Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-dtkg6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-20T21:52:04.909Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of Halosulfuron POST on Sweetpotato Yield and Storage Root Quality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Peter J. Dittmar ,
David W. Monks ,
Katherine M. Jennings  and
Jonathan R. Schultheis
Peter J. Dittmar*
Affiliation:
Horticultural Sciences Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611
David W. Monks
Affiliation:
Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695
Katherine M. Jennings
Affiliation:
Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695
Jonathan R. Schultheis
Affiliation:
Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: pdittmar@ufl.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted to determine the effect of halosulfuron at 0, 13, 26, 39 or 52 g ha−1 applied 10, 22, and 31 d after planting (DAP) on ‘Beauregard' and ‘Covington' sweetpotato. Storage roots were harvested, graded, cured, and stored in controlled environment for 2 mo. Where injury on storage roots was observed, external injury occurred on the surface of the storage root as a blackened area with blistering and internal injury consisted of small red-brown spots inside the sweetpotato storage root. Total yield of sweetpotato with 13 g ha−1 halosulfuron treatment (155,157 kg ha−1) was similar to the nontreated check (162,002 kg ha−1). However, halosulfuron rates above 13 g ha−1 resulted in a reduction of marketable grade roots and total yield of sweetpotato. Regardless of rate and timing of halosulfuron, external and internal injury to Beauregard storage roots was less than 6 and 9%, respectively. No external injury to Covington was observed from all rates of halosulfuron applied POST at 10 DAP. Halosulfuron at 22 DAP to Covington caused greater external injury to storage roots than was observed on the nontreated. Thus, Beauregard appears more tolerant to halosulfuron POST than Covington. To minimize internal or external injury to storage roots of Covington, halosulfuron must be applied within 10 DAP.

Se realizaron experimentos de campo para determinar el efecto de halosulfuron a 0, 13, 26, 39 ó 52 g ha−1 aplicados 10, 22 y 31 d después de la siembra (DAP) en batata 'Beauregard' y 'Covington'. Raíces de almacenamiento fueron cosechadas, evaluadas según su calidad, curadas y almacenadas en un ambiente controlado por 2 meses. Cuando se observó daño en las raíces de almacenamiento, se vio un daño externo en la superficie de la raíz con un área ennegrecida con ampollas, mientras que el daño interno consistió en puntos café-rojizo dentro de la raíz de almacenamiento de la batata. El rendimiento total de la batata del tratamiento con 13 g ha−1 de halosulfuron (155,157 kg ha−1) fue similar al testigo no tratado (162,002 kg ha−1). Sin embargo, dosis de halosulfuron por encima de 13 g ha−1 resultaron en una reducción del rendimiento total y de las raíces de batata con calidad comercializable. Sin importar la dosis o el momento de aplicación de halosulfuron, el daño externo e interno en las raíces de almacenamiento de Beauregard fue menor al 6 y 9%, respectivamente. No se observó daño externo en Covington en ninguna de las dosis aplicadas POST 10 DAP. Halosulfuron aplicado 22 DAP, causó un daño externo mayor en las raíces de almacenamiento de Covington que el daño observado en el testigo no tratado. Así, Beauregard parece ser más tolerante a halosulfuron POST que Covington. Para minimizar daños internos o externo en las raíces de almacenamiento de Covington, se debe aplicar halosulfuron dentro de los 10 DAP.

Keywords

Halosulfuronsweetpotato, Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam. ‘Beauregard' and ‘Covington'Application timingcrop injurycrop tolerancerate
Type
Weed Management—Other Crops/Areas
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 27 , Issue 1 , March 2013 , pp. 113 - 116
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.)

References

Literature Cited

Adcock, C. W., Foshee, W. G. III, Wehtje, G. R., and Gilliam, C. H. 2008. Herbicide combinations in tomato to prevent nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus) punctures in plastic mulch for multi-cropping systems. Weed Technol. 22 :136–141.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2006. Select 2 EC herbicide label. Walnut Creek, CA : Valent. 12 p.Google Scholar
Blum, R. R., Isgrigg, J., and Yelverton, F. H. 2000. Purple (Cyperus rotundus) and yellow nutsedge (C. esculentus) in bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) turf. Weed Technol. 14 :357–365.Google Scholar
Brandenberger, L. P., Talbert, R. E., Wiedenfeld, R. P., Shrefler, J. W., Webber, C. L. III, and Malik, M. S. 2005. Effects of halosulfuron on weed control in commercial honeydew crops. Weed Technol. 19 :346–350.Google Scholar
Brill, N. L. 2005. Effects of grower management practices and field characteristic on insect damage to sweetpotato (Ipomoea batatas) roots. . Raleigh, NC : North Carolina State University.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
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
Kemble, J. M., ed. 2010. Vegetable Crop Handbook for Southeastern US-2010. Lincolnshire, IL : Vance. 270 p.Google Scholar
MacRae, A. W., Monks, D. W., Batts, R. B., Thorton, A. C., and Schultheis, J. R. 2007. Sweetpotato tolerance to halosulfuron applied postemergence. Weed Technol. 21 :993–996.Google Scholar
Main, J. L., Shankle, M. W., and Garrett, T. F. 2005. Effect of pretransplant applications of Sandea on sweetpotato. Annual report 204 of the North Mississippi Research and Extension Center. Mississippi Agric. For. Exp. Stn. Inf. Bull. 419 :211–214.Google 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
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
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
Shankle, M. W., Kelly, S. W., Garrett, T. F., and Main, J. L. 2005. Effect of halosulfuron-methyl rate and application time on sweetpotato. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 58 :156.Google Scholar
Shankle, M. W., Main, J. L., and Garrett, T. F. 2003. Effect of Sandea application timing on sweetpotato. Annual report 2002 of the North Mississippi Research & Extension Center. Mississippi Agric. For. Exp. Stn. Inf. Bull. 398 :258–261.Google Scholar
[USDA-AMS] U.S. Department of Agriculture–Agricultural Marketing Service. 2005. United States Standards for Grades of Sweet Potatoes. Washington, DC : U.S. Department of Agriculture.Google Scholar
[USDA-NASS] U.S. Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2010. Chapter IV Statistics of Vegetables and Melons. 2010 Agricultural Statistics. Washington, DC : U.S. Department of Agriculture. p. iv–30.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
Webster, T. M. 2006. Weed survey—southern states. Proc. South. Weed. Sci. Soc. 59 :266–268.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
Yencho, G. C., Pecota, K. V., Schultheis, J. R., VanEscbroeck, Z. P., Holmes, G. J., Little, B. E., Thornton, A. C., and Truong, V. D. 2008. ‘Covington' sweetpotato. HortScience 43 :1911–1914.Google Scholar