Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T09:41:29.520Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Evaluation of Pre-emergence Metam-Potassium and S-metolachlor for Yellow Nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus) Management in Sweetpotato

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 May 2017

Stephen L. Meyers  and
Mark W. Shankle
Stephen L. Meyers*
Affiliation:
Assistant Extension Professor and Research Professor, Pontotoc Ridge-Flatwoods Branch Experiment Station, Mississippi State University, Pontotoc, MS 38863
Mark W. Shankle
Affiliation:
Assistant Extension Professor and Research Professor, Pontotoc Ridge-Flatwoods Branch Experiment Station, Mississippi State University, Pontotoc, MS 38863
*
*Corresponding author’s E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted in 2014 and 2015 at Pontotoc, MS to evaluate combinations of metam-potassium and S-metolachlor for yellow nutsedge control and sweetpotato crop response. Treatments consisted of a factorial of five metam-potassium rates (0, 149, 261, 372, and 484 kgha−1) by three S-metolachlor rates (0, 0.80, and 1.34 kgha−1). Additionally, a hand-weeded check was included for comparison. Crop injury was limited to ≤4% at 4 weeks after transplanting (WAP) and was transient. At 2 WAP yellow nutsedge control was 58, 74, and 76% in plots treated with S-metolachlor at 0, 0.80, and 1.34 kgha−1, respectively. Nutsedge control in all treatments decreased from 2 to 15 WAP. At 15 WAP, S-metolachlor at 0, 0.80, and 1.34 kg ha−1 provided 35, 68, and 70% yellow nutsedge control, respectively. Metam-potassium rate did not influence yellow nutsedge control after transplanting. Sweetpotato yields in the hand-weeded check were 4,640; 22,180; 7,180; 34,000; and 1,360 kgha−1 for jumbo, no. 1, canner, marketable, and cull grades, respectively. S-metolachlor applied at either 0.80 or 1.34 kgha−1 provided jumbo, no. 1, and marketable sweetpotato yields equivalent to the hand-weeded check. Canner and cull yields were not influenced by S-metolachlor rate. Metam-potassium rates used in the present study resulted in yields equal to or greater than the hand-weeded check.

Keywords

Metam-potassiumS-metolachloryellow nutsedge, Cyperus esculentus L.sweetpotato, Ipomoea batatas L. Lam.Crop toleranceherbicide ratesoil fumigation.
Type
Weed Management-Other Crops/Areas
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 31 , Issue 3 , June 2017 , pp. 436 - 440
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2017 

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 for this paper: Peter J. Dittmar, University of Florida

References

Literature Cited

Aburkari, AA (2014) S-metolachlor Phytotoxicity in Sweetpotato. Ph.D dissertation. Mississippi State, MS: Mississippi State University. 128 pGoogle Scholar
Gilreath, JP, Jones, JP, Overman, AJ (1994) Soil-borne pest control in mulched tomato with alternatives to methyl bromide. Pages 156–159 in Proceedings of Florida State Horticultural Society. Orlando, FL: Florida State Horticultural Society Google Scholar
Gilreath, JP, Santos, BM, Motic, TN, Noling, JW, Mirusso, JM (2005) Methyl bromide alternatiaves for nematode and Cyperus control in bell pepper (Capsicum annuum). Crop Prot 24:903–908 Google Scholar
Johnson, WC 3rd, Mullinix, BG Jr (2007) Yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus) control with metham-sodium in transplanted cantaloupe (Cucumis melo). Crop Prot 26:867–871 Google Scholar
Klose, S, Ajwa, HA, Browne, GT, Subbarao, KV, Martin, FN, Fennimore, SA, Westerdahl, BB (2008) Dose response of weed seeds, plant-parasitic nematodes, and pathogens to twelve rates of metam sodium in California soil. Plant Disease 92:1537–1546 Google Scholar
Locascio, SJ, Gilreath, JP, Dickson, DW, Kucharek, TA, Jones, JP, Noling, JW (1997) Fumigant alternatives for methyl bromide in polyethylene-mulched tomato. HortScience 32:1208–1211 Google 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 (2013) Herbicide-based weed management programs for Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in sweetpotato. Weed Technol 27:331–340 Google Scholar
Meyers, SL, Jennings, KM, Monks, DW, Miller, DK, Shankle, MW (2013) Rate and application timing effects on tolerance of Covington sweetpotato to S-metolachlor. Weed Technol 27:729–734 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 sweetpotato. Weed Technol 24:495–503 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyers, SL, Shankle, MW (2015a) Interference of yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus) in ‘Beauregard’ sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas). Weed Technol 29:854–860 Google Scholar
Meyers, SL, Shankle, MW (2015b) Publication 2909: Nutsedge Management in Mississippi Sweetpotatoes. Starkville, MS: Mississippi State University Extension Service. 4 pGoogle Scholar
Shaner, DL, ed. (2014) Herbicide Handbook. 10th edn. Lawrence, KS: Weed Science Society of America. Pp 302–303 Google Scholar
[USDA] US Department of Agriculture (2005) United States Standards for Grades of Sweet Potatoes. Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture Google Scholar
[USDA] US Department of Agriculture (2016) 2015 State Agriculture Overview. https://www.nass.usda.gov/Quick_Stats/Ag_Overview/stateOverview.php?state=MISSISSIPPI. Accessed August 2, 2016Google Scholar
Webster, TM (2014) Weed survey-southern states. Page 292 in Proceedings of the 67th Southern Weed Science Society. Birmingham, AL: Southern Weed Science Society Google Scholar
Webster, TM, Nichols, RL (2012) Changes in the prevalence of weed species in the major agronomic crops of the Southern United States: 1994/1995 to 2008/2009. Weed Sci 60:145–157 Google Scholar