Whitefringed beetle
Larvae feed on the roots causing damage similar to white grubs. Larvae are yellowish-white with light brown heads (usually not visible), slightly curved and legless (Figure 19). Adults appear grayish with two longitudinal white bands along the side of the body. Larvae are reported to remain deep in the soil where preplant insecticides may not reach, making insecticidal control inconsistent at best. Adults are flightless, so rotation with nonhost crops (corn, sorghum, or grass cover crops) reduces potential problems with this pest. Fields with known populations should be avoided.
Figure 19. Whitefringed beetle larva (left) and adult (right). Photo: Edward L. Barnard, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Bugwood.org.
Sweet potato weevil
The sweet potato weevil is unique among sweet potato pests in that all stages can be found within the roots of sweet potato. It can attack the crop throughout its development, it can reproduce in storage, and it burrows tunnels throughout the root. The presence of this insect within the root causes a bitter taste. It is a regulated pest that causes restrictions on shipment of all plant parts into noninfested production areas.
Figure 20. Sweet potato weevil adult. Photo: Florida Department of Plant Industry, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Bugwood.org
Adults are distinctive in appearance. They are small (1/4 inch), thin-bodied weevils with the general appearance of a brightly colored ant (Figure 20). The head and wing covers are metallic dark blue and the thorax and legs are red-orange. Females bore shallow holes into stems and roots for oviposition and place a single egg per hole. The vast majority of oviposition occurs within 1 inch of the soil line, which contributes to the management recommendations listed below. Eggs hatch into small grubs (with dirty white, C-shaped, legless bodies and brown heads) that will burrow throughout roots leaving frass-filled tunnels. This feeding also triggers the production of terpene in the root, which imparts a bitter taste. Pupation and adult emergence also occurs within the root. All stages of weevil development occur within the root; thus, weevils can easily be moved into storage at harvest time and can reproduce within storage. Under good conditions, generation time is less than a month with multiple generations per year. The high potential for damage at even low densities and the potential ease of movement with the crop has resulted in sweet potato production regions that are free of the weevil and restrict shipment of sweet potato roots and foliage from infested areas. Shipment of roots into these areas generally requires fumigation, which is risky, as improper fumigation results in root death and rapid deterioration. Management of sweet potato weevil includes restrictions on slip production and cutting, field location, adult monitoring (with pheromone traps), and insecticide applications in field production and storage.
Foliar pests
Defoliating insects
Adults of several of the soil insect pests feed on foliage but are generally of minimal concern. Caterpillars are insect pests that have the potential to cause considerable defoliation to sweet potato. Species that commonly attack sweet potato include beet armyworm, looper, southern armyworm, variegated cutworm, and sweet potato hornworm. Defoliation impacts yield in a range from 30 to 50%, so growers should monitor defoliation and treat only as necessary to infrequently apply insecticides for defoliators.
Infestations of defoliating caterpillars at harvest time may require control actions even at relatively low pest levels. Destruction of foliage removes the host material for these caterpillars, and turning the roots onto the soil surface allows these insects to feed on the marketable produce. Large caterpillars can cause enough damage to render roots unmarketable and can be collected with roots and placed into storage where they will continue to feed until they reach the pupal stage. While caterpillars will not reproduce in storage, they can cause considerable damage. Fumigation will kill caterpillars but it may also damage the roots.
Aphids and whiteflies
Both aphids and whiteflies are reported as pests of sweet potatoes. While sweet potato whitefly is a severe pest of multiple vegetable crops in Georgia in the fall, it has not generally occurred in damaging populations in sweet potato. This pest does prefer hot, dry conditions, which are common during the sweet potato production season in Georgia. In recent years, whiteflies have developed damaging poulations in some areas, particularly after mild winters in Tift County and surrounding areas. Aphids, including the melon aphid and green peach aphid, may cause direct damage under high populations but are of greatest concern as potential vectors of viral diseases. Aphids and whiteflies have not been reported as consistent pest problems; however, if present they are not likely to be controlled by common management practices for soil pests. Please contact your county Extension agent if problems are encountered.
Managing Soil Pests of Sweet Potato
Managing soil pests starts with field site selection and preparation. Soil pests present at planting likely originated in the prior crop. Avoid growing sweet potatoes behind sweet potatoes (which particularly favors sweet potato weevil), corn, sod, or weedy fallow fields. These situations favor infestation of white grubs and wireworms, and those species with life cycles of a year or longer will still be present in the soil when sweet potatoes are planted. When planting in fields with a known infestation of soil insects, deep plowing three times prior to planting reduces infestations through direct mortality and exposure of insects to predators and parasites.
Management of sweet potato weevil requires even greater attention to field location, starting with plant beds. It is generally recommended that plant beds be located at least a mile from the prior year’s production fields and from fields to be planted from these beds. For weevil management, seed beds should be started with weevil-free seed pieces, treated weekly with an effective insecticide, and destroyed immediately after the final cutting. Cuttings should be made at least 1 inch above the soil surface (the vast majority of weevil eggs are laid within an inch of the soil surface) to avoid moving any weevil eggs into production fields.
While sampling methods and thresholds have been developed for some soil insect pests, the majority of producers use preventive soil-applied insecticides to manage these pests. Apply a broad-spectrum insecticide prior to planting to reduce populations of any soil pests present and to provide early season protection (three or more weeks) from reinfestation. These insecticides are incorporated to aid contact with the insects and to place the insecticide out of direct sunlight to avoid rapid breakdown. This preplant incorporated application is followed by a layby application of insecticide to establish a barrier against reinfestation by beetle larvae. Again, it is important to incorporate this application to form a barrier to soil penetration and place the insecticide out of direct sunlight. Research has shown that chemigation with the soil insecticide performed as well as mechanically incorporated insecticide applications. Additional foliar applications for soil insects are likely unnecessary for most species, but may well be justified if sweet potato weevil is present, particularly at harvest time. Sweet potato weevil pest pressure can be monitored with commercially available pheromone traps. Traps are baited with a synthetic sex pheromone, which attracts only male weevils. These traps can be used to monitor weevil activity in plant beds, storage houses and production fields.
Prevention of weevil damage to roots can also be aided by cultivation and adequate irrigation. Adult weevils oviposit into exposed roots and can reach the roots through cracks in the soil. Throwing soil around the base of plants with cultivation and irrigating to prevent soil cracking will reduce root exposure to weevil oviposition.
Foliar insecticide applications for soil pests
For sweet potato weevil, apply foliar insecticides on a 10-day schedule throughout the season. Insecticides applied for sweet potato weevil would also control adults of the other soil insect pest complex. The need for foliar insecticides is questionable when an adequate soil insecticide program is implemented. If relying on foliar insecticides for pest control, pest populations should be monitored at least weekly. Thresholds reported from Louisiana include two cucumber beetles per 100 sweeps (triggers weekly applications; apply on five-day schedule if higher populations occur), five flea beetles per 100 sweeps, or one whitefringed beetle per 100 sweeps. Weekly applications (again from Louisiana) are also triggered if any pheromone trap (three traps per each 40 acres) catches four weevils in one week. Attempts to ensure a weevil-free crop are likely to trigger at least weekly insecticide applications if any weevils are caught.
Additional insecticide applications
In years when whiteflies enter the crop early and have the potential to develop damaging populations, insecticide applications are warranted. A variety of insecticides are registered for whitefly in sweet potato, however, all are primarily active only on immature whiteflies. If whiteflies show the potential to develop damaging populations, insecticidal control should be implemented early in population development. At harvest, defoliating caterpillars may also require insecticidal control to prevent damage to tubers during and after harvest. This will require insecticide applications before terminating the crop and must be timed to allow time for caterpillar mortality and the proper preharvest interval for the insecticide.
Storage potatoes
Storage areas should be thoroughly cleaned and treated with insecticide prior to placing roots into storage. Seed potatoes should be collected from weevil-free fields. Roots placed into storage should be treated with an approved insecticide to prevent sweet potato weevil reproduction. All roots must be covered with insecticide to provide control.
Sweet potato weevil regulations
Georgia no longer runs a sweet potato weevil program, but growers are responsible for following regulations from other sweet potato-producing states if shipping potatoes into or through those states. In general, growers from Georgia cannot ship sweet potatoes into noninfested production regions unless the shipment has been fumigated (other restrictions also apply). Shipments of sealed containers through these regions are allowed. The Georgia Department of Agriculture has been in discussions with these states concerning potential adjustments to the requirements and should be contacted for information.
