Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T02:34:05.540Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sweet Potatoes (Ipomoea batatas) Differ in Response to Bentazon

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Carl E. Motsenbocker  and
Thomas J. Monaco
Carl E. Motsenbocker
Affiliation:
Dep. Hort. Sci., North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC 27695
Thomas J. Monaco
Affiliation:
Dep. Hort. Sci., North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC 27695
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Selected sweet potato clones were evaluated in greenhouse and field trials to identify clones with superior tolerance to bentazon. ‘Julian’ and NC 1519 were the most tolerant in the greenhouse. ‘Sweet Red’ exhibited foliar injury in the field, but yields were not reduced. The clone 79-BM-17 was equally tolerant in the field as Sweet Red, but in the greenhouse exhibited only intermediate tolerance. ‘Jewel,’ a widely grown commercial cultivar, was sensitive to bentazon in both the greenhouse and field. When averaged over all clones sweet potato injury increased as bentazon rate was increased from 1.1 to 2.2 kg ai ha-1, but it decreased as the season progressed. Bentazon did not reduce marketable yields at Clayton, NC. Bentazon as a split or late application at the 2.2 kg ha-1 rate, reduced yields at Clinton, NC. Percent culls among bentazon treatments did not differ at either location.

Keywords

Bentazon, 3-(1-methylethyl)-(1H)-2,1,3-benzothiadiazin-4(3H)-one 2,2-dioxidesweet potato, Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam. ‘Goldrush’, J-2, ‘Jewel’, ‘Julian’, T4 109-17, PI 399162, 79-BM-17, NC 1419, NC 1505, NC 1519, NC 1610, and NC 1621Herbicide toleranceselectivitycultivarspostemergence
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 5 , Issue 2 , June 1991 , pp. 345 - 350
Copyright
Copyright © 1991 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

1. Anderson, R. E., Lueschen, W. E., Warnes, D. D., and Nelson, W. W. 1974, Controlling broadleaf weeds in soybeans with bentazon in Minnesota. Weed Sci. 22:136–142.Google Scholar
2. Baltazar, A. M., and Monaco, T. J. 1984. Uptake, translocation, and metabolism of bentazon by two pepper species (Capsicum annuum and Capsicum chinense). Weed Sci. 32:258–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Behrendt, S. 1970. Results obtained from the use of 3-isopropyl-2,1,3-benzothiadiazinon-4-2,2-dioxide in cereals. 1970 Proc. Brit. Crop Prot. Conf. 38–43.Google Scholar
4. Cobb, A. H., Rees, R. T., Nichols, K. J., Miller, P. R., and Pallett, K. E. 1985. The cell membrane as a site for bentazone action. 1985 Proc. Brit. Crop Prot. Conf. 1187–1193.Google Scholar
5. Doran, D. L., and Anderson, R. N. 1975. Effects of simulated rainfall on bentazon activity. Weed Sci. 23:105–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Fischer, A. 1968. New contact herbicides particularly for the control of mayweeds. 1968 Proc. Brit. Crop Prot. Conf. 1042–1045.Google Scholar
7. Harrison, H. P., Jones, A., and Dukes, P. D. 1985. Differential response of six sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas) cultivars to metribuzin. Weed Sci. 33:730–733.Google Scholar
8. Hayes, R. M., and Wax, L. M. 1975. Differential intraspecific responses of soybean cultivars to bentazon. Weed Sci. 23:516–521.Google Scholar
9. Mine, A., and Matsunaka, S. 1975. Mode of action of bentazon: effect on photosynthesis. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 5:444–450.Google Scholar
10. Nalewaja, J. D., Pudelko, J., and Adamczewski, K. A. 1975. Influence of climate and additives on bentazon. Weed Sci. 23:504–507.Google Scholar
11. National Sweet Potato Collaborator Group. 1985. Progress Report Univ. of Ga., Athens. p. 77.Google Scholar
12. Teasdale, J. R. 1984. Factors affecting bentazon toxicity to cucumber (Cucumis sativus). Weed Sci. 32:33–36.Google Scholar
13. Teasdale, J. R., and Thimijan, R. W. 1983. Influence of light and temperature on bentazon phytotoxicity to cucumber (Cucumis sativus). Weed Sci. 31:232–235.Google Scholar
14. Wax, L. M., Abernathy, J. R., and Hayes, R. M. 1974. Evaluation of BAS 3512-H for the control of weeds in soybeans. Proc. North Central Weed Control Conf. 26:49.Google Scholar
15. Wax, L. M., Bernard, R. L., and Hayes, R. M. 1974. Response of soybean cultivars to bentazon, bromoxynil, chloroxuron, and 2,4-DB. Weed Sci. 22:35–41.Google Scholar
16. Weishar, A. L., Carter, C. W., and Veenstra, M. A. 1971. BAS 3512-H, a new postemergent broadleaf herbicide for soybeans. Proc. North Central Weed Control Conf. 26:50.Google Scholar
17. Wolff, D. W., Monaco, T. J., and Collins, W. W. 1989. Differential tolerance of peppers to bentazon. Weed Technol. 3(4):579–583.Google Scholar