Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T14:51:08.918Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed Management in Two Potato (Solatium tuberosum) Cultivars Using Tillage and Pendimethalin

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Donald C. Nelson  and
Joseph F. Giles
Donald C. Nelson
Affiliation:
Dep. Hortic. For., North Dakota State Univ., Fargo, ND 58105
Joseph F. Giles
Affiliation:
Dep. Soil Sci., North Dakota State Univ., Fargo, ND 58105
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Tillage and pendimethalin either alone or in combination were compared for weed management in two potato cultivars. The best weed management program consisted of a combination of pendimethalin and tillage. Pendimethalin alone did not adequately control weeds. Multiple cultivations gave better control than pendimethalin alone but not as good as pendimethalin and cultivation combined. The net returns using tillage, pendimethalin, and tillage plus pendimethalin for weed control averaged –$86, –$208, and $ 143/ha, respectively. Independent of their effect on weeds, cultivation had a significant negative effect and pendimethalin a significant positive effect on potato yields. Each cultivation reduced yields by 1.7% and pendimethalin increased yields by 4%. The cultivar ‘Red Pontiac’ was a better competitor with weeds than ‘Red Norland’.

Keywords

Potato, Solanum tuberosumpendimethalin, N-(1-ethylpropyl)-3,4-dimethyl-2,6-dinitrobenzenamineEconomicsproduction costsweed interferencecultivationAmaranthus retroflexusAvena fatuaSetaria spp.AMAREAVEFA
Type
Weed Control and Herbicide Technology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 37 , Issue 2 , March 1989 , pp. 228 - 232
Copyright
Copyright © 1989 by the 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

1. Beveridge, J. F., Hunley, F., and Jarvis, R. H. 1964. The effects of consolidating the soil beneath potato seed tubers and of inter-row grubbing on the growth and yield of the crop. J. Agric Sci. 62:55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Carter, L. M. 1967. Portable recording penetrometer measures soil strength profiles. Agric. Eng. 48:348–349.Google Scholar
3. Chitsaz, M. and Nelson, D. C. 1983. Comparison of various weed control programs for potatoes. Am. Potato J. 60:271–280.Google Scholar
4. Dallyn, S. L. 1971. Weed control methods in potatoes. Am. Potato J. 48:116–128.Google Scholar
5. Gould, W. A. 1976. Snack Food Quality Assurance Program Manual. Page 40. Potato Chip/Snack Food Assoc., Baileys Crossroads, VA.Google Scholar
6. Kehr, A. E., Akeley, R. V., and Hougland, G. V. C. 1964. Commercial Potato Production. Agric. Handb. 267. Page 54.Google Scholar
7. McMullen, M. P., Dexter, A. G., Nalewaja, J. D., Hamlin, W., and Davison, K. 1984. Agron. Rep. 3. N.D. State Univ. and N.D. Crop and Lifestock Rptng. Serv. Google Scholar
8. Parka, S. J. and Soper, O. F. 1977. The physiology and mode of action of the dinitroaniline herbicides. Weed Sci. 25:79–87.Google Scholar
9. Pereira, H. C. 1941. Studies in soil cultivation. IX. The effect of inter-row tillage on the yield of potatoes. J. Agric. Sci. 31:212.Google Scholar
10. Preston, D. and Fuller, E. 1987. 1987 cost of production. Valley Potato Grower, 52, No. 109:23–29. Red River Valley Potato Growers Assoc., East Grand Forks, MN 56721.Google Scholar
11. Thompson, H. G., Wessels, R. H., and Mills, H. S. 1931. Cultivation experiments with certain vegetable crops on Long Island. Cornell Univ. Stn. Bull. 521.Google Scholar
12. United States Department of Agriculture. 1971. United States standards for grades of potatoes. Consumer and Marketing Serv., Washington, DC.Google Scholar