Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T08:35:53.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Interference of Palmer Amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in Sweetpotato

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Stephen L. Meyers ,
Katherine M. Jennings ,
Jonathan R. Schultheis  and
David W. Monks
Stephen L. Meyers*
Affiliation:
Box 7609, Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7609
Katherine M. Jennings
Affiliation:
Box 7609, Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7609
Jonathan R. Schultheis
Affiliation:
Box 7609, Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7609
David W. Monks
Affiliation:
Box 7609, Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7609
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted in 2007 and 2008 at Clinton and Faison, NC, to evaluate the influence of Palmer amaranth density on ‘Beauregard’ and ‘Covington’ sweetpotato yield and quality and to quantify the influence of Palmer amaranth on light interception. Palmer amaranth was established at 0, 0.5, 1.1, 1.6, 3.3, and 6.5 plants m−1 within the sweetpotato row and densities were maintained season-long. Jumbo, number (no.) 1, and marketable sweetpotato yield losses were fit to a rectangular hyperbola model, and predicted yield loss ranged from 56 to 94%, 30 to 85%, and 36 to 81%, respectively for Palmer amaranth densities of 0.5 to 6.5 plants m−1. Percentage of jumbo, no. 1, and marketable sweetpotato yield loss displayed a positive linear relationship with Palmer amaranth light interception as early as 6 to 7 wk after planting (R2 = 0.99, 0.86, and 0.93, respectively). Predicted Palmer amaranth light interception 6 to 7, 10, and 13 to 14 wk after planting ranged from 47 to 68%, 46 to 82%, and 42 to 71%, respectively for Palmer amaranth densities of 0.5 to 6.5 plants m−1. Palmer amaranth height increased from 177 to 197 cm at densities of 0.5 to 4.1 plants m−1 and decreased from 197 to 188 cm at densities of 4.1 to 6.5 plants m−1; plant width (69 to 145 cm) and shoot dry biomass plant−1 (0.2 to 1.1 kg) decreased linearly as density increased.

Keywords

Palmer amaranth, Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats. AMAPAsweetpotato, Ipomoea batatas L. Lam. ‘Beauregard’ and ‘Covington’ IPOBACompetitionlight interceptionrectangular hyperbola modelshoot dry biomassweed density
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 58 , Issue 3 , September 2010 , pp. 199 - 203
Copyright
Copyright © 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

