Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-16T19:01:54.839Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of Cultivation and Herbicide Programs on Weed Control and Net Returns in Potato (Solanum tuberosum)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

William A. Bailey ,
Henry P. Wilson  and
Thomas E. Hines
William A. Bailey*
Affiliation:
Eastern Shore Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Painter, VA 23420
Henry P. Wilson
Affiliation:
Eastern Shore Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Painter, VA 23420
Thomas E. Hines
Affiliation:
Eastern Shore Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Painter, VA 23420
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: wabailey@vt.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted near Painter, VA, in 1995 and 1996 to investigate the effects of herbicides and cultivation on weed control, yield, and net returns in potato. Potato injury from herbicides and/or cultivation was not observed in 1995 and was less than 12% in 1996. Metribuzin plus metolachlor preemergence controlled yellow nutsedge by at least 81% regardless of the number of cultivations in 1995 and 1996. Yellow nutsedge control with metribuzin plus rimsulfuron postemergence (POST) plus three cultivations was as high as 70% in 1995 and 88% in 1996. Metribuzin plus rimsulfuron POST controlled common lambsquarters by at least 95% and common ragweed by at least 83% regardless of the number of cultivations in 1995 and 1996. A-size tuber production and net returns from potato receiving herbicides were not improved with two or three cultivations in 1995 or 1996. However, when averaged over all weed control systems (herbicide and cultivation-only systems) multiple cultivations significantly increased control of all weed species, A-size tuber production, and net returns.

Keywords

Metolachlormetribuzinrimsulfuroncommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. # CHEALcommon ragweed, Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. # AMBELpotato, Solanum tuberosum L., ‘Superior’; yellow nutsedge, Cyperus esculentus L. # CYPESA-size potatoPOST, postemergencePRE, preemergenceWAP, weeks after plantingWAT, weeks after treatment
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 15 , Issue 4 , December 2001 , pp. 654 - 659
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

Ackley, J. A., Wilson, H. P., and Hines, T. E. 1996. Efficacy of rimsulfuron and metribuzin in potato (Solanum tuberosum). Weed Technol. 10: 475–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexander, S. A., Caldwell, J. S., Hohlt, H. E., Nault, B. A., O'Dell, C. R., Sterrett, S. B., and Wilson, H. P. 2000. Plant nutrient recommendations based on soil tests for vegetable crop production In Commercial Vegetable Production Recommendations. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Tech Extension Publication 456-420. pp. 28–29.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1991. United States standards for grades of potatoes. FR Doc. 91-4371. 7 p.Google Scholar
Bellinder, R. R., Kirkwyland, J. J., Wallace, R. W., and Colquhoun, J. B. 2000. Weed control and potato (Solanum tuberosum) yield with banded herbicides and cultivation. Weed Technol. 14: 30–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bellinder, R. R., Wallace, R. W., and Wilkins, E. D. 1996. Reduced rates of herbicides following hilling controlled weeds in conventional and reduced tillage potato (Solanum tuberosum) production. Weed Technol. 10: 311–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callihan, R. H. and Bellinder, R. R. 1993. Management of Weeds. In Rowe, R. C., ed. Potato Health Management. St. Paul, MN: APS Press. pp. 995–102.Google Scholar
Chitsaz, M. and Nelson, D. C. 1983. Comparison of various weed control programs for potatoes. Am. Potato J. 60: 271–280.CrossRefGoogle 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
Dallyn, S. L. 1971. Weed control methods in potatoes. Am. Potato J. 48: 116–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eberlein, C. V., Whitmore, J. C., Stanger, C. E., and Guttieri, M. J. 1994. Postemergence weed control in potatoes (Solanum tuberosum) with rimsulfuron. Weed Technol. 8: 428–435.Google Scholar
Gruczek, T., Gastol, J., and Gojski, B. 1986. Effect of weeds on mechanical damage to potatoes during harvest as well as the performance of harvesters. English Abstr. Tagungsbericht 250: 63–67.Google Scholar
Lanfranconi, L. E., Bellinder, R. R., and Wallace, R. W. 1992. Grain rye residues and weed control strategies in reduced tillage potatoes. Weed Technol. 6: 1,021–1,026.Google Scholar
Manheimer, S. 1999. Virginia agricultural statistics. National Agricultural Statistics Service. Richmond, VA.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
Rioux, R., Comeau, J. E., and Genereux, H. 1979. Effect of cultural practices and herbicides on weed population and competition in potatoes. J. Agric. Sci. 31: 367–374.Google Scholar
Sieczka, J. B. and Creighton, J. F. 1984. Weed control of potatoes on Long Island. Proc. Northeast Weed Sci. Soc. 39: 176–180.Google Scholar
Sturt, S. G. III. 1999. Crop Enterprise Cost Analysis for the Eastern Shore of Virginia. Dinwiddie, VA. pp. 29–31.Google Scholar
Waller, N. and Richardson, B. 1999. Marketing Virginia Potatoes and Vegetables. Richmond, VA: Virginia Market News Service. 20 p.Google Scholar