Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-9b74x Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-09-09T11:51:55.327Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français
Accepted manuscript

Response of stevia to herbicides applied post-transplant in the greenhouse

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 September 2025

Stephen J. Ippolito Open the ORCID record for Stephen J. Ippolito [Opens in a new window] ,
Katherine M. Jennings ,
David W. Monks ,
David Jordan ,
Sushila Chaudhari ,
Levi D. Moore Open the ORCID record for Levi D. Moore [Opens in a new window]  and
Patrick Chang
Stephen J. Ippolito*
Affiliation:
Graduate Student, Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
Katherine M. Jennings
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
David W. Monks
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
David Jordan
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
Sushila Chaudhari
Affiliation:
Field Development Representative, FMC Corporation, Plainfield, IL, USA
Levi D. Moore
Affiliation:
Research Scientist, Southeast Ag Research, Inc, Chula, GA, USA
Patrick Chang
Affiliation:
Graduate Student, Department of Environmental Assessment, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA.
*
Corresponding author: Stephen J. Ippolito, Graduate Student, Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, 2721 Founders Drive, Raleigh, NC 27965. (Email: sjippoli@ncsu.edu)
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Greenhouse studies were conducted to determine the response of stevia to several herbicide modes of action applied 2 wk after transplanting (WAP). At 1 wk after treatment (WAT), aciflourfen, metribuzin, and carfentrazone injured stevia 34 to 39%. In contrast, S-metolachlor, linuron, halosufluron, ethalfluralin, pyroxasulfone, pendimethalin, and tryfloxysulfuron injured stevia <20%, 1 WAT. By 4 WAT, stevia injury was ≤ 19% regardless of treatment, except metribuzin and trifloxysulfuron with 84 and 69% injury, respectively. S-metolachlor, linuron, ethalfluralin, pendimethalin, and pyroxasulfone did not reduce aboveground biomass compared to the nontreated check, 4 WAT. Linuron, ethalfluralin, pendimethalin, and pyroxasulfone did not reduce belowground biomass. Linuron, pendimethalin, and ethalfluralin may provide new modes of action for POST-transplant weed management in stevia. However, further research is needed to evaluate the effect of these herbicides on stevia growth and quality in the field.

Keywords

Crop responsespecialty cropweed managementStevia, Stevia rebaudiana Bertoni

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Accepted manuscript , pp. 1 - 13
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Weed Science Society of America