Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T15:25:12.620Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of pest and soil management systems on weed dynamics in potato

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Eric R. Gallandt ,
Matt Liebman ,
Sue Corson ,
Gregory A. Porter  and
Silke D. Ullrich
Matt Liebman
Affiliation:
Sustainable Agriculture Program, Department of Applied Ecology and Environmental Science, 5722 Deering Hall, University of Maine, Orono, ME 04469-5722
Sue Corson
Affiliation:
Sustainable Agriculture Program, Department of Applied Ecology and Environmental Science, 5722 Deering Hall, University of Maine, Orono, ME 04469-5722
Gregory A. Porter
Affiliation:
Sustainable Agriculture Program, Department of Applied Ecology and Environmental Science, 5722 Deering Hall, University of Maine, Orono, ME 04469-5722
Silke D. Ullrich
Affiliation:
Sustainable Agriculture Program, Department of Applied Ecology and Environmental Science, 5722 Deering Hall, University of Maine, Orono, ME 04469-5722
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Results from the “Potato Ecosystem Project,” a cropping systems study in northern Maine, were used to test the hypothesis that greater reliance on organic nutrient sources and less reliance on synthetic fertilizer sources can benefit weed management efforts. ‘Atlantic’ potato was grown in a 2-yr rotation within a factorial arrangement of three pest management systems, two soil management systems, and both rotation entry points. Weed control in the conventional (CONV) pest management system relied on full rates of herbicides, whereas the biointensive (BIO) system relied exclusively on cultivation. The reduced input (RI) pest management system relied on cultivation in 1991 and 1992 and on 50% of standard herbicide rates plus cultivation from 1993 to 1995. The two soil management systems, unamended (barley/red clover rotation crop; 1× synthetic fertilizer for potato) and amended (pea/oat/hairy vetch green manure rotation crop; manure, compost, and 0.5× synthetic fertilizer for potato) contrasted practices typical for the region to those designed to achieve rapid improvements in soil quality. Midseason weed biomass in potato was dominated by common lambsquarters. In 1991 and 1992, weed biomass in potato was least in the CONV system and did not differ between the RI and BIO systems. In 1993, weeds in both RI and CONV potatoes were effectively suppressed below the level measured in the BIO system. Soil management had no effect on weed biomass from 1991 to 1993 but became an important factor affecting weeds in the BIO system in 1994 and 1995. Weed biomass was 77% lower in 1994 and 72% lower in 1995 in the amended soil management system than in the unamended system. No significant yield loss due to weeds was detected in the 1994 BIO system, but in 1995 yield loss due to weeds was 37% in the unamended system compared to 12% in the amended system. Soil management effects on weeds in the 1994 BIO pest management system carried through to the following season's germinable seed bank. Density of germinable common lambsquarters seed (0 to 10 cm soil depth) in the 1995 BIO system was 4,082 m−2 in the unamended soil management system compared to 1,280 m−2 in the amended soil management system. We suggest that organic amendments and green manure promote a potato crop better able to compete with weeds and that these inputs be considered as potentially important components of integrated weed management systems that have minimal reliance on herbicides.

Keywords

MetribuzinparaquatdiquatMCPApotato, Solanum tuberosum L. ‘Atlantic’barley, Hordeum vulgare L. ‘Robust’red clover, Trifolium pratense L. ‘Medium Red’oat, Avena sativa L. ‘Porter’pea, Pisum sativum L. ‘Trapper’hairy vetch, Vicia villosa Roth ‘Madison’Japanese millet, Echinochloa frumentacea (Roxb.) Linkcommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L.Maine Potato Ecosystem Projectcropping systemsintegrated weed managementfertility managementalternative weed managementfertility effects on weedslegume green manuressoil amendments
Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 46 , Issue 2 , April 1998 , pp. 238 - 248
Copyright
Copyright © 1998 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

