Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xm8r8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-21T17:51:48.886Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response of Potato (Solanum tuberosum) and Selected Weeds to Sulfentrazone

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

William A. Bailey ,
Henry P. Wilson  and
Thomas E. Hines
William A. Bailey
Affiliation:
Eastern Shore Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Virginia Tech, Painter, VA 23420
Henry P. Wilson*
Affiliation:
Eastern Shore Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Virginia Tech, Painter, VA 23420
Thomas E. Hines
Affiliation:
Eastern Shore Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Virginia Tech, Painter, VA 23420
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: hwilson@vt.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field experiments were conducted in 2000 and 2001 near Painter, VA, to evaluate the potential of sulfentrazone for use in potato. Sulfentrazone was applied at 0.11, 0.14, 0.21, and 0.28 kg ai/ha preemergence (PRE) alone or in combination with metolachlor or metribuzin, or at emergence (AT EMERG) of potato to simulate a delayed PRE application where the herbicide would come into contact with potato foliage. Potato injury from sulfentrazone PRE at rates of up to 0.21 kg/ha was generally similar to injury from metribuzin, metolachlor, or metribuzin plus metolachlor PRE. However, AT EMERG applications resulted in excessive injury that ranged from 60 to 86%. AT EMERG applications also caused decreased potato height and alterations in potato-flowering patterns. Sulfentrazone at either application timing controlled common lambsquarters at least 98% even at the lowest rates and was more effective than metribuzin or metolachlor alone. Higher rates of sulfentrazone (0.28 kg/ha) also controlled goosegrass and large crabgrass. However, sulfentrazone at 0.28 kg/ha controlled common ragweed only 58%. Total potato yield and grade with sulfentrazone PRE applications were similar to those of potato treated with metribuzin, metolachlor, or metribuzin plus metolachlor in both years. Potato injury from AT EMERG applications of sulfentrazone plus metolachlor decreased total potato yield and caused changes in the grade distribution of B-size, small A–size, and extra-large potato in 2000.

Keywords

Metolachlormetribuzinsulfentrazonecommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. #3 CHEALcommon ragweed, Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. # AMBELgoosegrass, Eleusine indica (L.) Gaertn. # ELEINlarge crabgrass, Digitaria sanguinalis (L.) Scop. # DIGSApotato, Solanum tuberosum L. ‘Superior’Degree-dayspotato floweringpotato injurypotato yield and graderainfallsulfentrazoneweed controlAT EMERG, at emergencePOST, postemergencePRE, preemergenceprotox, protoporphyrinogen oxidaseWAT, weeks after treatment
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 16 , Issue 3 , September 2002 , pp. 651 - 658
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

