Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-7pwfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T23:56:21.753Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Season-Long Dose–Response of Potato to Sulfometuron

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Pamela J. S. Hutchinson,
Don W. Morishita and
William J. Price
Pamela J. S. Hutchinson*
Affiliation:
Plant, Soil, and Entomological Sciences Department, University of Idaho, Aberdeen Research and Extension Center, Aberdeen, ID 83210
Don W. Morishita
Affiliation:
Plant, Soil, and Entomological Sciences Department, University of Idaho, Twin Falls Research and Extension Center, Twin Falls, ID 83301
William J. Price
Affiliation:
Statistical Programs, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844-2337
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: phutch@uidaho.edu.
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field trials were conducted to determine potato response to parts per trillion (ppt) per weight concentrations of sulfometuron in soil. The herbicide was applied to achieve targeted, 0-d soil concentrations of 0, 7.5, 15, 30, 60, 120, 240, 480, and 960 ppt. Russet Burbank potatoes were planted immediately after application using standard agronomic practices. Based on midseason visual evaluations, root and tuber injury occurred with 0-d concentrations of only 7.5 ppt. Concentrations at or above 120 ppt caused a significant increase in number of tubers with deformities compared with the control. By the end of the growing season, 0-d concentrations between 120 and 240 ppt resulted in higher percentages of tubers with deformities, such as cracks, knobs, or folds. Using logistic models fit to U.S. No. 1 tuber yield and net return data, doses of 74, 156, and 324 ppt are predicted to result in 5, 10, and 20% U.S. No. 1 yield reductions, respectively. The model predicted a 20% net return loss, approximately $160/ha, occurring at 262 ppt, which is near the 240 ppt concentration determined by standard ANOVAs and means comparisons with single degree of freedom contrasts causing significant tuber quality and yield reductions in our study. Growers using the 240 ppt concentration as an indicator of a no-effect level would encounter actual losses too great to withstand. This modeling approach provides an initial attempt at giving growers the tools necessary for assessing potential losses.

Keywords

SulfometuronpotatoSolanum tuberosum L‘Russet Burbank’Crop safetyherbicide injurylogistic modelpotato tolerance

Information

Type
Soil, Air, and Water
Information
Weed Science , Volume 55 , Issue 5 , October 2007, pp. 521 - 527
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

Anderson, J. J. and Dulka, J. J. 1985. Environmental fate of sulfometuron in aerobic soils. J. Agric. Food Chem. 33:596–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, R. L. and Barrett, M. R. 1985. Residual phytotoxicity of chlorsulfuron in two soils. J. Environ. Qual. 14 (1):111–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, R. L. and Humburg, N. E. 1987. Field duration of chlorsulfuron bioactivity in the central great plains. J. Environ. Qual. 16 (3):263–266.Google Scholar
Anonymous, , 1998. Oust herbicide supplemental label. EPA SLN ID-970001. H-63391. Wilmington, DE E.I. duPont de Nemours. 1.Google Scholar
Anonymous, , 1999. Declo soil series. National Cooperative Soil Survey, U.S.A. http://ortho.ftw.nrcs.usda.gov/osd/dat/D/DECLO.html. Accessed: October 30, 2006.Google Scholar
Anonymous, , 2001a. Oust Herbicide Restoration, an Update: Product Information Bulletin. Wilmington, DE E.I. duPont de Nemours. 2.Google Scholar
Anonymous, , 2001b. Portneuf soil series. National Cooperative Soil Survey, U.S.A. http://ortho.ftw.nrcs.usda.gov/osd/dat/P/PORTNEUF.html. Accessed: October 30, 2006.Google Scholar
Anonymous, , 2002. Idaho Department of Agriculture press release and publications: Idaho State Department of Agriculture completes Oust investigation. http://www.agri.state.id.us/press. Accessed: January 18, 2002.Google Scholar
Anonymous, , 2003. Oust herbicide label. Wilmington, DE E.I. duPont de Nemours. 9.Google Scholar
Anonymous, , 2004. Helicopter spraying begins this week. Eugene Weekly: News briefs. http://www.eugeneweekly.com/2004/04/01/news.html. Accessed: October 30, 2006.Google Scholar
Anonymous, , 2005a. BLM treatments using herbicides. Sulfometuron-methyl Ecological Risk Assessment: Final Report. Reno, NV Bureau of Land Management Contract No. NAD010156 ENSR Document 09090-020-650. 135.Google Scholar
Anonymous, , 2005b. Matrix product label. Wilmington, DE E.I. duPont de Nemours. 14.Google Scholar
Blair, A. M. and Martin, T. D. 1988. A review of the activity, fate, and mode of action of sulfonylurea herbicides. Pestic. Sci. 22:195–219.Google Scholar
Brown, H. M. 1990. Mode of action, crop selectivity, and soil relations of the sulfonylurea herbicides. Pestic. Sci. 29:263–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callihan, R. S., Lass, L. W., and Hiller, L. K. 1991. Dose–response confirmation of sensitive crops to sulfometuron. Las Cruces, NM Western Society of Weed Science Research Progress Report. 126.Google Scholar
Carlson, R. and Bahr, G. 2003. Testing for Oust and other previously untested pesticides in Idaho ground water: ISDA Technical Results Summary 16, July 2003. Boise, ID Idaho State Department of Agriculture, Division of Agricultural Resources. 6.Google Scholar
Dinelli, G., Vicari, A., Bonetti, A., and Catizone, P. 1997. Hydrolytic dissipation of four sulfonylurea herbicides. J. Agric. Food Chem. 45:1940–1945.Google Scholar
Eberlein, C. V., Westra, P., Haderlie, L. C., Whitmore, J. C., and Guttieri, M. J. 1997. Herbicide drift and carryover injury in potatoes. Pacific Northwest Publication 498. Moscow, ID University of Idaho, Cooperative Extension System. 16.Google Scholar
Ferullo, M. 2002. Farmers sue DuPont, seek compensation from Interior for alleged herbicide damage. Chem. Reg. Rep. 26:553.Google Scholar
Fletcher, J. S., Pfleeger, T. G., and Ratsch, H. C. 1993. Potential environmental risks associated with the new sulfonylurea herbicides. Environ. Sci. Technol. 27 (10):2250–2252.Google Scholar
Harvey, J., Dulka, J. J., and Anderson, J. J. 1985. Properties of sulfometuron methyl affecting its environmental fate: aqueous hydrolysis and photolysis, mobility and adsorption on soils, and bioaccumulation potential. J. Agric. Food Chem. 33:590–596.Google Scholar
Hirnyck, R. 2001. University of Idaho Pest Management Center Newsletter, Pestic. Pest Manag. I (3):3–4.Google Scholar
Hutchinson, P. J. S., Tonks, D. J., and Beutler, B. R. 2003. Efficacy and economics of weed control programs in glyphosate-resistant potato (Solanum tuberosum). Weed Technol. 17:854–865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lym, R. G. and Swenson, O. R. 1991. Sulfometuron persistence and movement in soil and water in North Dakota. J. Environ. Qual. 20:209–215).Google Scholar
Marrs, R. H., Williams, C. T., Frost, A. J., and Plant, R. A. 1989. Assessment of the effects of herbicide spray drift on a range of plant species of conservation interest. Environ. Pollut. 59:71–86.Google Scholar
J.H. Montgomery. 1997. Illustrated Handbook of Physical-chemical Properties and Environmental Fate for Organic Chemicals. Volume V: Pesticide Chemicals. Boca Raton, Florida Lewis Publishers.Google Scholar
Morishita, D. W. and Downard, R. W. 1994. Herbicide injury symptoms in sugar beets. Moscow, ID University of Idaho, Cooperative Extension System Pacific Northwest Publication 472. 8.Google Scholar
Obrigawitch, T. T., Cook, G., and Wetherington, J. 1998. Assessment of effects on nontarget plants from sulfonylurea herbicides using field approaches. Pestic. Sci. 52:199–217.Google Scholar
Patterson, P. E. and Smathers, R. L. 2001. Idaho Crop Input Price Summary for 2001. Moscow, ID Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Society, College of Agricultural and Life Sciences, University of Idaho Agricultural Economics Extension Series 01–15. 20.Google Scholar
Seefeldt, S. S., Jensen, J. E., and Fuerst, E. P. 1995. Log-logistic analysis of herbicide dose-response relationships. Weed Technol. 9:218–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Streibig, J. C. 2004. Analysis of herbicide dose response bioassays using nonlinear mixed modeling. Weed Technol. 18:30–37.Google Scholar
Trubey, R. K., Bethem, R. A., and Peterson, B. 1998. Degradation and mobility of sulfometuron-methyl (Oust herbicide) in field soils. J. Agric. Food Chem. 46:2360–2367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, S. A. 1987. Post-application movement of sulfometuron methyl from treated rights of way areas via wind (soil) erosion. Proceedings of the Fourth Symposium on Environmental Concerns in Rights-of-Way Management. Indianapolis, IN International Symposium on Environmental Concerns in Rights-of-Way Management.Google Scholar
Vencill, W. K. 2002. Sulfometuron. in. Herbicide Handbook. 8th ed. 407–408. Lawrence, KS: Weed Science Society of America.Google Scholar
Westra, P., Franc, G., Cranmer, B., and d'Amato, T. 1991. Plant Tier Testing: A Workshop to Evaluate Nontarget Plant Testing in Subdivision J Pesticide Guidelines. Workshop Report EPA/600/9-91/041. 98–104.Google Scholar