Differential Tolerance of Sweet Potato (<i>Ipomoea batatas</i>) Clones to Metribuzin

Motsenbocker, Carl E.; Monaco, Thomas J.

doi:10.1017/s0890037x00027718

Cited by 12 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Injury from all metribuzin-containing treatments was ≤13% by 10 WAP (Tables 1 and 2). This finding differs somewhat from that of Motsenbocker and Monaco (1993), who reported >30% crop injury at harvest from metribuzin applied immediately after transplanting and 3 WAP; however, the researchers in that study applied a higher rate of metribuzin (1.1 to 2.2 kg ha −1 ) than that used in the present study. Sweetpotato tolerance did not differ between the two oryzalin rates used in the study.…”

Section: Resultscontrasting

confidence: 99%

“…Although injury declined through 10 WAP, the the trend was similar at 4 and 10 WAP. Harrison et al (1985) and Motsenbocker and Monaco (1993) also observed a metribuzin rate effect on sweetpotato injury. Harrison et al (1985) reported increasing injury as metribuzin rate increased from 0 to 2.2 kg ha −1 .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…Harrison et al (1985) reported increasing injury as metribuzin rate increased from 0 to 2.2 kg ha −1 . Motsenbocker and Monaco (1993) reported that 2.2 kg ha −1 resulted in greater injury than 1.1 kg ha −1 . Injury from all metribuzin-containing treatments was ≤13% by 10 WAP (Tables 1 and 2).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Sweetpotato Tolerance and Palmer Amaranth Control with Metribuzin and Oryzalin

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Field studies were conducted in Clinton, NC in 2007 and 2009 to determine sweetpotato crop response and Palmer amaranth control with metribuzin and oryzalin. Treatments consisted of 140 and 202 g ai ha−1metribuzin applied immediately after transplanting [0 wk after transplanting (WAP)] or 2 WAP, 560 and 1121 g ha−1oryzalin 0 WAP, and tank mixes of metribuzin (140 or 202 g ha−1) and oryzalin (560 or 1,121 g ha−1) 0 WAP. At 2 WAP, metribuzin alone applied 0 WAP resulted in greater crop injury (33%) than oryzalin alone (1%), and the tank mix of metribuzin plus oryzalin resulted in greater crop injury (49%) than either herbicide applied alone. Greater crop injury occurred when metribuzin was applied at 202 g ha−1(54%) than 140 g ha−1(34%). Levels of injury were similar at 4 WAP (34, 8, and 52% for metribuzin, oryzalin, and the tank mix, respectively). At 4 WAP, injury from metribuzin was greater when it was applied 0 WAP (34%) compared to 2 WAP (18%). By 10 WAP, injury from metribuzin applied at 2 WAP was only 4%. At 4 WAP, Palmer amaranth control was excellent for all treatments and ≥98%. At 10 WAP, control among treatments ranged from 77% to 85%. Palmer amaranth control provided by metribuzin was similar for applications made 0 WAP (78%) and 2 WAP (77%). Oryzalin alone provided similar control (85%) to metribuzin alone 0 WAP, but greater control than the tank mix (77%). Neither metribuzin nor oryzalin rate differed in weed control provided at 10 WAP. Oryzalin 0 WAP and metribuzin 2 WAP provided no. 1 sweetpotato yields equivalent to the hand-weeded check. No. 1 yields of all other treatments were less than the hand-weeded check but greater than the weedy check.

show abstract

Section: Resultscontrasting

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 90%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Sweetpotato Tolerance and Palmer Amaranth Control with Metribuzin and Oryzalin

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(Hardcastle 1974; Mangeot et al 1979; Barrentine et al 1982), tomato ( Solanum lycopersicum L.) (Souza Machado et al 1978; Gawronski 1983), potato ( Solanum tuberosum L.) (Ivany 1979; Gawronski et al 1985), sweetpotato [ Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam.] (Harrison et al 1985; Motsenbocker and Monaco 1993), cowpea [ Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.] (Harrison 1988), field pea ( Pisum sativum L.) (Al Khatib et al 1997), barley (Caldwell and O’Sullivan 1985; Gawronski et al 1987), wheat (Runyan and McNeil 1982; Schroeder et al 1985; Kleemann and Gill 2007; Bhoite et al 2017), lentil (McMurray et al 2009; Meier 2016; Sharma et al 2017), and narrowleaf lupin ( Lupinus angustifolius L.) (Si et al 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of High Levels of Metribuzin Tolerance in Lentil

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Lentil (Lens culinarisMedik.) is an important and expanding crop in southern Australia and a significant crop in western Canada. Currently, production in both countries is limited by an inability to effectively control weeds, due in part to a lack of registered safe and effective herbicides. Metribuzin is a broad-spectrum herbicide providing an alternative weed control option to the imidazolinones, but it has low crop safety in lentil. Two methods, germplasm screening using a hydroponic sand assay and field screening of a large mutated population of the Australian cultivar ‘PBA Flash’ were initially used to identify lines with putative metribuzin tolerance over current cultivars. Dose–response experiments showed the germplasm line SP1333 had GR50(the rate required to reduce dry weight 50%) values up to four times higher than PBA Flash. However, the mutation selections M043 and M009 had GR50values more than 25 times higher than PBA Flash. A field study in Canada, under conditions of induced shade and no shade 72 h before POST application of metribuzin, confirmed the intermediate level of tolerance in SP1333 and the high level in the two mutant lines compared with 20 Canadian and Australian genotypes. This relative increase in metribuzin tolerance of the two mutant lines over the parent cultivar is higher than all previous reports in a range of crop species. The development of large mutant populations combined with large M2field screens was a successful method for developing high levels of metribuzin tolerance in lentil. The estimated mutation rate of the mutant lines was 9.4×10−8. All three lines are currently being used as parents in lentil breeding programs.

show abstract

“…Previous sweetpotato herbicide studies evaluated treatment effects on crop vigor and yield, but limited information was gathered about storage root morphological responses (Harrison and Dukes, 1996;Harrison et al, 1985;Motsenbocker and Monaco, 1993). Currently, there is no known published method that routinely assesses sweetpotato storage root size and shape attributes.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Digital Image Analysis of Sweetpotato Storage Roots in Herbicide Trials

Villordon¹,

Carroll²

2002

HortSci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Digital image analysis (DIA) was evaluated for use in assessing size and shape attributes of sweetpotato [Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam.] storage roots in herbicide studies. Digital image files of U.S. no. 1 storage roots were taken using a digital camera. Image analysis was performed using a publicly available software package. Eight size and shape attributes were measured and subjected to univariate and multivariate procedures. DIA revealed differences for storage root width and roundness attributes. Principal component analysis suggested that storage root length, width, and roundness best described the variability of the storage root sample. The results demonstrate the potential use of DIA in augmenting data from sweetpotato herbicide trials as well as other investigations that require information about storage root size and shape responses.

show abstract

Differential Tolerance of Sweet Potato (Ipomoea batatas) Clones to Metribuzin

Cited by 12 publications

References 16 publications

Sweetpotato Tolerance and Palmer Amaranth Control with Metribuzin and Oryzalin

Sweetpotato Tolerance and Palmer Amaranth Control with Metribuzin and Oryzalin

Development of High Levels of Metribuzin Tolerance in Lentil

Digital Image Analysis of Sweetpotato Storage Roots in Herbicide Trials

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About