Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T03:24:49.561Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Impact of reduced rates of 2,4-D and glyphosate on sweetpotato growth and yield

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 June 2020

Thomas M. Batts Open the ORCID record for Thomas M. Batts [Opens in a new window] ,
Donnie K. Miller ,
James L. Griffin ,
Arthur O. Villordon ,
Daniel O. Stephenson IV ,
Kathrine M. Jennings ,
Sushila Chaudhari ,
David C. Blouin ,
Josh T. Copes  and
Tara P. Smith
Thomas M. Batts
Affiliation:
Former Graduate Research Assistant, Louisiana State University AgCenter, St. Joseph, LA, USA
Donnie K. Miller*
Affiliation:
Professor and John B. Baker Professor for Excellence in Weed Science, Louisiana State University AgCenter, St. Joseph, LA, USA
James L. Griffin
Affiliation:
Professor Emeritus, Louisiana State University AgCenter, Baton Rouge, LA, USA
Arthur O. Villordon
Affiliation:
Professor, Louisiana State University AgCenter, Chase, LA, USA
Daniel O. Stephenson IV
Affiliation:
Professor, Louisiana State University AgCenter, Alexandria, LA, USA
Kathrine M. Jennings
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
Sushila Chaudhari
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Department of Horticulture, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA
David C. Blouin
Affiliation:
Professor, Louisiana State University Department of Experimental Statistics, Baton Rouge, LA, USA
Josh T. Copes
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Louisiana State University AgCenter, St. Joseph, LA, USA
Tara P. Smith
Affiliation:
Professor, Louisiana State University AgCenter, Alexandria, LA, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Donnie K. Miller, Louisiana State University AgCenter Northeast Research Station, PO Box 438, St. Joseph, LA, 71366. (Email: [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Commercialization of 2,4-D–tolerant crops is a major concern for sweetpotato producers because of potential 2,4-D drift that can cause severe crop injury and yield reduction. A field study was initiated in 2014 and repeated in 2015 to assess impacts of reduced rates of 2,4-D, glyphosate, or a combination of 2,4-D with glyphosate on sweetpotato. In one study, 2,4-D and glyphosate were applied alone and in combination at 1/10, 1/100, 1/250, 1/500, 1/750, and 1/1,000 of anticipated field use rates (1.05 kg ha−1 for 2,4-D and 1.12 kg ha−1 for glyphosate) to ‘Beauregard’ sweetpotato at storage root formation (10 days after transplanting [DAP]). In a separate study, all these treatments were applied to ‘Beauregard’ sweetpotato at storage root development (30 DAP). Injury with 2,4-D alone or in combination with glyphosate was generally equal or greater than with glyphosate applied alone at equivalent herbicide rates, indicating that injury is attributable mostly to 2,4-D in the combination. There was a quadratic increase in crop injury and quadratic decrease in crop yield (with respect to most yield grades) with increased rate of 2,4-D applied alone or in combination with glyphosate applied at storage root development. However, neither the results of this relationship nor of the significance of herbicide rate were observed on crop injury or sweetpotato yield when herbicide application occurred at storage root formation, with a few exceptions. In general, crop injury and yield reduction were greatest at the highest rate (1/10×) of 2,4-D applied alone or in combination with glyphosate, although injury observed at lower rates was also a concern after initial observation by sweetpotato producers. However, in some cases, yield reduction of U.S. no.1 and marketable grades was also observed after application of 1/250×, 1/100×, or 1/10× rates of 2,4-D alone or with glyphosate when applied at storage root development.

Keywords

2,4-DglyphosatesweetpotatoIpomoea batatas (L.) Lamcrop injuryoff-target herbicide injuryreduced rate
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 34 , Issue 5 , October 2020 , pp. 631 - 636
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2020

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

Associate Editor: Steve Fennimore, University of California, Davis

References

Al-Khatib, K, Peterson, D (1999) Soybean (Glycine max) response to simulated drift from selected sulfonylurea herbicides, dicamba, glyphosate and glufosinate. Weed Technol 13:264–270 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anonymous (2019) Sweet potatoes, Louisiana Summary. https://www.lsuagcenter.com/~/media/system/7/9/6/7/796773af58d4c3e610063c7a8f7985f1/pub2382%20ag%20summary%202018_fullpdf.pdf. Accessed: December 10, 2019Google Scholar
Bruce, JA, Kells, JJ (1990) Horseweed (Conyza canadensis) control in no-tillage soybeans (Glycine max) with preplant and preemergence herbicides. Weed Technol 4:642–647 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, CA, Braverman, MP (1998) Herbicide damage on Beauregard. Tater Talk, 4Google Scholar
Corbett, JL, Askew, SD, Thomas, WE, Wilcut, JW (2004) Weed efficacy evaluations for bromoxynil, glufosinate, glyphosate, pyrithiobac and sulfosate. Weed Technol 18:443–453 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, VA, Fisher, LR, Jordan, DL, Edmisten, KE, Stewart, AM, York, AC (2012) Cotton, peanut, and soybean response to sublethal rates of dicamba, glufosinate, and 2,4-D. Weed Technol 26:195–206 Google Scholar
Merchant, RM, Culpepper, AS, Sosnoskie, LM, Prostko, EP, Richburg, JS, Webster, TM (2012) Fruiting vegetable and cucurbit response to simulated drift rates of 2,4-D. Proc South Weed Sci Soc 65:10 Google Scholar
Merchant, RM, Sosnoskie, LM, Culpepper, AS, Steckel, LE, York, AC, Braxton, LB, Ford, JC (2013) Weed response to 2,4-D, 2,4-DB, and dicamba applied alone or with glufosinate. J Cotton Sci 17:212–218 Google Scholar
Meyers, SL, Jennings, KM, Monks, DW (2017) Sweetpotato response to simulated glyphosate wick drip. Weed Technol 31:130–135 Google 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siebert, JD, Griffin, JL, Jones, CA (2004) Red morningglory (Ipomoea coccinea) control with 2,4-D and alternative herbicides. Weed Technol 18:38–44 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, TP, Stoddard, S, Shankle, M, Shultheis, J (2009) Sweetpotato production in the United States. Pages 287–323 in Loebenstein, G, Thottappilly, G eds. The Sweetpotato. Springer Google Scholar
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture (2005) United States Standards for Grades of Sweetpotatoes. Washington DC: US Department of Agriculture. http://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/Sweetpotato_Standard%5B1%5D.pdf Google Scholar
Villordon, AQ, Ginzberg, I, Firon, N (2014) Root architecture and root and tuber crop productivity. Trends Plant Sci 19:419–425 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Villordon, A, LaBonte, DR, Firon, N (2009) Development of a simple thermal time method for describing the onset of morpho-anatomical features related to sweetpotato storage root formation. Sci Hort 121:374–377 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wall, DA (1994) Potato (Solanum tuberosum) response to simulated drift of dicamba, clopyralid, and tribenuron. Weed Sci 42:110–114 Google Scholar