Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T16:21:58.308Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Impact of reduced rates of dicamba and glyphosate on sweetpotato growth and yield

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 May 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, Department of Experimental Statistics, Louisiana State University, 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 Miller, Louisiana State University AgCenter Northeast Research Station, P.O. Box 438, St. Joseph, LA71366. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A major concern of sweetpotato producers is the potential negative effects from herbicide drift or sprayer contamination events when dicamba is applied to nearby dicamba-resistant crops. A field study was initiated in 2014 and repeated in 2015 to assess the effects of reduced rates of N,N-Bis-(3-aminopropyl)methylamine (BAPMA) or diglycloamine (DGA) salt of dicamba, glyphosate, or a combination of these individually in separate trials with glyphosate on sweetpotato. Reduced rates of 1/10, 1/100, 1/250, 1/500, 1/750, and 1/1,000 of the 1× use rate of each dicamba formulation at 0.56 kg ha−1, glyphosate at 1.12 kg ha−1, and a combination of the two at aforementioned rates were applied to ‘Beauregard’ sweetpotato at storage root formation (10 d after transplanting) in one trial and storage root development (30 d after transplanting) in a separate trial. Injury with each salt of dicamba (BAPMA or DGA) applied alone or with glyphosate was generally equal to or greater than glyphosate applied alone at equivalent rates, indicating that injury is most attributable to the dicamba in the combination. There was a quadratic increase in crop injury and a quadratic decrease in crop yield (with respect to most yield grades) observed with an increased herbicide rate of dicamba applied alone or in combination with glyphosate applied at storage root development. However, with a few exceptions, neither this relationship nor the significance of herbicide rate was observed on crop injury or sweetpotato yield when herbicide application occurred at the storage root formation stage. In general, crop injury and yield reduction were greatest at the highest rate (1/10×) of either salt of dicamba applied alone or in combination with glyphosate, although injury observed at lower rates would be cause for concern after initial observation by sweetpotato producers. However, in some cases yield reduction of No.1 and marketable grades was observed following 1/250×, 1/100×, or 1/10× application rates of dicamba alone or with glyphosate when applied at storage root development.

Keywords

dicambaglyphosatesweetpotato, Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lamcrop injuryoff-target herbicide injuryreduced rate
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 35 , Issue 1 , February 2021 , pp. 27 - 34
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

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 4:642–64710.1017/S0890037X00026130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, CA, Braverman, MP (May 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 18:443–45310.1614/WT-03-139RCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffin, JL, Bauerle, MJ, Stephenson, DO, Miller, DK, Boudreaux, JM (2013) Soybean response to dicamba applied at vegetative and reproductive stages. Weed Technol 27:696–703CrossRefGoogle 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 65:10Google 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 17:212–218Google Scholar
Meyers, SL, Jennings, KM, Monks, DW (2017) Sweetpotato response to simulated glyphosate wick drip. Weed Technol 31:130–13510.1614/WT-D-16-00073.1CrossRefGoogle 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 22:108–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siebert, JD, Griffin, JL, Jones, CA (2004) Red Morningglory (Ipomoea coccinea) control with 2,4-D and alternative herbicides. Weed Technol 18:38–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[USDA-AMS] US Department of Agriculture–Agricultural Marketing Service (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.pdfGoogle Scholar
Villordon, AQ, Ginzberg, I, Firon, N (2014) Root architecture and root and tuber crop productivity. Trends Plant Science 19:419–42510.1016/j.tplants.2014.02.002CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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 121:374–37710.1016/j.scienta.2009.02.013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wall, DA (1994) Potato (Solanum tuberosum) response to simulated drift of dicamba, clopyralid, and tribenuron. Weed Sci 42:110–11410.1017/S0043174500084253CrossRefGoogle Scholar