Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T09:46:29.651Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Critical Period of Quackgrass (Elytrigia repens) Removal in Potatoes (Solanum tuberosum)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

R. Baziramakenga
Affiliation:
Dep. Phytol., Univ. Laval, Ste-Foy (Québec), Canada, G1K 7P4
Gilles D. Leroux
Affiliation:
Dep. Phytol., Univ. Laval, Ste-Foy (Québec), Canada, G1K 7P4

Abstract

Field trials were carried out in 1989 and 1990 at St-Augustin, near Québec City, Canada, to determine the critical periods of quackgrass control in potato submitted to three levels of infestation. Potato yield losses due to quackgrass interference increased with quackgrass infestation and length of duration of interference. Quackgrass interference influenced marketable tuber yields more than total tuber yields. Duration of the critical period varied depending on the level of quackgrass infestation and year. Based on an arbitrary 5% level of marketable yield loss, the critical period started at ca. 15 days after emergence (DAE) of potato at low level of infestation, and at ca. 3 DAE at medium level of infestation. At high level of infestation, the critical period began prior to the emergence of potato. The end of the critical period of quackgrass removal was extremely variable across quackgrass infestation level and year and ranged from 23 to 68 DAE of potato at a 5 % yield loss level. It appears that onset of interference varied less than the end of it, indicating that early quackgrass control is necessary to prevent yield loss.

Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Copyright
Copyright © 1994 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. Anderson, U. L. and McLean, R. A. 1974. Design of experiments. Marcel-Dekker, New York. 418 pp.Google Scholar
2. Bouchard, C. J. 1984. Compétition entre les graminées et les cultures. Pages 1926 in Rapport de la Journée d'information sur la malherbologie, 6 mars. St-Hyacinthe, Québec. CPVQ.Google Scholar
3. Chism, W. J., Birch, J. B., and Bingham, S. W. 1992. Nonlinear regressions for analyzing growth stage and quinclorac interactions. Weed Technol. 6:898903.Google Scholar
4. Cousens, R. 1988. Misinterpretations of results in weed research through inappropriate use of statistics. Weed Res. 28:281289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Hall, M. R., Swanton, C. J., and Anderson, G. W. 1992. The critical period of weed control in grain corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 40:441447.Google Scholar
6. Ivany, J. A. 1976. Kennebec potato yield response to delayed paraquat application. Can. J. Plant Sci. 56:539542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Ivany, J. A. 1979. Response of four potato cultivars to metribuzin time and rate of application. Can. J. Plant Sci. 59:417422.Google Scholar
8. Ivany, J. A. 1984. Quackgrass (Agropyron repens) control in potatoes (Solanum tuberosum) with sethoxydim. Weed Sci. 32:194197.Google Scholar
9. Ivany, J. A. 1986. Quackgrass competition effect on potato yield. Can. J. Plant Sci. 66:185187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Ivany, J. A. 1988. Quackgrass (Agropyron repens) control in potatoes (Solanum tuberosum) with fluazifop. Weed Sci. 36:363366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Ivany, J. A. 1991. Effect of haloxyfop on quackgrass (Elytrigia repens) and potatoes (Solanum tuberosum). Weed Technol. 5:7275.Google Scholar
12. Murphy, H. J., Goven, M. J., and Sewell, W. D. 1970. Pre and early postemergence weed control with paraquat in potatoes. Am. Potato J. 47:252255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Nelson, D. C. and Thoreson, M. C. 1981. Competition between potatoes (Solanum tuberosum) and weeds. Weed Sci. 29:672677.Google Scholar
14. Nelson, D. C. and Gilles, J. F. 1989. Weed management in two potato (Solanum tuberosum) cultivars using tillage and pendimethalin. Weed Sci. 37:228232.Google Scholar
15. Pageau, D. and Leroux, G. D. 1988. Seuil de nuisibilité du chiendent [Agropyron repens (L.) Beauv.] dans la luzerne (Medicago sativa L.). Can. J. Plant Sci. 68:121130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. SAS Institute, Inc. 1987. SAS/STAT RO User's Guide: Statistics. Version 6 ed. SAS Inst., Inc., Cary, NC. 1028 pp.Google Scholar
17. Thakral, K. K., Pandita, M. L., Khurana, S. C., and Kalloo, G. 1989. Effect of time of weed removal on growth and yield of potato. Weed Res. 29:3338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Van Heemst, H. D. J. 1985. The influence of weed competition on crop yield. Agric. Systems 18:8193.Google Scholar
19. Werner, P. A. and Rioux, R. 1977. The biology of Canadian weeds. 24. Agropyron repens (L.) Beauv. Can. J. Plant Sci. 57:905919.Google Scholar