Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T23:03:45.012Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed Control and Potato (Solanum Tuberosum) Crop Response With Low Rates of Sulfentrazone Applied Postemergence With Metribuzin

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Pamela J.S. Hutchinson ,
Brent R. Beutler  and
Daniel M. Hancock
Pamela J.S. Hutchinson*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant, Soils, and Entomological Science, University of Idaho, 1693 South 2700 West, Aberdeen, ID 83210
Brent R. Beutler
Affiliation:
Department of Plant, Soils, and Entomological Science, University of Idaho, 1693 South 2700 West, Aberdeen, ID 83210
Daniel M. Hancock
Affiliation:
Department of Plant, Soils, and Entomological Science, University of Idaho, 1693 South 2700 West, Aberdeen, ID 83210
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: phutch@uidaho.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Sulfentrazone was applied POST at 13, 26, or 53 g ai/ha alone or in combination with metribuzin at 280 or 420 g ai/ha in field trials conducted with ‘Russet Burbank’ potatoes in 2002 to 2004. Sulfentrazone alone provided less than 84% redroot pigweed, common lambsquarters, and kochia control, although control usually improved to 90% or greater when metribuzin was included. Hairy nightshade control reached 90% only when the highest rates of both herbicides were applied in combination. Sulfentrazone alone did not provide any volunteer oat control, whereas control was 85% when the highest metribuzin rate was included. Potato crop injury, consisting of chlorosis, interveinal blackening of the leaves, eventual necrosis, leaf malformation, and plant stunting, increased as the sulfentrazone rate increased. In contrast, injury decreased as metribuzin rate increased from 0 to 420 g/ha, when averaged across sulfentrazone rates. Reduction in injury levels and increased weed control translated to improved tuber yields as metribuzin rate increased. However, when sulfentrazone was combined with the highest metribuzin rate, potato injury was still relatively high at 26 and 18% at 1 and 4 wk after treatment, and acceptance of sulfentrazone applied POST with metribuzin by potato growers is unlikely.

Keywords

Metribuzinsulfentrazonecommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. #3 CHEALkochia, Kochia scoparia (L.) Shrad. # KCHSCredroot pigweed, Amaranthus retroflexus L. # AMAREhairy nightshade, Solanum sarrachoides Sendtn # SOLSAvolunteer oat, Avena sativa L. # AVESApotato, Solanum tuberosum L. ‘Russet Burbank’Herbicide interactionpotato crop responsesafening effectWAT, weeks after treatment
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 20 , Issue 4 , December 2006 , pp. 1023 - 1029
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

