Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-45l2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T06:51:47.854Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dimethenamid-p: Efficacy and Potato (Solanum tuberosum) Variety Tolerance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Pamela J. S. Hutchinson ,
Corey V. Ransom ,
Rick A. Boydston  and
Brent R. Beutler
Pamela J. S. Hutchinson*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant, Soil, and Entomological Sciences, University of Idaho, Aberdeen, ID, 83210
Corey V. Ransom
Affiliation:
Malheur Experiment Station, Oregon State University, Ontario, OR, 97914
Rick A. Boydston
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, Irrigated Agriculture Research and Extension Center, Prosser, WA 99350
Brent R. Beutler
Affiliation:
Aberdeen Research and Extension Center, Aberdeen, ID 83210
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: phutch@uidaho.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Treatments of dimethenamid-p at 0.7 kg ai/ha applied PRE in tank mixtures with EPTC (3.4 kg ai/ha), metribuzin (560 g ai/ha), pendimethalin (1.1 kg ai/ha), or rimsulfuron (26 g ai/ha) were compared with the same herbicides applied PRE alone in field efficacy trials in Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. Common lambsquarters, kochia, and redroot pigweed control was generally improved with dimethenamid-p tank mixtures compared with control by any herbicide applied alone except metribuzin. Hairy nightshade control at two locations was generally improved with tank mixtures compared with control by any herbicide applied alone. At Washington, where row spacing was narrower than at other locations, dimethenamid-p alone or in tank mixtures provided similar hairy nightshade control, and this control was greater than control by EPTC, metribuzin, or pendimethalin applied alone. ‘Alturas’, ‘Bannock Russet’, ‘Ranger Russet’, ‘Russet Burbank’, ‘Russet Norkotah’, and ‘Shepody’ potato tolerance to dimethenamid-p PRE at 0, 0.7, or 1.4 kg ai/ha was assessed in weed-free field trials conducted at Aberdeen, ID, in 2002 and 2003. Little or no crop injury was evident during the growing seasons and there were no reductions in U.S. No. 1 and total tuber yields regardless of dimethenamid-p rate or potato variety.

Keywords

Dimethenamiddimethenamid-pEPTCmetribuzinpendimethalinrimsulfuronpotato, Solanum tuberosum L. ‘Alturas’, ‘Bannock Russet’, ‘Ranger Russet’, ‘Russet Burbank’, ‘Russet Norkotah’, ‘Shepody’, ‘Superior’barnyardgrass, Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) Beauv # ECHCGcommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. # CHEALhairy nightshade, Solanum sarrachoides Sendter # SOLSAkochia, Kochia scoparia (L.) Shrad. # KCHSCredroot pigweed, Amaranthus retroflexus L. # AMAREvolunteer oat, Avena sativa L. # AVESACrop safetycrop toleranceherbicide efficacyherbicide injuryOM, organic matterPNW, Pacific NorthwestTMP, tank-mix partnerWAT, weeks after treatment
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 19 , Issue 4 , December 2005 , pp. 966 - 971
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. 2000. Matrix® herbicide product label. DuPont Publication No. H-63849. Wilmington, DE: DuPont. 5 p.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2002. Potato statistics (91011). Table 67—Fall Potatoes: Percent of major varieties planted, selected states, 1984–02. U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. Web page: http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/sdp/view.asp?f=specialty/91011/. Accessed: September 6, 2005.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2004a. Outlook® herbicide product label. BASF Publication No. NVA-2004-04-086-03136. Research Triangle Park, NC: BASF Corporation. 20 p.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2004b. Spartan® herbicide product label. FMC Publication No. Spartan_3_03-31-2004(Field). Philadelphia, PA: FMC Corporation. 13 p.Google Scholar
Courdechet, M., Bocoin, P. F., Chollet, R., Seckinger, K., and Boger, P. 1997. Biological activity of two stereoisomers of the N-thienyl chloroacetamide herbicide dimethenamid. Pest. Sci. 50:221–227.Google Scholar
Eberlein, C. V., Kral, C. W., and Guttieri, M. J. 1996. Using Matrix in weed management systems for potatoes. CIS No. 1037. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho Agricultural Communications. 8 p.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.CrossRefGoogle 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
Hutchinson, P. J. S. 2004. Potatoes. in William, R. D., Ball, D., Miller, T. L., Parker, R., Yenish, J. P., Miller, T. W., Morishita, D. W., and Hutchinson, P.J.S., eds. Pacific Northwest 2004 Weed Management Handbook. Corvallis, OR: PNW Public Cooperative Extension System. Pp 177–189.Google Scholar
Hutchinson, P. J. S. and Eberlein, C. V. 2003. Weed management. in Potato Production Systems. Stark, J. C. and Love, S. L., eds. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho Agricultural Communications. Pp. 241–283.Google Scholar
Hutchinson, P. J. S., Ransom, C. V., Tonks, D. J., and Eberlein, C. V. 2004. Russet Burbank potato (Solanum tuberosum) tolerance to dimethenamid-p. Weed Technol. 18:850–852.Google Scholar
Hutchinson, P. J. S., Tonks, D. J., and Fletcher, F. E. 2002. Weed control with developmental preemergence herbicides in potatoes. in 2002 Research Progress Report. Newark, CA: Western Society of Weed Science. Pp. 34–35.Google Scholar
Richardson, R. J., Whaley, C. M., Wilson, H. P., and Hines, T. E. 2004. Weed control and potato (Solanum tuberosum) tolerance with dimethenamid isomers and other herbicides. Am. J. Potato Res. 81:299–304.Google Scholar
Tonks, D. J., Eberlein, C. V., Guttieri, M. J., and Brinkman, B. A. 1999. SAN 582 efficacy and tolerance in potato (Solanum tuberosum). Weed Technol. 13:71–76.Google Scholar