Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T05:31:50.243Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed Control and Potato (Solanum tuberosum) Yield with Banded Herbicides and Cultivation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Robin R. Bellinder ,
Jonathan J. Kirkwyland ,
Russell W. Wallace  and
Jed B. Colquhoun
Robin R. Bellinder*
Affiliation:
Department of Fruit and Vegetable Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853
Jonathan J. Kirkwyland
Affiliation:
Department of Fruit and Vegetable Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853
Russell W. Wallace
Affiliation:
Department of Fruit and Vegetable Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853
Jed B. Colquhoun
Affiliation:
Department of Fruit and Vegetable Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: rrb3@cornell.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Experiments compared the effect on weed control and potato yield of banded applications of metolachlor plus linuron with or without flex-tine, rolling, and shovel cultivation prior to hilling. Cultivation without banded herbicide resulted in greater prehilling in- and between-row weed densities and reduced late-season weed control as compared to broadcast herbicides or cultivation with banded herbicides. Although the flex-tine and rolling cultivators were expected to provide improved in-row weed control, there were few differences between these and the other cultivation implements. Despite reduced weed control with cultivation alone, potato yields were not reduced.

Keywords

Linuron, N′-(3,4-dichlorophenyl)-N-methoxy-N-methylureametolachlor, 2-chloro-N-(2-ethyl-6-methylphenyl)-N-(2-methoxy-1-methylethyl)acetamidecommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. # CHEALlarge crabgrass, Digitaria sanguinalis (L.) Scop. # DIGSAredroot pigweed, Amaranthus retroflexus L. # AMAREyellow foxtail, Setaria glauca (L.) Beauv. # SETLUpotato, Solanum tuberosum L. ‘Katahdin’Flex-tine cultivatorherbicide reductionmechanical weed controlDAP, days after planting
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 14 , Issue 1 , March 2000 , pp. 30 - 35
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.)

Footnotes

Current address: BioWorks, 122 North Genesee Street, Geneva, NY 14456
Current address: Horticulture Department, University of Wisconsin, 1575 Linden Drive, Madison, WI 53706

References

Literature Cited

Beveridge, J. F., Hunley, F., and Jarvis, R. H. 1964. The effects of consolidating the soil beneath potato seed tubers and of inter-row grubbing on the growth and yield of the crop. J. Agric. Sci. 62: 55–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohrnsen, A. 1993. Several years’ results about mechanical weeding in cereals. Communications of the Fourth International Conference, I.F.O.A.M. Dijon, France. pp. 93–99.Google Scholar
Bowman, G. 1997. Agronomic row crops: The tools (technical information). In Bowman, G., ed. Steel in the Field: A Farmer's Guide to Weed Management Tools. Beltsville: Sustainable Agriculture Network. Handbook no. 2. pp. 13–34.Google Scholar
Buckingham, F. 1976. Tillage history. In Fundamentals of Machine Operation: Tillage. Moline, IL: Deere and Co. pp. 8–10.Google Scholar
Chew, V. 1976. Comparing treatment means: a compendium. Hortscience. 11: 348–357.CrossRefGoogle 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. L. 1971. Weed control methods in potatoes. Am. Potato J. 48: 116–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunnett, C. W. 1955. A multiple comparisons procedure for comparing several treatments with a control. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 50: 1096–1121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gill, H. S., Brar, L. S., and Walia, U. S. 1984. Integrated weed control in maize. J. Res. Punjab Agric. Univ. 21: 496–500.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 Abstract. Tagungsbericht. 250: 63–67.Google Scholar
Moomaw, R. S. and Robison, L. R. 1973. Broadcast or banded atrazine plus propachlor with tillage variables in corn. Weed Sci. 21: 106–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mt. Pleasant, J., Burt, R. B., and Frisch, J. C. 1994. Integrating mechanical and chemical weed management in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 8: 217–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, D. C. and Giles, J. F. 1986. Implications of post-emergence tillage on root injury and yields of potatoes. Abstr. Am. Potato J. 63: 445–446.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: 228–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, D. C. and Thoreson, M. C. 1981. Competition between potatoes (Solanum tuberosum) and weeds. Weed Sci. 29: 672–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pereira, H. C. 1941. Studies in soil cultivation. IX. The effect of inter-row tillage on the yield of potatoes. J. Agric. Sci. 31: 212–234.Google Scholar
Rasmussen, J. 1992. Testing harrows for mechanical control of annual weeds in agricultural crops. Weed Res. 32: 267–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renner, K. A. 1992. Timing of herbicide application and potato hilling. Am. Potato J. 69: 167–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rioux, R., Comeau, J. E., and Genereux, H. 1979. Effect of cultural practices and herbicides on weed population and competition in potatoes. Can. J. Plant Sci. 59: 367–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sahota, T. S. and Govindakrishnan, P. M. 1982. Critical period of crop weed competition in potato. Bangladesh Hortic. 10: 15–18.Google Scholar
Samson, R. A. and Coulman, B. E. 1989. Herbicide banding, cultivation, and interseeding as an integrated weed management system for corn. Proc. Northeast. Corn Improvement Conf. 44: 33–38.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1989. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Version 6, 4th Ed. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 846 p.Google Scholar
Sweet, R. D. and Sieczka, J. B. 1973. Comments on the ability of potato varieties to compete with weeds. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 27: 302–304.Google Scholar
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: 33–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanGessel, M. J. and Renner, K. A. 1990a. Effect of soil type, hilling time, and weed interference on potato (Solanum tuberosum) development and yield. Weed Technol. 4: 299–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanGessel, M. J. and Renner, K. A. 1990b. Redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) and barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) interference in potatoes (Solanum tuberosum). Weed Sci. 38: 338–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vitolo, D. B. 1986. Barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) Beauv.)-white potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) competition. Ph.D. dissertation. Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ. 136 p.Google Scholar
Wall, D. A. and Friesen, G. H. 1990. Effect of duration of green foxtail (Setaria viridis) competition on potato (Solanum tuberosum) yield. Weed Technol. 4: 539–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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