Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-wxk4p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T05:09:49.769Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Competition between Potatoes (Solarium tuberosum) and Weeds

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

D. C. Nelson  and
Myron C. Thoreson
D. C. Nelson
Affiliation:
Dep. Hortic. For., North Dakota State Univ., Fargo, ND 58105
Myron C. Thoreson
Affiliation:
Dep. Hortic. For., North Dakota State Univ., Fargo, ND 58105
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Mixtures of annual weeds emerging 1 week after and competing all season with potatoes (Solanum tuberosum L.) reduced tuber yields by an average of 54% compared to 16% in comparable treatments in which weeds emerged 3 weeks after potatoes. Weeds reduced tuber yields 19% 8 weeks after potatoes emerged and 25 to 45% 10 weeks after emergence. After full-season competition, for each additional 10% of the total dry biomass represented by weeds, there was a decrease of 12% in fresh tuber yield. This relationship was not valid if potatoes were harvested early, which reduced the deleterious effect of weeds on potato yields. Weed competition reduced both size and number of tubers, but had little effect on specific gravity of tubers. In some instances, the reduction in tuber size by weeds reduced the percentage of tubers that were marketable.

Keywords

Specific gravitytuber sizetuber numberbiomass

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 29 , Issue 6 , November 1981 , pp. 672 - 677
Copyright
Copyright © 1981 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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

1. Anonymous. 1971. United States standards for grades of potatoes. U.S. Dep. of Agric., Consumer and Marketing Serv., Washington, DC. p. 1–19.Google Scholar
2. Burnside, O. C. 1979. Soybean (Glycine max) growth as affected by weed removal, cultivar, and row spacing. Weed Sci. 27:562–565.Google Scholar
3. Burnside, O. C. and Wicks, G. A. 1967. The effect of weed removal treatments on sorghum growth. Weeds 15:204–207.Google Scholar
4. Buchanan, G. A. and McLaughlin, R. D. 1975. Influence of nitrogen on weed competition in cotton. Weed Sci. 23:324–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Coble, H. D. and Ritter, R. L. 1978. Pennsylvania smartweed (Polygonum pensylvanicum) interference in soybeans (Glycine max . Weed Sci. 26:556–559.Google Scholar
6. Dallyn, S. L. and Sweet, R. D. 1970. Weed control methods, losses and cost due to weeds and benefits of weed control in potatoes. F.A.O. International Conference on Weed Control. p. 210–228.Google Scholar
7. Dawson, J. H. 1964. Competition between irrigated field beans and annual weeds. Weeds 12:206–208.Google Scholar
8. Dawson, J. H. 1964. Competition between irrigated sugar beets and annual weeds. Weeds 13:245–249.Google Scholar
9. Friesen, G. H. 1978. Weed interference in pickling cucumbers (Cucumis sativus . Weed Sci. 26:626–628.Google Scholar
10. Gould, W. A. 1976. Snack Food Quality Assurance Program Manual, p. 40. Potato Chip/Snack Food Association. Baileys Crossroads, VA. p. 40 Google Scholar
11. Hauser, E. W., Buchanan, G. A., and Ethredge, W. J. 1975. Competition of Florida beggarweed and sicklepod with peanuts. I. Effect of periods of weed-free maintenance or weed competition. Weed Sci. 23:368–372.Google Scholar
12. Hill, L. V. and Santelmann, P. W. 1969. Competitive effects of annual grass on Spanish peanuts. Weed Sci. 17:1–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Kehr, A. E., Akeley, R. V., and Houghland, G. V. C. 1964. Commercial Potato Production. Agr. Handbook 267. p. 54.Google Scholar
14. Nalewaja, J. D., Dexter, A. G., Buchli, J., Hamlin, W., and Kimmet, G. 1980. Pesticide usage in major North Dakota crops, 1978. Agronomy Rep. 1. North Dakota State Univ., Fargo. p. 13.Google Scholar
15. Radecki, A. 1977. Comparison of the effectiveness of manual-mechanical and chemical weeding of the potato. Roczniki Nauk Rolniczych Seria A-Produkcja Roslinna 102 Z 3. p. 57–69. (In Polish, English Summary).Google Scholar
16. Selleck, G. W. and Dallyn, S. L. 1978. Herbicide treatments and potato cultivar interactions for weed control. Northeast Weed Sci. Soc. Proc. 32:152–156.Google Scholar
17. Sweet, R. D. and Sieczka, J. B. 1973. Comments on ability of potato varieties to compete with weeds. Northeast Weed Sci. Soc. Proc. 27:302–304.Google Scholar
18. Sweet, R. D., Yip, C. P., and Sieczka, J. B. 1974. Crop varieties: Can they suppress weeds? New York Food and Life Science Quarterly 7(3):3–5. Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
19. Weatherspoon, D. M. and Schweizer, E. E. 1969. Competition between kochia and sugarbeets. Weed Sci. 17:464–467.Google Scholar
20. Yip, C. P., Sweet, R. D., and Sieczka, J. B. 1974. Competitive ability of potato cultivars with major weed species. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. Proc. 28:271–281.Google Scholar