Organic sweetpotato growers have limited effective weed management options, and most rely on in-season between-row cultivation and hand weeding, which are time consuming, are costly, and deteriorate soil quality. Studies were conducted at the Samuel G. Meigs Horticulture Research Farm, Lafayette, IN, and at the Southwest Purdue Agricultural Center, Vincennes, IN, in 2022 and 2023 to determine the effects of in-row plant spacing and cultivar selection on weed suppression and organic sweetpotato yield. The experiment was a split-split plot design, with in-row spacings of 20, 30, and 40 cm as the main plot factor, weeding frequency (critical weed-free period and weed-free) as the subplot factor, and sweetpotato cultivar (‘Covington’ and ‘Monaco’) as the sub-subplot factor. However, in 2022, we evaluated only in-row spacing and weeding frequency because of the poor establishment of ‘Monaco’. In 2023, sweetpotato canopy at 5 wk after transplanting (WAP) decreased as in-row spacing increased from 20 to 40 cm, and sweetpotato canopy cover of ‘Monaco’ (62%) was greater than that of ‘Covington’ (44%). In-row spacing did not affect weed density at 4, 5, and 6 WAP. As in-row spacing increased from 20 to 40 cm, total sweetpotato yield pooled across both locations in 2023 decreased from 30,223 to 21,209 kg ha−1 for ‘Covington’ and from 24,370 to 20,848 kg ha−1 for ‘Monaco’; however, jumbo yield increased for both cultivars. Findings from this study suggest that an in-row spacing of 20 cm may provide greater yield than the standard spacing of 30 cm for both ‘Monaco’ and ‘Covington’.

Flumioxazin and S-metolachlor are widely used in conventional sweetpotato production in North Carolina and other states; however, some growers have recently expressed concerns about potential effects of these herbicides on sweetpotato yield and quality. Previous research indicates that activated charcoal has the potential to reduce herbicide injury. Field studies were conducted in 2021 and 2022 to determine whether flumioxazin applied preplant and S-metolachlor applied before and after transplanting negatively affect sweetpotato yield and quality when activated charcoal is applied with transplant water. The studies evaluated five herbicide treatments and two activated charcoal treatments. Herbicide treatments included two flumioxazin rates, one S-metolachlor rate applied immediately before and immediately after transplanting, and no herbicide. Charcoal treatments consisted of activated charcoal applied at 9 kg ha−1, and no charcoal. No visual injury from herbicides or charcoal was observed. Likewise, no effect of herbicide or charcoal treatment on no. 1, marketable (sum of no. 1 and jumbo grades), or total yield (sum of canner, no. 1, and jumbo grades) was observed. Additionally, shape analysis conducted on calculated length-to-width ratio (LWR) for no. 1 sweetpotato roots found no effect from flumioxazin at either rate on sweetpotato root shape. However, both S-metolachlor treatments resulted in lower LWR of no. 1 sweetpotato roots in 2021. Results are consistent with prior research and indicate that flumioxazin and S-metolachlor are safe for continued use on sweetpotato at registered rates.

Field studies were conducted to assess the efficacy of physical weed management of Palmer amaranth management in cucumber, peanut, and sweetpotato. Treatments were arranged in a 3 × 4 factorial in which the first factor included a treatment method of electrical, mechanical, or hand-roguing Palmer amaranth control and the second factor consisted of treatments applied when Palmer amaranth was approximately 0.3, 0.6, 0.9, or 1.2 m above the crop canopy. Four wk after treatment (WAT), the electrical applications controlled Palmer amaranth at least 27 percentage points more than the mechanical applications when applied at the 0.3- and 0.6-m timings. At the 0.9- and 1.2-m application timings 4 WAT, electrical and mechanical applications controlled Palmer amaranth by at most 87%. Though hand removal generally resulted in the greatest peanut pod count and total sweetpotato yield, mechanical and electrical control resulted in similar yield to the hand-rogued plots, depending on the treatment timing. With additional research to provide insight into the optimal applications, there is potential for electrical control and mechanical control to be used as alternatives to hand removal. Additional studies were conducted to determine the effects of electrical treatments on Palmer amaranth seed production and viability. Treatments consisted of electricity applied to Palmer amaranth at first visible inflorescence, 2 wk after first visible inflorescence (WAI) or 4 WAI. Treatments at varying reproductive maturities did not reduce the seed production immediately after treatment. However, after treatment, plants primarily died and ceased maturation, reducing seed production assessed at 4 WAI by 93% and 70% when treated at 0 and 2 WAI, respectively. Treatments did not have a negative effect on germination or seedling length.

Field studies were conducted to determine the effects of synthetic auxin herbicides at simulated exposure rates applied to ‘Covington’ sweetpotato propagation beds on the quality of nonrooted stem cuttings (slips). Treatments included diglycolamine salt of dicamba, 2,4-D choline plus nonionic surfactant (NIS), and 2,4-D choline plus glyphosate at 1/10, 1/33, or 1/66 of a 1X application rate (560 g ae ha−1 dicamba, 1,065 g ae ha−1 2,4-D choline, 1,130 g ae ha−1 glyphosate) applied at 2 or 4 wk after first slip harvest (WASH). Injury to sweetpotato 2 wk after treatment was greatest when herbicides were applied 2 WASH (21%) compared to 4 WASH (16%). More slip injury was caused by 2,4-D choline than by dicamba, and the addition of glyphosate did not increase injury over 2,4-D choline alone. Two weeks after the second application, sweetpotato slips were cut 2 cm above the soil surface and transplanted into production fields. In 2019, sweetpotato ground coverage 8 wk after transplanting was reduced 37% and 26% by the 1/10X rates of dicamba and 2,4-D choline plus NIS, respectively. Though dicamba caused less injury to propagation beds than 2,4-D choline with or without glyphosate, after transplanting, slips treated with 1/10X dicamba did not recover as quickly as those treated with 2,4-D choline. In 2020, sweetpotato ground coverage was 90% or greater for all treatments. Dicamba applied 2 WASH decreased marketable sweetpotato storage root yield by 59% compared to the nontreated check, whereas treatments including 2,4-D choline reduced marketable yield 22% to 29%. All herbicides applied at 4 WASH reduced marketable yield 31% to 36%. The addition of glyphosate to 2,4-D choline did not increase sweetpotato yield. Results indicate that caution should be taken when deciding whether to transplant sweetpotato slips that are suspected to have been exposed to dicamba or 2,4-D choline.

Field studies were conducted in North Carolina in 2018 and 2019 to determine sweetpotato tolerance to indaziflam and its effectiveness in controlling Palmer amaranth in sweetpotato. Treatments included indaziflam pre-transplant; 7 d after transplanting (DATr) or 14 DATr at 29, 44, 58, or 73 g ai ha−1; and checks (weedy and weed-free). Indaziflam applied postemergence caused transient foliar injury to sweetpotato. Indaziflam pretransplant caused less injury to sweetpotato than other application timings regardless of rate. Palmer amaranth control was greatest when indaziflam was applied pretransplant or 7 DATr. In a weed-free environment, sweetpotato marketable yield decreased as indaziflam application was delayed. No differences in storage root length to width ratio were observed.

A field study was conducted in Mississippi to determine the effect of reduced dicamba rates on sweetpotato crop tolerance and storage root yield, simulating off-target movement or sprayer tank contamination. Treatments included a nontreated control and four rates of dicamba [70 g ae ha−1 (1/8×), 35 g ae ha−1 (1/16×), 8.65 g ae ha−1 (1/64×), and 1.09 g ae ha−1 (1/512×)] applied either 3 d before transplanting (DBP) or 1, 3, 5, or 7 wk after transplanting (WAP). An additional treatment consisted of 560 g ae ha−1 (1×) dicamba applied 3 DBP. Crop injury ratings were taken 1, 2, 3, and 4 wk after treatment (WAT). Across application timings, predicted sweetpotato plant injury 1, 2, 3, and 4 WAT increased from 3T to 22%, 3% to 32%, 2% to 58%, and 1% to 64% as dicamba rate increased from 0 to 70 g ha−1 (1/8×), respectively. As dicamba rate increased from 1/512× to 1/8×, predicted No. 1 yield decreased from 127% to 55%, 103% to 69%, 124% to 31%, and 124% to 41% of the nontreated control for applications made 1, 3, 5, and 7 WAP, respectively. Similarly, as dicamba rate increased from 1/512× to 1/8×, predicted marketable yield decreased from 123% to 57%, 107% to 77%, 121% to 44%, and 110% to 53% of the nontreated control for applications made 1, 3, 5, and 7 WAP, respectively. Dicamba residue (5.3 to 14.3 parts per billion) was detected in roots treated with 1/16× or 1/8× dicamba applied 5 or 7 WAP and 1/64× dicamba applied 7 WAP with the highest residue detected in roots harvested from sweetpotato plants treated at 7 WAP. Collectively, care should be taken to avoid sweetpotato exposure to dicamba especially at 1/8× and 1/16× rates during the growing season.

