Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T09:46:24.269Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Potato (Solanum tuberosum) Variety and Weed Response to Sulfentrazone and Flumioxazin

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Dodi E. Wilson ,
Scott J. Nissen  and
Asunta Thompson
Dodi E. Wilson
Affiliation:
Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523
Scott J. Nissen*
Affiliation:
Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523
Asunta Thompson
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture, Colorado State University, San Luis Valley Research Center, Center, CO 81125
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: snissen@lamar.colostate.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field and greenhouse studies were conducted to evaluate sulfentrazone and flumioxazin as preemergence (PRE) herbicides for broadleaf weed control in potato. Sulfentrazone and flumioxazin were applied alone and in combination with s-metolachlor to determine the crop response and the weed spectrum controlled. These treatments were compared with metribuzin or rimsulfuron plus s-metolachlor treatments. Potato variety response to sulfentrazone and flumioxazin was evaluated in a separate field study. Sangre, Chipeta, Russet Norkotah, and Russet Nugget were treated with sulfentrazone from 0.14 to 0.28 kg/ha or flumioxazin from 0.035 to 0.07 kg/ha. Sulfentrazone and flumioxazin provided excellent broadleaf weed control at all the rates tested, whereas grass control increased as rate increased. Grass control improved when combined with s-metolachlor. Sulfentrazone and flumioxazin treatments were comparable with metribuzin and rimsulfuron treatments in weed control and total yield. Flumioxazin was safe when applied PRE to four selected varieties, whereas sulfentrazone produced initial phytotoxicity to Sangre and Chipeta at high rates but did not affect yields. Sulfentrazone increased the yield of U.S. No.1 potatoes compared with other treatments in the variety response study. Dose–response curves were used to generate the sulfentrazone, flumioxazin, and metribuzin herbicide rates required to reduce biomass by 50% (I50) for eight common weed species. Herbicides were applied PRE at several rates, and plant response was recorded. Log-logistic analysis was performed on bioassay data generated to estimate species sensitivity to each herbicide. Sulfentrazone reduced the biomass of hairy nightshade, black nightshade, redroot pigweed, kochia, common lambsquarters, and redstem filaree by more than 90% at 0.0175 kg/ha (the lowest rate evaluated), whereas flumioxazin had a similar effect on all broadleaf species except on kochia at 0.004 kg/ha (the lowest rate evaluated). Therefore, it was not possible to calculate I50 or even I80 values for most broadleaf species. Metribuzin I50 values could be calculated for most of the species tested. The metribuzin I50 value for hairy nightshade was 0.28 kg/ha, which was 16 and 70 times higher than the sulfentrazone and flumioxazin rates, respectively, that reduced hairy nightshade biomass by more than 90%. Sulfentrazone and flumioxazin appeared to be sufficiently safe when applied on potato and controlled several weed species common to potato production in the western United States.

Keywords

Flumioxazinsulfentrazoneblack nightshade, Solanum nigrum L. #3 SOLNIcommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. # CHEALhairy nightshade, Solanum sarrachoides Sendtner # SOLSAkochia, Kochia scoparia L. # KOCSCredstem filaree, Erodium cicutarium L. # EROCIredroot pigweed, Amaranthus retroflexus L. # AMAREpotato, Solanum tuberosum L. ‘Chipeta’, ‘Russet Norkotah’, ‘Russet Nugget’, ‘Sangre’ALS, acetolactate synthaseI50, herbicide rate required to reduce biomass by 50%OM, organic matterPOST, postemergencePPO, protoporphyrinogen oxidasePRE, preemergenceWAT, weeks after treatment
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 16 , Issue 3 , September 2002 , pp. 567 - 574
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., Hatzios, K. K., and Wilson, H. P. 1999. Absorption, translocation, and metabolism of rimsulfuron in black nightshade (Solanum nigrum), eastern black nightshade (Solanum ptycanthum), and hairy nightshade (Solanum sarrachoides). Weed Technol. 13: 151–156.Google Scholar
Askew, S. D., Wilcut, J. W., and Cranmer, J. R. 1999. Weed management in peanut (Arachis hypogaea) with flumioxazin preemergence. Weed Technol. 13: 594–598.Google Scholar
Boydston, R. A., Hutchinson, P. J. S., Ransom, C. V., Welch, L. L., and Knabke, J. J. 2001. Weed control with flumioxazin and sulfentrazone in Pacific Northwest potato production. Proc. West. Soc. Weed Sci. 54: 3.Google Scholar
Dayan, F. E. and Duke, S. O. 1997. Phytotoxicity of protoporphyrinogen oxidase inhibitors: phenomenology, mode of action and mechanisms of resistance. In Roe, R. M., Burton, J. D., and Kuhr, R. J., eds. Herbicide Activity: Toxicology, Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. Burke, VA: IOS Press. pp. 11–36.Google Scholar
Dayan, F. E., Weete, 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
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
Fennimore, S. A. and Lanini, W. T. 2000. Evaluation of low-rate herbicides for potential use in vegetable crops. Proc. West. Soc. Weed Sci. 53: 53–57.Google Scholar
Fitterer, S. A. and Zollinger, R. K. 2000. Dry bean tolerance to herbicides. Proc. West. Soc. Weed Sci. 53: 73–74.Google Scholar
Friesen, G. H. and Wall, D. A. 1984. Response of potato (Solanum tuberosum) cultivars to metribuzin. Weed Sci. 32: 442–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gawronski, S. W., Haderlie, L. C., Callihan, R. H., and Dwelle, R. B. 1985. Metribuzin adsorption, translocation, and distribution in two potato (Solanum tuberosum) cultivars. Weed Sci. 33: 629–634.Google Scholar
Grey, T. L., Bridges, D. C., and Brecke, B. J. 2000. Response of seven peanuts (Arachis hypogaea) cultivars to sulfentrazone. Weed Technol. 14: 51–56.Google Scholar
Guenthner, J. F., Wiese, M. V., Pavlista, A. D., Sieczka, J. B., and Wyman, J. 1999. Assessment of pesticide use in the U.S. potato industry. Am. J. Potato Res. 76: 25–29.Google Scholar
Guttieri, M. J. and Eberlein, C. V. 1997. Preemergence weed control in potatoes (Solanum tuberosum) with rimsulfuron mixtures. Weed Technol. 11: 755–761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holt, J. S., Powles, S. B., and Holtum, J. A. M. 1993. Mechanisms and agronomic aspects of herbicide resistance. Ann. Rev. Plant Physiol. Plant Mol. Biol. 44: 203–229.Google Scholar
Kazarian, D. E., Nissen, S. J., and Thompson, A. L. 2000. Sulfentrazone and flumioxazin for broadleaf control in potatoes. Proc. West. Soc. Weed Sci. 53: 76.Google Scholar
Mallory-Smith, C. A., Thill, D. C., and Dial, M. J. 1990. Identification of sulfonylurea herbicide-resistant prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola). Weed Technol. 4: 163–168.Google Scholar
Niekamp, J. W. and Johnson, W. G. 2001. Weed management with sulfentrazone and flumioxazin in no-tillage soybean (Glycine max). Crop Prot. 20: 215–220.Google Scholar
Niekamp, J. W., Johnson, W. G., and Smeda, R. J. 1999. Broadleaf weed control with sulfentrazone and flumioxazin in no-tillage soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 13: 233–238.Google Scholar
Ogg, A. G. 1977. Responses of Potatoes and Weeds to Herbicides. Washington State University College Agricultural Research Center Bulletin 844. Washington: Washington State University College. 10 p.Google Scholar
Renner, K. A. and Powell, G. E. 1998. Weed control in potato (Solanum tuberosum) with rimsulfuron and metribuzin. Weed Technol. 12: 406–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seefeldt, S. S., Jensen, J. E., and Fuerst, E. P. 1995. Log-logistic analysis of herbicide dose–response relationships. Weed Technol. 9: 218–227.Google Scholar
Snedecor, G. W. and Cochran, W. G. 1989. Statistical Methods. 8th ed. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press. pp. 251–252.Google Scholar
Streibig, J. C., Rudemo, M., and Jensen, J. E. 1993. Dose–response curves and statistical models. In Streibig, J. C. and Kudsk, P., eds. Herbicide Bioassays. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. pp. 30–55.Google 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tonks, D. J., Hutchinson, P. J. S., Ransom, C. V., Boydston, R. A., and Ross, C. G. 2001. Pacific Northwest potato tolerance and varietal response to sulfentrazone. Proc. West. Soc. Weed Sci. 54: 43.Google Scholar
Vangessel, M. J., Monks, D. M., and Johnson, Q. R. 2000. Herbicides for potential use in lima bean (Phaseolus lunatus) production. Weed Technol. 14: 279–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar