Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-r5d9c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-24T15:04:15.157Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of Herbicides on Sweetpotato (Ipomoea batatas) Plant Production

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

David W. Monks ,
Kathie E. Kalmowitz  and
Thomas J. Monaco
David W. Monks
Affiliation:
Dep. Hortic. Sci., N. C. State Univ., Raleigh, NC 27695
Kathie E. Kalmowitz
Affiliation:
Dep. Hortic. Sci., N. C. State Univ., Raleigh, NC 27695
Thomas J. Monaco
Affiliation:
Dep. Hortic. Sci., N. C. State Univ., Raleigh, NC 27695
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Studies were conducted to determine the response of ‘Jewel’ sweetpotato in propagation beds to DCPA and napropamide. Napropamide at 2.2 and 4.4 kg ha–1 caused slight injury, and reduced plant number and weight when compared with the untreated control. Napropamide at 1.1 kg ha–1 combined with chloramben at 3.3 kg ha–1 was not injurious; plant production was equal to the untreated control, diphenamid at 4.4 kg ha–1, and chloramben at 3.3 kg ha–1. DCPA at 8.3 and 10.0 kg ha–1 caused unacceptable injury and reduced plant number and weight.

Keywords

Chloramben, 3-amino-2,5-dichlorobenzoic acidDCPA, dimethyl 2,3,5,6-tetrachloro-1,4-benzenedicarboxylatediphenamid, N,N-dimethyl-α-phenyl benzeneacetamidenapropamide, N,N-diethyl-2-(1-naphthalenyloxy)propanamidesweetpotato, Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam.Propagation bedschlorambenDCPAdiphenamidBAY SMY 1500fluazifopnapropamide

Information

Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , March 1992 , pp. 136 - 138
Copyright
Copyright © 1990 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. Frans, R. E., Talbert, R., Marx, D., and Crowley, H. Experimental design and techniques for measuring and analyzing plant responses to weed control practices. p. 29–46 in Camper, N. D., ed. Research Methods in Weed Science. Southern Weed Science Society, Champaign, IL 61820.Google Scholar
2. 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
3. ICI Americas Inc. 1990. Fusilade 2000 product label. ICI Americas Inc., Wilmington, DE 19897.Google Scholar
4. Lorenz, O. A., and Maynard, D. N. 1980. Knott's Handbook for Vegetable Growers. p. 69–70. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.Google Scholar
5. Monaco, T. J., Bonanno, A. R., Hunt, R. I., Mills, R. J., and Reese, W. 1988. Weed control investigations in horticultural crops. Hortic. Crops Res. Serv. 80:1–110.Google Scholar
6. Monks, D. W., and Oliver, L. R. 1988. Interactions between soybean (Glycine max) cultivars and selected weeds. Weed Sci. 36:770–774.Google Scholar
7. National Sweetpotato Collaborators Group. 1989. National Sweetpotato Collaborators Group Progress Report p. 73. Univ. of Ga., Athens.Google Scholar
8. North Carolina Dep. of Agric. 1990. Marketing North Carolina Sweetpotatoes. Sweetpotato Market Report: 1–18.Google Scholar
9. Thomson, W. T. 1989–1990 revision. Agricultural Chemicals. Book II. Herbicides. p. 145–146. Thomson Publ., Fresno, Ca. 93791.Google Scholar
10. Ware, G. E. and McCollum, J. P. 1975. Producing Vegetable Crops. p. 451–468. The Interstate Printers & Publishers, Inc., Danville, Ill. Google Scholar
11. Weed Science Society of America. 1989. Herbicide Handbook of the Weed Science Society of America. Weed Science Society of America, 309 W. Clark St., Champaign, IL 61820.Google Scholar
12. Wilson, G. L., and Averre, C. W., eds. 1989. Growing and marketing quality sweet potatoes. N. C. Agric. Ext Serv. Bull. AG-09.Google Scholar