Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-dc8c957cd-jqll6 Total loading time: 0.229 Render date: 2022-01-26T20:28:20.246Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Response of Palmer Amaranth and Sweetpotato to Flumioxazin/Pyroxasulfone

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 November 2018

Shawn C. Beam
Affiliation:
Graduate Research Assistant, 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
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
Stephen L. Meyers
Affiliation:
Assistant Extension/Research Professor, North Mississippi Research and Extension Center, Pontotoc Ridge–Flatwoods Branch Experiment Station, Mississippi State University, Pontotoc, MS, USA
Jonathan R. Schultheis
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
Mathew Waldschmidt
Affiliation:
Research Technician, Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
Jeffrey L. Main
Affiliation:
Senior Research Associate, North Mississippi Research and Extension Center, Pontotoc Ridge–Flatwoods Branch Experiment Station, Mississippi State University, Pontotoc, MS, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Sushila Chaudhari, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, William Hall, 101 Derieux Place, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, 27695. (E-mail: schaudh@ncsu.edu)

Abstract

Studies were conducted to determine the tolerance of sweetpotato and Palmer amaranth control to a premix of flumioxazin and pyroxasulfone pretransplant (PREtr) followed by (fb) irrigation. Greenhouse studies were conducted in a factorial arrangement of four herbicide rates (flumioxazin/pyroxasulfone PREtr at 105/133 and 57/72 g ai ha–1, S-metolachlor PREtr 803 g ai ha–1, nontreated) by three irrigation timings [2, 5, and 14 d after transplanting (DAP)]. Field studies were conducted in a factorial arrangement of seven herbicide treatments (flumioxazin/pyroxasulfone PREtr at 40/51, 57/72, 63/80, and 105/133 g ha–1, 107 g ha–1 flumioxazin PREtr fb 803 g ha–1S-metolachlor 7 to 10 DAP, and season-long weedy and weed-free checks) by three 1.9-cm irrigation timings (0 to 2, 3 to 5, or 14 DAP). In greenhouse studies, flumioxazin/pyroxasulfone reduced sweetpotato vine length and shoot and storage root fresh biomass compared to the nontreated check and S-metolachlor. Irrigation timing had no influence on vine length and root fresh biomass. In field studies, Palmer amaranth control was≥91% season-long regardless of flumioxazin/pyroxasulfone rate or irrigation timing. At 38 DAP, sweetpotato injury was≤37 and≤9% at locations 1 and 2, respectively. Visual estimates of sweetpotato injury from flumioxazin/pyroxasulfone were greater when irrigation timing was delayed 3 to 5 or 14 DAP (22 and 20%, respectively) compared to 0 to 2 DAP (7%) at location 1 but similar at location 2. Irrigation timing did not influence no.1, jumbo, or marketable yields or root length-to-width ratio. With the exception of 105/133 g ha–1, all rates of flumioxazin/pyroxasulfone resulted in marketable sweetpotato yield and root length-to-width ratio similar to flumioxazin fb S-metolachlor or the weed-free checks. In conclusion, flumioxazin/pyroxasulfone PREtr at 40/51, 57/72, and 63/80 g ha–1 has potential for use in sweetpotato for Palmer amaranth control without causing significant crop injury and yield reduction.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2018. 

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

Cite this article: Beam SC, Chaudhari S, Jennings KM, Monks DW, Meyers SL, Schultheis JR, Waldschmidt M, Main JL (2018) Response of palmer amaranth and sweetpotato to flumioxazin/pyroxasulfone. Weed Technol 33:128–134. doi: 10.1017/wet.2018.80

References

Anonymous (2016a) Fierce herbicide label. Walnut Creek, CA: Valent U.S.A Corporation. 15 pGoogle Scholar
Anonymous (2016b) Valor SX herbicide label. Walnut Creek, CA: Valent U.S.A Corporation. 31 pGoogle 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 30:506515 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cahoon, CW, York, AC, Jordan, DL (2012) Cotton tolerance and Palmer amaranth control with Zidua, Warrant, and Dual Magnum herbicides. Page 1535 in 2012 Beltwide Cotton Conferences. Orlando, FL: National Cotton Council of AmericaGoogle 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 30:725732 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frans, R, Talbert, R, Marx, D, Crowley, H (1986) Experimental design and techniques for measuring and analyzing plant responses to weed control practices. Pages 2946 in Camper ND, ed. Research Methods in Weed Science. 3rd edn. Champaign, IL: Southern Weed Sci Soc Google Scholar
Heap, I (2018) The International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. http://www.weedscience.org/summary/MOA.aspx?MOAID=12. Accessed: March 26, 2018.Google Scholar
Kemble, JM (2017) Southeastern U.S. Vegetable Crop Handbook. Lincolnshire IL: Vance, p 286Google Scholar
Mahoney, KJ, Shropshire, C, Sikkema, PH (2014) Weed management in conventional- and no-till soybean using flumioxazin/pyroxasulfone. Weed Technol 28:298306 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyers, SL, Jennings, KM, Monks, DW (2012) Response of sweetpotato cultivars to S-metolachlor rate and application time. Weed Technol 26:474479 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyers, SL, Jennings, KM, Monks, DW (2013) Herbicide-based weed management programs for Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in sweetpotato. Weed Technol 27:331340 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyers, SL, Jennings, KM, Schultheis, JR, Monks, DW (2010a) Evaluation of flumioxazin and S-metolachlor rate and timing for palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) control in sweetpotato. Weed Technol 24:495503 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyers, SL, Jennings, KM, Schultheis, JR, Monks, DW (2010b) Interference of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in sweetpotato. Weed Sci 58:199203 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, DK, Smith, TP, Mathews, MM (2013) Evaluation of weed control and sweet potato tolerance to alternative herbicides. Page 216 in Proceedings of the Southern Weed Science Society. Houston, TX: Southern Weed Science Society.Google Scholar
Monks, DW, Shankle, MW, Jennings, KM, Meyers, SL (2013) Herbicide Injury. Pages 110119 in Clark CA, Ferrin DM, Smith TP, Holmes GJ, eds. Compendium of Sweetpotato Diseases, Pests, and Disorders. 2nd edn. St. Paul, MN: The American Phytopathological Society Google Scholar
Mueller, TC, Steckel, LE (2011) Efficacy and dissipation of pyroxasulfone and three chloroacetamides in a Tennessee field soil. Weed Sci 59:574579 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[NCDACS] North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (2015) Research Stations Annual Report 2015. http://www.ncagr.gov/Research/documents/2015_Annual_Report_000.pdf. Accessed May 29, 2017Google Scholar
Norsworthy, JK, Meyer, CJ, Stepanovic, S, Steckel, LE, Young, B, Bradley, KW, Johnson, WG, Loux, MM, Davis, VM, Eubank, TW, Kruger, GR (2014) Program approaches for managing Palmer amaranth and waterhemp using new soybean technologies. Page 188 in Proceedings of the Southern Weed Science Society. Birmingham, AL: Southern Weed Science SocietyGoogle Scholar
Nurse, RE, Sikkema, PH, Robinson, DE (2011) Weed control and sweet maize (Zea mays L.) yield as affected by pyroxasulfone dose. Crop Prot 30:789793 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prostko, EP, Grey, TL, Webster, TM, Kemerait, RC (2011) Peanut tolerance to pyroxasulfone. Peanut Sci 38:111114 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Refsell, DE, Ott, EJ, Dale, TM, Pawlak, JA (2009) V-10233 performance in midwest soybean fields. Page 82 in Proceedings of the North Central Weed Science Society. Champaign, IL: North Central Weed Science SocietyGoogle Scholar
Rolston, LH, Riley, EG, Wilson, PW, Robbins, ML, Clark, CA, Cannon, JM, Randle, WM (1987) ‘Beauregard’ sweet potato. HortScience 22:13381339 Google Scholar
Shankle, MW, Garrett, TF, Abukari, IA (2013) Weed management in sweetpotato with flumioxazin and pyroxasulfone. Page 217 in Proceedings of the Southern Weed Science Society. Houston, TX: Southern Weed Science SocietyGoogle Scholar
Tanetani, Y, Kaku, K, Kawai, K, Fujioka, T, Shimizu, T (2009) Action mechanism of a novel herbicide, pyroxasulfone. Pestic Biochem Physiol 95:4755 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture (2005) United States Standards for Grades of Sweet Potatoes. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 5 pGoogle Scholar
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture (2018) Crop Production 2017 Summary. Washington, DC: U.S. Deptartment of Agriculture. 50 pGoogle Scholar
Wauchope, RD, Baker, DB, Balu, K, Nelson, H (1994) Pesticides in surface and ground waters. Issue Paper No. 2 https://www.iatp.org/files/Pesticides_in_Surface_and_Ground_Water.htm. Accessed: August 10, 2017Google Scholar
Westra, EP, Shaner, DL, Barbarick, KA, Khosla, R (2015) Evaluation of sorption coefficients for pyroxasulfone, S-metolachlor, and dimethenamid-p. Air, Soil Water Res, 10.4137/ASWR.S19682Google Scholar
Yencho, GC, Pecota, KV, Schultheis, JR, VanEsbroeck, Z, Holmes, GJ, Little, BE, Thornton, AC, Truong, V (2008) ‘Covington’ sweetpotato. HortScience 43:19111914 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@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 sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent 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.

Response of Palmer Amaranth and Sweetpotato to Flumioxazin/Pyroxasulfone
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send 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 use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Response of Palmer Amaranth and Sweetpotato to Flumioxazin/Pyroxasulfone
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send 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 use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Response of Palmer Amaranth and Sweetpotato to Flumioxazin/Pyroxasulfone
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? *