Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-19T02:43:45.594Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sweetpotato Tolerance to Thifensulfuron Applied Postemergence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Andrew W. MacRae ,
David W. Monks ,
Roger B. Batts  and
Allan C. Thornton
Andrew W. MacRae*
Affiliation:
Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7609
David W. Monks
Affiliation:
Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7609
Roger B. Batts
Affiliation:
Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7609
Allan C. Thornton
Affiliation:
Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7609
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An experiment was conducted at two locations in 2003 and 2004 to determine the timing and rate of thifensulfuron that is safe to use on sweetpotato. Thifensulfuron was applied 1, 2, and 4 wk after transplanting (WAP) in 2003 and 4, 6, and 8 WAP in 2004. Within each timing, thifensulfuron treatments were 1.1, 2.1, 3.2, 4.3, and 8.5 g ai/ha plus a weed-free control. The 1 and 2 WAP timings of thifensulfuron reduced the yield of number 1 roots greater than 25%. The 4, 6, and 8 WAP timings had less than 15% reduction in yield, with the 6 WAP timing reducing number 1 roots and total yield 10% or less. When 4.3 g/ha of thifensulfuron was applied 4 WAP, total yield was reduced 13%. The 6 and 8 WAP timings had little yield reduction, with no rate response observed. Application of 4.3 g/ha of thifensulfuron at 6 WAP would allow for control of problematic weed species while limiting potential yield loss. Yield loss from a 4 WAP application of thifensulfuron may in fact be a delay in crop maturity that could be recovered if the sweetpotato harvest was delayed to allow for the optimal amount of number 1 grade roots to be produced.

Keywords

Thifensulfuronsweetpotato, Ipomoea batatas (L.) LamInjuryyieldtimingrate
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 21 , Issue 4 , December 2007 , pp. 928 - 931
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.)

References

Literature Cited

Anonymous 2005. U.S. Standards for Grades of Sweetpotatoes. http://www.ams.usda.gov/standards/sweetpot.pdf. Accessed: May 19, 2005.Google Scholar
Brill, N. L. 2005. Effects of grower management practices and field characteristics on insect damage to sweetpotato (Ipomoea batatas) roots. M.S. thesis. Raleigh, NC North Carolina State University.Google Scholar
Elmore, C. D. 1990. Weed Identification Guide. Champaign, IL Southern Weed Science Society.Google Scholar
La Bonte, D. R., Harrison, H. F., and Motsenbocker, C. E. 1999. Sweetpotato clone tolerance to weed interference. Hortic. Sci. 34:229–232.Google Scholar
Lorenzi, H. J. and Jeffery, L. S. 1987. Weeds of the United States and Their Control. New York AVI. 121.Google Scholar
Manley, B. S., Wilson, H. P., and Hines, T. E. 1996. Smooth pigweed (Amaranthus hybridus) and livid amaranth (A. lividus) response to several imidazolinone and sulfonylurea herbicides. Weed Technol. 10:835–841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayo, C. M., Horak, M. J., Peterson, D. E., and Boyer, J. E. 1995. Differential control of four Amaranthus species by six postemergence herbicides in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 9:141–147.Google Scholar
Menges, R. M. 1987. Allelopathic effects of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and other plant residues in soil. Weed Sci. 35:339–347.Google Scholar
Menges, R. M. 1988. Allelopathic effects of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) on seedling growth. Weed Sci. 36:325–328.Google Scholar
Parks, R. J., Curran, W. S., Roth, G. W., Hartwig, N. L., and Calvin, D. D. 1995. Common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) control in corn (Zea mays) with postemergence herbicides and cultivation. Weed Technol. 9:728–735.Google Scholar
SAS 2005. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Release 9.1.3 Service Pack 2. Cary, NC SAS Institute.Google Scholar
Seem, J. E., Creamer, N. G., and Monks, D. W. 2003. Critical weed-free period for ‘Beauregard’ sweetpotato (Ipomoea batatas). Weed Technol. 17:686–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, D. M. and Stoller, E. W. 1995. Response of sulfonylurea-tolerant soybean (Glycine max) and selected weed species to imazethapyr and thifensulfuron combinations. Weed Technol. 9:582–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sweat, J. K., Horak, M. J., Peterson, D. E., Lloyd, R. W., and Boyer, J. E. 1998. Herbicide efficacy on four Amaranthus species in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 12:315–321.Google Scholar