Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-684899dbb8-pcn4s Total loading time: 0.409 Render date: 2022-05-18T01:25:54.224Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true }

Critical timing of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) removal in sweetpotato

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 January 2020

Stephen C. Smith
Affiliation:
Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
Katherine M. Jennings
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
David W. Monks
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
Sushila Chaudhari*
Affiliation:
Postdoctoral Research Scholar, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA; current: Assistant Professor, Department of Horticulture, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA
Jonathan R. Schultheis
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
Chris Reberg-Horton
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
*
Author for Correspondence: Sushila Chaudhari, Assistant Professor, Department of Horticulture, Plant and Soil Science Building, Office A440-B, 1066 Bogue Street, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI4882. Email: sushilac@msu.edu

Abstract

Palmer amaranth is the most common and troublesome weed in North Carolina sweetpotato. Field studies were conducted in Clinton, NC, in 2016 and 2017 to determine the critical timing of Palmer amaranth removal in ‘Covington’ sweetpotato. Palmer amaranth was grown with sweetpotato from transplanting to 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 wk after transplanting (WAP) and maintained weed-free for the remainder of the season. Palmer amaranth height and shoot dry biomass increased as Palmer amaranth removal was delayed. Season-long competition by Palmer amaranth interference reduced marketable yields by 85% and 95% in 2016 and 2017, respectively. Sweetpotato yield loss displayed a strong inverse linear relationship with Palmer amaranth height. A 0.6% and 0.4% decrease in yield was observed for every centimeter of Palmer amaranth growth in 2016 and 2017, respectively. The critical timing for Palmer amaranth removal, based on 5% loss of marketable yield, was determined by fitting a log-logistic model to the relative yield data and was determined to be 2 WAP. These results show that Palmer amaranth is highly competitive with sweetpotato and should be managed as early as possible in the season. The requirement of an early critical timing of weed removal to prevent yield loss emphasizes the importance of early-season scouting and Palmer amaranth removal in sweetpotato fields. Any delay in removal can result in substantial yield reductions and fewer premium quality roots.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2020

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.)

