Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T16:11:05.615Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Fomesafen Programs for Palmer Amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) Control in Sweetpotato

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Susan L. Barkley ,
Sushila Chaudhari ,
Katherine M. Jennings ,
Jonathan R. Schultheis ,
Stephen L. Meyers  and
David W. Monks
Susan L. Barkley
Affiliation:
North Carolina Agricultural Research Service, Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695
Sushila Chaudhari*
Affiliation:
North Carolina Agricultural Research Service, Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695
Katherine M. Jennings
Affiliation:
North Carolina Agricultural Research Service, Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695
Jonathan R. Schultheis
Affiliation:
North Carolina Agricultural Research Service, Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695
Stephen L. Meyers
Affiliation:
North Mississippi Research and Extension Center, Mississippi State University, Pontotoc, MS 38863
David W. Monks
Affiliation:
North Carolina Agricultural Research Service, Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Studies were conducted in 2012 and 2013 to determine the effect of fomesafen based Palmer amaranth control program in ‘Covington' and ‘Evangeline' sweetpotato cultivars. Treatments consisted of fomesafen pretransplant alone at 0.20, 0.28, 0.36, 0.42, 0.56, and 0.84 kg ai ha−1 or followed by (fb) S-metolachlor at 1.12 kg ai ha−1 0 to 7 d after transplanting (DAP), fomesafen at 0.28 kg ha−1 fb S-metolachlor at 1.12 kg ha−114 DAP, flumioxazin pretransplant at 0.105 kg ai ha−1, S-metolachlor at 1.12 kg ha−1 0 to 7 DAP, clomazone at 0.63 kg ha−1 0 to 7 DAP, napropamide at 2.24 kg ha−1 0 to7 DAP, flumioxazin fb S-metolachlor 0 to 7 DAP, and flumioxazin fb clomazone fb S-metolachlor 14 DAP. Fomesafen pretransplant at 0.28 to 0.84 kg ha−1 alone or followed by S-metolachlor at 1.12 kg ha−1 0 to 7 DAP provided 80 to 100% Palmer amaranth control without reduction of yield and significant (< 13%) injury in Covington and Evangeline sweetpotato. Flumioxazin alone or fb S-metolachlor and flumioxazin fb clomazone fb S-metolachlor provided Palmer amaranth control (≥ 95%) with little injury (≤ 5%) and similar yield to the weed-free check. Clomazone alone did not cause injury, but controlled only 24 to 32% of Palmer amaranth at 50 DAP, which resulted in reduced no. 1, marketable, and total sweetpotato yield. Napropamide provided inconsistent control of Palmer amaranth in both years; therefore jumbo and total sweetpotato yield was reduced as compared to the weed-free check in 2012. Palmer amaranth control, sweetpotato cultivar tolerance, and yield in treatments with fomesafen fb S-metolachlor were similar to flumioxazin fb S-metolachlor. In conclusion, a herbicide program consisting of pretransplant fomesafen (0.28 to 0.42 kg ha−1) fb S-metolachlor (1.12 kg ha−1) is a potential option to control Palmer amaranth without causing significant injury and yield reduction in sweetpotato.

En 2012 y 2013, se realizaron estudios para determinar el efecto de programas de control de Amaranthus palmeri basados en el uso de fomesafen sobre los cultivares de batata ‘Covington’ y ‘Evangeline’. Los tratamientos consistieron de fomesafen solo en pre-trasplante a 0.20, 0.28, 0.36, 0.42, 0.56, y 0.84 kg ai ha−1 o seguido por (fb) S-metolachlor a 1.12 kg ai ha−1 0 a 7 d después del trasplante (DAP), fomesafen a 0.28 kg ha−1 fb S-metolachlor a 1.12 kg ha−1 14 DAP, flumioxazin en pre-trasplante a 0.105 kg ai ha−1, S-metolachlor a 1.12 kg ha−1 0 a 7 DAP, clomazone a 0.63 kg ha−1 0 a 7 DAP, napropamide a 2.24 kg ha−1 0 a 7 DAP, flumioxazin fb S-metolachlor 0 a 7 DAP, y flumioxazin fb clomazone fb S-metolachlor 14 DAP. Fomesafen solo en pre-trasplante de 0.28 a 0.84 kg ha−1 o seguido por S-metolachlor a 1.12 kg ha−1 0 a 7 DAP brindó 80 a 100% de control de A. palmeri sin reducir el rendimiento ni causar daño significativo (<13%) en batata Covington y Evangeline. Flumioxazin solo o fb S-metolachlor y flumioxazin fb clomazone fb S-metolachlor controlaron A. palmeri (≥95%), causaron poco daño (≤5%), y el rendimiento fue similar al testigo libre de malezas. Clomazone solo no causó daño, pero el control de A. palmeri fue sólo 24 a 32% a 50 DAP, lo que resultó en un rendimiento reducido de batata no. 1, comercializable, y total. Napropamide brindó un control inconsistente de A. palmeri en ambos año, por lo que el rendimiento de la batata jumbo y total fue reducido al compararse con el testigo libre de malezas en 2012. El control de A. palmeri, la tolerancia de los cultivares de batata, y el rendimiento en tratamientos con fomesafen fb S-metolachlor fueron similares a flumioxazin fb S-metolachlor. En conclusión, un programa de herbicidas que consista de fomesafen en pre-trasplante (0.28 a 0.42 kg ha−1) fb S-metolachlor (1.12 kg ha) es una opción potencial para el control de A. palmeri sin causar daño significativo ni reducciones en el rendimiento de la batata.

