Hostname: page-component-cc8bf7c57-j4qg9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-11T23:07:40.338Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Effect of volunteer potato density on bulb onion yield and quality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Corey V. Ransom
Affiliation:
Malheur Experiment Station, Oregon State University, 595 Onion Avenue, Ontario, OR 97914
W. Mack Thompson
Affiliation:
University of Idaho Research and Extension Center, 29603 U of I Lane, Parma, ID 83660

Abstract

Bulb onions are poor competitors and volunteer potato, commonly observed in western USA onion fields, is difficult to manage. To improve the understanding of onion and weed interactions, relationships were quantified among volunteer potato density, onion yield, and volunteer potato tuber production using hyperbolic or linear models. Onion yield losses because of volunteer potato interference occur at densities commonly observed in the field. A volunteer potato density as low as 0.067 plants m−2 resulted in a 10% reduction in crop yield. Asymptotic yield loss (A parameter) was 100% and achieved with 4 volunteer potato plants m−2. Volunteer potato competition limits onion bulb size, resulting in a lower quality and thus a less-valuable crop. Volunteer potato tuber density and biomass increased linearly with initial weed density as high as 8 volunteer potato m−2. Onion yield loss from volunteer potato competition occurs to a greater extent and at a lower weed density than demonstrated in previous research on small-seeded annual weed species.

Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Copyright
Copyright © 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.)

References

Literature Cited

Anonymous. 2003. Agricultural Statistics. Chapter IV. Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office. Pp. 1926.Google Scholar
Boydston, R. A. and Seymour, M. D. 2002. Volunteer potato (Solanum tuberosum) control with herbicides and cultivation in onion (Allium cepa). Weed Technol 16:620626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boydston, R. A. and Williams, M. M. II. 2003. Effect of soil fumigation on volunteer potato (Solanum tuberosum) tuber viability. Weed Technol 17:352357.Google Scholar
Cousens, R. 1985. A simple model relating yield loss to weed density. Ann. Appl. Biol 107:239252.Google Scholar
Cowan, P., Weaver, S. E., and Swanton, C. J. 1998. Interference between pigweed (Amaranthus spp.), barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli), and soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci 46:535539.Google Scholar
Dunan, C. M., Westra, P., and Moore, F. D. III. 1999. A plant process economic model for weed management decisions in irrigated onion. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci 124:99105.Google Scholar
Dunan, C. M., Westra, P., Moore, F., and Chapman, P. 1996. Modelling the effect of duration of weed competition, weed density and weed competitiveness on seeded, irrigated onion. Weed Res 36:259269.Google Scholar
Ellis, P. J. 1992. Weed hosts of beet western yellows virus and potato leafroll virus in British Columbia. Plant Dis 76:11371139.Google Scholar
Hewson, R. T. and Roberts, H. A. 1971. The effect of weed removal at different times on the yield of bulb onions. J. Hortic. Sci 46:471483.Google Scholar
Hewson, R. T. and Roberts, H. A. 1973. Some effects of weed competition on the growth of onions. J. Hortic. Sci 48:5157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindquist, J. L. 2001. Performance of INTERCOM for predicting corn-velvetleaf interference across north-central United States. Weed Sci 49:195201.Google Scholar
Lindquist, J. L., Mortensen, D. A., Clay, S. A., Schmenk, R., Kells, J. J., Howatt, K., and Westra, P. 1996. Stability of corn (Zea mays)-velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) interference relationships. Weed Sci 44:309313.Google Scholar
Lutman, P. J. W. 1977. The effect of tuber size on the susceptibility of potatoes to metoxuron. Potato Res 20:331335.Google Scholar
Menges, R. M. and Tamez, S. 1981a. Common sunflower (Helianthus annuus) interference in onions (Allium cepa). Weed Sci 29:641647.Google Scholar
Menges, R. M. and Tamez, S. 1981b. Response of onion (Allium cepa) to annual weeds and postemergent herbicides. Weed Sci 29:7479.Google Scholar
Pelter, G. Q., Sorensen, E. J., Thornton, R. E., and Stevens, R. 1992. Dry bulb onion production in the Columbia Basin. Pullman, WA: Washington State University Cooperative Extension, EB1693. 18 p.Google Scholar
Pester, T. A., Westra, P., Anderson, R. L., Lyon, D. J., Miller, S. D., Stahlman, P. W., Northam, F. E., and Wicks, G. A. 2000. Secale cereale interference and economic thresholds in winter Triticum aestivum . Weed Sci 48:720727.Google Scholar
Ratkowsky, D. A. 1983. Pages 135153 in Nonlinear Regression Modeling: A Unified Practical Approach. New York: Marcel Dekker.Google Scholar
Roberts, H. A. 1973. Weeds and the onion crop. J. R. Hortic. Sci 98:230235.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1998. SAS User's Guide. Release 7.00. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis System Institute.Google Scholar
Shadbolt, C. A. and Holm, L. G. 1956. Some quantitative aspects of weed competition in vegetable crops. Weeds 4:111123.Google Scholar
Thomas, P. E. 1983. Sources and dissemination of potato viruses in the Columbia Basin of the Northwestern United States. Plant Dis 67:744747.Google Scholar
Wakankar, S. M. 1944. Influence of size of seed piece upon the yield of potatoes. J. Am. Soc. Agron 36:3236.Google Scholar
Wicks, G. A., Johnston, D. N., Nuland, D. S., and Kinbacher, E. J. 1973. Competition between annual weeds and sweet Spanish onions. Weed Sci 21:436439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, M. M. II and Boydston, R. A. 2002. Effect of shoot removal during tuberization on volunteer potato (Solanum tuberosum) tuber production. Weed Technol 16:617619.Google Scholar