Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T10:46:45.722Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of alternative pest and soil management strategies for Maine potato production systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2009

E.R. Gallandt ,
E.B. Mallory ,
A.R. Alford ,
F.A. Drummond ,
E. Groden ,
M. Liebman ,
M.C. Marra ,
J.C. McBurnie  and
G.A. Porter
E.R. Gallandt*
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164-6420.
E.B. Mallory
Affiliation:
Associate in Extension and Research, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164-6420.
A.R. Alford
Affiliation:
Professor of Entomology, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Maine.
F.A. Drummond
Affiliation:
Associate Professor of Entomology, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Maine.
E. Groden
Affiliation:
Associate Professor of Entomology, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Maine.
M. Liebman
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Department of Agronomy, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011-1010.
M.C. Marra
Affiliation:
Associate Professor of Agricultural Economics, Dept. of Agricultural and Resource Economics, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-8109.
J.C. McBurnie
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor of Bio-Resource Engineering, University of Maine.
G.A. Porter
Affiliation:
Associate Professor of Agronomy, Department of Applied Ecology & Environmental Sciences, University of Maine, Orono, ME 04469-5722.
*
Corresponding author is E.R. Gallandt ([email protected]).
Get access

Abstract

Potato acreage and total production in Maine have declined steadily since the 1960s. In 1991, a University of Maine research team established a large-scale, long-term, comparative study of three factors that form the foundation of productive potato cropping systems: soil management, pest management, and variety choice. This study, the Potato Ecosystem Project, included 96 main plots (5.8 ha total) and near-by “component studies.” The project contrasted amended vs. unamended soil management strategies; conventional vs. reduced-input vs. bio-intensive pest management strategies; and disease and stress susceptible vs. tolerant potato varieties. Given recent concerns over resistance to pesticides and increasing costs of agricultural chemical inputs, the reduced-input and bio-intensive pest management systems provided encouraging results. Weed growth was similar in the conventional and reduced-input systems. Colorado potato beetle thresholds were exceeded less often and their densities were lower in the bio-intensive system than in the reduced-input and conventional systems. Lady beetles, which are major aphid predators, were more abundant in the bio-intensive pest management system compared with the reduced-input and conventional systems in 5 of the 6 years. Tuber yield and quality were maintained at a high level in the reduced-input system, although difficulties with plant disease, nutrient and weed management contributed to significantly lower yields in the bio-intensive pest management system. Economic analysis indicated that from 1993 to 1996, the reduced-input system had a greater return over variable cost (avg. $973 ha-1) than the conventional (avg. $890ha-1) and bio-intensive pest management systems (avg. $578ha-1). The amended soil management system achieved rapid improvements in soil quality: soil organic matter, water stable aggregates, potassium, and soluble inorganic phosphorus contents increased while requirements for synthetic fertilizers were reduced. These improvements in soil quality enhanced late-season crop vigor, canopy duration and tuber quality, and increased yields by 13% and 30% over the unamended system in 1994 and 1995, respectively, but not in 1996. Improved crop vigor in the amended soil management system also benefited weed control efforts by encouraging a more weed-suppressive potato crop. In the biointensive pest management system, in which weeds were controlled mechanically, the amended soil management system had less weed biomass than the unamended soil management system in 1994 and 1995. Conversely, the amended soil management system consistently increased flea beetle populations and, in one of two years, the incidence of Rhizoctonia. The choice of potato variety also affected pest dynamics. Total aphid density (all aphid species considered together) and almost all disease ratings were higher on ‘Superior’ than ‘Atlantic’ potato.

