Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T07:46:16.906Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response of ‘Russet Burbank’ Seed Tubers Containing Dicamba and Glyphosate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 December 2018

Nelson D. Geary ,
Harlene Hatterman-Valenti ,
Gary A. Secor ,
Richard K. Zollinger  and
Andrew P. Robinson Open the ORCID record for Andrew P. Robinson [Opens in a new window]
Nelson D. Geary
Affiliation:
Graduate Student, Department of Plant Sciences, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND, USA
Harlene Hatterman-Valenti
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Plant Sciences, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND, USA
Gary A. Secor
Affiliation:
Professor Department of Plant Pathology, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND, USA
Richard K. Zollinger
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Plant Sciences, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND, USA
Andrew P. Robinson*
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Department of Plant Sciences, North Dakota State University/University of Minnesota, Fargo, ND, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Andrew P. Robinson, Department of Plant Sciences, North Dakota State University/University of Minnesota, Fargo, ND 58108 (Email: [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Increased use of dicamba and/or glyphosate in dicamba/glyphosate-tolerant soybean might affect many sensitive crops, including potato. The objective of this study was to determine the growth and yield of ‘Russet Burbank’ potato grown from seed tubers (generation 2) from mother plants (generation 1) treated with dicamba (4, 20, and 99 g ae ha−1), glyphosate (8, 40, and 197 g ae ha−1), or a combination of dicamba and glyphosate during tuber initiation. Generation 2 tubers were planted near Oakes and Inkster, ND, in 2016 and 2017, at the same research farm where the generation 1 tubers were grown the previous year. Treatment with 99 g ha−1 dicamba, 197 g ha−1 glyphosate, or 99 g ha−1 dicamba + 197 g ha−1 glyphosate caused emergence of generation 2 plants to be reduced by up to 84%, 86%, and 87%, respectively, at 5 wk after planting. Total tuber yield of generation 2 was reduced up to 67%, 55%, and 68% when 99 g ha−1 dicamba, 197 g ha−1 glyphosate, or 99 g ha−1 dicamba + 197 g ha−1 glyphosate was applied to generation 1 plants, respectively. At each site year, 197 g ha−1 glyphosate reduced total yield and marketable yield, while 99 g ha−1 dicamba reduced total yield and marketable yield in some site-years. This study confirms that exposure to glyphosate and dicamba of potato grown for potato seed tubers can negatively affect the growth and yield potential of the subsequently grown daughter generation.

Keywords

Bradley Hanson, University of California, DavisDicambaglyphosatepotato, Solanum tuberosum Lsoybean, Glycine max (L.) MerrDaughter tuber herbicide injuryreduced emergencereduced yieldtank mixture
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 33 , Issue 1 , February 2019 , pp. 9 - 16
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2018. 

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.)

Footnotes

Cite this article: Geary ND, Hatterman-Valenti H, Secor GA, Zollinger RK, Robinson AP (2018) Response of ‘Russet Burbank’ seed tubers containing dicamba and glyphosate. Weed Technol 33:9–16. doi: 10.1017/wet.2018.91

References

Al-Khatib, K, Tamhane, A (1999) Dry Pea (Pisum sativum L.) Response to low rates of selected foliar- and soil-applied sulfonylurea and growth regulator herbicides. Weed Technol 13:753–758 10.1017/S0890037X00042184Google Scholar
Auch, DE, Arnold, WE (1978) Dicamba use and injury on soybeans (Glycine max) in South Dakota. Weed Sci 26:471–475 Google Scholar
Barber, T, Norsworthy, J, Scott, B, Ross, J, Hightower, M (2017) Dicamba in Arkansas—Frequently Asked Questions. Little Rock, AR: University of Arkansas Agriculture and Natural Resources FSA2181. 4 pGoogle Scholar
Bissonnette, HL, Preston, D, Lamey, HA (1993) Potato Production and Pest Management in North Dakota and Minnesota. Fargo, ND: North Dakota State University Extension Service Bulletin Issue 26 Google Scholar
Blackburn, LG, Boutin, CE (2003) Subtle effects of herbicide use in the context of genetically modified crops: a case study with glyphosate. Ecotoxicology 12:271–285 10.1023/A:1022515129526Google Scholar
Bradley, K (2017) A Final Report on Dicamba-injured Soybean Acres. Columbia, MO: Division of Plant Sciences, University of Missouri. https://ipm.missouri.edu/IPCM/2017/10/final_report_dicamba_injured_soybean. Accessed: February 13, 2018 Google Scholar
Colquhoun, JB, Heider, DJ, Rittmeyer, RA (2017) Seed potato growth and yield as affected by mother plant exposure to herbicides. Weed Technol 31:136–147 10.1017/wet.2016.6Google Scholar
Crook, AA (2016) Simulated Glyphosate Drift Effects on ‘Red Norland’ Commercial and Seed Potato Industries. MS thesis. Fargo, ND: North Dakota State University. 121 pGoogle Scholar
Eberlein, CV, Westra, P, Haderlie, LC, Whitmore, JC, Guttieri, MJ (1997) Herbicide Drift and Carryover Injury in Potatoes. Pacific Northwest Extension Publication 498. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho Cooperative Extension System. 15 pGoogle Scholar
Ellis, JM, Griffin, JL, Linscombe, SD, Webster, EP (2003) Rice (Oryza sativa) and corn (Zea mays) response to simulated drift of glyphosate and glufosinate. Weed Technol 17:452–460 10.1614/WT01-110Google Scholar
Ganie, ZA, Jugulam, M, Jhala, AJ (2017) Temperature influences efficacy, absorption, and translocation of 2, 4-D or glyphosate in glyphosate-resistant and glyphosate-susceptible common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) and giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida). Weed Sci 65:588–602 10.1017/wsc.2017.32Google Scholar
Hatterman-Valenti, H (2014) Simulated glyphosate drift to potato mother plants and effect on daughter tubers used for seed production. Weed Technol 28:253–258 10.1614/WT-D-13-00107.1Google Scholar
Hatterman-Valenti, H, Endres, G, Jenks, B, Ostlie, M, Reinhardt, T, Robinson, A, Stenger, J, Zollinger, R (2017) Defining glyphosate and dicamba drift injury to dry edible pea, dry edible bean, and potato. HortTechnology 27:502–509 10.21273/HORTTECH03679-17Google Scholar
Hutchinson, PJ, Felix, J, Boydston, R (2014) Glyphosate carryover in seed potato: effects on mother crop and daughter tubers. Am J Potato Res 91:394–403 10.1007/s12230-013-9363-7Google Scholar
Lyon, DJ, Wilson, RG (1986). Sensitivity of field bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) to reduced rates of 2,4-D and dicamba. Weed Sci 34:953–956 Google Scholar
Masiunas, JB, Weller, SC (1988). Glyphosate activity in potato (Solanum tuberosum) under different temperature regimes and light levels. Weed Sci 36:137–140 Google Scholar
National Potato Council (2017) Potato Statistical Yearbook 2017. http://www.nationalpotatocouncil.org/files/4315/0030/7222/Potato_utiliz_U.S.pdf. Accessed: February 13, 2018 Google Scholar
Norsworthy, JK (2004) Conventional soybean plant and progeny response to glyphosate. Weed Technol 18:527–531 10.1614/WT-03-066R3Google Scholar
[NDSSD] North Dakota State Seed Department (2008) Potato Program. http://www.nd.gov/seed/potato/index.aspx. Accessed: August 30, 2017 Google Scholar
Smid, D, Hiller, LK (1981) Phytotoxicity and translocation of glyphosate in the potato (Solanum tuberosum) prior to tuber initiation. Weed Sci 29: 218–223 Google Scholar
Seefeldt, SS, Boydston, RA, Kaspari, PN (2014) Clopyralid and dicamba residue impacts on potatoes and weeds. Am J Potato Res 91:625–631 10.1007/s12230-014-9391-yGoogle Scholar
Stead, D (1999) Bacterial diseases of potato: Relevance to in vitro potato seed production. Potato Res 42:449–456 10.1007/BF02358161Google Scholar
Thornton, MK, Lee, J, John, R, Olsen, NL, Navarre, DA (2013) Influence of growth regulators on plant growth, yield, and skin color of specialty potatoes. Am J Potato Res 90:271–283 10.1007/s12230-013-9302-7Google Scholar
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture (2011) United States Standards for Grades of Potatoes. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 6 pGoogle Scholar
[USDA-ARS] U.S. Department of Agriculture–Agricultural Research Service (2015) Crop Protection and Management Research. https://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publication/?seqNo115=307980. Accessed: November 9, 2017 Google Scholar
[USDA-NASS] U.S. Department of Agriculture–National Agricultural Statistics Service (2017) Potatoes 2016 Summary. http//usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/Potat/Pota-09-14-2017.pdf. Accessed: November 9, 2017 Google Scholar
[USDA-NRCS] U.S. Department of Agriculture–Natural Resources Conservation Service (2017) Official Soil Series Descriptions View by Name. https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/osdname.aspx. Accessed: June 14, 2017 Google Scholar
Van Delden, A (2001) Yield and growth of potato and wheat under organic N-management. Agron J 93:1370–1385 10.2134/agronj2001.1370Google Scholar
Wall, DA (1994) Potato (Solanum tuberosum) response to simulated drift of dicamba, clopyralid, and tribenuron. Weed Sci 42:110–114 Google Scholar
Worthington, TR (1985) The effect of glyphosate on the viability of seed potato tubers. Potato Res 28:109–112 10.1007/BF02357575Google Scholar
Yenish, JP, Young, FL (2000) Effect of preharvest glyphosate application on seed and seedling quality of spring wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Technol 14:212–217 10.1614/0890-037X(2000)014[0212:EOPGAO]2.0.CO;2Google Scholar