Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T02:26:33.541Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Safety and efficacy of linuron with or without an adjuvant or S-metolachlor for POST control of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in sweetpotato

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 April 2021

Levi D. Moore Open the ORCID record for Levi D. Moore [Opens in a new window] ,
Katherine M. Jennings ,
David W. Monks ,
Ramon G. Leon ,
David L. Jordan  and
Michael D. Boyette
Levi D. Moore*
Affiliation:
Graduate Student, Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
Katherine M. Jennings
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
David W. Monks
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
Ramon G. Leon
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
David L. Jordan
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
Michael D. Boyette
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Levi D. Moore, Graduate Student, Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, 2721 Founders Drive, Raleigh, NC27965 Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted to evaluate linuron for POST control of Palmer amaranth in sweetpotato to minimize reliance on protoporphyrinogen oxidase (PPO)-inhibiting herbicides. Treatments were arranged in a two by four factorial in which the first factor consisted of two rates of linuron (420 and 700 g ai ha−1), and the second factor consisted of linuron applied alone or in combinations of linuron plus a nonionic surfactant (NIS; 0.5% vol/vol), linuron plus S-metolachlor (800 g ai ha−1), or linuron plus NIS plus S-metolachlor. In addition, S-metolachlor alone and nontreated weedy and weed-free checks were included for comparison. Treatments were applied to ‘Covington’ sweetpotato 8 d after transplanting (DAP). S-metolachlor alone provided poor Palmer amaranth control because emergence had occurred at applications. All treatments that included linuron resulted in at least 98% and 91% Palmer amaranth control 1 and 2 wk after treatment (WAT), respectively. Including NIS with linuron did not increase Palmer amaranth control compared to linuron alone, but it resulted in greater sweetpotato injury and subsequently decreased total sweetpotato yield by 25%. Including S-metolachlor with linuron resulted in the greatest Palmer amaranth control 4 WAT, but increased crop foliar injury to 36% 1 WAT compared to 17% foliar injury from linuron alone. Marketable and total sweetpotato yields were similar between linuron alone and linuron plus S-metolachlor or S-metolachlor plus NIS treatments, though all treatments resulted in at least 39% less total yield than the weed-free check resulting from herbicide injury and/or Palmer amaranth competition. Because of the excellent POST Palmer amaranth control from linuron 1 WAT, a system that includes linuron applied 7 DAP followed by S-metolachlor applied 14 DAP could help to extend residual Palmer amaranth control further into the critical period of weed control while minimizing sweetpotato injury.

Keywords

LinuronS-metolachlorPalmer amaranthAmaranthus palmeri S. Wats AMAPAIpomoea batatas (L.) Lam. ‘Covington’Weed controlsurfactantnonionic surfactanttank mix
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 35 , Issue 3 , June 2021 , pp. 471 - 475
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the 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

Associate Editor: Robert Nurse, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada

References

Anonymous (2013) Linex® 4L herbicide label. Phoenix, AZ: Tessenderlo Kerley, Inc.Google Scholar
Barkley, SL, Chaudhari, S, Jennings, KM, Schultheis, JR, Meyers, SL, Monks, DW (2016) Fomesafen programs for Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) control in sweetpotato. Weed Technol 30:506–515 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Basinger, NT, Jennings, KM, Monks, DW, Jordan, DL, Everman, WJ, Hestir, EL, Waldschmidt, MD, Smith, SC, Brownie, C (2019) Interspecific and intraspecific interference of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and large crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis) in sweetpotato. Weed Sci 67:426–432 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Batts, R (2019) Summary of IR-4 product performance trials for linuron applied to sweetpotato. Princeton NJ: The IR-4 Project. PR#: P11118. 160 pGoogle Scholar
Beam, SC, Jennings, KM, Chaudhari, S, Monks, DW, Schultheis, JR, Waldschmidt, M (2018) Response of sweetpotato cultivars to linuron rate and application time. Weed Technol 32:665–670 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frans, RE, Talbert, RE, 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. 3rd ed. Champaign IL: Southern Weed Science Society Google Scholar
Grichar, WJ, Dotray, PA, Trostle, CL (2015) Castor (Ricinus communis L.) tolerance and weed control with preemergence herbicides. Ind Crops Prod 76:710–716 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heap, I (2020) The international survey of herbicide resistant weeds. https://weedscience.org. Accessed: January 2, 2020Google Scholar
Horak, MJ, Loughin, TM (2000) Growth analysis of four Amaranthus species. Weed Sci 48:347–355 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keeley, PE, Carter, CH, Thullen, RJ (1987) Influence of planting date on growth of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri). Weed Sci 35:199–204 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemble, JM, Meadows, IM, Jennings, KM, Walgenbach, JF (2019) 2020 Southeastern U.S. vegetable crop handbook. https://content.ces.ncsu.edu/southeastern-us-vegetable-crop-handbook. Accessed: January 2, 2020Google Scholar
Mahoney, DJ, Jordan, DL, Roma-Burgos, N, Jennings, KM, Leon, RG, Vann, MC, Everman, WJ, Cahoon, CW (2020) Susceptibility of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) to herbicides in accessions collected from the North Carolina Coastal Plain. Weed Sci 68:582–593 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyers, SL, Jennings, KM, Monks, DW (2012) Response of sweetpotato cultivars to S-metolachlor rate and application time. Weed Technol 26:474–479 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyers, SL, Jennings, KM, Monks, DW (2013a) Herbicide-based weed management programs for Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in sweetpotato. Weed Technol 27:331–340 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyers, SL, Jennings, KM, Monks, DW, Miller, DK, Shankle, MW (2013b) Rate and application timing effects on tolerance of Covington sweetpotato to S-metolachlor. Weed Technol 27:729–734 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyers, SL, Jennings, KM, Schultheis, JR, Monks, DW (2010a) Interference of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in sweetpotato. Weed Sci 58:199–203 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyers, SL, Jennings, KM, Schultheis, JR, Monks, DW (2010b) Evaluation of flumioxazin and S-metolachlor rate and timing for Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) control in sweetpotato. Weed Technol 24:495–503 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, LD, Jennings, KM, Monks, DW, Boyette, MD, Jordan, DL, Leon, RG (2020) Herbicide systems including linuron for Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) control in sweetpotato. Weed Technol 35:49–56 CrossRefGoogle 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: December 11, 2020Google Scholar
Sellers, BA, Smeda, RJ, Johnson, WG, Kendig, JA, Ellersieck, MR (2003) Comparative growth of six Amaranthus species in Missouri. Weed Sci 51:329–333 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, SC, Jennings, KM, Monks, DW, Chaudhari, S, Schultheis, JR, Reberg-Horton, C (2020) Critical timing of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) removal in sweetpotato. Weed Technol 34:547–551 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sosnoskie, LM, Webster, TM, Grey, TL, Culpepper, AS (2014) Severed stems of Amaranthus palmeri are capable of regrowth and seed production in Gossypium hirsutum . Ann Appl Biol 165:147–154 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture (2005) United States standards for grades of sweet potatoes. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of AgricultureGoogle Scholar
[USDA-NASS] U.S. Department of Agriculture–National Agriculture Statistics Service (2020) Quick stats. https://www.quickstats.nass.usda.gov. Accessed: November 18, 2020Google Scholar
Vargas, M, Glaz, B, Alvarado, G, Pietragalla, J, Morgounov, A, Zelenskiy, Crossa J (2015) Analysis and interpretation of interactions in agricultural research. Agron J 107:748–762 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, TM (2010) Weed survey - southern states: vegetable, fruit, and nut subsection. Pages 246–257 in Proceedings of the Southern Weed Science Society. Westminster, CO: Southern Weed Science Society Google Scholar
Whitaker, JR, York, AC, Jordan, DL, Culpepper, AS, Sosnoskie, LM (2011) Residual herbicides for Palmer amaranth control. J Cotton Sci 15:89–99 Google Scholar