Ackley, J. A., Wilson, H. P., and Hines, T. E. 1996. Efficacy of rimsulfuron and metribuzin in potato (Solanum tuberosum). Weed Technol. 10: 475–480.Google Scholar
Alexander, S. A., Caldwell, J. S., Hohlt, H. E., Nault, B. A., O'Dell, C. R., Sterrett, S. B., and Wilson, H. P. 2000. Plant nutrient recommendations based on soil tests for vegetable crop production. In Hohlt, H. E., ed, Commercial Vegetable Production Recommendations. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Tech Extension Publication 456-420. pp. 28–29.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1991. United States Standards for Grades of Potatoes. FR Doc. 91-4371. 7 p.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2001. Spartan herbicide label. EPA Reg. No. 279-3189. Philadelphia, PA: FMC Corporation.Google Scholar
Arazi, Y., Wolf, S., and Marani, A. 1993. A prediction of developmental stages in potato based on the accumulation of heat units. Agric. Syst. 43: 35–50.Google Scholar
Bailey, W. A., Hatzios, K. K., Wilson, H. P., Bradley, K. W., and Hines, T. E. 2002. Field and laboratory evaluation of sulfentrazone in potato. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 42: 36–37.Google Scholar
Bailey, W. A., Wilson, H. P., and Hines, T. E. 2001. Influence of herbicide programs on weed control and net returns in potato (Solanum tuberosum). Weed Technol. 15: 654–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breeden, G. K., Rhodes, G. N. Jr., and Mueller, T. C. 1999. Influence of application variables on performance of Spartan in tobacco. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 52: 20.Google Scholar
Bruff, S. A., Griffin, J. L., Lanie, A. J., Reynolds, D. B., and Vidrine, P. R. 1992. Weed control and soybean injury with FMC97285. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 45: 67.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
Duke, S. O., Dayan, F. E., Yamamoto, M., Duke, M. V., and Reddy, K. N. 1996. Protoporphyrinogen oxidase inhibitors—their current and future role. Proc. Int. Weed Control Congr. 3: 775–780.Google Scholar
Eberlein, C. V., Whitmore, J. C., Stanger, C. E., and Guttieri, M. J. 1994. Postemergence weed control in potatoes (Solanum tuberosum) with rimsulfuron. Weed Technol. 8: 428–435.Google Scholar
Fisher, L. R., Smith, W. D., and Wilcut, J. W. 2001. Effect of sulfentrazone application and mixtures with clomazone or pendimethalin on weed control and phytotoxicity in flue-cured tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum). Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 41: 63.Google Scholar
FMC Corporation. 1993. Sulfentrazone (F6285) Technical Bulletin. Philadelphia, PA: FMC Corporation, Agricultural Chemical Group. 3 p.Google Scholar
Frans, R. R., Talbert, R., Marx, D., and Crowley, H. 1986. Experimental design and techniques for measuring and analyzing plant response to weed control practices. In Camper, N. D., ed. Research Methods in Weed Science. 3rd ed. Champaign, IL: Southern Weed Science Society. pp. 37–38.Google Scholar
Grey, T. L., Walker, R. H., Wehtje, G. R., and Hancock, H. G. 1997. Sulfentrazone adsorption and mobility as affected by soil and pH. Weed Sci. 45: 733–738.Google Scholar
Hancock, H. G. 1995. Sulfentrazone: a broad spectrum herbicide for soybeans. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 48: 44.Google Scholar
Jacobs, J. M. and Jacobs, N. J. 1987. Oxidation of protoporphyrinogen protoporphyrin, a step in chlorophyll and heme biosynthesis. Chem. J. 244: 219.Google Scholar
Johnson, W. O., Kollman, G. E., Swithenbank, C., and Yih, R. Y. 1978. RH6201 (Blazer): a new broad spectrum herbicide for postemergence use in soybean. Agric. Food Chem. 26: 285–286.Google Scholar
Kee, E. and Wooten, T. 1994. Varietal sensitivity of potatoes to E9636 and metribuzin. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 48: 116.Google Scholar
Lanfranconi, L. E., Bellinder, R. R., and Wallace, R. W. 1992. Grain rye residues and weed control strategies in reduced tillage potatoes. Weed Technol. 6: 1021–1026.Google Scholar
Manheimer, S. 2001. Virginia Agricultural Statistics. Richmond, VA: National Agricultural Statistics Service.Google Scholar
Ohmes, G. A., Mueller, T. C., and Hayes, R. M. 1998. Sulfentrazone dissipation in surface soil. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 51: 243.Google Scholar
Oliver, L. R., Costello, R. W., and King, C. A. 1995. Weed control programs with sulfentrazone in soybean. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 48: 73.Google Scholar
Peet, M. 2002. Sustainable Practices for Vegetable Production in the South. II. Crop Profiles—Potato: Web page: http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/sustainable/peet/profiles/botpotato.html.Google Scholar
Sieczka, J. B. and Creighton, J. F. 1984. Weed control of potatoes on Long Island. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 39: 176–180.Google Scholar
Swantek, J. M., Sneller, C. H., and Oliver, L. R. 1998. Evaluation of soybean injury from sulfentrazone and inheritance of tolerance. Weed Sci. 46: 271–277.Google Scholar
Theodoridis, G., Baum, J. S., and Hotzman, F. W. et al. 1992. Synthesis and herbicidal properties of aryltriazolinones. A new class of pre- and postemergence herbicides. In Baker, D. R., Fenyes, J. G., and Steffens, J. J., eds. Synthesis and Chemistry of Agrochemicals III. ACS Symposium Series 504. pp. 135–146.Google Scholar
Vidrine, P. R., Griffin, J. L., Jordan, D. L., and Reynolds, D. B. 1996. Broadleaf weed control in soybean (Glycine max) with sulfentrazone. Weed Technol. 10: 762–765.Google Scholar
Vidrine, P. R., Jordan, D. L., and Girlinghouse, J. M. 1994. Efficacy of F6285 in soybeans. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 47: 62.Google Scholar
Wehtje, G. R., Walker, R. H., Grey, T. L., and Hancock, H. G. 1997. Response of purple (Cyperus rotundus) and yellow nutsedges (C. esculentus) to selective placement of sulfentrazone. Weed Sci. 45: 382–387.Google Scholar