Weed control in sweet potato
Crop rotation, tillage, and a sound herbicide program are all critical components for long-term success. This publication focuses on developing sound herbicide programs while minimizing crop injury for transplant production systems. A new indemnified label for Dual Magnum has greatly improved weed control options, and growers must have these labels in hand at the time of application. It is critical for growers to understand that their specific production practices may alter weed and crop responses. Growers should evaluate these programs on limited acres until gaining experience.
Step 1: Fields must be weed-free when planting. Tillage, Roundup, and Gramoxone are all effective tools. For fields with a flush of difficult-to-control weeds prior to planting, apply Roundup (at the max rate for nutsedge) and then follow with Gramoxone five to seven days after the Roundup and at least a day prior to planting.
Step 2: Valor SX 51 WDG (up to 2.5 oz/acre) would improve weed control in nearly every Georgia field. It should be applied two to five days prior to transplanting to the preformed row. Do not incorporate and minimize movement of soil during transplanting. Do not apply after transplanting. The label notes to not use greenhouse- grown transplants and to test a small area for new cultivars.
Step 3: Command 3 ME (up to 1.5 pt/acre) should be applied post- transplant within five days of transplanting for preemergence control of annual grasses and a few broadleaf weeds. Roots must be below the surface where spray will occur. Command has great crop tolerance, but one must review the label regarding buffers and rotational restrictions.
Step 4: Dual Magnum can be used post as long as the applicator obtains the indemnified label prior to application (see back on steps to obtain label). Research has shown stunting from Dual Magnum if applied too closely to planting, so experimenting with applications two to three weeks after transplanting is suggested. Rates should range from 8-12 oz/acre. Sequential applications can be made as long as the total use rate does not exceed 1.33 pt/acre and applications are not made within 40 days of harvest.
Step 5: Select and Poast can be applied to control small annual grasses up until 30 days of harvest.
Critical points
No effective herbicide is currently available to control nutsedge. Ideally, avoid fields heavily infested with nutsedge. Maximum rates of glyphosate preplant and tillage are the most effective options.
Devrinol is labeled for sweet potato production fields and is effective on a few small-seeded broadleaf and grass weeds. Research has not noted a benefit when adding Devrinol to the program above.
Command poses serious carryover risks and has buffers. Check labels closely before use.
Be aware of potential carryover from previously used herbicides, especially Cadre.
- Do not apply Dual Magnum preplant or pre.
- Plowing is very effective. If plowing, follow immediately with a residual herbicide.
- Use conservative herbicide rates on sandy soils with low organic matter and/or with intense irrigation.
Successful weed management depends on residual herbicides that need to be activated by rainfall or irrigation within a day or two of application.
Always follow herbicide label restrictions and read labels for potential injury or carryover concerns.
References
Abel, C.A., Adams, L.C., & Stetina, S.R. (2007). Sweet potato yield reduction caused by reniform nematode in the Mississippi Delta. Plant Health Progress.
Ames, T., Smit, N.E.J.M., Braun, A.R., O’Sullvan, J.N., & Skoglum, L.G. (1997). Sweet potato: Major pests, diseases and nutritional disorders. International Potato Center, Peru, 104-111.
Chalfant, R.B., Bondari, K., Sumner, H.R., & Hall, M.R. (1992). Reduction of wireworm (Coleoptera: Elateridae) damage in sweet potato with insecticides applied by chemigation. Journal of Economic Entomology 86: 123-130.
Chalfant, R.B., Jansson, R.K., Seal, D.R., & Schalk, J.M. (1990). Ecology and management of sweet potato insects. Annual Review of Entomology 35: 157-180.
Clark, C.A., & Wright, V.L. (1983). Effect and reproduction of Rotylenchulus reniformis on sweet potato selections. Journal of Nematology 15: 198-203.
Clark, C.A., & Moyer, J.W. (1988). Compendium of sweet potato diseases. APS, St. Paul, Minnesota. 74.
Coolong, T., Seebold, K., Bessin, R., Woods, T., & Fannin, S. (2012). Sweet potato production for Kentucky. Univ. of Kentucky Cooperative Extension Bulletin-195. 16.
