Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-767nl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-10T22:22:32.680Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of Soil Type, Hilling Time, and Weed Interference on Potato (Solanum tuberosum) Development and Yield

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Mark J. Vangessel  and
Karen A. Renner
Mark J. Vangessel
Affiliation:
Dep. Crops Soil Sci., Mich. State Univ., East Lansing, MI 48824
Karen A. Renner
Affiliation:
Dep. Crops Soil Sci., Mich. State Univ., East Lansing, MI 48824
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

‘Atlantic’ and ‘Russet Burbank’ potato cultivars were grown on mineral and organic soils either with or without weeds and were hilled at two stages of potato development (potatoes cracking through the soil and potatoes 30 cm tall). A single hilling procedure was not adequate in either year for full-season weed control. Early hilling suppressed weeds and increased tuber yields more than conventional hilling on mineral soils in 1988 only. Early hilling tended to increase the relative biomass of C4 weeds compared to C3 weeds for both soils. Weeds reduced aboveground potato biomass on mineral and muck soils. However, reduced aboveground potato biomass measurements did not predict tuber yield reductions. Marketable yield of Russet Burbank potato was reduced by weed interference more than the yield of Atlantic on mineral soils when planted according to conventional cultural practices. However, the marketable yield of Atlantic potato was reduced more than Russet Burbank yield by weeds on muck soils. Weed interference influenced tuber quality on both mineral and muck soil.

Keywords

Potato, Solanum tuberosum L.Aboveground biomasscompetitivenesshilling timetuber qualityAmaranthus retroflexusChenopodium albumEchinochloa crus-galliPortulaca oleraceaeAMARECHEALECHCGPOROL
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 4 , Issue 2 , June 1990 , pp. 299 - 305
Copyright
Copyright © 1990 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. Baskin, J. M., and Baskin, C. C. 1978. A discussion on the growth and competitive ability of C3 and C4 plants. Castanea 43:71–76.Google Scholar
2. Black, C. C., Chen, T. M., and Brown, R. H. 1969. Biochemical basis for plant competition. Weed Sci. 17:338–344.Google Scholar
3. Blake, G. R., French, G. W., and Nylund, R. E. 1962. Seedbed preparation and cultivation studies on potatoes. Am. Potato J. 39:227–234.Google Scholar
4. Chase, R. W. 1986. Selecting potato varieties for Michigan. Mich. State Univ. Ext. Bull. E-935.Google Scholar
5. Clark, C. F., and Lombard, P. M. 1946. Descriptions of and key to American potato varieties. U.S. Dep. Agric. Circ. No. 741.Google Scholar
6. Dallyn, S. L. 1971. Weed control methods in potatoes. Am. Potato J. 48:116–128.Google Scholar
7. Moursi, M. A. 1955. Effect of intensity and width of inter-row tillage on the yield of the potato crop. Am. Potato J. 32:211–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Nelson, D. C., and Thoreson, M. C. 1981. Competition between potatoes (Solanum tuberosum) and weeds. Weed Sci. 29:672–677.Google Scholar
9. Ogg, A. G., and Dawson, J. H. 1984. Time of emergence of eight weed species. Weed Sci. 32:327–335.Google Scholar
10. Pearcy, R. W., Tumosa, N., and Williams, K. 1981. Relationships between growth, photosynthesis and competitive interactions for a C3 and a C4 plant. Oecolgia 48:371–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Raby, B. J., and Binning, L. K. 1985. Weed competition study in “Russet Burbank” and “Superior” potato (Solanum tuberosum) with different management practices. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 40:4.Google Scholar
12. Rioux, R., Compeau, 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
13. Saghir, A. R., and Markoullis, G. 1974. Effects of weed competition and herbicides on yield and quality of potatoes. Proc. Br. Weed Control Conf. 12:533–539.Google Scholar
14. Selleck, G. W., and Dallyn, S. L. 1978. Herbicide treatments and potato cultivar interactions for weed control. Proc. Northeast Weed Sci. Soc. 32:152–156.Google Scholar
15. Strand, L. L. 1986. Integrated pest management for potatoes in the western United States. Univ. Calif., Div. Agric. Nat. Res. Publ. 3316, and West. Reg. Res. Publ. 001.Google Scholar
16. Sweet, R. D., and Sieczka, J. B. 1973. Comments on ability of potato varieties to compete with weeds. Proc. Northeast Weed Sci. Soc. 27:302–304.Google Scholar
17. Vitolo, D. B. 1985. Grass competition in white potatoes. Ph.D. dissertation. Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, NJ.Google Scholar
18. Webb, R. E., Wilson, D. R., Shumaker, J. R., Graves, B., Henniger, M. R., Watts, J., Frank, J. A., and Murphy, H. J. 1978. Atlantic: a new potato variety with high solids, good processing quality, and resistance to pests. Am. Potato J. 55:141–145.Google Scholar
19. Yip, C. P., Sweet, R. D., and Sieczka, J. B. 1974. Competitive ability of potato cultivars with major weed species. Proc. Northeast Weed Sci. Soc. 28:271–281.Google Scholar