Keywords

ClomazoneflumioxazinfomesafenS-metolachlornapropamidePalmer amaranth, Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats.sweetpotato, Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam. ‘Covington’, ‘Evangeline’Application ratecrop toleranceherbicideweed control
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 30 , Issue 2 , June 2016 , pp. 506 - 515
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

Current address: Postdoctoral Research Scholar, Department of Crop Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695

Associate Editor for this paper: W. Carroll Johnson, III, USDA–ARS.

References

Literature Cited

Anonymous (2009) Roundup WeatherMax Herbicide product label. MonsantoCo. Reg. No. 524–537. St. Louis, MO: Monsanto Company. 54 pGoogle Scholar
Anonymous (2010) Valor SX herbicide product label. Valent Publication No. 2010-VLR-0001. Walnut Creek, CA: Valent U.S.A. Corporation. 27 pGoogle Scholar
Anonymous (2014) Dual MAGNUM herbicide product label. Syngenta Publication No. SCP 816A-L1V 0814. Greensboro, NC: Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. 50 pGoogle Scholar
Anonymous (2015) Reflex herbicide label. Syngenta Publication No. SCP 993A-L1P 0115. Greensboro, NC: Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. 50 pGoogle Scholar
Culpepper, AS, Grey, TL, Vencill, WK, Kichler, JM, Webster, TM, Brown, SM, York, AC, Davis, JW, Hanna, WW (2006) Glyphosate resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) confirmed in Georgia. Weed Sci 54:620–626 Google Scholar
Duff, MG, Al-Khatib, K, Peterson, DE (2008) Efficacy of preemergence application of S-metolachlor plus fomesafen or metribuzin as an element in the control of common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis Sauer) in soybeans. Trans Kans Acad Sci 111:230–238 Google Scholar
Guo, P, 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
Horak, MJ, Loughin, TM (2000) Growth and analysis of four Amaranthus species. Weed Sci 48:347–355 Google Scholar
Keeley, PE, Miller, JH, Carter, CH, Thullen, RJ (1984) Control of johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) with glyphosate. Weed Sci 32:306–309 Google Scholar
Kemble, JM (2013) 2013 Southeastern US Vegetable Crop Handbook. Lincolnshire, IL: Vance Publishing Corp. Pp 91–92 Google Scholar
La Bonte, DR, Wilson, PW, Villordon, AQ, Clark, CA (2008) ‘Evangeline’ sweetpotato. HortScience 43(1):258–259 Google Scholar
Meyers, SL, Jennings, KM, Monks, DW (2013a) Herbicide-based weed management programs for Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in sweetpotato. Weed Technol 27:331–340 Google Scholar
Meyers, SL, Jennings, KM, Monks, DW, Miller, DK, Shankle, MW (2013b) Rate and application timing effects on tolerance of Covington sweetpotato to S-metolachlor. Weed Technol 27:729–734 Google Scholar
Meyers, SL, Jennings, KM, Schultheis, JR, Monks, DW (2010a) Interference of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in sweetpotato. Weed Sci 58:199–203 Google Scholar
Meyers, SL, Jennings, KM, Schultheis, JR, Monks, DW (2010b) Evaluation of flumioxazin and S-metolachlor rate and timing for Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) control in sweetpotato. Weed Technol 24:495–503 Google Scholar
Meyers, SL, Shankle, MW (2015) Interference of yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus) in ‘Beauregard’ sweetpotato (Ipomoea batatas). Weed Technol 29:854–860 Google Scholar
Nair, A, Bergaum, B, Bilenky, M. (2012) Sweet Potato Cultivar Trial. Ames, IA: Iowa State Research Farm Progress Reports. Paper 1894Google Scholar
Norsworthy, JK, Griffith, GM, Scott, RC, Smith, KL, Oliver, LR (2008) Confirmation and control of glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in Arkansas. Weed Technol 22:108–113 Google Scholar
[NCCIA] North Carolina Crop Improvement Association (2014) Seed list 2013–2014. http://www.nccrop.com/files/2013-2014%20SEED%20LIST%20%28winter%29.pdf. Accessed April 22, 2014Google Scholar
Peachey, E, Koch, T, Doohan, D (2012) Selectivity of fomesafen based systems for preemergence weed control in cucurbit crops. Crop Prot 40:91–97 Google Scholar
Seem, JE, Creamer, NG, Monks, DW (2003) Critical weed-free period for ‘Beauregard' sweetpotato (Ipomoea batatas). Weed Technol 17:686–695 Google Scholar
Sellers, BA, Smeda, RJ, Johnson, WG, Kendig, JA, Ellersieck, MR (2003) Comparative growth of six Amaranthus species in Missouri. Weed Sci 51:329–333 Google Scholar
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture (2005) United States Standards for Grades of Sweet Potatoes. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/Sweetpotato_Standard%5B1%5D.pdf. Accessed February 17, 2016Google Scholar
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture (2015a) Crop Values 2014 Summary. http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/CropValuSu/CropValuSu-02-24-2015.pdf. Accessed February 25, 2015Google Scholar
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture (2015b) Crop Production 2014 Summary. http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/CropProdSu/CropProdSu-01-12-2015_revision.pdf. Accessed February 25, 2015Google Scholar
Webster, TM (2010) Weed survey—southern states. Proc South Weed Sci Soc 63:246–257 Google Scholar
Westberg, DE, Oliver, LR, Frans, RE (1989) Weed control with clomazone alone and with other herbicides. Weed Technol 3:678–685 Google Scholar
Wilcut, JW, Jordan, DL, Vencill, WK, Richburg, JI (1997) Weed management in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) with soil-applied and postdirected herbicides. Weed Technol 11:221–226 Google Scholar
Yencho, GC, Pecota, KV, Schultheis, JR, VanEsbroeck, ZP, Holmes, GJ, Little, BE, Thornton, AC, Truong, VD (2008) ‘Covington' sweetpotato. Hort Sci 43:1911–1914 Google Scholar