Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T14:51:26.631Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Preemergence Herbicides for Potential Use in Potato Production

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Rick A. Boydston ,
Joel Felix  and
Kassim Al-Khatib
Rick A. Boydston*
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Irrigated Agriculture Research and Extension Center, Prosser, WA 99350-9687
Joel Felix
Affiliation:
Oregon State University, Malheur Experiment Station, 595 Onion Ave, Ontario, OR, 97914
Kassim Al-Khatib
Affiliation:
University of California, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616-8621
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field trials were conducted in 2009 and 2010 near Paterson, WA and Ontario, OR to evaluate weed control and potato tolerance to PRE-applied pyroxasulfone, saflufenacil, and KSU12800 herbicides. Pyroxasulfone at 0.09 to 0.15 kg ai ha−1 and saflufenacil at 0.05 to 0.07 kg ai ha−1 applied PRE alone or in tank mixes with several currently labeled herbicides did not injure potatoes at either site in both years. KSU12800 at 0.15 kg ai ha−1 injured potatoes from 18 to 26% for a period of about 4 wk after emergence at Ontario both years. In addition, KSU12800 at 0.29 and 0.45 kg ha−1 injured potatoes from 17 to 38% at 17 d after treatment (DAT) at Paterson in 2009. Pyroxasulfone at 0.15 kg ha−1 controlled barnyardgrass, hairy nightshade, and redroot pigweed 96% or greater, but control of common lambsquarters was variable. Saflufenacil at 0.07 kg ha−1 provided greater than 93% control of common lambsquarters, hairy nightshade, and redroot pigweed at both sites in 2010. KSU12800 at 0.15 kg ha−1 controlled common lambsquarters, hairy nightshade, and redroot pigweed 99% or more at Ontario, but only 87 to 93% at Paterson in 2010. These herbicides did not reduce yield of U.S. no. 1 tubers or total tuber yields compared to standard labeled herbicide treatments when weed control was adequate.

Se realizaron experimentos de campo en 2009 y 2010 cerca de Paterson, WA y Ontario, OR para evaluar el control de malezas y la tolerancia de la papa a los herbicidas pyroxasulfone, saflufenacil y KSU12800 aplicados PRE. Se aplicó pyroxasulfone a dosis de 0.09 a 0.15 kg ai ha−1 y saflufenacil de 0.05 a 0.07 kg ha−1 solos o en mezclas en tanque con varios herbicidas registrados actualmente para papa sin causar daño al cultivo en ninguno de los sitios en ambos años. KSU12800 a 0.15 kg ha−1 dañó las papas de 18 a 26% por un período de 4 semanas después de la emergencia, en Ontario en ambos años. Adicionalmente, KSU12800 a 0.29 y 0.45 kg ha−1 dañó la papa de 17 a 38% a 17 días después del tratamiento (DAT) en Paterson en 2009. Pyroxasulfone a 0.15 kg ha−1 controló Echinochloa crus-galli, Solanum physalifolium y Amaranthus retroflexus 96% o más, pero el control de Chenopodium album fue variable. Saflufenacil a 0.07 kg ha−1 brindó un control superior a 93% de C. album, S. physalifolium y A. retroflexus en ambos sitios en 2010. KSU12800 a 0.15 kg ha−1 controló C. album, S. physalifolium y A. retroflexus 99% o más en Ontario, pero solamente 87 a 93% en Paterson en 2010. Estos herbicidas no redujeron el rendimiento de los tubérculos U.S. no. 1 ni el rendimiento total de tubérculos en comparación con los tratamientos con herbicidas estándar con etiqueta para este cultivo cuando el control de malezas fue adecuado.

Keywords

KSU12800pyroxasulfonesaflufenacilbarnyardgrass, Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) Beauv. ECHCGcommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. CHEALhairy nightshade, Solanum physalifolium Rusby SOLSAredroot pigweed, Amaranthus retroflexus L. AMAREpotato, Solanum tuberosum L. ‘Ranger Russet'Crop toleranceherbicide injurypotato injuryweed controlweed management
Type
Weed Management—Other Crops/AREAS
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 26 , Issue 4 , December 2012 , pp. 731 - 739
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

