Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-lvwk9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-26T05:38:03.903Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response of Potato (Solarium tuberosum) Cultivars to Metribuzin

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

George H. Friesen  and
David A. Wall
George H. Friesen
Affiliation:
Weed Sci. and Biol., Agriculture Canada, Res. Stn., Morden, Manitoba ROG 1JO
David A. Wall
Affiliation:
Weed Sci. and Biol., Agriculture Canada, Res. Stn., Morden, Manitoba ROG 1JO
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The response of 22 potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) cultivars to soil-incorporated and foliar applications of metribuzin [4-amino-6-tert-butyl-3-(methylthio)-as-triazin-5(4H)one] at rates of 0.5 and 1.0 kg ai/ha, was evaluated in field experiments from 1979 to 1982. Metribuzin significantly reduced the yield of marketable tubers in several potato cultivars. Foliar applications generally resulted in more injury than soil applications. Yields were reduced primarily through stand reduction and a decreased number of tubers per plant. Neither tuber size nor specific gravity of tubers was significantly reduced in the cultivars studied. The most susceptible cultivar was ‘Alaska Red’, followed by ‘Rhine Red’, F72117, ‘Caribe’, and ‘Shepody’. Other cultivars evaluated were highly tolerant to metribuzin, irrespective of rate or method of application. There was an increase in hollow heart in cultivars ‘Atlantic’ and ‘Lemhi Russet’ following treatment with metribuzin.

Keywords

Specific gravitytubershollow heart
Type
Weed Control and Herbicide Technology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 32 , Issue 4 , July 1984 , pp. 442 - 444
Copyright
Copyright © 1984 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. Alban, E. K. and Mosley, A. R. 1974. Potato cultivar response to preemergent and postemergent applications of the herbicide metribuzin. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 29:70.Google Scholar
2. Alldredge, J. K. and Cohick, A. D. 1975. Varietal sensitivity of postemergence applications of metribuzin on potatoes. Proc. West. Soc. Weed Sci. 28:34–38.Google Scholar
3. Cohick, A. D. 1975. Varietal sensitivity of postemergence applications of metribuzin on potatoes. Abstr. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Page 29.Google Scholar
4. Dallyn, S. and Sweet, R. 1970. Weed control methods, losses and costs due to weeds and benefits of weed control in potatoes. FAO Int. Conf. Weed Control. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Pages 210–228.Google Scholar
5. Eue, L. and Lembrick, L. 1973. Metribuzin, a herbicide with a wide spectrum of activity. PANS 19:254–260.Google Scholar
6. Freeman, J. A. 1979. Response of potato cultivars to metribuzin. Am. Potato J. 56:461.Google Scholar
7. Gawronski, S. W., Callihan, R. H., and Pavek, J. J. 1977. Sinking leaf disc test for potato variety herbicide tolerance. Weed Sci. 25:122–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Gould, W. A. 1976. Snack Food Quality Assurance Program Manual. Potato Chip/Snack Food Association. Baileys Crossroads, VA. Page 40.Google Scholar
9. Graf, G. T. and Ogg, A. G. Jr. 1976. Differential response of potato cultivars to metribuzin. Weed Sci. 24:137–139.Google Scholar
10. Henne, R. C. 1975. Potato variety response to metribuzin. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 29:300–303.Google Scholar
11. Ivany, J. A. 1979. Response of four potato cultivars to metribuzin time and rate of application. Can. J. Plant Sci. 59:417–422.Google Scholar
12. May, M. J. and Smith, J. 1974. Metribuzin use in potatoes on organic soils. Proc. Br. Weed Control Conf. 12:541–547.Google Scholar
13. Nelson, D. C. and Thoreson, M. C. 1981. Competition between potatoes (Solanum tuberosum) and weeds. Weed Sci. 29:672–677.Google Scholar
14. Rioux, R. 1974. Actions of metribuzin on barnyardgrass and potatoes var. Kennebec. Phytoprotection 55:115–120.Google Scholar
15. Rioux, R., Comeau, J. E., and Genereux, H. 1979. Effect of cultural practices and herbicides on weed population and competition of potatoes. Can. J. Plant Sci. 59:367–374.Google Scholar
16. 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
17. Vanden Born, W. H., Andrew, W. T., Schraa, R. J., and Beck, W. V. 1973. Tolerance of seven potato cultivars to metribuzin. Can. Hort. Council. Rep. Page 206.Google Scholar
18. Zimdahl, R. L. 1976. Differential susceptibility of potato cultivars to four herbicides. Am. Potato J. 53:211–219.Google Scholar