yields were not reduced by 2.2 kg/ha metribuzin in the field. Jewel, Centennial and W-152 were intermediate in response to metribuzin, and W-70 and Caromex were most susceptible. Regression analyses indicated a high correlation between the response of sweet potato cultivars to 0.5 ppm metribuzin incorporated in a potting mix in the greenhouse and their response to 1.1 kg/ha metribuzin applied after transplanting in the field.

Keywords

Herbicide tolerance
Type
Weed Control and Herbicide Technology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 33 , Issue 5 , September 1985 , pp. 730 - 733
Copyright
Copyright © 1985 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.)

References

Literature Cited

1. Barrentine, W. L., Edwards, C. J. Jr., and Hartwig, E. E. 1976. Screening soybeans for tolerance to metribuzin. Agron. J. 68:351–353.Google Scholar
2. Barrentine, W. L., Hartwig, E. E., Edwards, C. J. Jr., and Kilen, T. C. 1982. Tolerance of three soybean cultivars to metribuzin. Weed Sci. 30:344–348.Google Scholar
3. Carter, E. P., ed. 1980. USDA Compilation of Registered Uses of Herbicides. Pesticide Impact Assessment Staff. Agric. Res. Serv., U.S. Dep. Agric., Beltsville, MD. 986 pp.Google Scholar
4. Graf, G. T. and Ogg, A. G. Jr. 1976. Differential response of potato cultivars to metribuzin. Weed Sci. 24:137–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Harrison, H. F. Jr., Jones, A., and Dukes, P. D. 1982. Herbicide evaluation in sweet potatoes. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 34:106.Google Scholar
6. Lu, Lu-Chyuan, Acevedo-Borrero, E., and Ortiz, F. H. 1982. Herbicide evaluation for sweet potatoes. J. Agric., Univ. of Puerto Rico. 4:254–260.Google Scholar
7. Monaco, T. J., Hunt, R. I., and Mills, R. J. 1981. Weed Control Investigations in Horticultural Crops. Hort. Crops Res. Series 56. North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC. 117 pp.Google Scholar
8. Monks, D. W., Coffey, D. L., Cordrey, T. D. and McLaurin, W. J. 1981. Herbicide evaluation in sweetpotatoes. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 34:106.Google Scholar
9. Morrison, L. S. 1970. Nematode diseases. Pages 56–59 in Hernandez, T. P., ed. Thirty Years of Cooperative Sweet Potato Research. 1939–1969. South. Coop. Series Bull. No. 159. Louisiana Agric. Exp. Stn., Baton Rouge, LA.Google Scholar
10. Phatak, S. C., Singh, Megh, Harmon, S. A., and Glaze, N. C. 1981. Differential response of sweet potatoes to metribuzin in solution culture. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 34:107.Google Scholar
11. Steinbauer, C. E. 1949. Promising sweet potatoes found on Pacific island: Show remarkable resistance to wilt diseases. Crops Soils Mag. 1:24–26.Google Scholar
12. Stephenson, G. R., McLeod, J. E., and Phatak, S. C. 1976. Differential tolerance of tomato cultivars to metribuzin. Weed Sci. 24:161–165.Google Scholar