Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-25wd4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T15:09:53.463Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of Wick-Applied Glyphosate for Palmer Amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) Control in Sweetpotato

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Stephen L. Meyers ,
Katherine M. Jennings ,
Jonathan R. Schultheis  and
David W. Monks
Stephen L. Meyers*
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695
Katherine M. Jennings
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695
Jonathan R. Schultheis
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695
David W. Monks
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: stephen.meyers@msstate.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

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.

Keywords

GlyphosatePalmer amaranth, Amaranthus palmeri S. Watssweetpotato, Ipomoea batatas L. Lam. ‘Beauregard’, ‘Covington’Root crackingwick applicator
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 30 , Issue 3 , September 2016 , pp. 765 - 772
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.)

Footnotes

Current address: Pontotoc Ridge-Flatwoods Branch Experiment Station, Mississippi State University, Pontotoc, MS 38863
Associate Editor for this paper: Peter Dittmar, University of Florida.

References

Literature Cited

Anonymous (2014) Dual Magnum® herbicide label. Greensboro, NC: Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. 50 pGoogle Scholar
Anonymous (2016) Valor® SX herbicide label. Walnut Creek, CA: Valent USA Corporation. 32 pGoogle Scholar
Anonymous (2007) Roundup WeatherMax® herbicide label. St. Louis, MO: Monsanto Company. 54 pGoogle Scholar
Anonymous (2008) Aim® EC herbicide label. Philadelphia, PA: FMC Corporation Google Scholar
Bensch, CN, Horak, MJ, Peterson, D (2003) Interference of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus), Palmer amaranth (A. palmeri), and common waterhemp (A. rudis) in soybean. Weed Sci 51: 37–43 Google Scholar
Bond, JA, Oliver, LR, Stephenson, DO IV (2006) Response of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) to glyphosate, fomesafen, and pyrithiobac. Weed Technol 20: 885–892 Google Scholar
Burke, IC, Schroeder, M, Thomas, WE, Wilcut, JW (2007) Palmer amaranth interference and seed production in peanut. Weed Technol 21: 367–371 Google Scholar
Culpepper, AS, Grey, TL, Vencill, WK, Kichler, JM, Webster, TM, Brown, SM, York, AC, Davis, JW, Hanna, WW (2006) Glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) confirmed in Georgia. Weed Sci 54: 620–626 Google Scholar
Culpepper, AS, York, AC (2000) Weed management in ultra narrow row cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol 14: 19–29 Google Scholar
Dale, JE (1978) The rope-wick applicator—a new method of applying glyphosate. Page 332 in Proceedings of the 31st Southern Weed Science Society. Champaign, IL: Southern Weed Science Society [Abstract] Google Scholar
Fuchs, MA, Geiger, DR, Reynolds, TL, Bourque, JE (2002) Mechanisms of glyphosate toxicity in velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti Medikus). Pestic Biochem and Physiol 74: 27–39 Google Scholar
Grekul, CW, Cole, DE, Bork, EW (2005) Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) and pasture forage responses to wiping with various herbicides. Weed Technol 19: 298–306 Google Scholar
Hetherington, PR, Marshall, G, Kirkwood, RC, Warner, JM (1998) Absorption and efflux of glyphosate by cell suspensions. J Exp Bot 49: 527–533 Google Scholar
Holmes, GJ, Kemble, JM, eds (2009) Vegetable Crop Handbook for the Southeastern United States 2009. Lincolnshire, IL: Vance Publishing Corp. Pp 93–94 Google Scholar
Horak, MJ, Loughin, TM (2000) Growth and analysis of four Amaranthus species. Weed Sci 48: 347–355 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jha, P, Norsworthy, JK, Bridges, W Jr Riley, MB (2008) Influence of glyphosate timing and row width on Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and pusley (Richardia spp.) demographics in glyphosate-resistant soybean. Weed Sci 56: 408–415 Google Scholar
Keely, PE, Carter, CH, Thullen, RJ, Miller, JH (1984a) Comparison of ropewick applicators for control of Johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) with glyphosate. Weed Sci 32: 431–435 Google Scholar
Keely, PE, Thullen, RJ, Carter, CH, Miller, JH (1984b) Control of johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) with glyphosate. Weed Sci 32: 306–309 Google Scholar
Krueger-Mangold, J, Sheley, RL, Roos, BD (2002) Maintaining plant community diversity in a waterfowl production area by controlling Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) using glyphosate. Weed Technol 16: 457–463 Google Scholar
LaBonte, DR, Harrison, HF, Motsenbocker, CE (1999) Sweetpotato clone tolerance to weed interference. HortScience 34: 229–232 Google Scholar
Massinga, RA, Currie, RS, Horak, MJ, Boyer, J Jr (2001) Interference of Palmer amaranth in corn. Weed Sci 49: 202–208 Google Scholar
Meyers, SL, Jennings, KM, Schultheis, JR, Monks, DW (2010a) Interference of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in sweetpotato. Weed Sci 58: 199–203 Google Scholar
Meyers, SL, Jennings, KM, Schultheis, JR, Monks, DW (2010b) Evaluation of flumioxazin and S-metolachlor rate and timing for Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) control in sweetpotato. Weed Technol 24: 495–503 Google Scholar
Monks, DW, Oliver, LR (1988) Interactions between soybean (Glycine max) cultivars and selected weeds. Weed Sci 36: 770–774 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monks, DW, Shankle, MW, Jennings, KM, Meyers, SL (2013) Herbicide injury. Pages 110–119 in CA, Clark Ferrin, DM, Smith, TP, Holmes, GJ, eds. Compendium of Sweetpotato Diseases, Pests, and Disorders. St. Paul, MN: American Phytopathological Society Google Scholar
[NCDA and CS] North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (2015) North Carolina Agricultural Statistics 2015. Raleigh, NC: NC Department of Agriculture. 148 pGoogle Scholar
Norsworthy, JK, Griffith, GM, Scott, RC, Smith, KL, Oliver, LR (2008a) Confirmation and control of glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in Arkansas. Weed Technol 22: 108–113 Google Scholar
Norsworthy, JK, Oliveira, MJ, Jha, P, Malik, M, Buckelew, JK, Jennings, KM, Monks, DW (2008b) Palmer amaranth and large crabgrass growth with plasticulture-grown bell pepper. Weed Technol 22: 296–302 Google Scholar
Price, AJ, Koger, CH, Wilcut, JW, Miller, D, van Santen, E (2008) Efficacy of residual and non-residual herbicides used in cotton production systems when applied with glyphosate, glufosinate, or MSMA. Weed Technol 22: 459–466 Google Scholar
Schonbrunn, E, Eschenburg, S, Shuttleworth, WA, Schloss, JV, Amrhein, N, Evans, JNS, Kabsch, W (2001) Interaction of the herbicide glyphosate with its target enzyme 5-enolpuruvylshikimate 3-phosphate synthase in atomic detail. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98: 1376–1380 Google Scholar
Seem, JE, Creamer, NG, Monks, DW (2003) Critical weed-free period for ‘Beauregard’ sweetpotato (Ipomoea batatas). Weed Technol 17: 686–695 Google Scholar
Sellers, BA, Smeda, RJ, Johnson, WG, Kendig, JA, Ellersieck, MR (2003) Comparative growth of six Amaranthus species in Missouri. Weed Sci 51: 329–333 Google Scholar
Steckel, LE, Main, CL, Ellis, AT, Mueller, TC (2008) Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in Tennessee has low level glyphosate resistance. Weed Technol 22: 119–123 Google Scholar
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture (2005) United States Standards for Grades of Sweet Potatoes. Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture. 4 pGoogle Scholar
Webster, TM (2014) Weed survey—southern states. Page 292 in Proceedings of the 67th Southern Weed Science Society. Birmingham, AL: Southern Weed Science Society [Abstract] Google Scholar