Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T10:46:47.087Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Critical Weed-Free Period for ‘Beauregard’ Sweetpotato (Ipomoea batatas)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Jessica E. Seem ,
Nancy G. Creamer  and
David W. Monks
Jessica E. Seem
Affiliation:
Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7609
Nancy G. Creamer
Affiliation:
Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7609
David W. Monks*
Affiliation:
Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7609
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: david_monks@ncsu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Studies were initiated at two different planting dates and conducted at two different locations in 2001 to determine the critical weed-free period for certain populations of weeds in organically produced ‘Beauregard’ sweetpotato. Naturally occurring weed populations were used, and they included sicklepod, redroot pigweed, and yellow nutsedge. Treatments included allowing weeds to grow for 2, 4, 6, or 8 wk after transplanting (WAT) sweetpotato before weed removal and maintaining the sweetpotato weed-free for 2, 4, 6, or 8 WAT. Weedy and weed-free checks were also included in the study. These treatments were used to determine the length of time weeds can compete with sweetpotato without reducing yield and the length of time sweetpotato must grow before yield is no longer affected by newly emerging weeds. Yield of number one grade sweetpotato roots best fit a quadratic plateau curve for the grow-back treatments and a logistic curve for the removal treatments. Yields in weed-free plots of sweetpotato were higher at the early planting date, whereas yields in plots of weedy sweetpotato were higher at the late planting date. Weed biomass was lower in the grow-back treatments at the late planting date. Data indicate that sweetpotato may gain a competitive advantage over weeds when planted at a later date. At both planting dates, a critical weed-free period of 2 to 6 WAT was observed.

Keywords

Redroot pigweed, Amaranthus retroflexus L. #3 AMAREsicklepod, Senna obtusifolia (L.) Irwin and Barneby # CASOByellow nutsedge, Cyperus esculentus L. # CYPESsweetpotato, Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam. ‘Beauregard’Competitioninterferenceorganic productionBrachiaria platyphyllaEleusine indicaMollugo verticillataSida spinosaBRAPPELEINMOLVESIDSPWAT, weeks after transplanting
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 17 , Issue 4 , December 2003 , pp. 686 - 695
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. 1997. Certified Organic Growers' Manual: A Guide for Ecologically Responsible Farming Practices. Pittsboro, NC: Carolina Farm Stewardship Association. 33 p.Google Scholar
Bridges, D. C. ed. 1992. Crop Losses Due to Weeds in the United States—1992. Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of America. 403 p.Google Scholar
Buchanan, G. A. 1977. Weed biology and competition. in Truelove, B., ed. Research Methods in Weed Science. 2nd ed. Auburn, AL: Southern Weed Science Society, Auburn University. Pp. 25–41.Google Scholar
Cousens, R. 1988. Misinterpretations of results in weed research through inappropriate use of statistics. Weed Res. 28:281–289.Google Scholar
Cousens, R. 1991. Aspects of the design and interpretation of competition (interference) experiments. Weed Technol. 5:664–673.Google Scholar
Frans, R., Talbot, R., Marx, D., and Crowley, H. 1986. Experimental design and techniques for measuring and analyzing plant responses to weed control practices. in Camper, N. D., ed. Research Methods in Weed Science. 3rd ed. Champaign, IL: Southern Weed Science Society. Pp. 29–46.Google Scholar
Griffin, J. J. 1999. Vegetative Propagation and Culture of Thuja × ‘Green Giant,’ Magnolia virginiana ‘Santa Rosa,’ and Quercus phillyraeoides ‘Emerald Sentinel.’. . North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC. 68 p.Google Scholar
Hall, M. R., Swanton, C. J., and Anderson, G. W. 1992. The critical period of weed control in grain corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 40:441–447.Google Scholar
