Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T02:51:25.486Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Differential Tolerance of Sweet Potato (Ipomoea batatas) Clones to Metribuzin

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Carl E. Motsenbocker  and
Thomas J. Monaco
Carl E. Motsenbocker
Affiliation:
Dep. Hortic. Sci., North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC 27695-7609
Thomas J. Monaco
Affiliation:
Dep. Hortic. Sci., North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC 27695-7609
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Sweet potato clones were evaluated for metribuzin tolerance in field and greenhouse studies. ‘Tinian’ was the most tolerant and ‘SC-1149-19’ and ‘J-2’ were the most susceptible clones. ‘Jewel’, a clone widely grown commercially, was sensitive to metribuzin in the field and greenhouse. ‘Sumor’ and ‘White Triumph’ exhibited intermediate metribuzin tolerance. All metribuzin application-by-rate treatments reduced plant stands, caused season-long crop injury, and reduced yields. Metribuzin applied 3 wk posttransplant at 1.1 kg ha−1 did not reduce total yield of Tinian. Total yield of all the clones except Tinian were reduced by metribuzin regardless of timing or rate.

Keywords

Metribuzin, 4-amino-6-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-3-(methylthio)-1,2,4-triazin-5(4H)-onesweet potato, Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam. Jewel, J-2, SC 1149-19, Sumor, Tinian, White TriumphHerbicide toleranceselectivitypreemergencepostemergenceasymmetrical triazine
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 7 , Issue 2 , June 1993 , pp. 349 - 354
Copyright
Copyright © 1993 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. Eue, L. and Tietz, H. 1970. 4-amino-6-tert.-butyl-3-(methylthio)-1,2,4-triazin-5-on (BAY 6159 H, BAY 94337), a new herbicide for the control of weeds in potato crops. Pflanzenschutz-Nachrichten 23:208–218.Google Scholar
2. Falb, L. N. and Smith, A. E. 1984. Metribuzin metabolism in soybeans. Characterization of the intraspecific differential tolerance. J. Agric. Food Chem. 32:1428–1432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Fortino, J. and Splittstoesser, W. E. 1974. Response of tomato to metribuzin. Weed Sci. 22:460–463.Google Scholar
4. Friesen, G. H. and Wall, D. A. 1984. Response of potato (Solanum tuberosum) cultivars to metribuzin. Weed Sci. 32:442–444.Google Scholar
5. Gawronski, S. W. 1983. Tolerance of tomato (Lypersicon esculentum) cultivars to metribuzin. Weed Sci. 31:525–527.Google Scholar
6. Gawronski, S. W., Callihan, R. H., and Pavek, J. J. 1977. Sinking leaf-disk test for potato variety herbicide tolerance. Weed Sci. 25:122–127.Google Scholar
7. Gawronski, S. W., Haderlie, L. C., Callihan, R. H., and Gawronska, H. 1986. Mechanism of metribuzin tolerance: herbicide metabolism as a basis for tolerance in potatoes. Weed Res. 26:307–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Gawronski, S. W., Haderlie, L. C., and Stark, J. C. 1986. Metribuzin absorption and translocation in two barley (Hordeum vulgare) cultivars. Weed Sci. 34:491–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Graf, G. T. and Ogg, A. G. 1976. Differential response of potato cultivars to metribuzin. Weed Sci. 24:137–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Hack, H., Eue, L., Strang, R. H., and Zeck, W. M. 1985. SMY 1500—a new selective herbicide for weed control in winter cereals. Br. Crop Prot. Conf. 35–42.Google Scholar
11. Hardcastle, W. S. 1974. Differences in the tolerance of metribuzin by varieties of soybeans. Weed Res. 14:181–184.Google Scholar
12. Harrison, H. F., 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
13. Harrison, H. F., Jones, A., and Dukes, P. D. 1987. Heritability of metribuzin tolerance in sweet potatoes (Ipomoea batatas). Weed Sci. 35:715–719.Google Scholar
14. Hawf, L. R. and Waggoner, T. B. 1973. Sencor herbicide for the control of weeds in soybeans. Pflanzenschutz-Nachrichten 26:35–51.Google Scholar
15. Monaco, T. J., Hunt, R. I., and Mills, R. J. 1982. Herbicide Investigations in Horticultural Crops, Hort. Crops Res. Series 58. North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC. 127 p.Google Scholar
16. Motsenbocker, C. E. 1990. The identification and basis of herbicide tolerance in sweetpotato germplasm. Ph.D. Thesis, North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC.Google Scholar
17. National Sweet Potato Collaborator Group. 1985. Progress Report Univ. of Ga., Athens. p. 77.Google Scholar
18. Runyan, T. J., McNeil, W. K., and Peeper, T. F. 1982. Differential tolerance of wheat (Triticum aestivum) cultivars to metribuzin. Weed Sci. 30:94–97.Google Scholar
19. Smith, A. E., Phatak, S. C., and Emmatty, D. A. 1989. Metribuzin metabolism by tomato cultivars with low, medium, and high levels of metribuzin. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 35:284–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20. Smith, A. E. and Wilkinson, R. E. 1974. Differential absorption, translocation and metabolism of metribuzin [4-amino-6-tert-butyl-3-(methylthio)-as-triazine-5(4H)one] by soybean cultivars. Physiol. Plant. 32:253–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21. Souza Machado, V., Phatak, S. C., and Nonnecke, I. L. 1978. Bioassay to screen tomato seedlings for tolerance to metribuzin. Can. J. Plant Sci. 58:823–828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22. Stephenson, G. R., McLeod, J. E., and Phatak, S. C. 1976. Differential tolerance of tomato cultivars to metribuzin. Weed Sci. 24:161–165.Google Scholar