Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T01:21:49.510Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sweetpotato response to reduced rates of dicamba

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 August 2021

Mark W. Shankle Open the ORCID record for Mark W. Shankle [Opens in a new window] ,
Lorin M. Harvey Open the ORCID record for Lorin M. Harvey [Opens in a new window] ,
Stephen L. Meyers Open the ORCID record for Stephen L. Meyers [Opens in a new window]  and
Callie J. Morris Open the ORCID record for Callie J. Morris [Opens in a new window]
Mark W. Shankle*
Affiliation:
Research Professor, North Mississippi Research and Extension Center- Pontotoc Ridge–Flatwoods Branch Experiment Station, Mississippi State University, Pontotoc, MS, USA
Lorin M. Harvey
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, North Mississippi Research and Extension Center- Pontotoc Ridge–Flatwoods Branch Experiment Station, Mississippi State University, Pontotoc, MS, USA
Stephen L. Meyers
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Department of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA
Callie J. Morris
Affiliation:
Research Associate, North Mississippi Research and Extension Center- Pontotoc Ridge–Flatwoods Branch Experiment Station, Mississippi State University, Pontotoc, MS, USA
*
Author for Correspondence: Mark W. Shankle, North Mississippi Research and Extension Center- Pontotoc Ridge–Flatwoods Branch Experiment Station, Mississippi State University, Pontotoc, MS38863 Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A field study was conducted in Mississippi to determine the effect of reduced dicamba rates on sweetpotato crop tolerance and storage root yield, simulating off-target movement or sprayer tank contamination. Treatments included a nontreated control and four rates of dicamba [70 g ae ha−1 (1/8×), 35 g ae ha−1 (1/16×), 8.65 g ae ha−1 (1/64×), and 1.09 g ae ha−1 (1/512×)] applied either 3 d before transplanting (DBP) or 1, 3, 5, or 7 wk after transplanting (WAP). An additional treatment consisted of 560 g ae ha−1 (1×) dicamba applied 3 DBP. Crop injury ratings were taken 1, 2, 3, and 4 wk after treatment (WAT). Across application timings, predicted sweetpotato plant injury 1, 2, 3, and 4 WAT increased from 3T to 22%, 3% to 32%, 2% to 58%, and 1% to 64% as dicamba rate increased from 0 to 70 g ha−1 (1/8×), respectively. As dicamba rate increased from 1/512× to 1/8×, predicted No. 1 yield decreased from 127% to 55%, 103% to 69%, 124% to 31%, and 124% to 41% of the nontreated control for applications made 1, 3, 5, and 7 WAP, respectively. Similarly, as dicamba rate increased from 1/512× to 1/8×, predicted marketable yield decreased from 123% to 57%, 107% to 77%, 121% to 44%, and 110% to 53% of the nontreated control for applications made 1, 3, 5, and 7 WAP, respectively. Dicamba residue (5.3 to 14.3 parts per billion) was detected in roots treated with 1/16× or 1/8× dicamba applied 5 or 7 WAP and 1/64× dicamba applied 7 WAP with the highest residue detected in roots harvested from sweetpotato plants treated at 7 WAP. Collectively, care should be taken to avoid sweetpotato exposure to dicamba especially at 1/8× and 1/16× rates during the growing season.

Keywords

DicambasweetpotatoIpomoea batatas (L.) Lam. ‘Beauregard’Crop injurycrop toleranceyield loss
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 35 , Issue 5 , October 2021 , pp. 748 - 752
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Weed Science Society

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: Peter J. Dittmar, University of Florida