Commercialization of 2,4-D–tolerant crops is a major concern for sweetpotato producers because of potential 2,4-D drift that can cause severe crop injury and yield reduction. A field study was initiated in 2014 and repeated in 2015 to assess impacts of reduced rates of 2,4-D, glyphosate, or a combination of 2,4-D with glyphosate on sweetpotato. In one study, 2,4-D and glyphosate were applied alone and in combination at 1/10, 1/100, 1/250, 1/500, 1/750, and 1/1,000 of anticipated field use rates (1.05 kg ha−1 for 2,4-D and 1.12 kg ha−1 for glyphosate) to ‘Beauregard’ sweetpotato at storage root formation (10 days after transplanting [DAP]). In a separate study, all these treatments were applied to ‘Beauregard’ sweetpotato at storage root development (30 DAP). Injury with 2,4-D alone or in combination with glyphosate was generally equal or greater than with glyphosate applied alone at equivalent herbicide rates, indicating that injury is attributable mostly to 2,4-D in the combination. There was a quadratic increase in crop injury and quadratic decrease in crop yield (with respect to most yield grades) with increased rate of 2,4-D applied alone or in combination with glyphosate applied at storage root development. However, neither the results of this relationship nor of the significance of herbicide rate were observed on crop injury or sweetpotato yield when herbicide application occurred at storage root formation, with a few exceptions. In general, crop injury and yield reduction were greatest at the highest rate (1/10×) of 2,4-D applied alone or in combination with glyphosate, although injury observed at lower rates was also a concern after initial observation by sweetpotato producers. However, in some cases, yield reduction of U.S. no.1 and marketable grades was also observed after application of 1/250×, 1/100×, or 1/10× rates of 2,4-D alone or with glyphosate when applied at storage root development.

Field trials were conducted in North Carolina in 2017 and Louisiana and Mississippi in 2018 to determine the effect of pretransplanting applications of diquat on sweetpotato crop tolerance, yield, and storage root quality. In North Carolina treatments consisted of two rates of diquat (560 or 1,120 g ai ha−1) alone or mixed with 107 g ai ha−1 flumioxazin and applied 1 d before transplanting (DBP), sequential applications of diquat (560 or 1,120 g ha−1) 1 and 17 DBP, 107 g ha−1 flumioxazin alone, and a nontreated check. In Louisiana and Mississippi treatments consisted of diquat (560 or 1,120 g ha−1) applied 1 DBP either alone or followed by (fb) rehipping rows or 107 g ha−1 flumioxazin immediately prior to transplanting. Additional treatments included 546 g ha−1 paraquat applied 1 DBP and a nontreated check. In North Carolina injury was ≤3% for all treatments through 23 d after transplanting (DAP), and no injury was observed after 23 DAP. Visual sweetpotato stunting pooled across the Mississippi and Louisiana trials ranged from 1% to 14%, 0% to 6%, and 0% to 3% at 2, 4, and 6 wk after planting (WAP), respectively, and no crop injury was observed after 6 WAP. Diquat applied 1 DBP and not fb rehipping resulted in greater crop injury (12%) than comparable treatments that were rehipped (2%). In North Carolina single and sequential diquat applications resulted in reduced No. 1 sweetpotato yield (24,230 and 24,280 kg ha−1, respectively) compared with the nontreated check, but No. 1 yield when diquat plus flumioxazin (26,330 kg ha−1) was used was similar to that of the nontreated check. No. 1 yield did not differ by treatment in Louisiana and Mississippi.

Field studies were conducted at the Pontotoc Ridge–Flatwoods Branch Experiment Station in Pontotoc, MS, in 2016 and 2017 to determine sweetpotato crop response to saflufenacil and rimsulfuron/thifensulfuron-methyl. Saflufenacil treatments consisted of a factorial of two rates (25 or 50 g ai ha–1) by three application timings [0, 3, or 6 wk before transplanting (WBP)]. Rimsulfuron/thifensulfuron-methyl treatments consisted of a factorial of two rates (18/18 or 35/35 g ai ha–1) by two application timings (3 or 6 WBP). A nontreated check was included for comparison. Saflufenacil resulted in as much as 20% stunting injury in 2016, but ≤4% crop injury in 2017. Compared to the nontreated check, saflufenacil did not reduce yield of any sweetpotato grade regardless of application rate or timing. Findings from this trial indicate that saflufenacil applied in pre-transplanting burndown and field preparation procedures did not have a negative impact on the subsequent sweetpotato crop and that the current plant-back interval (4 to 5 mo) may be excessive. Applications of rimsulfuron/thifensulfuron-methyl at 35/35 g ha–1 made 3 WBP resulted in significant crop injury but did not reduce yield of any sweetpotato grade. Findings from this trial suggest that rimsulfuron/thifensulfuron-methyl applications up to 35/35 g ha–1 applied at least 6 WBP and 18/18 g ha–1 applied at least 3 WBP had little impact on sweetpotato crop growth and may be a safe preplant burndown option.

The investigation of potential herbicides for weed control in sweetpotato is critical due to the limited number of registered herbicides and the development of populations of herbicide- resistant weeds. Therefore, field studies were conducted at the Horticultural Crops Research Station, Clinton, NC and the Pontotoc Ridge–Flatwoods Branch Experiment Station, Pontotoc, MS to determine the effect of oryzalin application rate and timing on sweetpotato tolerance. Oryzalin at 0.6, 1.1, 2.2, 3.4, and 4.5 kg ai ha–1 was applied immediately after transplanting or 14 d after sweetpotato transplanting (DAP). At Clinton, oryzalin applied immediately after transplanting resulted in ≤1% leaf distortion 4 and 6 wk after transplanting (WAP) regardless of application rate. However, when oryzalin was applied 14 DAP, greater sweetpotato leaf distortion was observed from 2.2, 3.4, and 4.5 kg ha–1 (≤8%) than 0.6 and 1.1 kg ha–1 (≤4%). At Pontotoc, oryzalin applied immediately after transplanting resulted in ≤6% leaf distortion 4 WAP regardless of application rate. However, when oryzalin was applied at 14 DAP, greater leaf distortion was reported from 3.4 and 4.5 kg ha–1 (11 to 13%) than 0.6, 1.1, and 2.2 kg ha–1 (4 to 6%). Oryzalin application rate and timing did not affect yield of no.1, jumbo, or marketable sweetpotato. Based on these results, oryzalin herbicide has potential for registration in sweetpotato.

Field studies were conducted in 2011 and 2012 at the Horticultural Crops Research Station near Clinton, NC, to determine ‘Covington' sweetpotato tolerance to S-metolachlor rate and application timing. Treatments were a factorial arrangement of four S-metolachlor rates (0, 1.1, 2.2, or 3.4 kg ai ha−1) and six application timings (0, 2, 5, 7, 9, or 14 d after transplanting [DAP]). Immediately following application, 1.9 cm of irrigation was applied to individual plots. Sweetpotato injury was minimal for all treatments (≤ 10%). No. 1 grade sweetpotato yield displayed a negative linear response to S-metolachlor rate, and decreased from 25,110 to 20,100 kg ha−1 as S-metolachlor rate increased from 0 to 3.4 kg ha−1. Conversely, no. 1 sweetpotato yield displayed a positive linear response to S-metolachlor application timing and increased from 19,670 to 27,090 kg ha−1 as timing progressed from 0 to 14 DAP. Total marketable sweetpotato yield displayed a quadratic response to both S-metolachlor application rate and timing. Total marketable yield decreased from 44,950 to 30,690 kg ha−1 as S-metolachlor rate increased from 0 to 3.4 kg ha−1. Total marketable yield increased from 37,800 to 45,780 kg ha−1 as application timing was delayed from 0 to 14 DAP. At 1.1 kg ha−1S-metolachlor, sweetpotato storage root length to width ratio displayed a quadratic relationship to application timing and increased from 1.87 to 2.23 for applications made 0 to 14 DAP. At 2.2 kg ha−1 of S-metolachlor, sweetpotato length to width ratio displayed a quadratic response to application timing, increased from 1.57 to 2.09 for 0 to 10 DAP, and decreased slightly from 2.09 to 2.03 for 10 to 14 DAP. Application timing did not influence length to width ratio of sweetpotato storage roots for those plots treated with S-metolachlor at either 0 or 3.4 kg ha−1.

Despite considerable efforts in developing sweetpotato cultivare resistant to two species of sweetpotato weevils, Cylas formicarius and C. puncticollis, no cultivar has yet been bred, utilizing previously identified sources of resistance, and cultivated in any appreciable area for weevil control. Escape, nonpreference, tolerance, and antibiosis, and the possible mechanisms involved do not seem to exist in the sweetpotato plant or cannot be utilized because of the peculiarities of ecology and host plant relationship of the weevils. Since weevil infestation of roots does not adversely affect the growth and reproduction of sweetpotato plants, it is possible that weevil resistance to root infestation does not exist in this crop.