Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-684899dbb8-7wlv9 Total loading time: 0.292 Render date: 2022-05-19T03:15:35.427Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true }

Response of Sweetpotato Cultivars to Linuron Rate and Application Time

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 November 2018

Shawn C. Beam
Affiliation:
Graduate Student, 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
Sushila Chaudhari*
Affiliation:
Postdoctoral Research Scholar, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
David W. Monks
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, 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
*
Author for correspondence: Sushila Chaudhari, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, North Carolina State University, William Hall, 101 Derieux Place, Raleigh, NC 27695. (Email: schaudh@ncsu.edu)

Abstract

Field studies were conducted in 2015 and 2016 in North Carolina to determine the response of ‘Covington’ and ‘Murasaki-29’ sweetpotato cultivars to four rates of linuron (420, 560, 840, and 1,120 g ai ha–1) alone or with S-metolachlor (803 g ai ha–1) applied 7 or 14 d after transplanting (DAP). Injury (chlorosis/necrosis and stunting) to both cultivars was greater when linuron was applied with S-metolachlor as compared to linuron applied alone. Herbicide application at 14 DAP caused greater injury (chlorosis/necrosis and stunting) to both cultivars than when applied at 7 DAP. At 4 wk after treatment (WAT), stunting of Covington and Murasaki-29 (hereafter Murasaki) from linuron at 420 to 1,120 g ha–1 increased from 27% to 50% and 25% to 53%, respectively. At 7 or 8 WAT, crop stunting of 8% or less and 0% was observed in Covington and Murasaki, respectively, regardless of application rate and timing. Murasaki root yields were similar in the linuron alone or with S-metolachlor treatments, and were lower than the nontreated check. In 2016, no. 1 and marketable sweetpotato yields of Covington were similar for the nontreated check, linuron alone, or linuron plus S-metolachlor treatments, but not in 2015. Decreases in no. 1 and marketable root yields were observed when herbicides were applied 14 DAP compared to 7 DAP for Covington in 2015 and for Murasaki in both years. No. 1 and marketable yields of Covington were similar for 420 to 1,120 g ha–1 linuron and nontreated check except marketable root yields in 2015. No. 1 and marketable sweetpotato yields of Murasaki decreased as application rates increased.

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.)

References

Anonymous (2013) Linex® 4L herbicide label. Phoenix, AZ: Tessenderlo Kerley, Inc.Google 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
Beam, SC, Jennings, KM, Monks, DW, Schultheis, JR, Chaudhari, S (2017) Influence of herbicides on the development of internal necrosis of sweetpotato. Weed Technol 31:863869 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, CE, Boutwell, BE, Ogbuchiekwe, EJ, Mcgiffen, ME Jr (2000) Weed control in carrots: the efficacy and economic value of linuron. HortScience 35:10891091 Google Scholar
Bellinder, RR, Kirkwyland, JJ, Wallace, RW (1997) Carrot (Daucus carota) and weed response to linuron and metribuzin applied at different crop stages. Weed Technol 11:235240 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradeen, JM, Mollov, DS (2007) Herbicide tolerance in primitive diploid potato species comprising superseries Stellata: toward establishment of seedling cultivation conditions for field evaluations. Am J Potato Res 84:415424 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandenberger, L, Carrier, L, Havener, R, Adams, R (2009) Screening pre and postemergence herbicides for use in cilantro (Coriandrum sativum). Page 55 in Proceedings of the Weed Science Society of America. Orlando, FL: Weed Science Society 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. Page 2946 in Camper ND, ed. Research Methods in Weed Science. 3rd edn. Champaign, IL: Southern Weed Science Society Google Scholar
Hahn, RA (1992) Pre and postemergence control programs for annual weeds in soybeans. Page 117 in Proceedings of the Northeast Weed Sci Society, Boston, MAGoogle Scholar
Harrison, HF, Jones, JA, Dukes, PD (1985) Differential response of six sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas) cultivars to metribuzin. Weed Sci 33:730733 Google Scholar
Kemble, JM (2015) Vegetable Crop Handbook for the Southeastern United States 2014. Lincolnshire, IL: Vance Publishing Corp. 283 p Google Scholar
La Bonte, DR, Villordon, AQ, Clark, CA, Wilson, PW, Stoddard, CS (2008)‘Murasaki-29’ sweetpotato. HortScience 43:18951896 Google 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, Miller, DK, Shankle, MW (2013) Rate and application timing effects on tolerance of Covington sweetpotato to S-metolachlor. Weed Technol 27:729734 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyers, SL, Jennings, KM, Schultheis, JR, Monks, DW (2010a) Interference of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in sweetpotato. Weed Sci 58:199203 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyers, SL, Jennings, KM, Schultheis, JR, Monks, DW (2010b) Evaluation of flumioxazin and S-metolachlor rate and timing for Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) control in sweetpotato. Weed Technol 24:495503 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, DK, Mathews, MM, Smith, TP (2013) Weed control and sweet potato tolerance to linuron and fomesafen. Page 218 in Proceedings of the Southern Weed Science Society. Houston, TX: Southern Weed Science SocietyGoogle Scholar
Motsenbocker, CE, Monaco, TJ (1991) Sweet potatoes (Ipomoea batatas) differ in response to bentazon. Weed Technol 5:345350 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, 2017 Google Scholar
Rouse, CE, Estorninos, LE Jr, Singh, V, Salas, RA, Singh, S, Burgos, NR (2015) Sweet potato tolerance to select herbicides for weed control in Arkansas. Page 111 in Proceedings of the Southern Weed Science Society. Savannah, GA: Southern Weed Science SocietyGoogle Scholar
Scott, JE, Weston, LA, Jones, RT (1995) Clomazone for weed control in transplanted cole crops (Brassica oleracea). Weed Sci 43:121127 Google Scholar
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture (2005) United States Standards for Grades of Sweet Potatoes. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Google Scholar
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture (2018) Crop production 2017 summary. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Google Scholar
Webster, TM (2010) Weed survey—southern states vegetable, fruit and nut crops subsection. Page 256 in Proceedings of the Southern Weed Science Society. Little Rock, AR: Southern Weed Science SocietyGoogle Scholar
Yencho, GC, Pecota, KV, Schultheis, JR, VanEsbroeck, Z, Holmes, GJ, Little, BE, Thornton, AC, Truong, V (2008) ‘Covington’ sweetpotato. HortScience 43:19111914 Google Scholar
4
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.

Response of Sweetpotato Cultivars to Linuron Rate and Application Time
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.

Response of Sweetpotato Cultivars to Linuron Rate and Application Time
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.

Response of Sweetpotato Cultivars to Linuron Rate and Application Time
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? *