Anonymous. 2007. Roundup WeatherMax® herbicide label. St. Louis, MO: Monsanto Co.Google Scholar
Bensch, C. N., Horak, M. J., and Peterson, D. 2003. Interference of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus), Palmer amaranth (A. palmeri), and common waterhemp (A. rudis) in soybean. Weed Sci. 51:37–43.Google Scholar
Black, C. L., Chen, T. M., and Brown, R. H. 1969. Biochemical basis for plant competition. Weed Sci. 17:338–344.Google Scholar
Brainard, D. C., Bellinder, R. R., and DiTommaso, A. 2005. Effects of canopy shade on the morphology, phenology, and seed characteristics of Powell amaranth (Amaranthus powellii). Weed Sci. 53:175–186.Google Scholar
Brill, N. 2005. Effects of Grower Practices and Field Characteristics on Insect Damage to Sweetpotato (Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam.) Roots. . North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC. 135.Google Scholar
Burke, I. C., Schroeder, M., Thomas, W. E., and Wilcut, J. W. 2007. Palmer amaranth interference and seed production in peanut. Weed Technol. 21:367–371.Google Scholar
Clewis, S. B., Askew, S. D., and Wilcut, J. W. 2001. Common ragweed interference in peanut. Weed Sci. 49:768–772.Google Scholar
Coble, H. D. and Mortensen, D. A. 1992. The threshold concept and its application to weed science. Weed Technol. 6:191–195.Google Scholar
Cousens, R. 1985. A simple model relating yield loss to weed density. Ann. Appl. Biol. 107:239–252.Google Scholar
Garvey, P. V. Jr. 1999. Goosegrass (Eleusine indica) and Palmer Amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) Interference in Transplanted Plasticulture Tomato. Ph.D dissertation. North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.Google Scholar
Guo, P. and Al-Khatib, K. 2003. Temperature effects on germination and growth of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus), Palmer amaranth (A. palmeri), and common waterhemp (A. rudis). Weed Sci. 51:869–875.Google Scholar
Holmes, G. J. and Kemble, J. M. eds. 2008. Vegetable Crop Handbook for the Southeastern United States 2009. Lincolnshire, IL: Vance Publishing Corp. 93–94. 269.Google Scholar
Horak, M. J. and Loughin, T. M. 2000. Growth analysis of four Amaranthus species. Weed Sci. 48:347–355.Google Scholar
Jha, P., Norsworthy, J. K., Riley, M. B., Bielenberg, D. G., and Bridges, W. Jr. 2008. Acclimation of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) to shading. Weed Sci. 56:729–734.Google Scholar
Keeley, P. E., Carter, C. H., and Thullen, R. J. 1987. Influence of planting date on growth of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri). Weed Sci. 35:199–204.Google Scholar
Klingaman, T. E. and Oliver, L. R. 1994. Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) interference in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 42:523–527.Google Scholar
Koutsoyiannis, A. 1973. Theory of Econometrics: An Introductory Exposition of Econometrics Methods. London: MacMillan. 68–95.Google Scholar
La Bonte, D. R., Harrison, H. F., and Motsenbocker, C. E. 1999. Sweetpotato clone tolerance to weed interference. HortScience. 34:229–232.Google Scholar
Massinga, R. A., Currie, R. S., Horak, M. J., and Boyer, J. Jr. 2001. Interference of Palmer amaranth in corn. Weed Sci. 49:202–208.Google Scholar
Massinga, R. A., Currie, R. S., and Trooien, T. P. 2003. Water use and light interception under Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and corn competition. Weed Sci. 51:523–531.Google Scholar
Moore, J. W., Murphy, D. S., and Westerman, R. B. 2004. Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) effects on the harvest and yield of grain sorghum (Sorghum bicolor). Weed Technol. 18:23–29.Google Scholar
Morgan, G. D., Baumann, P. A., and Chandler, J. M. 2001. Competitive impact of Palmer Amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) on cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) development and yield. Weed Technol. 15:408–412.Google Scholar
Norsworthy, J. K., Oliveira, M. J., Jha, P., Malik, M., Buckelew, J. K., Jennings, K. M., and Monks, D. W. 2008. Palmer amaranth and large crabgrass growth with plasticulture-grown bell pepper. Weed Technol. 22:296–302.Google Scholar
[NCDA and CS] North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 2009. North Carolina Agricultural Statistics. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Department of Agriculture. 82.Google Scholar
O'Donovan, J. T. and Blackshaw, R. E. 1997. Effect of volunteer barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) interference on field pea (Pisium sativum L.). Weed Sci. 45:249–255.Google Scholar
Radosevich, S. R. 1987. Methods to study interactions among crops and weeds. Weed Technol. 1:190–198.Google Scholar
Seem, J. E., Creamer, N. G., and Monks, D. W. 2003. Critical weed-free period for ‘Beauregard’ sweetpotato (Ipomoea batatas). Weed Technol. 17:686–695.Google Scholar
Sellers, B. A., Smeda, R. J., Johnson, W. G., Kendig, J. A., and Ellersieck, M. R. 2003. Comparative growth of six Amaranthus species in Missouri. Weed Sci. 51:329–333.Google Scholar
Semidey, N., Liu, L. C., and Ortiz, F. H. 1987. Competition of pigweed (Amaranth dubius) with sweetpotato (Ipomoea batatas). J. Agric. Univ. Puerto Rico. 71:7–11.Google Scholar
Streibig, J. C., Combellack, J. H., Pritchard, G. H., and Richardson, R. G. 1989. Estimation of threshold for weed control in Australian cereals. Weed Res. 29:117–126.Google Scholar
Swinton, S. M., Buhler, D. D., Forcella, F., Gunsolus, J. L., and King, R. P. 1994. Estimation of crop yield loss due to interference by multiple weed species. Weed Sci. 42:103–109.Google Scholar
Treadwell, D. D., Creamer, N. G., Schultheis, J. R., and Hoyt, G. D. 2007. Cover crop management affects weeds and yield of organically managed sweetpotato systems. Weed Technol. 21:1039–1048.Google Scholar
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture 2005. United States Standards for Grades of Sweet Potatoes. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture.Google Scholar
[USDA-NASS] U.S. Department of Agriculture–National Agricultural Statistics Service 2009. 2007 Census of Agriculture. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture.Google Scholar
[USDA-NRCS] U.S. Department of Agriculture–Natural Resources Conservation Service 2009. PLANTS Profile—Amaranthus palmeri S. Watson, Carelessweed. http://plants.usda.gov/java/nameSearch?keywordquery=amaranthus+Palmeri&mode=sciname. Accessed: April 27, 2009.Google Scholar
Uva, R. H., Neal, J. C., and DiTomasso, J. M. 1997. Weeds of the Northeast. New York: Cornell University Press. 90–97.Google Scholar
Webster, T. M. 2004. Weed survey—southern states. Proc. South Weed Sci. Soc. 57:404–426.Google Scholar
Webster, T. M. 2005. Weed survey—southern states. Proc. South Weed Sci. Soc. 58:291–306.Google Scholar
Webster, T. M. 2006. Weed survey—southern states. Proc. South Weed Sci. Soc. 59:260–277.Google Scholar
Webster, T. M. and Coble, H. D. 1997. Changes in the weed species composition of the southern United States from 1974–1995. Weed Technol. 11:308–317.Google Scholar