Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T13:48:30.586Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response of sweetpotato to pendimethalin application rate and timing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 October 2019

Stephen L. Meyers Open the ORCID record for Stephen L. Meyers [Opens in a new window] ,
Sushila Chaudhari Open the ORCID record for Sushila Chaudhari [Opens in a new window] ,
Katherine M. Jennings ,
Donnie K. Miller  and
Mark W. Shankle
Stephen L. Meyers
Affiliation:
Assistant Extension/Research Professor, North Mississippi Research and Extension Center- Pontotoc Ridge–Flatwoods Branch Experiment Station, Mississippi State University, Pontotoc, MS; current: Assistant Professor, Department of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA
Sushila Chaudhari*
Affiliation:
Postdoctoral Research Scholar, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
Katherine M. Jennings
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
Donnie K. Miller
Affiliation:
Professor, Northeast Research Station, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, St. Joseph, LA, USA
Mark W. Shankle
Affiliation:
Research Professor, North Mississippi Research and Extension Center-Pontotoc Ridge–Flatwoods Branch Experiment Station, Mississippi State University, Pontotoc, MS, USA
*
Author for Correspondence: Sushila Chaudhari, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, 27695. Email: schaudh@ncsu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field trials were conducted near Pontotoc, Mississippi; Chase, Louisiana; and Clinton, North Carolina, in 2017 and 2018 to determine the effect of pendimethalin rate and timing application on sweetpotato crop tolerance, yield, and storage root quality. Treatments consisted of five pendimethalin rates (266, 532, 1,065, 1,597, and 2,130 g ai ha−1) by two application timings (0 to 1 or 10 to 14 d after transplanting). Additionally, a nontreated check was included for comparison. Crop injury (stunting) was minimal (≤4%) through 6 wk after transplanting (WAP) and no injury was observed from 8 to 14 WAP, regardless of application timing or rate. The nontreated check yielded 6.6, 17.6, 5.5, and 32.1 × 103 kg ha−1 of canner, no. 1, jumbo, and total grades, respectively. Neither pendimethalin application timing nor rate influenced jumbo, no. 1, marketable, or total sweetpotato yield. Overall, these results indicate that pendimethalin will be a valuable addition to the toolkit of sweetpotato growers.

Keywords

Peter J. Dittmar, University of FloridaPendimethalinsweetpotato, Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam. ‘Covington’, ‘Beauregard’Crop injurycrop tolerancestorage root
Type
Note
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 34 , Issue 2 , April 2020 , pp. 301 - 304
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2019

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

Anonymous (2014) Satellite HydroCap. King of Prussia, PA: United Phosphorus, Inc. 30 pGoogle Scholar
Barkley, SL, Chaudhari, S, Jennings, KM, Schultheis, JR, Meyers, SL, Monks, DW (2016) Fomesafen programs for Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) control in sweetpotato. Weed Technol 30:506–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Basinger, NT, Jennings, KM, Monks, DW, Jordan, DL, Everman, WJ, Hestir, EL, Waldschmidt, MD, Smith, SC, Brownie, C (2019) Interspecific and intraspecific interference of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and large crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis) in sweetpotato. Weed Sci 67:426–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beam, SC, Jennings, KM, Chaudhari, S, Monks, DW, Schultheis, JR, Waldschmidt, M (2018a) Response of sweetpotato cultivars to linuron rate and application time. Weed Technol 32:665–670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beam, SC, Chaudhari, S, Jennings, KM, Monks, DW, Meyers, SL, Schultheis, JR, Waldschmidt, M, Main, JL (2018b) Response of Palmer amaranth and sweetpotato to flumioxazin/pyroxasulfone. Weed Technol 33:128–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaudhari, S, Jennings, KM, Meyers, SL (2018) Response of sweetpotato to oryzalin application rate and timing. Weed Technol 32:722–725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coleman, LB, Chaudhari, S, Jennings, KM, Schultheis, JR, Meyers, SL, Monks, DW (2016) Evaluation of herbicide timings for Palmer amaranth control in a stale seedbed sweetpotato production system. Weed Technol 30:725–732CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frans, R, Talbert, R, Marx, D, Crowley, H (1986) Experimental design and techniques for measuring and analyzing plant responses to weed control practices. Pages 29–46in Camper, ND, ed. Research Methods in Weed Science, 3rd ed. Champaign, IL: Southern Weed Science SocietyGoogle Scholar
Gardner, P, York, AC, Jordan, DL, Monks, DW (2006) Management of annual grasses and Amaranthus spp. in glufosinate-resistant cotton. J Cotton Sci 10:328–228 Google Scholar
Gordon, JA, Green, CJ (1999) Comparative field and greenhouse studies of trifluralin and pendimethalin on cotton growth, development, and nutrient uptake. Proc Beltwide Cotton Conf 23:536–539Google Scholar
Heap, I (2019) The International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. http://www.weedscience.org/Summary/MOA.aspx. Accessed: July 4, 2019.Google Scholar
Keeling, JW, Dotray, PA, Abernathy, JR (1996) Effects of repeated applications of trifluralin and pendimethalin on cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol 10:295–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewthwaite, SL, Triggs, CM (2000) Weed control in sweetpotatoes. N Z Plant Protect-SE 53:262–268Google Scholar
Meyers, SL, Jennings, KM, Schultheis, JR, Monks, DW (2010) Interference of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in sweetpotato. Weed Sci 58:199–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seem, JE, Creamer, NG, Monks, DW (2003) Critical weed-free period for ‘Beauregard’ sweetpotato (Ipomoea batatas). Weed Technol 17:686–695CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaner, DL, Tecle, B, Johnson, DH (1998) Mechanisms of selectivity of pendimethalin (Prowl®) and trifluralin (Treflan®) in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) and weeds. Proc Beltwide Cotton Conf 22:1399–1402Google Scholar
Smith, MA (2004) Pendimethalin phytotoxicity and seedling weed control in Indian spinach (Basella alba L.). Crop Prot 23:201–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, SC, Jennings, KM, Monks, DW, Schultheis, JR, Reberg-Horton, SC (2019) Tolerance of sweetpotato to herbicides applied in plant propagation beds. Weed Technol 33:147–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[USDA] US Department of Agriculture (2005) United States Standards for Grades of Sweet Potatoes. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 5 pGoogle Scholar
[USDA] US Department of Agriculture (2019a) Crop Production 2018 Summary. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 132 pGoogle Scholar
[USDA] US Department of Agriculture (2019b) Crop Value 2018 Summary. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 132 pGoogle Scholar
Vaughn, KC, Lehnen, LP (1991) Mitotic disrupter herbicides. Weed Sci 39:450–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Worley, WL, McCarty, WH, Kenty, MM, Leon, CT (1999) The effects of DNA herbicides on cotton growth and development. Proc Beltwide Cotton Conf 23:539Google Scholar