Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T20:44:13.186Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Efficacy and Economics of Cultivation for Weed Control in Potato (Solanum tuberosum)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Charlotte V. Eberlein ,
Paul E. Patterson ,
Mary J. Guttieri  and
Jeffrey C. Stark
Charlotte V. Eberlein
Affiliation:
Department of Plant, Soil, and Entomological Sciences, University of Idaho, Aberdeen, ID 83210
Paul E. Patterson
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Idaho, Idaho Falls, ID 83402
Mary J. Guttieri
Affiliation:
Department of Plant, Soil, and Entomological Sciences, University of Idaho, Aberdeen, ID 83210
Jeffrey C. Stark
Affiliation:
Department of Plant, Soil, and Entomological Sciences, University of Idaho, Aberdeen, ID 83210
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A 3-year study was conducted in irrigated potato to compare weed control efficacy and economics of hilling plus one or two cultivations with the standard treatment of hilling plus a preemergence application of pendimethalin plus metribuzin. Trials were conducted under both weedy and weed-free conditions. Common lambsquarters and redroot pigweed were present in weedy treatments each year; significant populations of hairy nightshade and green foxtail also were present one year. When weed populations were low or moderate (< 45 plants/m2), total weed biomass in the hilling plus one cultivation treatment was reduced 98 to 99% relative to the weedy control, and U.S. No. 1 tuber yields were equal to the standard treatment. However, when weed populations were high (145 plants/m2), hilling plus one cultivation and hilling plus two cultivations provided only 30% and 61% reduction in weed biomass, respectively, and U.S. No. 1 tuber yields were 35% and 13% less, respectively, than the standard treatment. The standard treatment provided 99% reduction in total weed biomass each year, and yields were equal to the weed-free, hill plus no cultivation control. Net return was $37 to $100/ha higher for the hilling plus one cultivation treatment compared to the standard treatment when weed populations were moderate or low, but was $808/ha less than the standard treatment when weed populations were high.

Keywords

Metribuzin, 4-amino-6-(1,1- dimethylethyl)-3-(methylthio)-1,2,4-triazin-5(4H)-onependimethalin, N-(1-ethylpropyl)-3,4-dimethyl-2,6-dinitrobenzenaminecommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. # CHEALgreen foxtail, Setaria viridis (L.) Beauv. # SETVIhairy nightshade, Solanum sarrachoides L. Sendt. # SOLSAredroot pigweed, Amaranthus retroflexus L. # AMAREpotato, Solanum tuberosum L. ‘Russet Burbank.'MetribuzinpendimethalinAMARECHEALCAR, costs and returns estimatePNW, Pacific Northwest (Idaho, Washington, Oregon)
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 11 , Issue 2 , June 1997 , pp. 257 - 264
Copyright
Copyright © 1997 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

Bellinder, R. R., Wallace, R. W., and Wilkins, E. D. 1996. Reduced rates of herbicides following hilling controlled weeds in conventional and reduced tillage potatoes. Weed Technol. 10:311–316.Google Scholar
Callihan, R. H. and Bellinder, R. R. 1993. Management of weeds. In Rowe, R. C., ed. Potato Health Management. St. Paul, MN: American Phytopathology Society. pp. 95–102.Google Scholar
Chitsaz, M. and Nelson, D. C. 1983. Comparison of various weed control programs for potatoes. Am. Potato J. 60:271–280.Google Scholar
Dallyn, S. L. 1971. Weed control methods in potatoes. Am. Potato J. 48:116–128.Google Scholar
Dallyn, S. L. and Fricke, D. H. 1974. The use of minimum tillage plus herbicides in potato production. Am. Potato J. 51:177–184.Google Scholar
Dallyn, S. and Sweet, R. 1970. Weed control methods, losses, and costs due to weeds and benefits of weed control in potatoes. Proceedings of the Food Agriculture Organization International Conference on Weed Control, University of California. pp. 210–228.Google Scholar
Dean, B. B. 1994. Anatomy and morphology: growth and development. In Dean, B. B. Managing the Potato Production System. New York: Food Products Press. pp. 51–68.Google Scholar
Eberlein, C. V., Al-Khatib, K., Guttieri, M. J., and Fuerst, E. P. 1992. Distribution and characteristics of triazine-resistant Powell amaranth (Amaranthus powellii) in Idaho. Weed Sci. 40:507–512.Google Scholar
Love, S. L., Eberlein, C. V., Stark, J. C., and Bohl, W. H. 1995. Cultivar and seedpiece spacing effects on potato competitiveness with weeds. Am. Potato J. 72:197–213.Google Scholar
Mallory-Smith, C., Thill, D., and Morishita, D. 1993. Herbicide resistant weeds and their management. Pacific Northwest Bulletin No. 437. 4 p.Google Scholar
Nelson, D. C. and Giles, J. F. 1989. Weed management in two potato (Solanum tuberosum) cultivars using tillage and pendimethalin. Weed Sci. 37:228–231.Google Scholar
Patterson, P. E., Bohl, W. H., and Smathers, R. L. 1995. Southeastern Idaho crop costs and returns estimate for Russet Burbank commercial potatoes: no storage. EBB4-Pol-95. University of Idaho Cooperative Extension System. 4 p.Google Scholar
Pereira, H. C. 1941. Studies in soil cultivation. Part IX. The effect of inter-row tillage on the yield of potatoes. J. Agric. Sci. 31:212–231.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.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
USDA. 1994, Idaho Agricultural Statistics. Boise, ID: Idaho Agricultural Statistics Service. 72 p.Google Scholar