Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T09:15:54.506Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Potato (Solanum tuberosum) Yields and Weed Populations in Conventional and Reduced Tillage Systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Russell W. Wallace  and
Robin R. Bellinder
Russell W. Wallace
Affiliation:
Vegetable Crops Dep., Plant Sci. Bldg., Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY 14853-0327
Robin R. Bellinder
Affiliation:
Vegetable Crops Dep., Plant Sci. Bldg., Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY 14853-0327
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Linuron, metribuzin, oryzalin, and dinoseb were evaluated for weed control in conventional (CT) and rye-stubble reduced-tillage (RT) systems for potatoes. Early season control of weeds was equivalent for all herbicides in both tillage systems. In 1985, redroot pigweed populations were significantly greater in RT than in CT control plots. Populations of common lambsquarters were equivalent, regardless of the tillage system. In 1986, the rye mulch reduced early emergence of both species in untreated RT plots when compared to the untreated CT controls. During both seasons, potato stands decreased 16% with RT. In 1985, total yields did not differ between tillage systems; however, in 1986, total potato yields in RT plots decreased an average of 22% compared to yields in CT plots.

Keywords

Dinoseb, 2-(1-methylpropyl)-4,6-dinitrophenollinuron, N′-(3,4-dichlorophenyl)-N-methoxy-N-methylureametribuzin, 4-amino-6-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-3-(methylthio)-1,2,4-triazin-5(4H)-oneoryzalin, 4-(dipropylamino)-3,5-dinitrobenzenesulfonamideredroot pigweed, Amaranthus retroflexus L. ♯3 AMAREcommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. ♯ CHEALrye, Secale cereale L.potatoes, Solarium tuberosum L. var. “Katahdin”No tillageAmaranthus retroflexusChenopodium albumAMARECHEAL
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 3 , Issue 4 , December 1989 , pp. 590 - 595
Copyright
Copyright © 1989 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. Banks, P. A., and Robinson, E. L. 1982. The influence of straw mulch on the soil reception and persistence of metribuzin. Weed Sci. 30:164–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Barnes, J. P., and Putnam, A. R. 1983. Rye residues contribute to weed suppression in no-tillage cropping systems. J. Chem. Ecol. 9:1045–1057.Google Scholar
3. Bennett, O. L., Mitchell, D., Mathias, E. L., and Lundberg, P. E. 1975. No-tillage production systems for potatoes. Agron. Abstr. Am. Soc. Agron., p. 137.Google Scholar
4. Beveridge, J. L., Hanky, F., and Jarvis, R. H. 1964. The effects of consolidating the soil beneath potato seed tubers and of growth and yield of the crop. J. Agric. Sci. 62:55–57.Google Scholar
5. Chou, C. H., and Patrick, Z. A. 1976. Identification and phytotoxic activity of compounds produced during decomposition of corn and rye residues in soil. J. Chem. Ecol. 2:369–387.Google Scholar
6. Crutchfield, D. A., Wicks, G. A., and Burnside, O. C. 1986. Effect of winter wheat (Triticum aestivum) straw mulch level on weed control. Weed Sci. 34:110–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Dallyn, S. L., and Fricke, D. H. 1974. The use of minimum tillage plus herbicides in potato production. Am. Potato J. 51:177–184.Google Scholar
8. Grant, W. J., and Epstein, E. 1973. Minimum tillage for potatoes. Am. Potato J. 50:193–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Gutterman, Y. 1985. Flowering, seed development, and the influences during seed maturation on seed germination of annual weeds. p. 126 in Duke, S. O., ed. Weed Physiology. Vol. I, Reproduction and Ecophysiology. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.Google Scholar
10. Kain, D. P., Sieczka, J. B., and Sweet, R. D. 1986. Field evaluation of a proposed integrated pest management (IPM) approach to weed control in potatoes. Proc. Northeast Weed Sci. Soc. 40:187–193.Google Scholar
11. Nelson, D. C., and Giles, J. F. 1986. Implication of postemergence tillage on root injury and yields of potatoes (Abstr.). Am. Potato J. 63:445.Google Scholar
12. Nelson, D. C., and Thoreaon, M. C. 1981. Competition between potatoes (Solanum tuberosum) and weeds. Weed Sci 29:672–677.Google Scholar
13. Nowacki, W. 1983. Influence of weed infestation of the potato crop on the efficiency of potato lifter and mechanical damage of tubers. Biul. Inst. Ziemnlaka 29:93–100. (English summary).Google Scholar
14. Prihar, S. S., Sander, K. S., and Khera, K. L. 1975. Maize (Zea mays L.) and weed growth, as affected by levels of straw mulching and without herbicide under conventional and minimum tillage. Indian J. Ecol. 2:13–22.Google Scholar
15. Schuler, R. T. 1979. Reduced tillage studies in potatoes following corn. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng., Paper No. 791–524.Google Scholar
16. Shettel, N. L., and Balke, N. E. 1983. Plant growth response to several allelopathic chemicals. Weed Sci. 31:293–298.Google Scholar
17. Somody, C. N., Michieka, R. W., Ilnicki, R. D., and Somody, J. 1978. Weed control in white potatoes with pendimethalin and metribuzin applied prior to and after drag-off. Proc. Northeast Weed Sci. Soc. 32:177–179.Google Scholar
18. 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
19. Zimdahl, R. L. 1971. Weed control research in Colorado potatoes–A review. Am. Potato J. 48:423–427.Google Scholar