Ackley, J. A., Wilson, H. P., and Hines, T. E. 1996. Efficacy of rimsulfuron and metribuzin in potato (Solanum tuberosum). Weed Technol. 10 :475–480.Google Scholar
Alvarez, J. M. and Hutchinson, P.J.S. 2005. Managing hairy nightshade to reduce potato viruses and insect vectors. Outlooks Pestic. Manag. J. 16 :249–252.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1991. United States Standards for grades of potatoes. Beltsville, MD : USDA Agricultural Marketing Service. 10 p.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2005. Pesticide use statistics. National Agricultural Statistics Service. http://www.pestmanagement.info/nass/act_dsp_statcs3_crop.cfm. Accessed: January 2012.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2006. Sencor 75 DF Herbicide Label. EPA Reg. No. 264–738. Research Triangle Park, NC.: Bayer CropScience. 21 pGoogle Scholar
Boydston, R. A. 2007. Potato (Solanum tuberosum) and weed response to postemergence-applied halosulfuron, rimsulfuron, and EPTC. Weed Tech. 21 :465–469.Google Scholar
Boydston, R. A., Hutchinson, P. J. S., and Bellinder, R. R. 2008a. Managing weeds. Pages 223–234 in Johnson, D. A., ed. Potato Health Management. St. Paul, MN. APS Press.Google Scholar
Boydston, R. A., Mojtahedi, H., Crosslin, J. M., Brown, C. R., and Anderson, T. 2008b. Effect of hairy nightshade (Solanum sarrachoides) presence on potato nematode, disease, and insect pests. Weed Sci. 56 :151–154.Google Scholar
Eberlein, C. V., Witmore, J. C., Stanger, C. E., and Guttieri, M. J. 1994. Postemergence weed control in potatoes (Solanum tuberosum) with rimsulfuron. Weed Technol. 8 :428–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eleftherohorinos, I. G., Vasilakoglou, I. B., and Dhima, K. V. 2000. Metribuzin resistance in Amaranthus retroflexis and Chenopodium album in Greece. Weed Sci. 48 :69–74.Google Scholar
Friesen, G. H. and Wall, D. A. 1984. Response of potato (Solanum tuberosum) cultivars to metribuzin. Weed Sci. 32 :442–444.Google Scholar
Geier, P. W., Stahlman, P. W., and Charvat, L. D. 2009. Dose responses of five broadleaf weeds to saflufenacil. Weed Technol. 23 :313–316.Google Scholar
Grossmann, K., Hutzler, J., Casdpar, G., Kwiatkowski, J., and Brommer, C. L. 2011. Saflufenacil (KixorTM): Biokinetic properties and mechanism of selectivity of a new protoporphrinogen IX oxidase inhibiting herbicide. Weed Sci. 59 :290–298.Google Scholar
Heap, I. 2011. International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. http://www.weedscience.org/In.asp. Accessed: January 2012.Google Scholar
Kadir, S., Al-Khatib, K., Boydston, R., Lanini, T., and Miller, T. 2007. KSU12800: a new herbicide for vineyards and orchards. Proc. West. Soc. Weed Sci. 60 :14–15. http://www.wsweedscience.org/Proceedings%20Archive/2007.pdf. Accessed January 2012.Google Scholar
Lyon, D. J. and Kniss, A. R. 2010. Proso millet tolerance to saflufenacil. Weed Technol. 26 :349–355.Google Scholar
Moran, M., Sikkema, P. H., and Swanton, C. J. 2011. Efficacy of saflufenacil plus dimethenamid-P for weed control in corn. Weed Technol. 25 :330–334.Google Scholar
Nelson, D. C. and Thoreson, M. C. 1981. Competition between potatoes (Solanum tuberosum) and weeds. Weed Sci. 29 :672–677.Google Scholar
Nurse, R. E., Sikkema, P. H., and Robinson, D. E. 2011. Weed control and sweet maize (Zea mays L.) yield as affected by pyroxasulfone dose. Crop Prot. 30 :789–793.Google Scholar
Ogg, A. G. and Dawson, J. H. 1984. Time of emergence of eight weed species. Weed Sci. 32 :327–335.Google Scholar
Robinson, D. E., Soltani, N., and Sikkema, P. H. 2012. Response of eght sweet maiz (Zea mays L.) hybrids to saflufenacil alone or pre-mixed with dimethenamid-P. Amer. J. Plant Sci. 3 :96–101.Google Scholar
SAS. 2008. User's Guide, Second Edition. Version 9.2. Cary, NC : SAS Institute, Inc. 266 p.Google Scholar
Sikkema, P. H., Robinson, D. E., Nurse, R. E., and Soltani, N. 2007. Pre-emergence herbicides for potential use in pinto and small red Mexican bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) production. Crop Prot. 27 :124–129.Google Scholar
Stark, J. C. and Love, S. L., eds. 2003. Potato Production Systems. Moscow, ID : University of Idaho Agricultural Communications. 426 p.Google Scholar
Strand, L. 2006. Integrated Pest Management for Potatoes in the Western United States. 2nd ed. University of California Statewide Integrated Pest Management Program. Publ. 3316. Oakland, CA : Agriculture and Natural Resources Communication Services, University of California. 167 p.Google Scholar
Tanetani, Y., Kaku, K., Kawai, K., Fujioka, T., and Shimizu, T. 2009. Action mechanism of a novel herbicide, pyroxasulfone. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 95 :47–55.Google Scholar
Vangessel, M. J. and Renner, K. A. 1990. Effect of soil type, hilling time, and weed interference on potato (Solanum tuberosum) development and yield. Weed Technol. 4 :299–305.Google Scholar