Jett, L. W. 1998. Sweet potato growth and development. in Jett, L. W. and Talbot, T. P., eds. 1998 Annual Sweet Potato Report of Louisiana State University Sweet Potato Research Station. Pp. 5–12.Google Scholar
Kasasian, L. and Seeyave, J. 1969. Critical periods for weed competition. PANS 15:208–212.Google Scholar
LaBonte, D. R., Harrison, H. F., and Motsenbocker, C. E. 1999. Sweetpotato clone tolerance to weed interference. Hortscience 34/2:229–232.Google Scholar
Levett, M. P. 1992. Effects of various hand-weeding programmes on yield and components of yield of sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas) grown in the tropical lowlands of Papua New Guinea. J. Agric. Sci. (Camb.) 118:63–70.Google Scholar
Lorenz, O. A. and Maynard, D. N. 1988. Knott's Handbook for Vegetable Growers. New York: J. Wiley. 456 p.Google Scholar
Monks, D. W. 2002. Chemical weed control in vegetable crops. in Ritchie, D. F., ed. The 2002 North Carolina Agricultural Chemicals Manual. Raleigh, NC: College of Agricultural and Life Sciences, North Carolina State University. Pp. 375–394.Google Scholar
Monks, D. W. and Schultheis, J. R. 1998. Critical weed-free period for large crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis) in transplanted watermelon (Citrullus lanatus). Weed Sci. 46:530–532.Google Scholar
[NCDA & CS] North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. 1999. North Carolina Agricultural Statistics 1999. North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services and the U.S. Department of Agriculture.Google Scholar
Oliver, L. R. 1988. Principles of weed threshold research. Weed Technol. 2:398–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rolston, L. H., Clark, C. A., Cannon, J. M., Randle, W. M., Riley, E. G., Wilson, P. W., and Robbins, M. L. 1987. ‘Beauregard’ sweet potato. Hortscience 22:1338–1339.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1988. SAS/STAT User's Guide: Release 6.03 Edition. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1028 p.Google Scholar
Schultheis, J. R., Walters, S. A., Adams, D. E., and Estes, E. A. 1999. In-row plant spacing and date of harvest of ‘Beauregard’ sweetpotato affect yield and return on investment. Hortscience 34:1229–1233.Google Scholar
Semidey, N., Liu, L. C., and Ortiz, F. H. 1987. Competition of pigweed (Amaranthus dubius) with sweetpotato (Ipomoea batatas). J. Agric. Univ. P. R. 71:7–11.Google Scholar
Swallow, W. H. 1984. Those overworked and oft-misused mean separation procedures—Duncan's, LSD, etc. Plant Dis 68/10:919–921.Google Scholar
Talatala, R. L., Mariscal, A. M., and Secreto, A. C. 1978. Critical periods for weed control in sweet potatoes. Philipp. J. Weed Sci 5:1–6.Google Scholar
Toth, S. J., Melton, T., Monks, D. W., Schultheis, J. R., and Sorensen, K. A. 1997. Sweetpotato pesticide use survey in North Carolina. Data report for the Southern Region Pesticide Impact Assessment Program. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University. 91 p.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1981. United States Standards for Grades of Sweetpotatoes. Washington, DC: United States Department of Agricultural Marketing Service.Google Scholar
Weaver, S. E., Kropff, M. J., and Groenveld, R. M. W. 1992. Use of ecophysiological models for crop-weed interference: the critical period of weed interference. Weed Sci. 40:302–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weaver, S. E. and Tan, C. S. 1983. Critical period of weed interference in transplanted tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum): growth analysis. Weed Sci. 31:476–481.Google Scholar
Wilson, G. L., Averre, C. W., Baird, J. V., Beasley, E. O., Bonanno, A. R., Estes, E. A., and Sorensen, K. A. 1989. Growing and marketing quality sweet potatoes. Agricultural Extension Service Publication No. AG-09. Raleigh, NC: The North Carolina Agricultural Extension Service. 28 p.Google Scholar
Woolley, B. L., Michaels, T. E., Hall, M. R., and Swanton, C. J. 1993. The critical period of weed control in white bean (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Sci. 41:180–184.Google Scholar