Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T16:31:41.288Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Efficacy and Tolerance of Flumioxazin on Sweetpotato (Ipomoea batatas)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Steven T. Kelly ,
Mark W. Shankle  and
Donnie K. Miller
Steven T. Kelly*
Affiliation:
LSU AgCenter, 212B Macon Ridge Road, Winnsboro, LA 71295
Mark W. Shankle
Affiliation:
Pontotoc Ridge–Flatwoods Branch Experiment Station, Mississippi State University, 8320 Highway 15 South, Pontotoc, MS 38863
Donnie K. Miller
Affiliation:
Northeast Research Station, Box 438 St. Joseph, LA 71366
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Experiments were conducted at three locations in Louisiana in 2002 and 2003 to evaluate flumioxazin (36, 72, or 109 g ai/ha) applied pretransplant (PRE) or post-transplant (POST) to sweetpotato. All treatments were applied immediately before or after sweetpotato transplanting to weed-free beds. PRE applications caused 4% or less injury with any rate of flumioxazin at 9 or 18 d after transplanting (DATr) compared with 18 to 20% injury at 9 DATr and 6 to 14% at 18 DATr with 72 or 109 g/ha POST, respectively. Injury from PRE applications of flumioxazin were not different from injury with clomazone (840 g ai/ha) applied POST. Injury at Chase, LA, in 2002 was 8% and less with flumioxazin PRE, but 35 to 83% with flumioxazin POST and appeared to be due to the use of greenhouse-grown cuttings instead of field-grown cuttings, which were used in the other two experiments. There was no interaction between experiments for sweetpotato yield. Plots treated with flumioxazin PRE or 36 g/ha POST yielded greater than sweetpotato treated with clomazone for U.S. No. 1 and 2 grade yield as well as total marketable yield. No differences were observed in yellow nutsedge control with any rate of flumioxazin. At 34 or 50 DATr, flumioxazin controlled yellow nutsedge 73 to 85% with 72 or 109 g/ha applied PRE or POST. Flumioxazin, regardless of application timing or rate, controlled carpetweed and spiny amaranth at least 86%. A similar experiment in Mississippi evaluated tank-mixes of flumioxazin (36, 72, or 109 g/ha) and clomazone (840 g/ha) applied PRE or POST. No sweetpotato injury was observed with flumioxazin PRE. However, injury from flumioxazin POST increased with increased rates (18 to 50% at 18 DATr and 16 to 93% at 25 DATr). Weed control was greater than 80% with all treatments.

Keywords

Clomazoneflumioxazinbroadleaf signalgrass, Brachiaria platyphylla (Griseb.) Nash # BRAPPcarpetweed, Mollugo verticillata L. # MOLVEentireleaf morningglory, Ipomoea hederacea var. integriuscula Gray # IPOHEpitted morningglory, Ipomoea lacunosa L. # IPOLAredroot pigweed Amaranthus retroflexus L. # AMAREspiny amaranth, Amaranthus spinosus # AMASPyellow nutsedge, Cyperus rotundus L. # CYPESsweetpotato, Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam. ‘Beauregard’ClomazoneAmaranthus retroflexusAmaranthus spinosusBrachiaria platyphyllaCyperus rotundusIpomoea hederacea var. integriuscula, Ipomoea lacunosa, Mollugo verticillata, AMARE, AMASP BRAPP, CYPES, IPOHE, IPOLA, MOLVEDATr, days after transplantingPRE, pretransplantPOST, post-transplant
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 20 , Issue 2 , June 2006 , pp. 334 - 339
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.)

References

Literature Cited

Anonymous. 1997. United States standards for grades of sweet potatoes. Web page: http://www.ams.usda.gov/standards/sweetpot.pdf. Accessed September 13, 2005.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2000. Louisiana Ag Summary 2000. Louisiana State University AgCenter. Pub. 2382. P 14. Revised February 2001.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2003. Louisiana Ag Summary 2003. Louisiana State University AgCenter. Pub. 2382. P 17. Revised March 2004.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2004. Valor SX herbicide label. Valent Agricultural Products P.O. Box 8025, Walnut Creek, CA 94596.Google Scholar
Askew, S. D., Wilcut, J. W., and Cranmer, J. R. 2002. Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) and weed response to flumioxazin applied preplant and postemergence directed. Weed Technol. 16:184–190.Google Scholar
Cranmer, J. R., Altom, J. V., Braun, J. C., and Pawlak, J. A. 2000. Valor herbicide: a new herbicide for weed control in cotton, peanuts, soybeans, and sugarcane. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 53:158.Google Scholar
Glaze, N. C. and Hall, M. R. 1992. Influence of selected herbicide treatments on four cultivars of sweet potatoes. Abstr. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. 32:24.Google Scholar
Glaze, N. C. and Hall, M. R. 1993. Effects of selected herbicide treatments on four cultivars of sweetpotato. Abstr. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. 33:22.Google Scholar
Grichar, W. J. and Colburn, A. E. 1996. Flumioxazin for weed control in Texas peanuts (Arachis hypogaea L). Peanut Sci. 23:30–36.Google Scholar
Harrison, H. F. and Dukes, P. D. 1996. Sensitivity of four sweetpotato clones to metribuzin tolerance. HortScience 31/5:846–847.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, H. F., Dukes, P. D., and Jones, A. 1991. Evaluation of napropamide for weed control in sweetpotato. in McLaurin, W. J., ed. National Sweetpotato Collaborators Group Progress Report. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Horticulture Department. P. 41.Google Scholar
Motsenbocker, C. E. and Monaco, T. J. 1993. Differential tolerance of sweet-potato clones to metribuzin. Weed Technol. 7:349–354.Google Scholar
Porter, W. C. 1990. Clomazone for weed control in sweet potatoes (Ipomoea batatas). Weed Technol. 4:648–651.Google Scholar
Porter, W. C. and Cannon, J. M. 1998. Sweetpotato Research Station Annual Report. Chase, LA: Louisiana State University AgCenter. Pp. 137–140.Google Scholar
Taylor-Lovell, S., Wax, L. M., and Bollero, G. 2002. Preemergence flumioxazin and pendimethalin and postemergence herbicide systems for soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 16:502–511.Google Scholar
Vidrine, P. R. and Mason, G. W. Jr. 2000. Weed Science Annual Progress Report. Research Summary No. 128. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana Agriculture Experimental Station, LSU AgCenter.Google Scholar
Villordon, A. Q., Cannon, J. M., Carroll, H. L., Franklin, J. W., Clark, C. A., and LaBonte, D. R. 2003. Sweetpotato “Beauregard” mericlones vary in yield, vine characteristics, and storage root size and shape attributes. HortScience 38/6:1089–1092.Google Scholar
Welker, W. V. 1966. Effect of herbicides on quality and yield of sweet potatoes. Weeds 15:112–114.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., Askew, S. D., Price, A. J., Scott, G. H., and Cranmer, J. 2000. Valor: a new weed management option for cotton. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 53:159.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. E., Nissen, S. J., and Thompson, A. 2002. Potato (Solanum tuberosum) variety and weed response to sulfentrazone and flumioxazin. Weed Technol. 16:567–574.Google Scholar