Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T21:06:30.683Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

‘Covington' Sweetpotato Tolerance to Flumioxazin Applied POST-Directed

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Stephen L. Meyers ,
Katherine M. Jennings  and
David W. Monks
Stephen L. Meyers*
Affiliation:
Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695
Katherine M. Jennings
Affiliation:
Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695
David W. Monks
Affiliation:
Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted at Clinton, NC (2009, 2010), and Kinston, NC (2010), to determine ‘Covington' sweetpotato tolerance to flumioxazin applied after transplanting. Flumioxazin was directed to 25% of the sweetpotato vine beginning at the distal end (shoot tip), 25% of the vine beginning at the proximal end (crown), or to the entire vine (over-the-top) and was applied at 2 or 5 wk after transplanting (WAP). Applications made at 2 WAP resulted in 10 to 16% foliar necrosis at 3 WAP. Necrosis was transient and ≤ 2% by 6 WAP. Stunting injury at 6 WAP for flumioxazin applied at 2 WAP was greatest (12%) with the over-the-top application, followed by crown (5%), and shoot tip (1%) applications. Applications made at 5 WAP resulted in 35, 23, and 15% foliar necrosis at 6 WAP for over-the-top, crown, and shoot tip applications, respectively. By 12 WAP, stunting injury for all treatments was ≤ 3%. No. 1, jumbo, canner, and total marketable sweetpotato yield of the nontreated check was 36,670; 7,610; 7,170; and 51,450 kg ha−1, respectively. No. 1 and total marketable sweetpotato yields were reduced when flumioxazin was applied at 2 or 5 WAP. No. 1 sweetpotato yield was reduced when flumioxazin was applied to the crown or over-the-top (27,240 and 28,330 kg ha−1, respectively). Sweetpotato receiving flumioxazin applied to the shoot tip had similar no. 1 (31,770 kg ha−1) yields as the nontreated check, crown, and over-the-top applications. Total marketable sweetpotato yield was reduced by flumioxazin application to shoot tip, crown, and over-the-top (45,350; 40,100; 40,370 kg ha−1, respectively). Neither flumioxazin application timing nor placement influenced either jumbo- or canner-grade sweetpotato yields. Currently, after-transplant applications of flumioxazin do not appear to be a suitable fit for POST weed control in North Carolina sweetpotato production systems.

Se realizaron estudios de campo en Clinton, NC (2009, 2010) y Kinston, NC (2010) para determinar la tolerancia de la batata 'Covington' a aplicaciones de flumioxazin después del trasplante. La aplicación de flumioxazin fue dirigida al 25% de la enredadera de la batata empezando en la parte distal (punta del tallo), 25% de la enredadera empezando en la parte basal (corona), o en la enredadera entera (cobertura total), y se aplicó 2 y 5 semanas después del trasplante (WAP). Las aplicaciones hechas a 2 WAP resultaron en 10 a 16% de necrosis foliar 3 WAP. La necrosis fue transitoria y ≤2% a 6 WAP. El retraso en el crecimiento observado a 6 WAP debido a la aplicación de flumioxazin a 2 WAP fue mayor (12%) con la aplicación de cobertura total, seguida de la aplicación a la corona (5%) y a la punta del tallo (1%). Las aplicaciones hechas a 5 WAP resultaron en 35, 23, y 15% de necrosis foliar a 6 WAP para las aplicaciones de cobertura total, a la corona y a la punta del tallo, respectivamente. A 12 WAP, el retraso en el crecimiento fue ≤3% para todos los tratamientos. Los rendimientos de batata No. 1, jumbo, canner y total comercializable del testigo sin tratamiento fueron 36,670; 7,610; 7,170; y 51,450 kg ha−1, respectivamente. El rendimiento de batata No. 1 y total comercializable se redujo cuando se aplicó flumioxazin a 2 ó 5 WAP. Los rendimientos de batata No. 1 se redujeron cuando se aplicó flumioxazin a la corona y en cobertura total (27,240 y 28,330 kg ha−1, respectivamente). La batata que recibió flumioxazin en la punta del tallo tuvo rendimientos No. 1 (31,770 kg ha−1) similares al testigo sin tratamiento, y las aplicaciones a la corona y de cobertura total. El rendimiento total comercializable de la batata se redujo debido a las aplicaciones de flumioxazin sobre la punta del tallo, la corona y de cobertura total (43,350; 40,100; 40,370 kg ha−1, respectivamente). Ninguno de los momentos de aplicación ni la localización de flumioxazin influenció los rendimientos de batata jumbo o canner. Actualmente, parece que las aplicaciones de flumioxazin después del trasplante no son adecuadas para el control POST de malezas en los sistemas de producción de batata en North Carolina.

Keywords

Flumioxazinsweetpotato, Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam. ‘Covington’Crop toleranceherbicide placementherbicide timing
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 28 , Issue 1 , March 2014 , pp. 163 - 167
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.)

Footnotes

Current address: Northeast Region Extension Service, Mississippi State University, Pontotoc, MS 38863

References

Literature Cited

Anonymous (2010) Valor® SX herbicide product label Walnut Creek, CA: Valent U.S.A. Corporation. 27 pGoogle Scholar
Bond, JA, Oliver, LR, and Stephenson, DO IV (2006) Response of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) to glyphosate, fomesafen, and pyrithiobac. Weed Technol 20:885–892 Google Scholar
Culpepper, AS and York, AC (2000) Weed management in ultra narrow row cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol 14:19–29 Google Scholar
Falk, JS, Shoup, DE, Al-Khatib, K, and Peterson, DE (2006) Protox-resistant common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) response to herbicides applied at different growth stages. Weed Sci 54:793–799 Google Scholar
Ferrell, JA, Faircloth, WH, Brecke, BJ, and Macdonald, GE (2007) Influence of cotton height on injury from flumioxazin and glyphosate applied POST-directed. Weed Technol 21:709–713 Google Scholar
Frans, RE, Talbert, R, Marx, D, and Crowley, H (1986) Experiment design and techniques for measuring and analyzing plant responses to weed control practices. Pages 29–46 in Camper, D., ed. Research Methods in Weed Science. 3rd edn. Champaign, IL: Southern Weed Science Society Google Scholar
Glaze, NC and Hall, MR (1990) Cultivation and herbicides for weed control in sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas). Weed Technol. 4:518–523.Google Scholar
Kemble, JM, ed (2013) Vegetable Crop Handbook for the Southeastern United States 2013. Lincolnshire, IL: Vance. Pp. 96–97, 261 Google Scholar
LaBonte, DR, Harrison, HF, and Motsenbocker, CE (1999) Sweetpotato clone tolerance to weed interference. Hortscience 34:229–232 Google Scholar
Lee, RM, Hager, AG, and Tranel, PJ (2008) Prevalence of a novel resistance mechanism to PPO-inhibiting herbicides in waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus). Weed Sci 56:371–375 Google Scholar
Legleiter, TR and Bradley, KW (2008) Glyphosate and multiple herbicide resistance in common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) populations in Missouri. Weed Sci 56:582–587 Google Scholar
Meyers, SL (2009) Interference and Control of Palmer amaranth in Sweetpotato. . Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University. 88 pGoogle Scholar
Meyers, SL, Jennings, KM, and 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, Schultheis, JR, and 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 Google Scholar
Monks, DW, Shankle, MW, Jennings, KM, and Meyers, SL (2013) Herbicide injury. Pages 110–119 in Clark, C. A., Ferrin, D. M., Smith, T. P., and Holmes, G. J., eds. Compendium of Sweetpotato Diseases, Pests, and Disorders. 2nd edn. St. Paul, MN: American Phytopathological Society Google Scholar
[NCDA&CS] North Carolina Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services (2008) North Carolina Agricultural Statistics. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Department of Agriculture Google Scholar
Norsworthy, JK, Griffith, GM, Scott, RC, Smith, KL, and Oliver, LR (2008) Confirmation and control of glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in Arkansas. Weed Technol 22:108–203 Google Scholar
Norsworthy, JK, Smith, JP, and Meister, C (2007) Tolerance of direct-seeded green onions to herbicides applied before or after crop emergence. Weed Technol 21:119–123 Google Scholar
Parker, NY, Monaco, TJ, Leidy, RB, and Sheets, TJ (1985) Weed control with fluazifop and residues in cucurbit crops (Cucumis sp.) and sweet potatoes (Ipomoea batatas). Weed Sci 33:405–410 Google Scholar
Patzoldt, WL, Tranel, PJ, and Hager, AG (2005) A waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus) biotype with multiple resistance across three herbicide sites of action. Weed Sci 53:30–36 Google Scholar
Porter, WC (1993) Postemergence grass control in sweet potatoes (Ipomoea batatas). Weed Technol 7:812–815 Google Scholar
Seem, JE, Creamer, NG, and Monks, DW (2003) Critical weed-free period for ‘Beauregard' sweetpotato (Ipomoea batatas). Weed Technol 17:686–695 Google Scholar
Thinglum, KA, Riggins, CW, Davis, AS, Bradley, KW, Al-Khatib, K, and Tranel, PJ (2011) Wide distribution of the waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus) ΔG210 PPX2 mutation, which confers resistance to PPO-inhibiting herbicides. Weed Sci 59:22–27 Google Scholar
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture (2005) United States Standards for Grades of Sweet Potatoes. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Google Scholar
Webster, TM (2010) Weed survey—southern states. Proc South Weed Sci Soc 63:256 Google Scholar
Yencho, GC, Pecota, KV, Schultheis, JR, VanEsbroeck, ZP, Holmes, GJ, Little, BE, Thornton, AC, and Truong, VD (2008) ‘Covington' sweetpotato. Hortscience 43:1911–1914 Google Scholar