References

Ambrose, EE, Scott, D (2019) Office of Indiana State Chemist Announces 2020 Dicamba Restrictions. https://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2019/Q4/office-of-indiana-state-chemist-announces-2020-dicamba-restriction.html. Accessed: December 17, 2020Google Scholar
Batts, TM, Miller, DK, Griffin, JL, Villordon, AO, Stephenson, DO, Jennings, KM, Chaudhari, S, Blouin, DC, Copes, JT, Smith, TP (2020) Impact of Reduced Rates of Dicamba and Glyphosate on Sweetpotato Growth and Yield. Weed Technol 35:27–34 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, CA, Ferrin, DM, Smith, TP, Holmes, GJ, eds. (2013) Pages 110–111 in Compendium of Sweetpotato Diseases, Pests, and Disorders. 2nd ed. St. Paul, MN: The American Phytopathological SocietyCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpepper, AS, Sosnoskie, LM, Shugart, J, Leifheit, N, Curry, M, Gray, T (2018) Effects of low-dose applications of 2,4-D and dicamba on watermelon. Weed Technol 32:267–272 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[EPA] Environmental Protection Agency (2021) 40 CFR 180.5 Tolerance and Exemptions for Pesticide Chemical Residues in Food. Accessed: February 23 2021Google Scholar
[EPA] Environmental Protection Agency (2020) Dicamba Use on Genetically Modified Dicamba-Tolerant (DT) Cotton and Soybean: Incidents and Impacts to Users and Non-Users from Proposed Registrations. Accessed: November 24, 2020Google Scholar
Francis, S (2018) State Report—Arkansas. Page 32 in National Sweetpotato Collaborators Group Progress Report—2017. Wilmington, NC: National Sweetpotato Collaborators GroupGoogle Scholar
Frans, RE, Talbert, R, Marx, D, Crowley, H (1986) Experimental design and techniques for measuring and analyzing plant responses to weed control practices. Pages 29–46 in Camper ND, ed. Research Methods in Weed Science. Champaign, IL. Southern Weed Science SocietyGoogle Scholar
Heap, I (2021) The International Herbicide-Resistant Weed Database. www.weedscience.org. Accessed: March 18, 2021Google Scholar
Kondhare, KR, Patil, AB, Giri, AP (2021) Auxin: an emerging regulator of tuber and storage root development. Plant Sci. 306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plantsci.2021.110854 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyers, SL (2018) State Report—Mississippi. Page 35 in National Sweetpotato Collaborators Group Progress Report—2017. Wilmington, NC: National Sweetpotato Collaborators GroupGoogle Scholar
Miller, DK, Batts, TM, Copes, JT, Blouin, DC (2020) Reduced Rates of Glyphosate in Combination with 2,4-D and Dicamba Impact Sweet Potato Yield. HortTechnol 30:385–390 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, K, Li, X, Leon, R, Price, A (2020). Cotton response to preplant applications of 2,4-D or dicamba. Weed Technol 34:96–100 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schroeder, KP, Golus, JA, Hillger, DE, Schleier, JJ III, Kruger, GR (2018) Response of Multiple Plant Species to Sub-Labeled Doses of Herbicides. University of Nebraska-Lincoln Pesticide Application Technology Laboratory. https://pat.unl.edu/2018%20ASTM%20%20Schroeder%203.pdf. Accessed: November 24, 2020Google Scholar
Shaner, DL ed. (2014) Herbicide Handbook. 10th ed. Lawrence, KS: Weed Science Society of America Google Scholar
Shankle, MW (2020) State Report—Mississippi. National Sweetpotato Collaborators Group Annual Meeting. Nashville, TN, January 24–25, 2019Google Scholar
Thompson, MA, Steckel, L, Ellis, A, Mueller, T (2007) Soybean Tolerance to Early Preplant Applications of 2,4-D Ester, 2,4-D Amine, and Dicamba. Weed Technol 21:882–885 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[USDA-NASS] U.S. Department of Agriculture–National Agriculture Statistics Service Vegetables 2019 Summary (2020). Available at: https://downloads.usda.library.cornell.edu/usda-esmis/files/02870v86p/0r967m63g/sn00bf58x/vegean20.pdfAccessed: September 13, 2021Google Scholar