Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T16:04:22.455Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of Weed Emergence Time and Intervals of Weed and Crop Competition on Potato Yield

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Steponas Ciuberkis ,
Stasys Bernotas ,
Steponas Raudonius  and
Joel Felix
Steponas Ciuberkis*
Affiliation:
Doctor Habilitatus, Head of Region Agriculture Department Vezaiciai Branch of the Lithuanian Institute of Agriculture, Gargzdu 29, LT-96216, Klaipeda district, Lithuania
Stasys Bernotas
Affiliation:
Senior Research of Region Agriculture Department Vezaiciai Branch of the Lithuanian Institute of Agriculture, Gargzdu 29, LT-96216, Klaipeda district, Lithuania
Steponas Raudonius
Affiliation:
Dr. of Soil Management Department, Lithuanian University of Agriculture, Studentu 11, LT-53067 Akademija, Kaunas district, Lithuania
Joel Felix
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture and Crop Science, The Ohio State University, 1680 Madison Ave, Wooster, OH 44691, USA
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: stepas@vezaiciai.lzi.lt
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A field study was conducted at Vezaiciai branch of the Lithuanian Institute of Agriculture from 1998 to 2000 to determine weed emergence dynamics in potato and to estimate the effect of different intervals of weed crop competition on potato tuber yield. Treatments varying in intervals of weed-free conditions and competition were laid out in a randomized complete block design with six replications. The greatest emergence of annual broadleaf weeds (62 to 86% of the season total) in the crop was observed in the period from potato planting until flowering. Emergence of winter annuals such as field violet and scentless mayweed was greatest in the period from the 20-cm potato plant height until harvesting. Competition was most detrimental to potato tuber yield in the periods from planting until flowering, from planting until 25 d after flowering, or for the entire growing season. Potato tuber yield decreased by 8.1, 8.4, and 6.4%, respectively, during these competition intervals compared to the weed-free treatment. The results indicated that the critical weed-free period, when weed competition was detrimental to yield, started from planting until 25 d after flowering if regular interrow cultivation was applied.

Keywords

Field violet, Viola arvensis Mur VIOARscentless mayweed, Tripleurospermum perforatum (Merat) M.Lainz MATINPotato, Solanum tuberosum L. ‘Mirta’Crop growth stagesweed emergencepotatocompetition
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 21 , Issue 1 , March 2007 , pp. 213 - 218
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

Aldrich, R. J. 1987. Predicting crop yield reduction from weeds. Weed Technol. 1:199–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baziramakenga, R. and Leroux, G. D. 1998. Economic and interference threshold densities of couchgrass (Elytrigia repens) in potato (Solanum tuberosum). Weed Sci. 46:176–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E., Stoble, E. H., and Sturko, A. R. W. 1981. Effects of seeding dates and densities of green foxtail (Setaria viridis) on the growth and productivity of spring wheat (Triticum aestivum) . Weed Sci. 29:212–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connell, T. R., Binning, L. K., and Schmitt, W. G. 1999. A canopy development model for potatoes. Am. J. Potato Res. 76:153–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eberlein, C. V., Patterson, P. E., Guttieri, M. J., and Stark, J. C. 1997. Efficacy and economics of cultivation for weed control in potato (Solanum tuberosum). Weed Technol. 11:257–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Everaarts, A. and Satsyati, . 1978. Critical period for weed composition for potatoes in Java. Proceedings of the sixth Asian-Pacific Weed Science Society Conference. Jakarta. 1:173–177.Google Scholar
Forcella, F. 1993. Seedling emergence model for velvetleaf. Agron. J. 85:929–933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forcella, F. 1998. Real-time assessment of seed dormancy and seedling growth for weed management. Seed Sci. Res. 8:201–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forcella, F., Benech, A. R. L., Sanchez, R., and Ghersa, C. M. 2000. Modeling seedling emergence. Field Crops Res. 67:123–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forcella, F., Wilson, R. G., Renner, K. A., Dekker, J., Harvey, R. G., Alm, D. A., Buhler, D. D., and Cardina, J. A. 1992. Weed seedbanks of the U.S. corn belt: magnitude, variation, emergence, and application. Weed Sci. 40:636–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallandt, E. R., Liebman, M., Corson, S., Porter, G. A., and Ullrich, S. D. 1998. Effects of pest and soil management systems on weed dynamics in potato. Weed Sci. 46:238–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Häkansson, S. 1983. Seasonal variation in the emergence of annual weeds—an introductory investigation in Sweden. Weed Res. 23:313–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Häkansson, S. 1991. Germination of weed seeds in different seasons. Uppsala, Sweden IX Colloque International. 45–54.Google Scholar
Hoffman–Kakol, I. 1990. Plonovanie ziemniaka w zaležnošci od dlugošci pozostawania chwastow lanie. Zesz. Nauk. Rol. A.R. Szczenie. 141:49–63.Google Scholar
Jaiswal, V. P. and Lal, S. S. 1996. Efficacy of cultural and chemical weed-control methods in potato (Solanum tuberosum). Indian J. Agron. 41:454–456.Google Scholar
Jakstaite, A. 1988. Weed harmfulness critical period on spring barley. Scientific works of Lithuania Institute of Agriculture. V.36. 108–124 (in Lithuanian).Google Scholar
Jensen, P. K. 1995. Effect of light environment during soil disturbance on germination and emergence pattern of weeds. Ann. Appl. Biol. 127:561–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kartoffelbestande unkrautfrei halten. 1995. DLZ. 46:52–58.Google Scholar
Kroff, M. J. and van Laar, H. H. 1993. Modeling Crop–Weeds Interactions. Wallingford, UK CAB international. 12–115.Google Scholar
Lazauskas, J. and Razukas, A. 2001. Potato growing in Lithuania 1900–2000 years. (in Lithuanian). Vilnius. 92–100.Google Scholar
Liebman, M., Drumon, F. A., Corson, Sue, and Zhang, J. 1996. Tillage and rotation crop effects on weed dynamics in potato production systems. Agron. J. 88:18–26.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ogg, A. J. R. and Dawson, J. H. 1984. Time of emergence of eight weed species. Weed Sci. 32:327–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spitters, C. J. T. and Aerts, R. 1983. Simulation of competition for light and water in crop weed associations. Aspects Appl. Biol. 467–484.Google Scholar
Spokiene, N. 1995. Germination of the predominated annual weed in the field condition. Weed control in the changing situation of farming in the Baltic Region. Proceedings. Kaunas. 267–275.Google Scholar
Stancevicius, A. and Spokiene, N. 1972. The dynamic of emergence of weed seeds during the period of vegetation. Kaunas LAA Scientific Works. 47:15–24. (in Lithuanian).Google Scholar
SYSTAT 10, Statistics 1 2000. SPSS Inc. Pages 663.Google Scholar
Tharkal, 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. 29:33–38.Google Scholar
VanGessel, M. J. and Renner, K. A. 1990. Redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) and barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) interference in potatoes (Solanum tuberosum) . Weed Sci. 33:338–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar