@article{collort_meyers_ward_2019, title={Consumer Perception of Skinning Injury in Sweetpotatoes and Implications for Marketability: An Experimental Auction}, volume={29}, ISSN={["1943-7714"]}, DOI={10.21273/HORTTECH04355-19}, abstractNote={Skinning of sweetpotato (Ipomoea batatas) storage roots is one of the greatest concerns of sweetpotato producers. Although skinning injury is very common, the severity of the injury can vary widely. At an undefined threshold, sweetpotatoes with skinning injury are no longer sold for fresh consumption. The objectives of this study were to examine how skinning injury influences consumers’ willingness-to-pay (WTP) for sweetpotatoes and to identify differences in valuations when the extent of skinning injury is labeled. Image analysis was used to quantify skinning injury and then an incentive-compatible, nonhypothetical laboratory experimental auction was conducted to collect data on consumers’ WTP for five categories of sweetpotatoes: 0% to <1% skinning injury, 1.0% to 3.0%, 3.1% to 5.0%, 5.1% to 7.5%, and 7.6% to 10.0%. On average, consumers were willing to pay the most for sweetpotatoes with 0% to <1% skinning injury (up to $1.51/lb to $1.67/lb) and the least for sweetpotatoes with 7.6% to 10% (up to $0.76/lb to $0.85/lb), yet mean WTP values were nonzero for all skinning levels. Moreover, when the extent of skinning was labeled (relative to when they bid blindly), consumers were willing to pay price premiums for sweetpotatoes with low skinning injury levels (0% to 5%) and discounted sweetpotatoes with the highest skinning injury level (7.6% to 10.0%), suggesting that skinning levels of 7.6% and above may not be acceptable by consumers.}, number={4}, journal={HORTTECHNOLOGY}, author={Collort, Alba J. and Meyers, Stephen L. and Ward, Jason K.}, year={2019}, month={Aug}, pages={468–475} }
 @article{beam_chaudhari_jennings_monks_meyers_schultheis_waldschmidt_main_2018, title={Response of Palmer Amaranth and Sweetpotato to Flumioxazin/Pyroxasulfone}, volume={33}, ISSN={0890-037X 1550-2740}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/wet.2018.80}, DOI={10.1017/wet.2018.80}, abstractNote={Abstract Studies were conducted to determine the tolerance of sweetpotato and Palmer amaranth control to a premix of flumioxazin and pyroxasulfone pretransplant (PREtr) followed by (fb) irrigation. Greenhouse studies were conducted in a factorial arrangement of four herbicide rates (flumioxazin/pyroxasulfone PREtr at 105/133 and 57/72 g ai ha–1, Smetolachlor PREtr 803 g ai ha–1, nontreated) by three irrigation timings [2, 5, and 14 d after transplanting (DAP)]. Field studies were conducted in a factorial arrangement of seven herbicide treatments (flumioxazin/pyroxasulfone PREtr at 40/51, 57/72, 63/80, and 105/133 g ha–1, 107g ha–1 flumioxazin PREtr fb 803 g ha–1 S-metolachlor 7 to 10 DAP, and season-long weedy and weed-free checks) by three 1.9-cm irrigation timings (0 to 2, 3 to 5, or 14 DAP). In greenhouse studies, flumioxazin/pyroxasulfone reduced sweetpotato vine length and shoot and storage root fresh biomass compared to the nontreated check and S-metolachlor. Irrigation timing had no influence on vine length and root fresh biomass. In field studies, Palmer amaranth control was≥91% season-long regardless of flumioxazin/pyroxasulfone rate or irrigation timing. At 38 DAP, sweetpotato injury was≤37 and≤9% at locations 1 and 2, respectively. Visual estimates of sweetpotato injury from flumioxazin/pyroxasulfone were greater when irrigation timing was delayed 3 to 5 or 14 DAP (22 and 20%, respectively) compared to 0 to 2 DAP (7%) at location 1 but similar at location 2. Irrigation timing did not influence no.1, jumbo, or marketable yields or root length-to-width ratio.With the exception of 105/133 g ha–1, all rates of flumioxazin/pyroxasulfone resulted in marketable sweetpotato yield and root length-to-width ratio similar to flumioxazin fb S-metolachlor or the weed-free checks. In conclusion, flumioxazin/pyroxasulfone PREtr at 40/51, 57/72, and 63/80 g ha–1 has potential for use in sweetpotato for Palmer amaranth control without causing significant crop injury and yield reduction. Nomenclature: Flumioxazin; pyroxasulfone; S-metolachlor; Palmer amaranth, Amaranthus palmeri (S.) Watson AMAPA; sweetpotato, Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam}, number={1}, journal={Weed Technology}, publisher={Cambridge University Press (CUP)}, author={Beam, Shawn C. and Chaudhari, Sushila and Jennings, Katherine M. and Monks, David W. and Meyers, Stephen L. and Schultheis, Jonathan R. and Waldschmidt, Mathew and Main, Jeffrey L.}, year={2018}, month={Nov}, pages={128–134} }
 @article{chaudhari_jennings_meyers_2018, title={Response of Sweetpotato to Oryzalin Application Rate and Timing}, volume={32}, ISSN={0890-037X 1550-2740}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/wet.2018.79}, DOI={10.1017/wet.2018.79}, abstractNote={Abstract The investigation of potential herbicides for weed control in sweetpotato is critical due to the limited number of registered herbicides and the development of populations of herbicide- resistant weeds. Therefore, field studies were conducted at the Horticultural Crops Research Station, Clinton, NC and the Pontotoc Ridge–Flatwoods Branch Experiment Station, Pontotoc, MS to determine the effect of oryzalin application rate and timing on sweetpotato tolerance. Oryzalin at 0.6, 1.1, 2.2, 3.4, and 4.5 kg ai ha–1 was applied immediately after transplanting or 14 d after sweetpotato transplanting (DAP). At Clinton, oryzalin applied immediately after transplanting resulted in ≤1% leaf distortion 4 and 6 wk after transplanting (WAP) regardless of application rate. However, when oryzalin was applied 14 DAP, greater sweetpotato leaf distortion was observed from 2.2, 3.4, and 4.5 kg ha–1 (≤8%) than 0.6 and 1.1 kg ha–1 (≤4%). At Pontotoc, oryzalin applied immediately after transplanting resulted in ≤6% leaf distortion 4 WAP regardless of application rate. However, when oryzalin was applied at 14 DAP, greater leaf distortion was reported from 3.4 and 4.5 kg ha–1 (11 to 13%) than 0.6, 1.1, and 2.2 kg ha–1 (4 to 6%). Oryzalin application rate and timing did not affect yield of no.1, jumbo, or marketable sweetpotato. Based on these results, oryzalin herbicide has potential for registration in sweetpotato.}, number={6}, journal={Weed Technology}, publisher={Cambridge University Press (CUP)}, author={Chaudhari, Sushila and Jennings, Katherine M. and Meyers, Stephen L.}, year={2018}, month={Dec}, pages={722–725} }
 @article{meyers_jennings_schultheis_monks_2016, title={Evaluation of Wick-Applied Glyphosate for Palmer Amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) Control in Sweetpotato}, volume={30}, ISSN={["1550-2740"]}, DOI={10.1614/wt-d-16-00024.1}, abstractNote={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. Nomenclature: Glyphosate; Palmer amaranth, Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats.; sweetpotato, Ipomoea batatas L. Lam. ‘Beauregard', ‘Covington'.}, number={3}, journal={WEED TECHNOLOGY}, author={Meyers, Stephen L. and Jennings, Katherine M. and Schultheis, Jonathan R. and Monks, David W.}, year={2016}, pages={765–772} }
 @article{meyers_jennings_monks_ballington_jordan_2016, title={Weed Control in Southern Highbush Blueberry with S-metolachlor, Flumioxazin, and Hexazinone}, volume={16}, ISSN={["1553-8362"]}, DOI={10.1080/15538362.2015.1072490}, abstractNote={Abstract Field studies were conducted in 2010, 2011, and 2012 at a commercial blueberry farm near Burgaw, NC to determine weed control and crop tolerance to S-metolachlor and flumioxazin alone or mixed with hexazinone. Herbicides were applied pre-budbreak and postharvest. Pre-budbreak applications consisted of hexazinone at 1.1 or 2.2 kg ai ha−1, S-metolachlor at 1.4 or 2.8 kg ai ha–1, and flumioxazin at 215 g ai ha–1 alone and tank mixes of hexazinone or flumioxazin plus S-metolachlor. Additional treatments consisted of flumioxazin (215 g ha–1), flumioxazin plus S-metolachlor (1.4 and 2.8 kg ha–1), or hexazinone (1.1 kg ha–1) plus S-metolachlor (1.4 and 2.8 kg ha–1) applied pre-budbreak and followed by (fb) a postharvest application of flumioxazin (215 g ha–1). Herbicide programs containing flumioxazin resulted in greater Maryland meadowbeauty control (73%) 5 to 6 weeks after treatment (WAT) than herbicide programs containing hexazinone at 1.1 or 2.2 kg ha–1 (37% and 39%, respectively). Needleleaf rosette grass control remained ≥94% for all herbicide programs through 2 WAT. Hexazinone at 1.1 kg ha–1 provided greater needleleaf rosette grass control (87%) than flumioxazin (71%) 5 to 6 WAT. Meadowbeauty and needleleaf rosette grass control by all herbicide programs was poor (≤39% and ≤57%, respectively) 16 to 18 WAT. Two weeks after post-harvest applications, herbicide programs receiving a post-harvest flumioxazin application had greater meadowbeauty and needleleaf rosette grass control (78% and 84%, respectively) than those programs without a post-harvest flumioxazin application (43% and 71%, respectively).}, number={2}, journal={INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FRUIT SCIENCE}, author={Meyers, Stephen L. and Jennings, Katherine M. and Monks, David W. and Ballington, James R. and Jordan, David L.}, year={2016}, pages={150–158} }
 @article{meyers_jennings_monks_2014, title={'Covington' Sweetpotato Tolerance to Flumioxazin Applied POST-Directed}, volume={28}, ISSN={["1550-2740"]}, DOI={10.1614/wt-d-13-00092.1}, abstractNote={Field studies were conducted at Clinton, NC (2009, 2010), and Kinston, NC (2010), to determine ‘Covington' sweetpotato tolerance to flumioxazin applied after transplanting. Flumioxazin was directed to 25% of the sweetpotato vine beginning at the distal end (shoot tip), 25% of the vine beginning at the proximal end (crown), or to the entire vine (over-the-top) and was applied at 2 or 5 wk after transplanting (WAP). Applications made at 2 WAP resulted in 10 to 16% foliar necrosis at 3 WAP. Necrosis was transient and ≤ 2% by 6 WAP. Stunting injury at 6 WAP for flumioxazin applied at 2 WAP was greatest (12%) with the over-the-top application, followed by crown (5%), and shoot tip (1%) applications. Applications made at 5 WAP resulted in 35, 23, and 15% foliar necrosis at 6 WAP for over-the-top, crown, and shoot tip applications, respectively. By 12 WAP, stunting injury for all treatments was ≤ 3%. No. 1, jumbo, canner, and total marketable sweetpotato yield of the nontreated check was 36,670; 7,610; 7,170; and 51,450 kg ha−1, respectively. No. 1 and total marketable sweetpotato yields were reduced when flumioxazin was applied at 2 or 5 WAP. No. 1 sweetpotato yield was reduced when flumioxazin was applied to the crown or over-the-top (27,240 and 28,330 kg ha−1, respectively). Sweetpotato receiving flumioxazin applied to the shoot tip had similar no. 1 (31,770 kg ha−1) yields as the nontreated check, crown, and over-the-top applications. Total marketable sweetpotato yield was reduced by flumioxazin application to shoot tip, crown, and over-the-top (45,350; 40,100; 40,370 kg ha−1, respectively). Neither flumioxazin application timing nor placement influenced either jumbo- or canner-grade sweetpotato yields. Currently, after-transplant applications of flumioxazin do not appear to be a suitable fit for POST weed control in North Carolina sweetpotato production systems.}, number={1}, journal={WEED TECHNOLOGY}, author={Meyers, Stephen L. and Jennings, Katherine M. and Monks, David W.}, year={2014}, pages={163–167} }
 @article{meyers_jennings_monks_jordan_ballington_2013, title={Effect of PRE and POST Herbicides on Carolina Redroot (Lachnanthes caroliniana) Growth}, volume={27}, ISSN={["0890-037X"]}, DOI={10.1614/wt-d-13-00029.1}, abstractNote={Greenhouse studies were conducted in Raleigh, NC to determine Carolina redroot control by selected PRE and POST herbicides labeled for blueberries. Paraquat, glufosinate, glyphosate, and flumioxazin provided some Carolina redroot shoot control 7 d after POST application (DAPOST) ranging from 48 to 74%. Control 25 DAPOST was greatest for hexazinone at 2.2 kg ai ha−1(90%) followed by glufosinate with 56% control and paraquat and terbacil each with 53% control. Control for most treatments declined between 25 and 63 DAPOST with the exception of glyphosate, which increased to 64%. Carolina redroot shoots per pot were reduced by terbacil, hexazinone at 2.2 kg ha−1, and glyphosate compared with the nontreated check 63 DAPOST. Control of Carolina redroot roots and rhizomes 63 DAPOST ranged from 7 to 68%, with the greatest control provided by terbacil (68%) and hexazinone at 2.2 kg ha−1(64%). Terbacil and hexazinone at 2.2 kg ha−1were the only treatments that reduced both shoot and root/rhizome dry weight compared with the nontreated check.}, number={4}, journal={WEED TECHNOLOGY}, author={Meyers, Stephen L. and Jennings, Katherine M. and Monks, David W. and Jordan, David L. and Ballington, James R.}, year={2013}, pages={747–751} }
 @article{meyers_jennings_monks_2013, title={Herbicide-Based Weed Management Programs for Palmer Amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in Sweetpotato}, volume={27}, ISSN={["1550-2740"]}, DOI={10.1614/wt-d-12-00036.1}, abstractNote={Studies were conducted in 2010 and 2011 to determine the effect of herbicide-based Palmer amaranth management systems in ‘Covington' sweetpotato. Treatments consisted of three herbicide application times. Pretransplant applications were flumioxazin at 107 g ai ha−1, fomesafen at 280 g ai ha−1, flumioxazin at 70 g ha−1plus pyroxasulfone at 89 g ai ha−1, or no herbicide. A second herbicide application was applied within 1 d after transplanting (DAP) and consisted ofS-metolachlor at 800 g ai ha−1, clomazone at 630 g ai ha−1, or no herbicide. Two weeks after planting (WAP) plots receivedS-metolachlor at 800 g ha−1, metribuzin at 140 g ai ha−1, a tank mix ofS-metolachlor at 800 g ha−1plus metribuzin at 140 g ha−1, hand-weeding followed by (fb)S-metolachlor at 800 g ha−1, or no herbicide. Crop tolerance, Palmer amaranth control, and sweetpotato yield in systems containing fomesafen pretransplant were similar to flumioxazin-containing systems. Systems containing flumioxazin plus pyroxasulfone pretransplant resulted in increased crop stunting and decreased sweetpotato yield in 2010, compared with systems containing flumioxazin or fomesafen, but were similar to systems with flumioxazin or fomesafen in 2011. In 2010, systems containingS-metolachlor applied within 1 DAP resulted in increased sweetpotato injury, similar Palmer amaranth control, and reduced no. 1, jumbo, and total sweetpotato yield, compared with systems with clomazone. In 2011, systems containing clomazone were more injurious to sweetpotato than systems receivingS-metolachlor, but Palmer amaranth control and sweetpotato yield were similar. Systems containing metribuzin 2 WAP resulted in increased sweetpotato injury and Palmer amaranth control (in 2010) but similar no. 1 and total sweetpotato yields, compared with systems containingS-metolachlor at 2 WAP. Hand-weeding fbS-metolachlor provided greater Palmer amaranth control and no. 1 sweetpotato yield than did systems ofS-metolachlor without a preceding hand-weeding event in 2010.}, number={2}, journal={WEED TECHNOLOGY}, author={Meyers, Stephen L. and Jennings, Katherine M. and Monks, David W.}, year={2013}, pages={331–340} }
 @article{garvey_meyers_monks_coble_2013, title={Influence of Palmer Amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) on the Critical Period for Weed Control in Plasticulture-Grown Tomato}, volume={27}, ISSN={["1550-2740"]}, DOI={10.1614/wt-d-12-00028.1}, abstractNote={Field studies were conducted in 1996, 1997, and 1998 at Clinton, NC, to determine the influence of Palmer amaranth establishment and removal periods on the yield and quality of plasticulture-grown ‘Mountain Spring' fresh market tomato. Treatments consisted of 14 Palmer amaranth establishment and removal periods. Half of the treatments were weed removal treatments (REM), in which Palmer amaranth was sowed at the time tomato transplanting and allowed to remain in the field for 0 (weed-free all season), 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, or 10 wk after transplanting (WAT). The second set of the treatments, weed establishment treatments (EST), consisted of sowing Palmer amaranth 0 (weedy all season), 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, or 10 WAT and allowing it to grow in competition with tomato the remainder of the season. Tomato shoot dry weight was reduced 23, 7, and 11 g plant−1for each week Palmer amaranth removal was delayed from 0 to 10 WAT in 1996, 1997, and 1998, respectively. Marketable tomato yield ranged from 87,000 to 41,000 kg ha−1for REM of 0 to 10 WAT and 28,000 to 88,000 kg ha−1for EST of 0 to 6 WAT. Percentage of jumbo, large, medium, and cull tomato yields ranged from 49 to 33%, 22 to 31%, 2 to 6%, and 9 to 11%, respectively, for REM of 0 to 10 WAT and 30 to 49%, 38 to 22%, 3 to 2%, and 12 to 9%, respectively, for EST of 0 to 6 WAT. To avoid losses of marketable tomato yield and percentage of jumbo tomato fruit yield, tomato plots must remain free of Palmer amaranth between 3 and 6 WAT. Observed reduction in marketable tomato yield was likely due to competition for light as Palmer amaranth plants exceeded the tomato plant canopy 6 WAT and remained taller than tomato plants for the remainder of the growing season.}, number={1}, journal={WEED TECHNOLOGY}, author={Garvey, Paul V., Jr. and Meyers, Stephen L. and Monks, David W. and Coble, Harold D.}, year={2013}, pages={165–170} }
 @article{meyers_jennings_monks_ballington_jordan_2013, title={POST Control of Carolina Redroot (Lachnanthes caroliniana)}, volume={27}, ISSN={["0890-037X"]}, DOI={10.1614/wt-d-12-00164.1}, abstractNote={Greenhouse studies were conducted in 2012 in Raleigh, NC to determine Carolina redroot control by ten POST herbicides. Paraquat and glufosinate provided the greatest control 14 (73 and 64%, respectively) and 25 d (82 and 68%, respectively) after treatment (DAT), but control declined between 25 and 63 DAT (72 and 59%, respectively). Glyphosate provided minimal control 14 DAT (18%), and control increased from 14 to 25 DAT (46%) and 25 to 63 DAT (69%). Control of Carolina redroot roots and rhizomes (roots/rhizomes) was greatest in plants treated with paraquat (91%), glyphosate (88%), glufosinate (73%), hexazinone (62%), diuron (60%). Nontreated Carolina redroot shoot and root/rhizome dry weight were 8.3 and 7.6 g, respectively. Paraquat, glufosinate, glyphosate, and diuron reduced both shoot and root/rhizome dry weight (3.1 and 0.7 g, 5.1 and 2.7 g, 5.4 and 1.0, 5.7 and 1.6 g, respectively). Hexazinone reduced root/rhizome dry weight (2.7 g). Fomesafen reduced shoot dry weight (6.1 g), but did not reduce root/rhizome dry weight. Paraquat, glufosinate, glyphosate, hexazinone, diuron, and clopyralid treatments resulted in reduced incidence of Carolina redroot flowering and anthesis.}, number={3}, journal={WEED TECHNOLOGY}, author={Meyers, Stephen L. and Jennings, Katherine M. and Monks, David W. and Ballington, James R. and Jordan, David L.}, year={2013}, pages={534–537} }
 @article{meyers_jennings_monks_miller_shankle_2013, title={Rate and Application Timing Effects on Tolerance of Covington Sweetpotato to S-Metolachlor}, volume={27}, ISSN={["1550-2740"]}, DOI={10.1614/wt-d-13-00049.1}, abstractNote={Field studies were conducted in 2011 and 2012 at the Horticultural Crops Research Station near Clinton, NC, to determine ‘Covington' sweetpotato tolerance to S-metolachlor rate and application timing. Treatments were a factorial arrangement of four S-metolachlor rates (0, 1.1, 2.2, or 3.4 kg ai ha−1) and six application timings (0, 2, 5, 7, 9, or 14 d after transplanting [DAP]). Immediately following application, 1.9 cm of irrigation was applied to individual plots. Sweetpotato injury was minimal for all treatments (≤ 10%). No. 1 grade sweetpotato yield displayed a negative linear response to S-metolachlor rate, and decreased from 25,110 to 20,100 kg ha−1 as S-metolachlor rate increased from 0 to 3.4 kg ha−1. Conversely, no. 1 sweetpotato yield displayed a positive linear response to S-metolachlor application timing and increased from 19,670 to 27,090 kg ha−1 as timing progressed from 0 to 14 DAP. Total marketable sweetpotato yield displayed a quadratic response to both S-metolachlor application rate and timing. Total marketable yield decreased from 44,950 to 30,690 kg ha−1 as S-metolachlor rate increased from 0 to 3.4 kg ha−1. Total marketable yield increased from 37,800 to 45,780 kg ha−1 as application timing was delayed from 0 to 14 DAP. At 1.1 kg ha−1S-metolachlor, sweetpotato storage root length to width ratio displayed a quadratic relationship to application timing and increased from 1.87 to 2.23 for applications made 0 to 14 DAP. At 2.2 kg ha−1 of S-metolachlor, sweetpotato length to width ratio displayed a quadratic response to application timing, increased from 1.57 to 2.09 for 0 to 10 DAP, and decreased slightly from 2.09 to 2.03 for 10 to 14 DAP. Application timing did not influence length to width ratio of sweetpotato storage roots for those plots treated with S-metolachlor at either 0 or 3.4 kg ha−1.}, number={4}, journal={WEED TECHNOLOGY}, author={Meyers, Stephen L. and Jennings, Katherine M. and Monks, David W. and Miller, Donnie K. and Shankle, Mark W.}, year={2013}, pages={729–734} }