Keywords

cropping systems trialsoil management systemspest management systemsreduced-inputbio-rational pest managementsoil amendmentsoil quality
Type
Articles
Information
American Journal of Alternative Agriculture , Volume 13 , Issue 4 , December 1998 , pp. 146 - 161
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1998

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

1.American Society of Agricultural Engineers. 1995. Standards 1995. 42nd ed. ASAE, St. Joseph, Michigan.Google Scholar
2.Blackford, C.H. 1997. Survival, germination and infection potential of Phytophthora infestans under different soil and pest management systems. M.S. Thesis, University of Maine, Orono, ME.Google Scholar
3.Brussaard, L. 1994. Interrelationships between biological activities, soil properties and soil management. In Greenland, D.J. and Szabolcs, I. (eds). Soil Resilience and Sustainable Land Use. CAB International, Wallingford, United Kingdom, pp. 309–329.Google Scholar
4.Drummond, F.A., and Groden, E.. 1996. Insect pests and natural enemies. In M.C. Marra (ed). The Ecology, Economics, and Management of Potato Cropping Systems: A Report of the First Four Years of the Maine Potato Ecosystem Project. Maine Agric. and Forest Experiment Station Bull. 843. pp. 80–118.Google Scholar
5.Dwyer, J.D., Johnson, S.B., Morrow, L.S., and Plissey, E.S.. 1994. Maine potato pest control guide. University of Maine Cooperative Extension Publication, Orono.Google Scholar
6.Eastern Canada Soil and Water Conservation Centre. 1993. Crop Production Systems for Potato Production in Atlantic Canada. Eastern Canada Soil and Water Conservation Centre. Grand Falls, N.B. April. 33pp.Google Scholar
7.Fitzgerald, C.B. 1997. Soil phosphorus in Aroostook County (Maine) potato cropping systems: Organic matter effects and residual phosphorus contributions. M.S. Thesis, University of Maine, Orono, ME.Google Scholar
8.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.Google Scholar
9.Groden, E. 1989. Natural mortality of the Colorado potato beetle, Leptinotarsa decemilineata (Say). Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, E. Lansing.Google Scholar
10.Hoskins, B.R. 1997. Soil Testing Handbook for Professionals in Agriculture, Horticulture, Nutrient and Residuals Management. 3rd ed.Maine Agric. and Forest Experiment Station, Orono, Maine.Google Scholar
11.Huber, D.M., and Watson, R.D.. 1970. Effect of organic amendment on soilborne plant pathogens. Phytopathology 60:22–26.Google Scholar
12.Kaffka, S. 1994. Scientists and farmers try new approach to research. California Agriculture 48:11–13.Google Scholar
13.King, L.D., and Buchanan, M.. 1993. Reduced chemical input cropping systems in the southeastern United States. I. Effect of rotations, green manure crops and nitrogen fertilizer on crop yields. Amer. J. of Alternative Agric. 8:58–77.Google Scholar
14.Lambert, D.H., and Salas, B.. 1996. Plant diseases. In M.C. Marra (ed). The Ecology, Economics, and Management of Potato Cropping Systems: A report of the First Four Years of the Maine Potato Ecosystem Project. Maine Agric. and Forest Experiment Station Bull. 843. pp. 119–128.Google Scholar
15.MacRae, R.J., Hill, S.B., Mehuys, G.R., and Henning, J.. 1990. Farm-scale agronomic and economic conversion from conventional to sustainable agriculture. Advances in Agronomy 43:155–198.Google Scholar
16.Marra, M.C. (ed). 1996a. The Ecology, Economics, and Management of Potato Cropping Systems: A Report of the First Four Years of the Maine Potato Ecosystem Project. Maine Agricultural and Forest Experiment Station. Bull. 843.Google Scholar
17.Marra, M.C. 1996b. Economic results. In M.C. Marra (ed). The Ecology, Economics, and Management of Potato Cropping Systems: A Report of the First Four Years of the Maine Potato Ecosystem Project. Maine Agric. and Forest Experiment Station Bull. 843. pp. 129–146.Google Scholar
18.Nelson, D.W., and Sommers, L.E.. 1982. Total carbon, organic carbon, and organic matter. In Page, A.L., Miller, R.H., and Keeney, D.R. (eds). Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 2, chemical and Microbiological Properties. Am. Soc. of Agronomy, Madison, Wisconsin, pp. 539–579.Google Scholar
19.New England Agricultural Statistics Service. 1996. New England agricultural statistics, 1995–1996. NEASS, Concord, New Hampshire.Google Scholar
20.Northeast Coordinating Committee on Soil Testing. 1995. Recomended soil testing procedures for the northeastern United States. 2nd ed. Northeast Regional Publication No. 493. Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Delaware, Newark.Google Scholar
21.Peters, S., Janke, R., and Bohlke, M.. 1992. Rodale's Farming Systems Trial 1986–1990. Rodale Institute Research Center, Kutztown, Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
22.Porter, G.A. 1996. General methods. In M.C. Marra (ed). The Ecology, Economics, and Management of Potato Cropping Systems: A Report of the First Four Years of the Maine Potato Ecosystem Project. Maine Agric. and Forest Experiment Station Bull. 843. pp. 161–174.Google Scholar
23.Porter, G.A. and McBurnie, J.C.. 1996. Crop and soil research. In M.C. Marra (ed). The Ecology, Economics, and Management of Potato Cropping Systems: A Report of the First Four Years of the Maine Potato Ecosystem Project. Maine Agric. and Forest Experiment Station Bull. 843. pp. 8–62.Google Scholar
24.Porter, G.A., and Sisson, J.A.. 1991. Petiole nitrate content of Mainegrown Russet Burbank and Shepody potatoes in response to varying nitrogen rates. Am. Potato J. 68:493–505.Google Scholar
25.Posner, J.L., Casler, M.D., and Baldock, J.O.. 1995. The Wisconsin integrated cropping systems trial: Combining agroecology with production agronomy. Amer. J. of Alternative Agric. 10:98–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26.Smolik, J.D., Dobbs, T.L., and Rickerl, D.H.. 1995. The relative sustainability of alternative, conventional, and reduced-till farming systems. Amer. J. of Alternative Agric. 10:25–35.Google Scholar
27.Temple, S.R., Friedman, D.B., Somasco, O., Ferris, H., Scow, K., and Klonsky, K.. 1994. An interdisciplinary, experiment station-based participatory comparison of alternative crop management systems for California's Sacramento Valley. Amer. J. of Alternative Agric. 9:64–71.Google Scholar
28.USDA. 1970. Agricultural Statistics 1970. National Agric. Statistics Service, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
29.USDA. 1988–1996. Agricultural Prices. Annual reports. Agric. Statistics Board, National Agric. Statistics Service, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
30.USDA. 1990. Agricultural Statistics 1990. National Agric. Statistics Service, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
31.USDA. 1993. Agricultural Resources: Inputs, Situation and Outlook Report. Rep. No. AR-32, pp. 33–35. Resources and Technology Division, Economic Research Service, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
32.USDA. 1995. Revised prices received and paid indexes, United States, 1975–93. Agric. Statistics Board, National Agric. Statistics Service, Statistical Bulletin No. 917. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
33.USDA. 1995–1997. Agricultural prices, January. Agric. Statistics Board, National Agric. Statistics Service, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
34.van Bruggen, A.H.C. 1995. Plant disease severity in high-input compared to reduced-input and organic farming systems. Plant Disease 79:976–984.Google Scholar
35.Varis, E., Pietilä, L. and Koikkalainen, K., 1996. Comparison of conventional, integrated and organic potato production in field experiments in Finland. Acta Agric. Scand. 46:41–48.Google Scholar
36.Vereijken, P. 1986. From conventional to integrated agriculture. Netherlands J. of Agric. Sci. 34:387–393.Google Scholar
37.Westra, J.V., and Boyle, K.J.. 1991. An economic analysis of crops grown in rotation with potatoes in Aroostook County, Maine. Maine Agric. and Forest Experiment Station Bulletin 834.Google Scholar