Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-54qdv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T12:41:39.789Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sweetpotato Tolerance to Halosulfuron Applied Postemergence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Andrew W. MacRae ,
David W. Monks ,
Roger B. Batts ,
Allan C. Thorton  and
Jonathan R. Schultheis
Andrew W. MacRae*
Affiliation:
Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7609
David W. Monks
Affiliation:
Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7609
Roger B. Batts
Affiliation:
Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7609
Allan C. Thorton
Affiliation:
Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7609
Jonathan R. Schultheis
Affiliation:
Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7609
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: awmacrae@uga.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Studies were conducted in 2003 and 2004 to determine the effect of application timing and halosulfuron rate on sweetpotato yield and quality. Halosulfuron was applied 1, 2, and 4 wks after transplanting (WAP) sweetpotato in 2003, and 2, 3, and 4 WAP in 2004. Treatments within each timing included halosulfuron at 13, 26, 39, 52, and 65 g ai/ha plus a weed-free control. Combined over year, site, cultivar and rate, halosulfuron applied at 1, 2, 3, and 4 WAP stunted sweetpotato 32, 15, 11, and 14%, respectively, rated 2 wks after treatment. The stunting observed with the 1 and 2 WAP timings caused a 17 and 10% reduction in yield of No. 1 roots, respectively, compared with the weed-free control. The 3 and 4 WAP timings of halosulfuron did not reduce yield of No. 1 roots. Total yield was reduced approximately 11% at the 1, 2, and 3 WAP application timings. Halosulfuron at 4 WAP did not reduce total yield. Combined over year, site, and cultivar, halosulfuron applied at 39 g/ha did not reduce the weight of No. 1 roots or total crop yield and thus could be an effective POST option for weed control in sweetpotato.

Keywords

Halosulfuronsweetpotato, Ipomoea batatas (L.) LamTimingrateyieldinjury

Information

Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 21 , Issue 4 , December 2007 , pp. 993 - 996
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

Ackley, J. A., Wilson, H. P., and Hines, T. E. 1996. Yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus) control POST with acetolactate synthase-inhibiting herbicides. Weed Technol. 10:576–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anonymous 2005a. Command 3ME herbicide label Rev. 3-29-03. Philadelphia, PA FMC Corporation, Agricultural Products Group. 19.Google Scholar
Anonymous 2005b. Devrinol 50-DF herbicide label Rev. 8/04. Trenton, NJ United Phosphorus. 9.Google Scholar
Anonymous 2005c. Eptam 7-E herbicide label 01-R0704. Yuma, AZ Gowan Company. 26.Google Scholar
Anonymous 2005d. Outlook herbicide: supplemental label for sweetpotato NVA 2004-04-086-0285. Research Triangle Park, NC BASF Corporation. 6.Google Scholar
Anonymous 2005e. Sandea herbicide label 01-R0705. Yuma, AZ Gowan Company. 18.Google Scholar
Anonymous 2005f. United States Standards for Grades of Sweetpotatoes. http://www.ams.usda.gov/standards/sweetpot.pdf. Accessed: May 19, 2005.Google Scholar
Anonymous 2005g. Valor herbicide: supplemental label for sweetpotato 2004-VLR-0013 Rev. 1. Walnut Creek, CA Valent U.S.A. Corporation. 2.Google Scholar
Blum, R. R., Isgrigg, J. III, and Yelverton, F. H. 2000. Purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus) and yellow nutsedge (C. esculentus) control in bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) turf. Weed Technol. 14:357–365.Google Scholar
Brill, N. L. 2005. Effects of grower management practices and field characteristics on insect damage to sweetpotato (Ipomoea batatas) roots. M.S. thesis Raleigh, NC North Carolina State University.Google Scholar
Brown, D. and Masiunas, J. 2002. Evaluation of herbicides for pumpkin (Cucurbita spp.). Weed Technol. 16:282–292.Google Scholar
Earl, H. J., Ferrell, J. A., Vencill, W. K., van Iersel, M. W., and Czarnota, M. A. 2004. Effects of three herbicides on whole-plant carbon fixation and water use by yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus). Weed Sci. 52:213–216.Google Scholar
Ferrell, J. A., Earl, H. J., and Vencill, W. K. 2004. Duration of yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus) competitiveness after herbicide treatment. Weed Sci. 52:24–27.Google Scholar
Grichar, W. J., Besler, B. A., and Brewer, K. D. 2003. Purple nutsedge control and potato (Solanum tuberosum) tolerance to sulfentrazone and halosulfuron. Weed Technol. 17:485–490.Google Scholar
Isaacs, M. A., Wilson, H. P., and Toler, J. E. 2002. Rimsulfuron plus thifensulfuron-methyl combinations with selected postemergence broadleaf herbicides in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 16:664–668.Google Scholar
La Bonte, D. R., Harrison, H. F., and Motsenbocker, C. E. 1999. Sweetpotato clone tolerance to weed interference. Hortscience 34:229–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Molin, W. T., Maricic, A. A., Khan, R. A., and Mancino, C. F. 1999. Effect of MON 12037 on the growth and tuber viability of purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus). Weed Technol. 13:1–5.Google Scholar
Monks, D. W., Kalmowitz, K. E., and Monaco, T. J. 1991. Influence of herbicides on sweetpotato (Ipomoea batatas) plant production. Weed Technol. 6:136–138.Google Scholar
Nelson, K. A. and Renner, K. A. 2002. Yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus) control and tuber production with glyphosate and ALS-inhibiting herbicides. Weed Technol. 16:512–519.Google Scholar
Rao, A. S. and Reddy, K. N. 1999. Purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus) and sicklepod (Senna obtusifolia) response to glyphosate mixtures with ALS-inhibiting herbicides. Weed Technol. 13:361–366.Google Scholar
SAS 2005. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Release 9.1.3 Service Pack 2. Cary, NC SAS Institute. 5136.Google Scholar
Schultheis, J. R. 1998. Guidelines for sweetpotato seed stock and transplant production. Raleigh, NC North Carolina State University Horticulture Information Leaflet 23-C. 2.Google Scholar
Seem, J. E., Creamer, N. G., and Monks, D. W. 2003. Critical weed-free period for ‘Beauregard’ sweetpotato (Ipomoea batatas). Weed Technol. 17:686–695.Google Scholar
Sprague, C. L., Stoller, E. W., and Hart, S. E. 1997. Preemergence broadleaf weed control and crop tolerance in imidazolinone-resistant and susceptible corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 11:118–122.Google Scholar
Toth, S. J., Melton, T., Monks, D. W., Schultheis, J. R., and Sorenson, K. A. 1997. Sweetpotato Pesticide Use Survey in North Carolina: Data Report for the Southern Region Pesticide Impact Assessment Program. Raleigh, NC North Carolina State University. 91.Google Scholar
Vencill, W. K., Richburg, J. S. III, Wilcut, J. W., and Hawf, L. R. 1995. Effect of MON-12037 on purple (Cyperus rotundus) and yellow (Cyperus esculentus) nutsedge. Weed Technol. 9:148–152.Google Scholar
Whitwell, T., Melton, A., and Decoteau, D. R. 1989. Simulated drift of chlorimuron and imazaquin on sweet potatoes. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 42:159.Google Scholar