Gajanayake B., Reddy, K.R., Shankle, M.W., Arancibia, R.A., & Villordon, A.O. (2014). Quantifying storage root initiation, growth, and developmental responses of sweet potato to early season temperature. Agronomy Journal. 106:1795-1804.
Hammond, A. (2005). Sweet potato insect pest management (IPM). LSU AgCenter.
Heald, C.M., & Robinson, A.F. (1990). Survey of current distribution of Rotylenchulus reniformis in the United States. Journal of Nematology 22: 695- 699.
Jansson, R.K., Mason, L.J., Heath, R.R., Sorensen, K.A., Hammond, A.M., & Robinson, J.V. (1992). Pheromone-trap monitoring system for sweet potato weevil (Coleoptera: Apionidae) in the Southern United States: effects of trap type and pheromone dose. Journal of Economic Entomology 85: 416-423.
Jatala, P. (1991). Biology and management of plant-parasitic nematodes on sweet potato. In: Jansson, R.K. and Raman, K.V. eds. Sweet potato Pest Management, A Global Perspective. Westview Press, Boulder, CO. 359-378.
Johnson, A.W., Dowler, C.C., Glaze, N.C., & Handoo, Z.A. (1996). Role of nematodes, nematicides, and crop rotation on the productivity and quality of potato, sweet potato, peanut, and grain sorghum. Journal of Nematology 28: 389-399.
La Bonte, D.R., Wilson, P.W., Villordon, A.Q., & Clark, C.A. (2008). ‘Evangeline’ sweet potato. HortScience 43: 258-259.
McSorley, R. (1980). Nematodes associated with sweet potato and edible aroids in southern Florida. Proceedings of Florida State Horticultural Society 93: 283-285.
Overstreet, C. (2009). Nematodes. In: Loebenstein, G., and Thottappilly, G., eds. The sweet potato. Springer: the Netherlands. 135-159.
Rubatzky, V., & Yamaguchi, M. (1997). World vegetables- Principles, production, and nutritive values 2nd Ed. Chapman and Hall, New York. 843.
Scott, L.E., & Bouwkamp, J.C. (1974). Seasonal mineral accumulation by the sweet potato. HortScience 9:233-235.
Scurrah, M., Niere, B., & Bridge, J. (2005). Nematode parasites of potato and sweet potato. In: Luc, M., Sikora, R., Bridge, J., eds. Plant Parasitic Nematodes in Subtropical and Tropical Agriculture, 2nd edn. CAB International: Wallingford, UK. 193-221.
Seal, D.R., Chalfant, R.B., & Hall, M.R. (1992). Effects of cultural practices and rotational crops on abundance of wireworms (Coleoptera: Elateridae) affecting sweet potato in Georgia. Environmental Entomology. 21: 969-974.
Seal, D.R., Chalfant, R.B., & Hall, M.R. (1992). Effectiveness of different seed baits and baiting methods for wireworms (Coleoptera: Elateridae) in sweet potato. Environmental Entomology 21: 957-963.
Smith, T.P., & Beuzelin, J.M. (2014). Insect pest management in Louisiana Sweet potatoes. LSU AgCenter Pub. 2620. 8.
Thomas, R.J., & Clark, C.A. (1983). Population dynamics of Meloidogyne incognita and Rotylenchulus reniformis alone and in combination, and their effects on sweet potato. Journal of Nematology 15: 204-211.
Yencho, G.C., Pecota, K.V., Shultheis, J.R., VanEsbrock, Z.P., Holmes, G.J., Little, B.E., Thornton, A.C., & Truong, V.D. (2008). ‘Covington’ sweet potato. HortScience 43: 1911-1914.
Wang, K.H., Sipes, B.S., & Schmitt, D.P. (2001). Suppression of Rotylenchulus reniformis by Crotalaria juncea, Brassica napus, and Target erecta. Nematropica 31: 237-251.
Zehnder, G. (1998). A sweet potato grower’s guide to insect pest management. Alabama Cooperative Extension System ANR-1104. 6.
Zhang, S., Zhang, S., Wang, H., & Chen, Y. (2006). Characteristics of sweet potato stem nematode in China. Acta Phytopathologica Sinica 36: 22-27.