Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T00:22:57.711Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Postemergence Weed Control with Rimsulfuron and Various Adjuvants in Potato (Solanum tuberosum)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Dennis J. Tonks*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant, Soil, and Entomological Sciences, University of Idaho, Aberdeen, ID 83210
Charlotte V. Eberlein
Affiliation:
District III Cooperative Extension, University of Idaho, Twin Falls, ID 83303
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected].

Abstract

Field studies assessed weed control and potato injury with rimsulfuron applied postemergence at various rates in combination with various adjuvants. Weed control was influenced by choice of adjuvant and rimsulfuron rate. Rimsulfuron at 0, 9, 18, 26, and 35 g ai/ha was applied with nonionic surfactant (NIS), crop oil concentrate (COC), methylated seed oil (MSO), or silicone-polyether copolymer (SIL). Potato injury was less than 5% for all rimsulfuron rates and adjuvant combinations. Redroot pigweed was controlled greater than or equal to 93% by all treatments except rimsulfuron at 9 g/ha + SIL. Except for redroot pigweed, rimsulfuron treatments with SIL controlled kochia, hairy nightshade, common lambsquarters, and volunteer oats less than with other adjuvants. At lower rimsulfuron rates, weed control with rimsulfuron + MSO tended to be greater than with rimsulfuron + NIS or rimsulfuron + COC. Common lambsquarters control was 75% or less regardless of rimsulfuron rate or adjuvant. Tuber yield generally increased with increasing rimsulfuron rates. Depending on rimsulfuron rate, tuber yield was 10 to 15% lower with rimsulfuron + NIS or rimsulfuron + COC compared to rimsulfuron + MSO, while tuber yield was 18 to 37% lower with rimsulfuron + SIL compared to rimsulfuron + NIS, rimsulfuron + COC, or rimsulfuron + MSO.

Type
Research
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.)

Footnotes

University of Idaho Agricultural Experiment Station Paper 01701.
Current address of senior author: Washington State University, P.O. Box 399, Davenport, WA 99122

References

Literature Cited

Anonymous. 2000. Matrix product label. Wilmington, DE: DuPont. 11 p.Google Scholar
Arsenault, W. J. and Ivany, J. A. 1996. Response of three potato cultivars to metribuzin. J. Prod. Agric. 9: 8688.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E., Lynch, D. R., and Entz, T. 1995. Postemergence broadleaf weed control in potato (Solanum tuberosum) with rimsulfuron and HOE-075032. Weed Technol. 9: 228235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callihan, R. H. and Bellinder, R. R. 1993. Management of weeds. In Rowe, R. C., ed. Potato Health Management. St. Paul, MN: APS Press. pp. 95102.Google Scholar
Callihan, R. H., Ojala, J. C., Haderlie, L. C., and Kidder, D. W. 1990. Nightshade Biology and Control in Cropland of the Pacific Northwest. PNW Cooperative Extension Bulletin No. 352. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho. 6 p.Google Scholar
Eberlein, C. V., Patterson, P. E., Guttieri, M. J., and Stark, J. C. 1997. Efficacy and economics of cultivation for weed control in potato (Solanum tuberosum). Weed Technol. 11: 257264.Google Scholar
Eberlein, C. V., Whitmore, J. C., Stanger, C. E., and Guttieri, M. J. 1994. Postemergence weed control in potatoes (Solanum tuberosum) with rimsulfuron. Weed Technol. 8: 425428.Google Scholar
Friesen, G. H. and Wall, D. A. 1984. Response of potato (Solanum tuberosum) cultivars to metribuzin. Weed Sci. 32: 442444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graf, G. T. and Ogg, A. G. Jr. 1976. Differential response of potato cultivars to metribuzin. Weed Sci. 24: 137139.Google Scholar
Green, J. M. 1996. Interaction of surfactant dose and spray volume on rimsulfuron activity. Weed Technol. 10: 508511.Google Scholar
Green, J. M. and Green, J. H. 1993. Surfactant structure and concentration strongly affect rimsulfuron activity. Weed Technol. 7: 633640.Google Scholar
Guenthner, J. F., Wiese, M. V., Pavlista, A. D., Sieczka, J. B., and Wyman, J. 1999. Assessment of pesticide use in the U.S. potato industry. Am. J. Potato Res. 76: 2529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guttieri, M. J. and Eberlein, C. V. 1997. Preemergence weed control in potatoes (Solanum tuberosum) with rimsulfuron mixtures. Weed Technol. 11: 755761.Google Scholar
Murray, M. W., Arnold, R. N., Gregory, E. J., and Smeal, D. 1994. Early broadleaf weed control in potato (Solanum tuberosum) with herbicides. Weed Technol. 8: 165167.Google Scholar
Nalewaja, J. D., Praczyk, T., and Matysaik, R. 1995. Surfactants and oil adjuvants with nicosulfuron. Weed Technol. 9: 689695.Google Scholar
Nalewaja, J. D., Praczyk, T., and Matysaik, R. 1998. Nitrogen fertilizer, oil, and surfactant adjuvants with nicosulfuron. Weed Technol. 12: 585589.Google Scholar
Parker, R. 2000. Herbicide effectiveness on weeds in potatoes. In William, R. D., Ball, D., Miller, T. L., Parker, R., Yenish, J. P., Miller, T. W., Lee, G. A., and Morishita, D. W., eds. 2000 Pacific Northwest Weed Control Handbook. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. p. 159.Google Scholar
Renner, K. A. and Powell, G. E. 1998. Weed control in potato (Solanum tuberosum) with rimsulfuron and metribuzin. Weed Technol. 12: 406409.Google Scholar
Tonks, D. J., Eberlein, C. V., and Guttieri, M. J. 2000. Preemergence weed control in potato (Solanum tuberosum) with ethalfluralin. Weed Technol. 14: 287292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar