Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-jhrpq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-18T04:52:30.341Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sweet Potato (Ipomoea batatas) Clones Differ in Response to Ethyl-Metribuzin

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Carl E. Motsenbocker  and
Thomas J. Monaco
Carl E. Motsenbocker
Affiliation:
Dep. Hortic. Sci., North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC 27695-7609
Thomas J. Monaco
Affiliation:
Dep. Hortic. Sci., North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC 27695-7609
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Six commercial sweet potato clones were evaluated in field and greenhouse studies for the ethylthio analog of metribuzin (ethyl-metribuzin) tolerance. ‘Southern Delite’ was most tolerant in field studies and ‘Cordner’ the most tolerant in the greenhouse. ‘White Delite’ was the most susceptible clone in the field and greenhouse. Considering the rates used in this study, all the sweet potato clones generally were tolerant to ethyl-metribuzin. When averaged over all clones, sweet potato injury increased as the ethyl-metribuzin rate increased from 1.6 to 3.2 kg/ha but injury decreased as the season progressed and was minimal in late season. Ethyl-metribuzin did not reduce marketable yields at Clayton, NC. At Clinton, NC, ethiozin PRE, POST, or PRE followed by POST at 3.2 kg/ha or PRE at 1.6 kg/ha reduced yield.

Keywords

Ethyl-metribuzin, 4-amino-6-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-3-(ethylthio)-1,2,4-triazin-5(4H)-onesweet potato, Ipomoea batatas, (L.), Lam.Herbicide tolerancepostemergencepreemergenceselectivityasymmetrical triazine

Information

Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 9 , Issue 3 , September 1995 , pp. 546 - 552
Copyright
Copyright © 1995 by the 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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

1. Fedtke, C. and Schmidt, R. R. 1988. Selective action of the new herbicide 4-amino-6-(1, 1-dimethylethyl)-3-(ethylthio)-1,2,4,-triazin-5(4H)-one in different wheat, Triticum aestivum cultivare. Weed Sci. 36:541–544.Google Scholar
2. Friesen, G. H. and Wall, D. A. 1984. Response of potato (Solanum tuberosum) cultivars to metribuzin. Weed Sci. 32:442–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Gawronski, S. W. 1983. Tolerance of tomato (Lypersicon esculentum) cultivars to metribuzin. Weed Sci. 31:525–527.Google Scholar
4. Gawronski, S. W., Haderlie, L. C., Callihan, R. H., and Gawronska, H. 1986. Mechanism of metribuzin tolerance: herbicide metabolism as a basis for tolerance in potatoes. Weed Res. 26:307–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Glaze, N. C. and Hall, M. R. 1990. Cultivation and herbicides for weed control in sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas). Weed Technol. 4:518–523.Google Scholar
6. Graf, G. T. and Ogg, A. G. 1976. Differential response of potato cultivars to metribuzin. Weed Sci. 24:137–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Hack, H., Eue, L., Strang, R. H., and Zeck, W. M. 1985. SMY 1500—a new selective herbicide for weed control in winter cereals. Br. Crop Prot. Conf. 35–42.Google Scholar
8. Harrison, H. F., Jones, A., and Dukes, P. D. 1985. Differential response of six sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas) cultivars to metribuzin. Weed Sci. 33:730–733.Google Scholar
9. Monaco, T. J., and Bonanno, A. R. 1988. Weed Control Investigations in Horticultural Crops, Hortic. Crops Res. Ser. 80. North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC, 180 p.Google Scholar
10. Monks, D. W. 1990. Weed Control Investigations in Horticultural Crops, Hortic. Crops Res. Series 86. North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC, 127 p.Google Scholar
11. Motsenbocker, C. E. 1990. The identification and basis of herbicide tolerance in sweet potato germplasm. Ph.D. Thesis, North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC, 96 p.Google Scholar
12. Motsenbocker, C. E. and Monaco, T. J. 1991. Sweet potatoes differ in response to bentazon. Weed Technol. 5:345–350.Google Scholar
13. Motsenbocker, C. E. and Monaco, T. J. 1993. Differential tolerance of sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas) clones to metribuzin. Weed Technol. 7:349–354.Google Scholar
14. National Sweet Potato Collaborator Group. 1985. Progress Report, Univ. of Georgia, Athens. p. 77.Google Scholar
15. Porter, W. C. 1993. Postemergence grass control in sweet potatoes (Ipomoea batatas). Weed Technol. 7:812–815.Google Scholar
16. Ratliff, R. L. and Peeper, T. F. 1987. Bromus control in winter wheat (Triticum aestivum) with the ethylthio analog of metribuzin. Weed Technol. 1:235–241.Google Scholar
17. Smith, A. E., Phatak, S. C., and Emmatty, D. A. 1989. Metribuzin metabolism by tomato cultivars with low, medium, and high levels of metribuzin. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 35:284–290.Google Scholar
18. Souza Machado, V., Phatak, S. C., and Nonnecke, I. L. 1978. Bioassay to screen tomato seedlings for tolerance to metribuzin. Can. J. Plant Sci. 58:823–828.Google Scholar
19. Stephenson, G. R., McLeod, J. E., and Phatak, S. C. 1976. Differential tolerance of tomato cultivars to metribuzin. Weed Sci. 24:161–165.Google Scholar