Footnotes

Associate Editor: Peter J. Dittmar, University of Florida

References

Agostinho, FH, Gravena, R, Alves, PLCA, Salgado, TP, Mattos, D (2006) The effect of cultivar on critical periods of weed control in peanuts. Peanut Sci 33:2935CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barkley, SL, Chaudhari, S, Jennings, KM, Schultheis, JR, Meyers, SL, Monks, DW (2016) Fomesafen programs for Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) control in sweetpotato. Weed Technol 30:506515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Basinger, NT, Jennings, KM, Monks, DW, Jordan, DL, Everman, WJ, Hestir, EL, Bertucci, MB, Brownie, C (2019) Large crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis) and Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) intraspecific and interspecific interference in soybean. Weed Sci 67:649656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bensch, CN, Horak, MJ, Peterson, D (2003) Interference of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus), Palmer amaranth (A. palmeri), and common waterhemp (A. rudis) in soybean. Weed Sci 51:3743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertucci, MB, Jennings, KM, Monks, DW, Schultheis, JR, Louws, FJ, Jordan, DL (2019a) Interference of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) density in grafted and nongrafted watermelon. Weed Sci 67:229238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertucci, MB, Jennings, KM, Monks, DW, Schultheis, JR, Louws, FJ, Jordan, DL, Brownie, C (2019b) Critical period for weed control in grafted and nongrafted watermelon grown in plasticulture. Weed Sci 67:221228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burke, IC, Schroeder, M, Thomas, WE, Wilcut, JW (2007) Palmer amaranth interference and seed production in peanut. Weed Technol 21:367371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaudhari, S, Jennings, KM, Monks, DW, Jordan, DL, Gunter, CC, McGowen, SJ, Louws, FJ (2016) Critical period for weed control in grafted and nongrafted fresh market tomato. Weed Sci 64:523530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coleman, LB, Chaudhari, S, Jennings, KM, Schultheis, JR, Meyers, SL, Monks, DW (2016) Evaluation of herbicide timings for Palmer amaranth control in a stale seedbed sweetpotato production system. Weed Technol 30:725732CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cousens, R (1985) A simple model relating yield loss to weed density. Ann Appl Biol 107:239252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehleringer, J (1983) Ecophysiology of Amaranthus palmeri, a Sonoran Desert summer annual. Oecologia 57:107112CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Everman, WJ, Clewis, SB, Thomas, WE, Burke, IC, Wilcut, JW (2008) Critical period of weed interference in peanut. Weed Technol 22:6367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franssen, AS, Skinner, DZ, Al-Khatib, K, Horak, MJ, Kulakow, PA (2001) Interspecific hybridization and gene flow of ALS resistance in Amaranthus species. Weed Sci 49:598606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horak, MJ, Loughin, TM (2000) Growth analysis of four Amaranthus species. Weed Sci 48:347355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huaman, Z (1987) Descriptors for the characterization and evaluation of sweet potato genetic resources. Pages 331–355 in Gregory P (ed.). Exploration, Maintenance, and Utilization of Sweet Potato Genetic Resources. Report of the First Sweet Potato Planning Conference. Lima, Peru: International Potato Center 369 pGoogle Scholar
Keeley, PE, Carter, CH, Thullen, RJ (1987) Influence of planting date on growth of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri). Weed Sci 35:199204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knezevic, SZ, Evans, SP, Blankenship, EE, Van Acker, Rene C, Lindquist, JL (2002) Critical period for weed control: the concept and data analysis. Weed Sci 50:773786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Massinga, RA, Currie, RS, Trooien, TP (2003) Water use and light interception under Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and corn competition. Weed Sci 51:523531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyers, SL, Jennings, KM, Schultheis, JR, Monks, DW (2010) Interference of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in sweetpotato. Weed Sci 58:199203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, JW, Murray, DS, Westerman, RB (2004) Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) effects on the harvest and yield of grain sorghum (Sorghum bicolor). Weed Technol 18:2329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, GD, Baumann, PA, Chandler, JM (2001) Competitive impact of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) on cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) development and yield. Weed Technol 15:408412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norsworthy, JK, Griffith, G, Griffin, T, Bagavathiannan, M, Gbur, EE (2014) In-field movement of glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and its impact on cotton lint yield: evidence supporting a zero-threshold strategy. Weed Sci 62:237249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norsworthy, JS, Oliveira, MJ (2004) Comparison of the critical period for weed control in wide- and narrow-row corn. Weed Sci 52:802807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowland, MW, Murray, DS, Verhalen, LM (1999) Full-season Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) interference with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci 47:305309Google Scholar
Schultheis, J (2016) State Report- North Carolina. National Sweetpotato Collaborators Group Annual Conference, San Antonio, TX. Feb. 5–6, 2015Google Scholar
Seem, JE, Creamer, NG, Monks, DW (2003) Critical weed-free period for ‘Beauregard’ sweetpotato (Ipomoea batatas). Weed Technol 17:686695CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sellers, BA, Smeda, RJ, Johnson, WG, Kendig, JA, Ellersieck, MR (2003) Comparative growth of six Amaranthus species in Missouri. Weed Sci 51:329333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steckel, LE, Sprague, CL, Stoller, EW, Wax, LM (2004) Temperature effects on germination of nine Amaranthus species. Weed Sci 52:217221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Streibig, JC, Combellack, JH, Pritchard, GH, Richardson, RG (1989) Estimation of thresholds for weed control in Australian cereals. Weed Technol 29:117126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture (2005) United States Standards for Grades of Sweet Potatoes. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 4 pGoogle Scholar
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture (2019a) Crop Production 2018 Summary. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 132 pGoogle Scholar
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture (2019b) Crop Value 2018 Summary. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 49 pGoogle Scholar
Wang, J, Klessig, DF, Berry, JO (1992) Regulation of C4 gene expression in developing amaranth leaves. Plant Cell 4:173184CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ward, SM, Webster, TM, Steckel, LE (2013) Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri): a review. Weed Technol 27:1227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weaver, SE, Tan, CS (1983) Critical period of weed interference in transplanted tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum): growth analysis. Weed Sci 31:476481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, TM (2010) Weed survey-southern states: vegetable, fruit and nut crops subsection (annual weed survey). Proc South Weed Sci Soc 63:246257Google Scholar
Yencho, GC, Pecota, KV, Schultheis, JR, VanEsbroeck, Z, Holmes, GJ, Little, BE, Thornton, AC, Truong, V (2008) ‘Covington’ sweetpotato. HortScience 43:19111914CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Critical timing of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) removal in sweetpotato
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Critical timing of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) removal in sweetpotato
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Critical timing of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) removal in sweetpotato
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *