Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wzw2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-24T04:24:48.850Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Effects of Weeds and Herbicides on Sweetpotato (Ipomoea batatas) Transplant Production Using Polyethylene Bed Covers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

David W. Monks
Dep. Hortic. Sci., N.C. State Univ., Raleigh, NC 27695
Jonathan R. Schultheis
Dep. Hortic. Sci., N.C. State Univ., Raleigh, NC 27695
Robert J. Mills
Dep. Hortic. Sci., N.C. State Univ., Raleigh, NC 27695


Studies determined the effect of common lambsquarters, goosegrass, and a mixture of these on ‘Beauregard’ and ‘Jewel’ sweetpotato transplant production with or without polyethylene bed covers. Effects of herbicides on Beauregard in propagation beds were also studied. Black and infrared transmissible (IRT) plastic covers gave near 100% control of goosegrass and common lambsquarters, resulting in the greatest number and weight of Jewel transplants per plot. Common lambsquarters reduced transplant number and weight per plot with Jewel under clear plastic covers when compared with black and IRT plastic covers. Beauregard transplant number was not affected by row cover treatment. However, with data combined over all covers, Beauregard transplant weight per plot was lowest for treatments with weeds compared to weed-free plots. With the exception of DCPA, no significant (10% or greater) injury to Beauregard was observed with diphenamid, napropamide, chloramben, or chloramben plus fluazifop.

Copyright © 1996 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.)


Literature Cited

1. Anonymous. 1995. Fusilade DX product label. Zeneca Inc. Ag Products, Wilmington, DE 19897.Google Scholar
2. Anonymous. 1995. Poast product label. BASF Corp., Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-3528.Google Scholar
3. Fennimore, S. A., Mitich, L. W., and Radosevich, S. R. 1984. Interference among bean (Phaseolus vulgaris), barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) and black nightshade (Solanum nigrum). Weed Sci. 32:336342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Frans, R. E., Talbert, R., Marx, D., and Crowley, H. 1986. Experimental design and techniques for measuring and analyzing plant responses to weed control practices. p. 2946 in Camper, N. D., ed. Research Methods in Weed Science. Southern Weed Science Society, Champaign, IL 61820.Google Scholar
5. Hoyt, G. D., Monks, D. W., and Monaco, T. J. 1994. Conservation tillage for vegetable production. Hort Technology 4:129135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Lorenz, O. A., and Maynard, D. N. 1980. Knott's Handbook for Vegetable Growers. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York. p. 6970.Google Scholar
7. McWhorter, C. G., and Hartwig, E. E. 1972. Competition of johnsongrass and cocklebur with six soybean varieties. Weed Sci. 20:5659.Google Scholar
8. Monks, D. W., Kalmowitz, K. E., and Monaco, T. J. 1991. Influence of herbicides on sweetpotato (Ipomoea batatas) plant production. Weed Technol. 6:136138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. National Sweetpotato Collaborators Group. 1989. National Sweetpotato Collaborators Group Progress Report. Univ. of Georgia, Athens. p. 73.Google Scholar
10. North Carolina Department of Agriculture. 1990. Marketing North Carolina Sweetpotatoes. Sweetpotato Market Report 1:118.Google Scholar
11. Teasdale, J. R., and Frank, J. R. 1983. Effect of row spacing on weed competition with snap beans (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Sci. 31:8185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Wells, O. S., 1990. Evolution of mulches and row covers for horticultural crop production. Proc. Stand Establishment Hortic. Crops 1:18.Google Scholar
13. Wilkerson, G. G., Modena, S. A., and Coble, H. D. 1991. HERB: Decision model for postemergence weed control in soybean. Agron. J. 83:413417.Google Scholar
14. Wilson, G. L., and Averre, C. W. 1989. Growing and marketing quality sweetpotatoes. N.C. Agric. Ext. Serv. Bull. AG-09.Google Scholar