Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T07:11:34.990Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reduced Metribuzin Preharvest Interval on Potato Yield and Tuber Quality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Peter J. Dittmar ,
Roger B. Batts ,
Katherine M. Jennings ,
Robin R. Bellinder  and
Stephen L. Meyers
Peter J. Dittmar*
Affiliation:
Horticultural Sciences Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611
Roger B. Batts
Affiliation:
Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695
Katherine M. Jennings
Affiliation:
Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695
Robin R. Bellinder
Affiliation:
Department of Horticultural Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853
Stephen L. Meyers
Affiliation:
Department of Horticultural Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Metribuzin has a 60-d preharvest interval (PHI) in potato, which limits utility of metribuzin POST in potato. In certain years, the potato may not fully cover the area between the potato rows. This allows for late-season weed emergence and subsequent yield reduction through direct competition or harvest interference. Field experiments were conducted in 2011 at Castle Hayne, NC; Freeville, NY; Hasting, FL; and Plymouth, NC to determine the effect of a 30-d PHI on potato crop tolerance. The cultivars planted were ‘Superior' and ‘Yukon Gold' in Castle Hayne and Plymouth, ‘Castille' and Yukon Gold in Freeville, and ‘Atlantic' in Hastings. Treatments included metribuzin at 278 g ai ha−1 PRE, 30, and 60 d before harvest (DBH), and metribuzin at 556 g ha−1 at 30 and 60 DBH. Split application treatments included metribuzin at 556 g ha−1 at PRE followed by metribuzin at 556 g ha−1 30 or 60 DBH and metribuzin at 842 g ha−1 PRE followed by metribuzin at 278 g ha−1 at 30 or 60 DBH. Potato injury was ≤ 8% at all locations, and injury was transient. There were no differences observed between metribuzin rate or application date for individual potato grades or total yield. Reducing the PHI in potato to 30 d would have no effect on yield and would provide a longer period for controlling broadleaf weeds.

Metribuzin tiene intervalo de aplicación antes de la cosecha (PHI) de 60-d en papa, lo cual limita la utilidad de metribuzin POST en papa. En algunos años, la papa podría no cubrir totalmente el área entre las hileras de siembra. Esto permite la emergencia de malezas tarde durante la temporada de crecimiento y la subsecuente reducción en el rendimiento debido a la competencia directa o la interferencia con la cosecha. En 2011, se realizaron experimentos en Castle Hayne, North Carolina; Freeville, NY; Hastings, FL; y Plymouth, North Carolina, para determinar el efecto de un PHI de 30-d sobre la tolerancia del cultivo de papa. Los cultivares que se plantaron fueron 'Superior' y 'Yukon Gold' en Castle Hayne y Plymouth, 'Castille' y Yukon Gold en Freeville, y 'Atlantic' en Hastings. Los tratamientos incluyeron metribuzin a 278 g ai ha−1 PRE, 30 y 60 d antes de la cosecha (BDH), y metribuzin a 556 g ha−1 a 30 y 60 DBH. Los tratamientos con aplicaciones divididas incluyeron metribuzin a 556 g ha−1 en PRE y seguido de metribuzin a 556 g ha−1 30 ó 60 DBH. El daño de la papa fue ≤8% en todas las localidades, y el daño fue transitorio. No se observaron diferencias entre dosis de metribuzin o fechas de aplicación en ninguna de las diferentes categorías de papa o el rendimiento total. El reducir el PHI en papa a 30 d no tendría efecto alguno en el rendimiento y brindaría un período más largo para el control de malezas de hoja ancha.

Keywords

Metribuzinpotato, Solanum tuberosum L.Crop tolerancelabel expansionPHI
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 29 , Issue 2 , June 2015 , pp. 335 - 339
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: North East Region Extension Service, Mississippi State University, Pontotoc, MS 38863

References

Literature Cited

Ackley, JA, Wilson, HP, Hines, TE (1996) Efficacy of rimsulfuron and metribuzin in potato (Solanum tuberosum). Weed Technol 10:475–480 Google Scholar
Anonymous (2009) Tricor® DF herbicide product label. King of Prussia, PA: United Phosphorous Inc Google Scholar
Baziramakenga, R, Leroux, GD (1994) Critical period of quackgrass (Eltrygia repens) removal in potatoes (Solanum tuberosum). Weed Sci 42:528–533 Google Scholar
Friesen, GH, Wall, DA (1984) Response of potato (Solanum tuberosum) cultivars to metribuzin. Weed Sci 32:442–444 Google Scholar
Gawronski, S, Haderlie, LC, Callihan, RH, Dwelle, RB (1985) Metribuzin absorption, translocation, and distribution in two potato (Solanum tuberosum) cultivars. Weed Sci 33:629–634 Google Scholar
Hatterman-Valenti, H, Lawson, VF, Owen, MDK. 1994. Interaction of metribuzin and phorate on ‘Atlantic' and ‘Norchip' potato (Solanum tuberosum) cultivars. Weed Technol 8:461–464 Google Scholar
Hutchinson, PJS, Eberlein, CV, Tonks, DJ (2004) Broadleaf weed control and potato crop safety with postemergence rimsulfuron, metribuzin, and adjuvant combinations. Weed Technol 18:750–756 Google Scholar
Raby, BJ, Binning, LK (1985) Weed competition study in ‘Russet burbank' and ‘Superior' potato (Solanum tuberosum) with different management practices. Proc North Cent Weed Control Conf 40:4 Google Scholar
Robinson, DK, Monks, DW, Monaco, TW (1996) Potato (Solanum tuberosum) tolerance and susceptibility of eight weeds to rimsulfuron with and without metribuzin. Weed Technol 10:29–34 Google Scholar
Sieczka, JB (1975) The effect of postemergence applications of metribuzin on six potato cultivars. Proc Northeast Weed Sci Soc 29:308–315 Google Scholar
Selleck, GW, Dallyn, SL (1978) Herbicide treatments and potato cultivar interactions for weed control. Proc Northeast Weed Sci Soc 32:152–156 Google Scholar
Solan, RL, Colquhoun, JB, Rittmeyer, RA, Heider, DJ (2011) Cultivar-specific weed management programs for ‘Russet Burbank' and ‘Bannock Russet' potato production in Wisconsin. HortTechnology 21:451–460 Google Scholar
[USDA-AMS] U.S. Department of Agriculture–Agricultural Marketing Service (2011) United States Standard for Grades of Potatoes. p 4 Google Scholar
[USDA-NASS] U.S. Department of Agriculture–National Agricultural Statistics Service (2012) Crop Production 2011 Summary (January 2012). p 54 Google Scholar
VanGessel, MJ, Renner, KA (1990) Redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) and barnyardgrass (Echnochloa crus-galli) interference in potatoes (Solanum tuberosum) Weed Sci 38:338–343 Google Scholar
Zimdahl, RL (1976) Differential susceptibility of potato cultivars to four herbicides. Am Potato J 53:211–219 Google Scholar
Zotarelli, L., Santos, BM, Dittmar, PJ, Roberts, PD, Webb, SE (2013) Potato production in Florida. in Santos, BM, Vallad, GE, eds. Vegetable Production Handbook for Florida 2013–2014. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida/IFAS Extension Google Scholar