Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T08:23:40.419Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of Herbicides on the Development of Internal Necrosis of Sweetpotato

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 September 2017

Shawn C. Beam ,
Katherine M. Jennings ,
David W. Monks ,
Jonathan R. Schultheis  and
Sushila Chaudhari
Shawn C. Beam
Affiliation:
Graduate Student, Associate Professor, Professor, Professor, and Postdoctoral Research Scholar, Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695
Katherine M. Jennings
Affiliation:
Graduate Student, Associate Professor, Professor, Professor, and Postdoctoral Research Scholar, Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695
David W. Monks
Affiliation:
Graduate Student, Associate Professor, Professor, Professor, and Postdoctoral Research Scholar, Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695
Jonathan R. Schultheis
Affiliation:
Graduate Student, Associate Professor, Professor, Professor, and Postdoctoral Research Scholar, Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695
Sushila Chaudhari*
Affiliation:
Graduate Student, Associate Professor, Professor, Professor, and Postdoctoral Research Scholar, 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

Field studies were conducted to determine the influence of herbicides on the development of internal necrosis (IN) in sweetpotato storage roots. In a slip propagation study, herbicide treatments included PRE application (immediately after covering seed roots with soil) of clomazone (0.42, 0.84 kg ai ha-1), flumioxazin (0.11, 0.21 kg ai ha-1), fomesafen (0.28, 0.56 kg ai ha-1), linuron (0.56, 1.12 kg ai ha-1), S-metolachlor (0.8, 1.6 kg ai ha-1), flumioxazin plus S-metolachlor (0.11 + 0.8 or 1.6 kg ha-1), and napropamide (1.12, 2.24 kg ai ha-1), and POST application (2 to 4 wk prior to cutting slips) of ethephon (0.84, 1.26 kg ai ha-1) and paraquat (0.14, 0.28 kg ai ha-1). In a field production study, flumioxazin, fomesafen, linuron, and paraquat were applied PREPLANT (one d prior to sweetpotato transplanting), clomazone, S-metolachlor, and napropamide were applied PRE [4 d after transplanting (DAP)], flumioxazin PREPLANT followed by (fb) S-metolachlor PRE, and ethephon applied POST (2 wk prior to harvest). Herbicide rates were similar to those used in the slip propagation study. Yield of sweetpotato in both studies was not affected by herbicide treatment. In both studies, IN incidence and severity increased with time and was greatest at 60 d after curing. No difference was observed between herbicide treatments for IN incidence and severity in the slip production study which indicates herbicide application at time of slip propagation does not impact the development of IN. In the field production study, the only treatment that increased IN incidence compared to the nontreated was ethephon with 53% and 2.3 incidence and severity, respectively. The presence of IN affected roots in nontreated plots indicates that some other pre- or post-curing factors other than herbicides are responsible for the development of IN. However, the ethephon application prior to sweetpotato root harvest escalates the development of IN.

Keywords

ClomazoneethephonflumioxazinfomesafenlinuronnapropamideparaquatS-metolachlorsweetpotato, Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam.Crop yieldherbicideseveritystorage root.
Type
Weed Management-Other Crops/Areas
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 31 , Issue 6 , December 2017 , pp. 863 - 869
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2017 

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 for this paper: Peter J. Dittmar, University of Florida.

References

Literature Cited

Clark, CA, Ferrin, DM, Smith, TP, Holmes, GJ (2013) Compendium of Sweetpotato Diseases, Pests, and Disorders. 2nd edn. Saint Paul, MN: American Phytopathological Society. 160 pGoogle Scholar
Clark, CA, Silva, WL, Arancibia, RA, Main, JL, Schultheis, JR, Esbroeck, ZP, Jiang, C, Smith, J (2013) Incidence of end rots and internal necrosis in sweetpotato is affected by cultivar, curing, and ethephon defoliation. HortTechnology 23:886–897 Google Scholar
Dittmar, PJ, Jennings, KM, Monks, DW, Schultheis, JR (2010) Determining the effect of ethylene on internal black marbling expression in sweetpotato. HortScience 45:488–489 Google Scholar
Dittmar, PJ, Monks, DW, Jennings, KM, Schultheis, JR (2012) Effects of halosulfuron POST on sweetpotato yield and storage root quality. Weed Technol 27:113–116 Google Scholar
Edumunds, BA, Boyette, MD, Clark, CA, Ferrin, DM, Smith, TP, Holmes, GJ (2003) Postharvest Handling of Sweetpotatoes. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Cooperative Ext Service. 56 pGoogle Scholar
Jiang, C (2013) Occurrence, Severity and Induction of Internal Necrosis in ‘Covington’ Sweetpotato. MS thesis. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University. 133 pGoogle Scholar
Jiang, C, Perkings-Veazie, P, Blankenship, SM, Boyette, MD, Pesic-VanEsbroeck, , Jennings, KM, Schulthies, JR (2015) Occurrence, severity and initiation of internal necrosis in ‘Covington’ sweetpotato. HortTechnology 25:340–348 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemble, JM (2015) Vegetable Crop Handbook for the Southeastern United States 2014. Lincolnshire, IL: Vance Publishing Corp. 283 pGoogle Scholar
Loebenstein, G, Thottappilly, G (2009) The Sweetpotato. New York, NY: Springer. Pp 287–323 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Main, JL, Shankle, MW, Garrett, TF (2009) A comparison of ethephon and conventional vine removal systems for Mississippi sweetpotato. HortScience 44:574 Google Scholar
Meyers, SL, Jennings, KM, Monks, DW (2012) Response of sweetpotato cultivars to S-metolachlor rate and application time. Weed Technol 26:474–479 Google Scholar
Meyers, SL, Jennings, KM, Monks, DW (2016) Sweetpotato response to simulated glyphosate wick drip. Weed Technol 31:130–135 Google Scholar
[NCDACS] North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (2015) Research Stations Annual Report 2015. http://www.ncagr.gov/Research/documents/2015_Annual_Report_000.pdf. Accessed May 29, 2017Google Scholar
Porter, WC (1995) Response of sweetpotato cultivars to metolachlor. HortScience 30:441 Google Scholar
Schultheis, JR, Pesic-VanEsbroeck, Z, Jennings, KM, Dittmar, PJ, Thornton, AC (2009) Effects of environmental stress and pathogens on the internal mottling and end rots of sweetpotato in new commercial varieties (‘Hatteras’ and ‘Covington’), and established commercial varieties (‘Beauregard’ and ‘Carolina Ruby’). Pages 77–84 in North Carolina Sweetpotato Research Extension Report. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University Google Scholar
Schultheis, JR, Thornton, AC (2007) Determining the expression or lack of expression of internal marbling in Covington roots via vegetative propagation during the growing season and in storage; refinement of nitrogen application rate and timing to optimize yields and root sizing of Covington sweetpotato. Pages 69–78 in North Carolina Sweetpotato Research Extension Report. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University Google Scholar
[USDA] US Department of Agriculture (2005) United States Standards for Grades of Sweetpotato. Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture Google Scholar
Wang, X, Arancibia, RA, Main, JL, Shankle, MW, LaBonte, DR (2013) Preharvest foliar applications of ethephon increase skin lignin/suberin content and resistance to skinning in sweetpotato storage roots. HortScience 48:1270–1274 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitwell, T, Melton, A, Decoteau, DR (1989) Simulated drift of chlorimuron and imazaquin on sweet potatoes. Proc South Weed Sci Soc 42:159 Google Scholar
Wilson, LG, Averre, CW, Covington, HM (1976) Sweet potato production, handling, curing, storage, and marketing in North Carolina. Proc Symp Int Soc Trop Root Crops 4:146–150 Google Scholar
Yencho, GC, Pecota, KV, Schultheis, JR, VanEsbroeck, Z, Holmes, GJ, Little, BE, Thornton, AC, Truong, V (2008) ‘Covington’ sweetpotato. HortScience 43:1911–1914 Google Scholar