Alford, A. R., Drummond, F. A., Gallandt, E. R., et al. 1996. The Ecology, Economics, and Management of Potato Cropping Systems: A Report of the First Four Years of the Maine Potato Ecosystem Project. Orono, ME: Maine Agricultural and Forest Experiment Station Bull. 843. 204 p.Google Scholar
Alkamper, J. A. 1976. Influence of weed infestation on effect of fertilizer dressings. Pflanzenschutz-Nachrichten 29: 191–235.Google Scholar
Ball, D. A. and Miller, S. D. 1989. A comparison of techniques for estimation of arable soil seedbanks and their relationship to weed flora. Weed Res. 29: 365–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bellinder, R. R., Wallace, R. W., and Wilkins, E. D. 1996. Reduced rates of herbicides following hilling controlled weeds in conventional and reduced tillage potato Solanum tuberosum production. Weed Technol. 10: 311–316.Google Scholar
Chapin, F. S. III. 1991. Effects of multiple environmental stresses on nutrient availability and use. Pages 67–88 in Mooney, H. A., Winner, W. E., and Pell, E. J., eds. Response of Plants to Multiple Stresses. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Clements, D. R., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1994. Integrated weed management and weed species diversity. Phytoprotection 75: 1–19.Google Scholar
DiTomaso, J. M. 1995. Approaches for improving crop competitiveness through manipulation of fertilization strategies. Weed Sci. 43: 491–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drinkwater, L. E., Letourneau, D. K., Workneh, F., van Bruggen, A.H.C., and Shennan, C. 1995. Fundamental differences between conventional and organic tomato agroecosystems in California. Ecol. Appl. 5: 1098–1112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dwyer, J. D., Johnson, S. B., Morrow, L. S., and Plissey, E. S. 1994. Maine Potato Pest Control Guide. Orono, Maine: Maine Cooperative Extension Bull. 2002. 16 p.Google Scholar
Forcella, F. 1992. Prediction of weed seedling densities from buried seed reserves. Weed Res. 32: 29–38.Google Scholar
Henson, I. E. 1970. The effects of light, potassium nitrate and temperature on the germination of Chenopodium album L. Weed Res. 10: 27–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huber, D. M. and Watson, R. D. 1974. Nitrogen form and plant disease. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 12: 139–165.Google Scholar
Karssen, C. M. and Hilhorst, H.W.M. 1992. Effect of chemical environment on seed germination. Pages 327–348 in Fermer, M., ed. Seeds, The Ecology of Regeneration in Plant Communities. Wallingford, Great Britain: CAB International.Google Scholar
[MDAFRR] Maine Department of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Resources. 1991. Maine Agricultural Statistics. Augusta, ME: MDAFRR. 54 p.Google Scholar
Malone, C. R. 1967. A rapid method for enumeration of viable seeds in soil. Weeds 15: 381–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marra, M. C. 1996. Introduction. Pages 1–7 in Alford, A. R., Drummond, E A., Gallandt, E. R., et al. The Ecology, Economics, and Management of Potato Cropping Systems: A Report of the First Four Years of the Maine Potato Ecosystem Project. Orono, ME: Maine Agricultural and Forest Experiment Station Bull. 843.Google Scholar
Mattson, W. J. 1980. Herbivory in relation to plant nitrogen content. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 11: 119–161.Google Scholar
Patriquin, D. G., Baines, D., and Abboud, A. 1995. Soil fertility effects on pests and diseases. Pages 1–11 in Cook, H. F. and Lee, H. C., eds. Soil Management in Sustainable Agriculture. Wye, Great Britain: Wye College Press.Google Scholar
Phelan, P. L., Mason, J. R., and Stinner, B. R. 1995. Soil-fertility management and host preference by European corn borer, Ostrinia nubilalis Hübner, on Zea mays L.: a comparison of organic and conventional chemical farming. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 56: 1–8.Google Scholar
Pielou, E. C. 1975. Ecological Diversity. New York: John Wiley and Sons. 165 p.Google Scholar
Porter, G. A. and McBurnie, J. C. 1996. Crop and soil research. Pages 8–62 in Alford, A. R., Drummond, F. A., Gallandt, E. R., et al. The Ecology, Economics, and Management of Potato Cropping Systems: A Report of the First Four Years of the Maine Potato Ecosystem Project. Orono, ME: Maine Agricultural and Forest Experiment Station Bull. 843.Google Scholar
Seibert, A. C. and Pearce, R. B. 1993. Growth analysis of weed and crop species with reference to seed weight. Weed Sci. 41: 52–56.Google Scholar
Simpson, R. L., Leck, M. A., and Parker, V. T. 1989. Seed banks: general concepts and methodological issues. Pages 3–8 in Leck, M. A., Parker, V. T., and Simpson, R. L., eds. Ecology of Soil Seed Banks. San Diego: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1989. Agricultural Resources Inputs: Situation and Outlook Report. AR-15, August 1989. Washington, DC: Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. p. 23.Google Scholar
van Bruggen, A.H.C. 1995. Plant disease severity in high-input compared to reduced-input and organic farming systems. Plant Dis. 79: 976–984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallace, R. W. and Bellinder, R. R. 1990. Low-rate applications of herbicides in conventional and reduced tillage potatoes Solanum tuberosum . Weed Technol. 4: 509–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westra, J. V. and Boyle, K. J. 1991. An Economic Analysis of Crops Grown in Rotation with Potatoes in Aroostook County, Maine. Orono, ME: Maine Agricultural and Forest Experiment Station Bull. 834. 39 p.Google Scholar
Westra, J. V., Boyle, K. J., and Porter, G. A. 1995. Net revenues of potatoes rotated with other crops. Am. Pot. J. 72: 99–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, J. T. and Harper, J. L. 1965. Seed polymorphism and germination. I. The influence of nitrates and low temperatures on the germination of Chenopodium album. Weed Res. 5: 141–150.Google Scholar
Zadoks, J. C., Chang, T. T., and Konzak, C. F. 1974. A decimal code for the growth stages of cereals. Weed Res. 14: 415–421.Google Scholar