Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T04:56:25.539Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Postemergence Broadleaf Weed Control in Potato (Solanum tuberosum) with Rimsulfuron and HOE-075032

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Robert E. Blackshaw
Affiliation:
Res. Centre, Agric. and Agri-Food Canada, Lethbridge, AB, Canada T1J 4B1
Dermot R. Lynch
Affiliation:
Res. Centre, Agric. and Agri-Food Canada, Lethbridge, AB, Canada T1J 4B1
Toby Entz
Affiliation:
Res. Centre, Agric. and Agri-Food Canada, Lethbridge, AB, Canada T1J 4B1

Abstract

Few postemergence (POST) herbicides provide adequate control of broadleaf weeds in potato. Field experiments were conducted at Lethbridge and Vauxhall, Alberta in 1991 and 1992 to determine the suitability of rimsulfuron and HOE-075032 for selective POST control of weeds in potato. Rimsulfuron applied at 15 to 30 g ai/ha controlled flixweed, kochia, and redroot pigweed and suppressed the growth of redstem filaree. HOE-075032 at 50 to 60 g ai/ha provided comparable control. The potato cultivars, ‘Shepody,’ ‘Norchip,’ ‘Russet Burbank,’ ‘Niska,’ and ‘Ranger Russet,’ tolerated up to 80 g/ha rimsulfuron, but rimsulfuron at 120 g/ha caused fissures in some tubers and reduced marketable and total tuber yields. Tuber quality factors such as specific gravity and chipping ability were not affected by rimsulfuron. HOE-075032 at 15 to 30 g/ha caused fissures in tubers and reduced marketable and total tuber yield of all potato cultivars. Rimsulfuron, but not HOE-075032, provided excellent selective POST broadleaf weed control in potato.

Type
Research
Copyright
Copyright © 1995 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. Alberta Agriculture. 1993. Crop Protection with Chemicals. Agdex 606-1, Alberta Agric., Edmonton, AB. p. 31158.Google Scholar
2. Anonymous. 1991. HOE-075032 experimental herbicide. Hoechst Canada, Inc., 295 Henderson Drive, Regina, SK. 9 p.Google Scholar
3. Arnold, R. N., Gregory, E. J., and Murray, M. W. 1992. Broadleaf weed control in field potatoes. West. Weed Sci. Soc. Res. Prog. Rep. p. 125126.Google Scholar
4. Bartlett, M. S. 1937. Properties of sufficiency and statistical tests. Proc. Roy. Soc. A160:268282.Google Scholar
5. Burton, W. G. 1966. Specific gravity as a guide to the content of dry matter and of starch in potato tubers. p. 305307 in Burton, W. G., Potato, The, Veenma, H. and Zonen, N. V., Wageningen, Holland.Google Scholar
6. Coffin, R. M., Keenan, D., Yada, R., Tai, G., Slavnik, M., and Johnston, G. 1988. Inheritance of genetic factors controlling chip processing quality after tuber storage at low temperatures. Am. Potato J. 65:474.Google Scholar
7. Eberlein, C. V. and Kral, C. W. 1991. Weed control in potatoes with DPX-E9636. Proc. West. Weed Sci. Soc. 44:111112.Google Scholar
8. Eberlein, C. V., Whitmore, J. C., Stanger, C. E., and Guttieri, M. J. 1994. Postemergence weed control in potatoes (Solanum tuberosum) with herbicides. Weed Technol. 8:165167.Google Scholar
9. Friesen, G. H. and Wall, D. A. 1984. Response of potato (Solanum tuberosum) cultivars to metribuzin. Weed Sci. 32:442444.Google Scholar
10. Ivany, J. A. 1979. Response to four potato cultivars to metribuzin time and rate of application. Can. J. Plant Sci. 59:417422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Lawson, H. M. and Wiseman, J. S. 1991. The effects of contamination of a potato crop with a thifensulfuron-methyl/metsulfuron-methyl herbicide. Proc. Br. Crop Prot. Conf.—Weeds, Brighton, UK. 1:239246.Google Scholar
12. Milliken, G. A. and Johnson, D. E. 1984. Analysis of Messy Data. Vol. 1, Designed Experiments. Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York. p. 473.Google Scholar
13. Murray, M. W., Arnold, R. N., Gregory, E. J., and Smeal, D. 1994. Early broadleaf weed control in potato (Solanum tuberosum) with herbicides. Weed Technol. 8:165167.Google Scholar
14. Nelson, D. C. and Thoreson, M. C. 1981. Competition between potatoes (Solanum tuberosum L.) and weeds. Weed Sci. 29:672677.Google Scholar
15. Powell, G. E. and Renner, K. A. 1992. Weed control in potatoes with matrix. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 47:114.Google Scholar
16. Reinke, H., Rosenzweig, A., Claus, J., Kreidi, M., Chisholm, C., and Jensen, P. 1991. DPX-E9636, Experimental sulfonylurea herbicide for potatoes. Proc. Br. Crop Prot. Conf.—Weeds, Brighton, UK. 1:445451.Google Scholar
17. Ryan, T. A. 1960. Significance tests for multiple comparison of proportions, variances, and other statistics. Psychology Bull. 57:318328.Google Scholar
18. SAS Institute, Inc. 1989. SAS/STAT user's guide, Version 6, 4th ed., Vol. 2. SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC. 846 p.Google Scholar
19. Steel, R.G.D. and Torrie, J. H. 1980. Principles and Procedures of Statistics. 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York. 633 p.Google Scholar
20. Van Gessel, M. and Renner, K. A. 1990. Redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) and barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) interference in potatoes (Solanum tuberosum). Weed Sci. 38:338343.Google Scholar
21. Wall, D. A. and Friesen, G. H. 1990. Effect of duration of green foxtail (Setaria viridis) competition on potato (Solanum tuberosum) yield. Weed Technol. 4:539542.Google Scholar