Anonymous, , 1991. United States Standards for Grades of Potatoes. FR Doc. 91-4371. Washington DC U.S. Department of Agriculture. 7.Google Scholar
Anonymous, , 2001. Sencor DF 75% dry flowable herbicide label. EPA Reg. No. 264-738. Research Triangle Park, NC Bayer CropScience. 22.Google Scholar
Anonymous, , 2003. Matrix herbicide label. EPA Reg. No. 352-556. Wilmington, DE DuPont. 9.Google Scholar
Anonymous, , 2004a. Spartan herbicide label. EPA Reg. No. 279-3189. Philadelphia, PA FMC Corp. 13.Google Scholar
Anonymous, , 2004b. Spartan herbicide supplemental label. EPA Reg. No. 279-3189. Philadelphia, PA FMC Corp. 7.Google Scholar
Bailey, W. A., Wilson, H. P., and Hines, T. E. 2002. Response of potato (Solanum tuberosum) and selected weeds to sulfentrazone. Weed Technol. 16:651–658.Google Scholar
Dayan, F. E. and Duke, S. O. 1997. Phytotoxicity of protoporphyrinogen oxidase inhibitors: phenomenology, mode of action and mechanisms of resistance. in Roa, R.M., Burton, J.D., Kuhr, R.J., eds. Herbicide Activity: Toxicology, Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. Burke, VA IOS. 11–36.Google Scholar
Dayan, F. E., Green, H. M., Weete, J. D., and Hancock, H. G. 1996. Postemergence activity of sulfentrazone: effects of surfactants and leaf surfaces. Weed Sci. 44:797–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dayan, F. E., Wehjte, J. D., Duke, S. O., and Hancock, H. G. 1997. Soybean (Glycine max) cultivar differences in response to sulfentrazone. Weed Sci. 45:634–641.Google Scholar
Dirks, J. T., Johnson, W. G., Smeda, R. J., Wiebold, W. J., and Massey, R. E. 2000. Reduced rates of sulfentrazone plus chlorimuron and glyphosate in no-till, narrow-row, glyphosate-resistant Glycine max . Weed Sci. 48:618–627.Google Scholar
Duke, S. O., Lyndon, J., Becerril, J. M., Sherman, T. D., Lehnen, L. P. Jr, and Matsumoto, H. 1991. Protoporphyrinogen oxidase-inhibiting herbicides. Weed Sci. 39:465–473.Google Scholar
Eastin, E. F. 1971. Fate of fluorodifen in resistant peanut seedlings. Weed Sci. 19:261–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gawronski, S. W., Haderlie, L. C., Callihan, R. H., and Dwelle, R. B. 1985. Metribuzin absorption, translocation, and distribution in two potato (Solanum tuberosum) cultivars. Weed Sci. 33:629–634.Google Scholar
Grichar, W. J., Beslar, 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
Hancock, H. G. 1994. Post-emergent activity of F6285 in soybeans. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 47:63.Google Scholar
Hutchinson, P. J. S., Boydston, R. A., Ransom, C. V., Tonks, D. J., and Beutler, B. R. 2005b. Potato (Solanum tuberosum) variety tolerance to flumioxazin and sulfentrazone. Weed Technol. 19:704–715.Google Scholar
Hutchinson, P. J. S. and Eberlein, C. V. 2003. Weed management. in Stark, J.C., Love, S.L., eds. Potato Production Systems. Moscow, ID University of Idaho Agricultural. 240–283.Google Scholar
Hutchinson, P. J. S., Hancock, D. M., and Beutler, B. R. 2005a. Efficacy of reduced sulfentrazone rates applied preemergence with metribuzin in potato (Solanum tuberosum). Weed Technol. 19:954–958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Love, S. L., Novy, R., Corsini, D. L., and Bain, P. 2003. Variety selection and management. in Stark, J.C., Love, S.L., eds. Potato Production Systems. Moscow, ID University of Idaho Agricultural. 21–47.Google Scholar
Matsumoto, H., Kashimoto, Y., and Warabi, E. 1999. Basis for common chickweed (Stellaria media) tolerance to oxyfluorfen. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 64:47–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, E. W., Shaw, D. R., and Holoway, J. C. Jr. 2000. Broadleaf weed control in soybean (Glycine max) with CGA-277476 and four postemergence herbicides. Weed Technol. 14:617–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shoup, D. E., Al-Khatib, K., and Peterson, D. E. 2003. Common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) resistance to protoporphyrinogen oxidase-inhibiting herbicides. Weed Sci. 51:145–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor-Lovell, S., Wax, L. M., and Nelson, R. 2001. Phytotoxic response and yield of soybean (Glycine max) varieties treated with sulfentrazone or flumioxazin. Weed Technol. 15:95–102.Google Scholar
Vencill, W. K. 2002. Sulfentrazone. in. Herbicide Handbook. 8th ed. Lawrence, KS Weed Science Society of America. 405–406.Google Scholar
Viator, B. J., Griffen, J. L., and Ellis, J. M. 2002. Red morningglory (Ipomoea coccinea) control with sulfentrazone and azafeniden applied layby in sugarcane (Saccharum spp.). Weed Technol. 16:142–148.Google Scholar
Warabi, E., Usui, K., Tanaka, Y., and Matsumoto, H. 2001. Resistance of a soybean cell line to oxyfluorfen by overproduction of mitochondrial protoporphyrinogen oxidase. Pest Manag. Sci. 57:743–748.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. E., Nissen, S. J., and Thompson, A. 2002. Potato (Solanum tuberosum) variety and weed response to sulfentrazone and flumioxazin. Weed Technol. 16:567–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar