Field studies were conducted in 2009 at Clinton, NC and 2014 at Pontotoc, MS to determine the influence of simulated glyphosate drip on sweetpotato yield and quality. Treatments consisted of three glyphosate solution (140 g ae L–1) drip volumes (0.16, 0.32 and 0.48 ml) by four application timings [(4 wk after transplanting (WAP); 6 WAP; 8 WAP; and 4 WAP followed by (fb) 6 WAP fb 8 WAP]. A non-treated check was included for comparison. Visual sweetpotato injury consisted of chlorosis at the shoot tips approximately 1 wk after treatment fb necrosis and stunting. At 6 WAP and 8 WAP, sweetpotato injury following glyphosate applied 4 WAP was 71 and 65%, respectively. Injury from glyphosate applied 4 WAP fb 6 WAP was 78%. Injury from glyphosate applied 6 WAP was 26% at 8 WAP. In 2009, jumbo, no. 1, canner, and marketable yield of the non-treated check were two to three times greater than glyphosate treatments (0.16, 0.32, 0.48 ml). Likewise, yield of the non-treated check was substantially greater than those treated with 0.16 to 0.48 ml glyphosate solution in 2014. In 2009 and 2014, sweetpotato yield of all grades increased as glyphosate application timing was delayed. In 2009, no. 1 yield from glyphosate 8 WAP (8,210 kg ha–1) was similar to the non-treated check. In 2009, there were no cracked storage roots in the non-treated check. However, sweetpotatoes receiving 0.16 to 0.48 ml glyphosate solution displayed 8 to 17%, 11 to 18%, 5 to 13%, and 11 to 16% cracking (by weight) in jumbo, no. 1, canner, and marketable storage roots, respectively. Compared to the non-treated check, glyphosate applied 4 WAP, 6 WAP, or 4 WAP fb 6 WAP fb 8 WAP had a greater percentage of cracked marketable sweetpotato storage roots.

Studies were conducted in 2007 and 2008 at Clinton, NC to determine the effect of glyphosate applied POST via a Dixie wick applicator on Palmer amaranth control and sweetpotato yield and quality. In 2007, treatments consisted of glyphosate wicked sequentially 6 and 8 wk after transplanting (WAP) and glyphosate wicked sequentially 6 and 8 WAP followed by (fb) rotary mowing 9 WAP. In 2008, treatments consisted of glyphosate wicked once 4 or 7 WAP, wicked sequentially 4 and 7 WAP, mowed once 4 WAP, and mowed 4 WAP fb wicking 7 WAP. In 2008, Palmer amaranth control 6 WAP varied by location and averaged 10 and 58% for plots wicked 4 WAP. Palmer amaranth contacted by the wicking apparatus were controlled, but weeds shorter than the wicking height escaped treatment. Palmer amaranth control 9 WAP was greater than 90% for all treatments wicked 7 WAP. Competition prior to and between glyphosate treatments contributed to large sweetpotato yield losses. Treatments consisting of glyphosate 7 or 8 WAP (in 2007 and 2008, respectively) frequently had greater no. 1 and marketable yields compared to the weedy control. However, jumbo, no. 1, and marketable yields for all glyphosate and mowing treatments were generally less than half the hand-weeded check. Cracked sweetpotato roots were observed in glyphosate treatments and percent cracking (by weight) in those plots ranged from 1 to 12% for no. 1 roots, and 1 to 6% for marketable roots. Findings from this research suggest wicking might be useful in a salvage scenario, but only after currently registered preemergence herbicides and between-row cultivation have failed to control Palmer amaranth and other weed species below the sweetpotato canopy.