Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T15:47:54.208Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tolerance of Sweetpotato to Herbicides Applied in Plant Propagation Beds

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2019

Stephen C. Smith ,
Katherine M. Jennings ,
David W. Monks ,
Jonathan R. Schultheis  and
S. Chris Reberg-Horton
Stephen C. Smith*
Affiliation:
Graduate Student, North Carolina State University, Department of Horticultural Science, Raleigh, NC, USA
Katherine M. Jennings
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, North Carolina State University, Department of Horticultural Science, Raleigh, NC, USA
David W. Monks
Affiliation:
Professor, North Carolina State University, Department of Horticultural Science, Raleigh, NC, USA
Jonathan R. Schultheis
Affiliation:
Professor, North Carolina State University, Department of Horticultural Science, Raleigh, NC, USA
S. Chris Reberg-Horton
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, North Carolina State University, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Raleigh, NC, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Stephen C. Smith, North Carolina State University, Department of Horticultural Science, 7609 Kilgore Hall, Raleigh NC 27695. (Email: [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field and greenhouse studies were conducted in 2016 and 2017 to determine sweetpotato tolerance to herbicides applied to plant propagation beds. Herbicide treatments included PRE application of flumioxazin (107 g ai ha−1), S-metolachlor (800 g ai ha−1), fomesafen (280 g ai ha−1), flumioxazin plus S-metolachlor (107 g ai ha−1 + 800 g ai ha−1), fomesafen plus S-metolachlor (280 g ai ha−1 + 800 g ai ha−1), fluridone (1,120 or 2,240 g ai ha−1), fluridone plus S-metolachlor (1,120 g ai ha−1 + 800 g ai ha−1), napropamide (1,120 g ai ha−1), clomazone (420 g ai ha−1), linuron (560 g ai ha−1), linuron plus S-metolachlor (560 g ai ha−1 + 800 g ai ha−1), bicyclopyrone (38 or 49.7 g ai ha−1), pyroxasulfone (149 g ai ha−1), pre-mix of flumioxazin plus pyroxasulfone (81.8 g ai ha−1 + 104.2 g ai ha−1), or metribuzin (294 g ai ha−1). Paraquat plus non-ionic surfactant (280 g ai ha−1 + 0.25% v/v) POST was also included. After plants in the propagation bed were cut and sweetpotato slip number, length, and weight had been determined, the slips were then transplanted to containers and placed either in the greenhouse or on an outdoor pad to determine any effects from the herbicide treatments on initial sweetpotato growth. Sweetpotato slip number, length, and/or weight were affected by flumioxazin with or without S-metolachlor, S-metolachlor with or without fomesafen, clomazone, and all fluridone treatments. In the greenhouse studies, initial root growth of plants after transplanting was inhibited by fluridone (1,120 g ai ha−1) and fluridone plus S-metolachlor. However, by 5 wk after transplanting few differences were observed between treatments. Fomesafen, linuron with or without S-metolachlor, bicyclopyrone (38 or 49.7 g ai ha−1), pyroxasulfone with or without flumioxazin, metribuzin, and paraquat did not cause injury to sweetpotato slips in any of the studies conducted.

Keywords

Peter J. Dittmar, University of FloridaBicyclopyroneclomazoneflumioxazinfluridonefomesafenlinuronS-metolachlormetribuzinnapropamideparaquatpyroxasulfonesweetpotato, Ipomoea batatas L.Slip bedsplant production bedssweetpotato production beds
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 33 , Issue 1 , February 2019 , pp. 147 - 152
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2019. 

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

Cite this article: Smith SC, Jennings KM, Monks DW, Schultheis JR, Reberg-Horton SC. (2019) Tolerance of sweetpotato to herbicides applied in plant propagation beds. Weed Technol 33:147–152. doi: 10.1017/wet.2018.103

References

Barkley, SL, Chaudhari, S, Jennings, KM, Schultheis, JR, Meyers, SL, Monks, DW (2016) Fomesafen programs for Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) control in sweet potato. Weed Technol 30:506–515 Google Scholar
Beam, SC, Jennings, KM, Monks, DW, Schultheis, JR (2016) Tolerance of sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas) to linuron POST. MS thesis. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University. 88 pGoogle Scholar
Beam, SC, Jennings, KM, Monks, DW, Schultheis, JR, Chaudhari, S (2017) Influence of herbicides on the development of internal necrosis of sweet potato. Weed Technol 31:863–869 Google Scholar
Harvey, BMR, Bowden, G, Reavey, C, Selby, C (1994) Stimulation of in vitro root and shoot growth of potato by increasing sucrose concentration in the presence of fluridone, and inhibitor of abscisic acid synthesis. Plant Cell Tiss Org 37:271–276 Google Scholar
Kemble, JM (2017) Chemical weed control in vegetable crops. Southeastern U.S. Vegetable Crop Handbook. Willoughby, OH: Meister Media Worldwide. Pp 279–280 Google Scholar
Kemble, JM, Sikora, EJ, Fields, D, Patterson, MD, Vinson, E (2006) Guide to commercial sweet potato production in Alabama. Auburn, AL: Alabama Cooperative Extension System. Pp 3–4 Google Scholar
Lai, YC, Huang, CL, Chan, CF, Lien, CY, Liao, WC (2013) Studies of sugar composition and starch morphology of baked sweet potatoes [Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam]. J Food Sci Technol 50:1193–1199 Google Scholar
Meyers, SL, Jennings, KM, Schultheis, JR, Monks, DW (2010) Evaluation of flumioxazin and S-metolachlor rate and timing for Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) control in sweet potato. Weed Technol 24:495–503 Google Scholar
Meyers, SL, Jennings, KM, Monks, DW (2013) Herbicide-based weed management programs for Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in sweet potato. Weed Technol 27:331–340 Google Scholar
Monks, DW, Kalmowitz, KE, Monaco, TJ (1992) Influence of herbicides on sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas) plant production. Weed Technol 6:136–138 Google Scholar
Monks, DW, Schultheis, JR, Mills, RJ (1996) Effects of weeds and herbicides on sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas) transplant production using polyethylene bed covers. Weed Technol 10:273–277 Google Scholar
Schultheis, J (2017) State Report–North Carolina. National Sweet Potato Collaborators Group Progress Report. Raleigh, NC: National Sweet Potato Collaborators Group. p 29Google Scholar
Smith, TP, Stoddard, S, Shankle, M, Schultheis, J (2009) Sweet potato production in the United States. Pages 287–323 in Loebenstein G, Thottappilly G, eds., The Sweetpotato. Dordrecht: Springer NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Thompson, WB, Schultheis, JR, Chaudhari, S, Monks, DW, Jennings, KM, Grabow, GL (2017). Sweet potato transplant holding duration effects on plant survival and yield. HortTechnology 27:818–823 Google Scholar
[USDA] US Department of Agriculture (2017) 2017 State Agriculture Overview. https://www.nass.usda.gov/Quick_Stats/Ag_Overview/stateOverview.php?state=NORTH%20CAROLINA. Accessed December 2, 2017Google Scholar
Villordon, AQ, La Bonte, DR, Firon, N, Kfir, Y, Pressman, E, Schwartz, A (2009) Characterization of adventitious root development in sweet potato. HortScience 44:651–655 Google Scholar
Yencho, GC, Pecota, KV, Schultheis, JR, VanEsbroeck, Z, Holmes, GJ, Little, BE, Thornton, AC, Truong, V (2008) ‘Covington’ sweet potato. HortScience 43:1911–1914 Google Scholar