Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x24gv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-04T18:48:08.849Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Potato (Solanum tuberosum) Response to Simulated Drift of Imidazolinone Herbicides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Charlotte V. Eberlein
Affiliation:
Univ. Idaho, Aberdeen, ID 83210
Mary J. Guttieri
Affiliation:
Univ. Idaho, Aberdeen, ID 83210

Abstract

Potato response to simulated drift of imazamethabenz, imazethapyr, or imazapyr was evaluated in field studies conducted near Aberdeen, ID, in 1989 and 1990. Herbicides were applied at rates corresponding to 0.02, 0.1, and 0.5 times the typical use rate (x rate) of each herbicide. Simulated drift treatments were applied at potato emergence, tuber initiation, or tuber bulking. Foliar injury symptoms varied with herbicide, rate, and potato growth stage at the time of application, but were generally most severe with imazapyr and least severe with imazamethabenz. Yield losses also varied with herbicide, rate, and potato growth stage at the time of application, but generally were greater when drift occurred at tuber initiation or tuber bulking than at potato emergence. Losses in U.S. Number 1 (highest quality) yield were greater than losses in total yield, indicating that tuber quality was affected more by the herbicides than was tuber biomass accumulation. U.S. Number 1 yield was not reduced by simulated drift of imazamethabenz at 0.02x but was reduced 25% by the 0.1x rate applied at tuber bulking. At the 0.5x rate, U.S. Number 1 yield was reduced 36, 85, or 92% when drift occurred at potato emergence, tuber initiation, or tuber bulking, respectively. For imazethapyr, U.S. Number 1 yield losses ranged from 0 to 68% for the 0.02x rate; 19 to 98% for the 0.lx rate; and 64 to 100% with the 0.5x rate, depending on potato growth stage at the time of application. Losses were least when drift occurred at potato emergence. Simulated drift of imazapyr at the 0.02x rate applied as potatoes were emerging reduced U.S. Number 1 yield 79%. All other imazapyr treatments caused ≥99% loss in U.S. Number 1 yield.

Type
Weed Control and Herbicide Technology
Copyright
Copyright © 1994 by the 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

1. Bode, L. E. 1984. Downwind drift deposits by ground applications. Pages 4952 in Proc. Pesticide Drift Manage. Symp. Google Scholar
2. Lawson, H. M. and Wiseman, J. S. 1991. The effects of contamination of a potato crop with a thifensulfuron-methyl/metsulfuron methyl herbicide. Pages 239246 in Proc. 1991 Br. Crop Prot. Conf. Google Scholar
3. Little, D. L. and Shaner, D. L. 1991. Absorption and translocation of the imidazolinone herbicides. Pages 5369 in Shaner, D. L. and O'Conner, S. L., eds. The Imidazolinone Herbicides. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.Google Scholar
4. Stidham, M. A. and Singh, B. K. 1991. Imidazolinone acetohydroxy acid synthase interactions. Pages 7190 in Shaner, D. L. and O'Conner, S. L., eds. The Imidazolinone Herbicides. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.Google Scholar
5. Westra, P. 1989. Foliar and tuber symptomology following misapplications of ALS inhibiting herbicides to potatoes. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 29:28.Google Scholar
6. Westra, P., Franc, G., Cramner, B., and D'Amato, T. 1991. Research report on 1988 potato-herbicide injury research. Pages 98104 in Fletcher, J. and Ratsch, H., eds. Plant Tier Testing: A Workshop to Evaluate Nontarget Plant Testing in Subdivision J Pesticide Guidelines. U.S. Environmental Prot. Agency, Corvallis.Google Scholar