Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T23:06:07.288Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Potato Variety Tolerance to Flumioxazin and Sulfentrazone

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Pamela J. S. Hutchinson ,
Rick A. Boydston ,
Corey V. Ransom ,
Dennis J. Tonks  and
Brent R. Beutler
Pamela J. S. Hutchinson*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant, Soil, and Entomological Sciences, University of Idaho, Aberdeen, ID 83210
Rick A. Boydston
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, Irrigated Agriculture Research and Extension Center, Prosser, WA 99350
Corey V. Ransom
Affiliation:
Malheur Experiment Station, Oregon State University, Ontario, OR 97914
Dennis J. Tonks
Affiliation:
Washington State University, Davenport, WA 99122
Brent R. Beutler
Affiliation:
Aberdeen Research and Extension Center, University of Idaho, Aberdeen, ID 83210
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted at Aberdeen, ID; Ontario, OR; and Paterson, WA, to evaluate potato tolerance to flumioxazin and sulfentrazone. In ‘Russet Burbank’ tolerance trials conducted in 2000 at ID, OR, and WA, sulfentrazone applied preemergence (PRE) at rates ranging from 105 to 280 g ai/ha caused significant injury consisting of stunting, leaf discoloration-blackening, and/or leaf malformation-crinkling at 4 wk after treatment (WAT). By 12 WAT, injury was ≤5%. At 4 WAT, flumioxazin applied PRE at 105 and 140 g ai/ha resulted in injury, whereas 53 g ai/ha did not cause significant injury. At 12 WAT, no visual injury was present at the ID site, whereas flumioxazin at 140 g/ha was still causing injury in WA. Regardless of initial injury, Russet Burbank tuber yields at ID, OR, and WA were not reduced as a result of any flumioxazin or sulfentrazone treatment compared with the nontreated controls. In potato variety tolerance trials conducted at ID in 2000 and at WA in 2002 with Russet Burbank, ‘Ranger Russet’, ‘Russet Norkotah’, and ‘Shepody’ and at ID in 2002 with those varieties plus ‘Alturas’ and ‘Bannock Russet’, early season injury caused by flumioxazin or sulfentrazone applied PRE at rates as high as 210 g ai/ha or 280 g/ha, respectively, occurred, but variety tuber yields were not reduced compared with nontreated control yields. In contrast, at ID in 2001, early injury caused by flumioxazin or sulfentrazone applied PRE at 105 or 210 g/ha translated to tuber yield reductions of all six varieties tested compared with the nontreated controls. At WA in 2001, Ranger Russet tuber yields were reduced by PRE applications of flumioxazin at 53 to 140 g/ha or sulfentrazone at 105 to 280 g/ha, and Shepody total tuber yields were reduced by all rates of PRE-applied sulfentrazone. Russet Burbank and Russet Norkotah tuber yields were unaffected by either herbicide. Unusual heat stress occurring early in the 2001 growing season at both locations may have compounded the effects of herbicide injury and, consequently, tuber yields were reduced in 2001, whereas injury occurring in 2000 or 2002 during relatively normal growing conditions did not translate to yield reductions.

Keywords

Sulfentrazoneflumioxazin, potato, Solanum tuberosum L. ‘Alturas’, ‘Bannock Russet’, ‘Ranger Russet’, ‘Russet Burbank’, ‘Russet Norkotah’, ‘Shepody’Crop safetyherbicide injurypotato variety toleranceID, IdahoO.M., organic matterOR, OregonPNW, Pacific NorthwestPRE, preemergenceprotox, protoporphyrinogen oxidaseWA, WashingtonWAT, weeks after treatment
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 19 , Issue 3 , September 2005 , pp. 683 - 696
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

1 University of Idaho Agricultural Experiment Station Paper 04P02.

References

Literature Cited

Anonymous. 1991. United States Standards for Grades of Potatoes. F R Doc. 91–4371. Washington D.C. 7 p.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2003. Valor Herbicide Label. EPA Reg. No. 59639-99. Walnut Creek, CA: Valent USA Corporation. 5 p.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2004a. Potato statistics. Table 67—Fall Potatoes: Percent of Major Varieties Planted, Selected States, 1984–2002. U.S. Department of Agriculture Economics and Statistics System. Albert R. Mann Library, Cornell University: Web page: www.usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/data-sets/specialty/91011/. Accessed: October 4, 2004.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2004b. Spartan Herbicide Label. EPA Reg. No. 279–3189. Philadelphia: FMC. 13 p.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2004c. Spartan Herbicide Supplemental Label. EPA Reg. No. 279-3189. Philadelphia: FMC. 7 p.Google Scholar
Askew, S. D., Wilcut, J. W., and Cranmer, J. R. 2002. Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) and weed response to flumioxazin applied preplant and postemergence directed. Weed Technol. 16:184–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, W. A., Wilson, H. P., and Hines, T. E. 2002. Response of potato (Solanum tuberosum) and selected weeds to sulfentrazone. Weed Technol. 16:651–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, W. A., Hatzios, K. K., Bradley, K. W., and Wilson, H. P. 2003. Absorption, translocation, and metabolism of sulfentrazone in potato and selected weed species. Weed Sci. 51:32–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boydston, R. A., Hutchinson, P. J. S., Ransom, C. V., Welch, L. L., and Knabke, J. J. 2001. Weed control with flumioxazin and sulfentrazone in Pacific Northwest potato production. Proc. West. Soc. Weed Sci. 54:3.Google Scholar
Burke, I. C., Askew, S. D., and Wilcut, J. W. 2002. Flumioxazin systems for weed management in North Carolina peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Technol. 16:743–748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callihan, R. C. and Eberlein, C. V. 1991. Metribuzin for weed control in potatoes. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho Cooperative Extension System, Current Information Series (CIS) No. 291. 4 p.Google Scholar
Dayan, F. E. and Duke, S. O. 1997. Phytotoxicity of protoporphyrinogen oxidase inhibitors: phenomenology, mode of action and mechanisms of resistance. in Roa, R. M., Burton, J. D., and Kuhr, R. J., eds. Herbicide Activity: Toxicology, Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. Burke, VA: IOS. Pp. 11–36.Google Scholar
Dayan, F. E., Weete, J. D., and Hancock, H. G. 1996. Physiological basis for differential sensitivity to sulfentrazone by sicklepod (Senna obtusifolia) and coffee senna (Cassia occidentalis). Weed Sci. 44:12–17.Google Scholar
Dayan, F. E., Weete, J. D., Duke, S. O., and Hancock, H. G. 1997. Soybean (Glycine max) cultivar differences in response to sulfentrazone. Weed Sci. 45:634–641.Google Scholar
Duke, S. O., Lyndon, J., Becerril, J. M., Sherman, T. D., Lehnen, L. P. Jr., and Matsumoto, H. 1991. Protoporphyrinogen oxidase-inhibiting herbicides. Weed Sci. 39:465–473.Google Scholar
Dwelle, R. B. 2003. Potato growth and development. in Stark, J. C. and Love, S. L., eds. Potato Production Systems. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho Ag Communications. Pp 9–19.Google Scholar
Ferrell, J. A., Witt, W. W., and Vencill, W. K. 2003. Sulfentrazone absorption by plant roots increases as soil or solution pH decreases. Weed Sci. 51:826–830.Google Scholar
Grey, T. L., Walker, R. H., Wehtje, G. R., and Hancock, H. G. 1997. Sulfentrazone adsorption and mobility as affected by soil pH. Weed Sci. 45:733–738.Google Scholar
Grey, T. L., Bridges, D. C., and Brecke, B. J. 2000a. Response of seven peanut (Arachis hypogaea) cultivars to sulfentrazone. Weed Technol. 14:51–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grey, T. L., Walker, R. H., Wehtje, G. R., Adams, J. Jr., Dayan, F. E., Weete, J. D., Hancock, H. G., and Kwon, O. 2000b. Behavior of sulfentrazone in ionic exchange resins, electrophoresis gels, and cation-saturated soils. Weed Sci. 48:239–247.Google Scholar
Grichar, W. J., Beslar, B. A., and Brewer, K. D. 2003. Purple nutsedge control and potato (Solanum tuberosum) tolerance to sulfentrazone and halosulfuron. Weed Technol. 17:485–490.Google Scholar
Hulting, A. G., Wax, L. M., and Simmons, F. W. 1997. Tolerance levels of soybean cultivars to sulfentrazone. Proc. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 52:37.Google Scholar
Kazarian, D. E., Nissen, S. J., and Thompson, A. L. 2001. Comparison of sulfentrazone, flumioxazin, and metribuzin for weed control in potatoes. Proc. Western Soc. of Weed Sci. 54:42.Google Scholar
Kerr, G. W., Stahlman, P. W., and Dille, J. A. 2004. Soil pH and cation exchange capacity affects sunflower tolerance to sulfentrazone. Weed Technol. 18:243–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krausz, R. F. and Young, B. G. 2003. Sulfentrazone enhances weed control of glyphosate in glyphosate-resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 17:249–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, Z., Walker, R. H., and Wehtje, G. R. 1999. Use of seedling growth parameters to classify soybean (Glycine max) cultivar sensitivity to sulfentrazone. Weed Technol. 13:530–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, Z., Walker, R. H., Wehtje, G., and Hancock, H. G. 2000a. Using electrolyte leakage to detect soybean (Glycine max) cultivars sensitive to sulfentrazone. Weed Technol. 14:699–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, Z., Wehtje, G. R., and Walker, R. H. 2000b. Physiological basis for the differential tolerance of Glycine max to sulfentrazone during seed germination. Weed Sci. 48:281–285.Google Scholar
Main, C. L., Tredaway Ducar, J., Whitty, E. B., and MacDonald, G. E. 2003. Response of three runner-type peanut cultivars to flumioxazin. Weed Technol. 17:89–93.Google Scholar
Main, C. L., Mueller, T. C., Hayes, R. M., Wilcut, J. W., Peeper, T. F., Talbert, R. E., and Witt, W. W. 2004. Sulfentrazone persistence in southern soils: bioavailable concentration and effect on a rotational crop. Weed Technol. 18:346–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, T. W. 2003. Effect of several herbicides on green pea (Pisum sativum) and subsequent crops. Weed Technol. 17:731–737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, T. W. and Libbey, C. R. 2002. Sulfentrazone tolerance in selected potato cultivars. Western Soc. of Weed Sci. Res. Progress Report. P. 40.Google Scholar
Moorby, J. 1978. The physiology of growth and tuber yield. in Harris, P. M., ed. The Potato Crop: The Scientific Basis for Improvement. London: Chapman and Hall. Pp. 153–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niekamp, J. W., Johnson, W. G., and Smeda, R. J. 1999. Broadleaf weed control with sulfentrazone and flumioxazin in no-tillage soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 13:233–238.Google Scholar
Nolte, S. A. and Young, B. G. 2002. Efficacy and economic return on investment for conventional and herbicide-resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 16:388–395.Google Scholar
Price, A. J., Pline, W. A., Wilcut, J. W., Cranmer, J. R., and Danehower, D. 2004a. Physiological basis for cotton tolerance to flumioxazin applied postemergence directed. Weed Sci. 52:1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, A. J., Wilcut, J. W., and Cranmer, J. R. 2004b. Flumioxazin preplant or POST-directed application timing followed by irrigation at emergence or after POST-directed spray treatment does not influence cotton yield. Weed Technol. 18:310–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, A. J., Wilcut, J. W., and Cranmer, J. R. 2004c. Physiological behavior of root-absorbed flumioxazin in peanut, ivyleaf morningglory (Ipomoea hederacea), and sicklepod (Senna obtusifolia). Weed Sci. 52:718–724.Google Scholar
Rowe, R. C. and Secor, G. A. 1993. Managing potato health from emergence to harvest. in Rowe, R. C., ed. Potato Health Management. St. Paul, MN: APS. Pp. 35–40.Google Scholar
Sakaki, M., Sato, R., Haga, T., Nagano, E., Oshio, H., and Kamoshita, K. 1991. Herbicidal efficacy of S-53482 and factors affecting the phytotoxicity and the efficacy. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 34:12.Google Scholar
Scott, G. H., Askew, S. D., and Wilcut, J. W. 2001. Economic evaluation of diclosulam and flumioxazin systems in peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Technol. 15:360–364.Google Scholar
Swantek, J. M., Sneller, C. H., and Oliver, L. R. 1998. Evaluation of soybean injury from sulfentrazone and inheritance of tolerance. Weed Sci. 46:271–277.Google Scholar
Taylor-Lovell, S., Wax, L. M., and Nelson, R. 2001. Phytotoxic response and yield of soybean (Glycine max) varieties treated with sulfentrazone or flumioxazin. Weed Technol. 15:95–102.Google Scholar
Taylor-Lovell, S., Wax, L. M., and Bollero, G. 2002. Preemergence flumioxazin and pendimethalin and postemergence herbicide systems for soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 16:502–511.Google Scholar
Teuton, T. C., Main, C. L., MacDonald, G. E., Tredaway Ducar, J., and Brecke, B. J. 2004. Green peanut tolerance to preemergence and postemergence herbicides. Weed Technol. 18:719–722.Google Scholar
Tonks, D. J., Hutchinson, P. J. S., Ransom, C. V., Boydston, R. A., and Ross, C. G. 2001. Pacific northwest potato tolerance and varietal response to sulfentrazone. Proc. Western Soc. of Weed Sci. 54:43.Google Scholar
Vencill, W. K. 2002a. Flumioxazin. in Herbicide Handbook. 8th ed. Lawrence, KS: Weed Science Society of America. Pp. 200–202.Google Scholar
Vencill, W. K. 2002b. Sulfentrazone. in Herbicide Handbook. 8th ed. Lawrence, KS: Weed Science Society of America. Pp. 405–406.Google Scholar
Viator, B. J., Griffin, J. L., and Ellis, J. M. 2002. Red morningglory (Ipomoea coccinea) control with sulfentrazone and azafeniden applied layby in sugarcane (Saccharum spp). Weed Technol. 16:142–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wehtje, G. R., Walker, R. H., Grey, T. L., and Hancock, H. G. 1997. Response of purple (Cyperus rotundus) and yellow nutsedges (C. esculentus) to selective placement of sulfentrazone. Weed Sci. 45:382–387.Google Scholar
Wehtje, G. R., Walker, R. H., Grey, T. L., and Spratlin, C. E. 1995. Soil effects of sulfentrazone. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 48:224.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., Askew, S. D., Bailey, W. A., Spears, J. F., and Isleib, T. G. 2001. Virginia market-type peanut (Arachis hypogaea) cultivar tolerance and yield response to flumioxazin preemergence. Weed Technol. 15:137–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D. E., Nissen, S. J., and Thompson, A. 2002. Potato (Solanum tuberosum) variety and weed response to sulfentrazone and flumioxazin. Weed Technol. 16:567–574.Google Scholar