Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T06:47:54.492Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Timing Potato Cultivation Using The Weedcast Model

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Joel Felix ,
Jerry Ivany ,
George O. Kegode  and
Doug Doohan
Joel Felix*
Affiliation:
Crop and Soil Science Department, Oregon State University/Malheur Experiment Station, Ontario, OR 97914
Jerry Ivany
Affiliation:
Crops and Livestock Research Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, PEI Canada C1A 4N6
George O. Kegode
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, Northwest Missouri State University, Maryville, MO 64468
Doug Doohan
Affiliation:
Horticulture and Crop Science Department, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center/Ohio State University, Wooster, OH 44691
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A weed emergence prediction model, WeedCast, was used as a decision aid to schedule potato cultivation with and without herbicides at Wooster, OH, USA; Charlottetown, PE, Canada; and Fargo, ND, USA, from 2001 to 2003. Studies were laid out in a split-plot design with herbicides (±) forming the main plots and cultivation timing as subplots. Cultivation was done at 15, 30, or 60% of predicted weed emergence. Subplots were either left unsprayed or treated with metolachlor + metribuzin at 1.68 + 0.5 kg ai ha−1 and only cultivated at predetermined timing. Cultivation timing was based on predicted emergence of common lambsquarters at Wooster and Charlottetown, whereas eastern black nightshade was the indicator weed at Fargo. Weed control for the different cultivation timings varied among sites and years and was consistently better in plots where herbicides were followed by cultivation. Cultivation alone resulted in poor weed control and significantly reduced potato tuber yield compared with those in plots where weed control also included herbicides. Use of herbicides followed by cultivation and hilling increased tuber yield by 4.6, 4.3, and 8.7 t ha−1, when cultivations were done at 15, 30, and 60% of predicted weed emergence, respectively, and 12.2 t ha−1 for hilled-only plots. The average potato yield increase at Charlottetown was 9.7, 5.9, 6.9, and 7.4 t ha−1 for hilled-only plots and for hilled after cultivations at 15, 30, and 60% of predicted weed emergence with herbicides, respectively. There was no apparent pattern for treatment effects at Fargo, and the potato tuber yields were greatly reduced mainly because of excessive precipitation during potato establishment. Use of WeedCast as a decision-aid tool could be an asset in determining when to do the first and subsequent cultivations. It may work best for growers who use cultivations in potato to remove weeds that were not controlled by herbicides.

Keywords

Metribuzincommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. CHEALeastern black nightshade, Solanum ptycanthum L. SOLPTpotato, Solanum tuberosum LWeed emergence predictionWeedCast modelpotato cultivationdecision aid
Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 57 , Issue 1 , February 2009 , pp. 87 - 93
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 2000. Potato crop—variety, weed and pest control guide. Charlottetown, Canada Prince Edward Island Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Aquaculture Report AgDex 257, Publication 1300A. 33.Google Scholar
Archer, D. W., Forcella, F., Eklund, J. J., and Gunsolus, J. 2001. WeedCast. Version 2.0. http://www.morris.ars.usda.gov. Accessed: June 6, 2007.Google Scholar
Bailey, W. A., Wilson, H. P., and Hines, T. E. 2001. Influence of cultivation and herbicide programs on weed control and net returns in potato (Solanum tuberosum) Weed Technol. 15:654–659.Google Scholar
Bissonnette, H. L., Preston, D., and Lamey, H. A. 1993. Potato production and pest management in North Dakota and Minnesota. Bottineau, ND North Dakota State University Extension Service Report EB-26. 124.Google Scholar
Boydston, R. A. and Vaughn, S. F. 2002. Alternative weed management systems control weeds in potato (Solanum tuberosum). Weed Technol. 16:23–28.Google Scholar
Ciuberkis, S., Bernotas, S., Raudonius, S., and Felix, J. 2007. Effect of weed emergence time and intervals of weed and crop competition on potato yield. Weed Technol. 21:213–218.Google Scholar
Dean, B. B. 1994. Potato cultivation, fertilization, and irrigation. Pages 69–84. in. Managing the Potato Production System. Binghamton, NY Haworth Press.Google Scholar
Eberlein, V. C., Patterson, P. E., Guttieri, M. J., and Stark, J. C. 1997. Efficacy and economics of cultivation for weed control in potato (Solanum tuberosum). Weed Technol. 11:257–264.Google Scholar
Everaarts, A. and Satsyati, . 1978. Critical period of weed composition for potatoes in Java. Pages 257–177. in. Proceedings of the 6th Asian-Pacific Weed Science Society Conference, Volume 1. Jakarta, Indonesia Asian-Pacific Weed Science Society.Google Scholar
Fernandez-Cornejo, J. and Jans, S. 1999. Pest Management in U.S. Agriculture. Washington, DC U.S. Department of Agriculture–Economic Research Service, Agricultural Handbook AH-717. 48.Google Scholar
Gallandt, E. R., Liebman, M., Corson, S., Porter, G. A., and Ulrich, S. D. 1998. Effects of pest and soil management systems on weed dynamics in potato. Weed Sci. 46:238–248.Google Scholar
Jaiswal, V. P. and Lal, S. S. 1996. Efficacy of cultural and chemical weed-control methods in potato (Solanum tuberosum). Indian J. Agron. 41:454–456.Google Scholar
Krishnan, G., Mortensen, D. A., Martin, A. R., Bills, L. B., Dieleman, A., and Neeser, C. 2001. WeedSOFT: a state of the art weed management decision support system. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 41:41.Google Scholar
Liebman, M., Drumon, F. A., Corson, S., and Zhang, J. 1996. Tillage and rotation crop effects on weed dynamics in potato production systems. Agron. J. 88:18–26.Google Scholar
Nelson, D. C. and Giles, J. F. 1986. Implication of postemergence tillage on root injury and yield of potatoes. Am. Potato J. Abstr. 63:445.Google Scholar
[OSU] Ohio State University in Precheur, R. J. The Ohio Vegetable Production Guide. Bulletin 672. Columbus, OH The Ohio State University Extension.Google Scholar
Rasmussen, I. A., Holst, N., Pedersen, L., and Rasmussen, K. 2002. Computer model for simulating the long-term dynamics of annual weeds under different cultivation practices. Pages 6–13. in Barberi, P. and Cloutier, D. Proceedings of the 5th European Weed Research Society (EWRS) Workshop on Physical and Cultural Weed Control. Doorwerth, The Netherlands EWRS.Google Scholar
Rioux, R., Comeau, J. E., and Genereux, H. 1979. Effect of cultural practices and herbicides on weed population and competition in potatoes. Can. J. Plant Sci. 59:367–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SAS 1989. SAS/STAT User's guide. Version 6, 4th ed. Cary, NC SAS Institute. 846.Google Scholar
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture 1991. United States Standards for Grades of Potatoes. http://www.ams.usda.gov/standards/potatoes.pdf. Accessed: July 6, 2007.Google Scholar
Vangessel, M. J. and Renner, K. A. 1990. Effect of soil type, hilling time, and weed interference on potato development and yield. Weed Technol. 4:299–305.Google Scholar