 @article{meyers_jennings_schultheis_monks_2010, title={Evaluation of Flumioxazin and S-metolachlor Rate and Timing for Palmer Amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) Control in Sweetpotato}, volume={24}, ISSN={["0890-037X"]}, DOI={10.1614/wt-d-09-00057.1}, abstractNote={Studies were conducted in 2007 and 2008 to determine the effect of flumioxazin andS-metolachlor on Palmer amaranth control and ‘Beauregard’ and ‘Covington’ sweetpotato. Flumioxazin at 0, 91, or 109 g ai ha−1was applied pretransplant 2 d before transplanting alone or followed by (fb)S-metolachlor at 0, 0.8, 1.1, or 1.3 kg ai ha−1PRE applied immediately after transplanting or 2 wk after transplanting (WAP). Flumioxazin fbS-metolachlor immediately after transplanting provided greater than 90% season-long Palmer amaranth control.S-metolachlor applied alone immediately after transplanting provided 80 to 93% and 92 to 96% control in 2007 and 2008, respectively. Flumioxazin fbS-metolachlor 2 WAP provided greater than 90% control in 2007 but variable control (38 to 79%) in 2008.S-metolachlor applied alone 2 WAP did not provide acceptable Palmer amaranth control. Control was similar for all rates ofS-metolachlor (0.8, 1.1, and 1.3 kg ha−1). In 2008, greater Palmer amaranth control was observed with flumioxazin at 109 g ha−1than with 91 g ha−1. Sweetpotato crop injury due to treatment was minimal (< 3%), and sweetpotato storage root length to width ratio was similar for all treatments in 2007 (2.5 for Beauregard) and 2008 (2.4 and 1.9 for Beauregard and Covington, respectively). Sweetpotato yield was directly related to Palmer amaranth control. Results indicate that flumioxazin pretransplant fbS-metolachlor after transplanting provides an effective herbicide program for control of Palmer amaranth in sweetpotato.}, number={4}, journal={WEED TECHNOLOGY}, author={Meyers, Stephen L. and Jennings, Katherine M. and Schultheis, Jonathan R. and Monks, David W.}, year={2010}, pages={495–503} }
 @article{meyers_jennings_schultheis_monks_2010, title={Interference of Palmer Amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in Sweetpotato}, volume={58}, ISSN={["0043-1745"]}, DOI={10.1614/ws-d-09-00048.1}, abstractNote={Field studies were conducted in 2007 and 2008 at Clinton and Faison, NC, to evaluate the influence of Palmer amaranth density on ‘Beauregard’ and ‘Covington’ sweetpotato yield and quality and to quantify the influence of Palmer amaranth on light interception. Palmer amaranth was established at 0, 0.5, 1.1, 1.6, 3.3, and 6.5 plants m−1within the sweetpotato row and densities were maintained season-long. Jumbo, number (no.) 1, and marketable sweetpotato yield losses were fit to a rectangular hyperbola model, and predicted yield loss ranged from 56 to 94%, 30 to 85%, and 36 to 81%, respectively for Palmer amaranth densities of 0.5 to 6.5 plants m−1. Percentage of jumbo, no. 1, and marketable sweetpotato yield loss displayed a positive linear relationship with Palmer amaranth light interception as early as 6 to 7 wk after planting (R2= 0.99, 0.86, and 0.93, respectively). Predicted Palmer amaranth light interception 6 to 7, 10, and 13 to 14 wk after planting ranged from 47 to 68%, 46 to 82%, and 42 to 71%, respectively for Palmer amaranth densities of 0.5 to 6.5 plants m−1. Palmer amaranth height increased from 177 to 197 cm at densities of 0.5 to 4.1 plants m−1and decreased from 197 to 188 cm at densities of 4.1 to 6.5 plants m−1; plant width (69 to 145 cm) and shoot dry biomass plant−1(0.2 to 1.1 kg) decreased linearly as density increased.}, number={3}, journal={WEED SCIENCE}, author={Meyers, Stephen L. and Jennings, Katherine M. and Schultheis, Jonathan R. and Monks, David W.}, year={2010}, pages={199–203} }