Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T03:03:35.528Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Volunteer Potato Density Influences Critical Time of Weed Removal in Bulb Onion

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Martin M. Williams II*
Affiliation:
United States Department of Agriculture—Agricultural Research Service, Invasive Weed Management Research, University of Illinois, 1102 South Goodwin Avenue, Urbana, IL 61801
Corey V. Ransom
Affiliation:
Plants, Soils, and Biometeorology Department, Utah State University, 4820 Old Main Hill, Logan, UT 84322-4820
W. Mack Thompson
Affiliation:
Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc., P.O. Box 552, Johnstown, IA 50131
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

Volunteer potato is highly competitive with onion and few control tactics are effective for removing this weed from an onion crop. Both volunteer potato density and duration of interference reduce onion yield, but the interaction of these factors is unknown. Field trials were conducted in 2003 in Idaho, Oregon, and Washington to determine the influence of volunteer potato density on the critical time of weed removal (CTWR) in onion. Yield losses of 2.5, 5.0, and 10% were estimated to occur at 534, 654, and 830 growing degree days (GDD) after onion emergence, respectively, with a volunteer potato density of 0.5 plants/m2. At 2.0 volunteer potato plants/m2, yield losses of 2.5, 5.0, and 10% were estimated to occur at 388, 481, and 598 GDD after onion emergence, respectively. Volunteer potato at 2.0 plants/m2 had to be removed at least one onion leaf stage sooner, compared to a weed density of 0.5 plants/m2, to avoid yield loss. Yield loss due to volunteer potato density or duration of interference was greatest among jumbo, colossal, and supercolossal market grades (P ≤ 0.1). Lowering potato tuber density in crops preceding onion will extend the critical time for weed removal and reduce the risk of crop loss.

Type
Research
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.)

References

Literature Cited

Anonymous, , 2003. Agricultural Statistics. Washington, DC U.S. Government Printing Office. 1926.Google Scholar
Bleasdale, J. K. A. 1959. The yield of onions and red beet as affected by weeds. J. Hortic. Sci. 34:713.Google Scholar
Boydston, R. A. and Seymour, M. D. 2002. Volunteer potato (Solanum tuberosum) control with herbicides and cultivation in onion (Allium cepa). Weed Technol. 16:620626.Google Scholar
Dunan, C. M., Westra, P., and Moore, F. D. III. 1999. A plant process economic model for weed management decisions in irrigated onion. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 124:99105.Google Scholar
Dunan, C. M., Westra, P., Moore, F., and Chapman, P. 1996. Modelling the effect of duration of weed competition, weed density and weed competitiveness on seeded, irrigated onion. Weed Res. 36:259269.Google Scholar
Ellis, P. J. 1992. Weed hosts of beet western yellow virus and potato leafroll virus. Plant Dis. 76:11371139.Google Scholar
Hewson, R. T. and Roberts, H. A. 1971. The effect of weed removal at different times on the yield of bulb onions. J. Hortic. Sci. 46:471483.Google Scholar
Hewson, R. T. and Roberts, H. A. 1973. Some effects of weed competition on the growth of onions. J. Hortic. Sci. 48:5157.Google Scholar
Knezevic, S. Z., Evans, S. P., Blankenship, E. E., Van Acker, R. C., and Lindquist, J. L. 2002. Critical period for weed control: the concept and data analysis. Weed Sci. 50:773786.Google Scholar
Lumkes, L. M. 1974. Research on the control of volunteer potatoes in the Netherlands. Proc. Br. Weed Control Conf. 12:10311040.Google Scholar
Lutman, P. J. W. 1977. Investigations into some aspects of the biology of potatoes as weeds. Weed Res. 17:123132.Google Scholar
Pelter, G. Q., Sorensen, E. J., Thornton, R. E., and Stevens, R. 1992. Dry Bulb Onion Production in the Columbia Basin. Pullman, WA Washington State University Cooperative Extension, EB1693. 18.Google Scholar
Perombelon, M. C. M. 1975. Observations on the survival of potato ground-keepers in Scotland. Potato Res. 18:205215.Google Scholar
Ratkowsky, D. A. 1983. Pages 135153 in. Nonlinear Regression Modeling: A Unified Practical Approach. New York Marcel Dekker. 135–153.Google Scholar
Shadbolt, C. A. and Holm, L. G. 1956. Some quantitative aspects of weed competition in vegetable crops. Weeds 4:111123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shock, C. C., Feibert, E. B. G., and Saunders, L. D. 1998. Onion yield and quality affected by soil water potential as irrigation threshold. Hortscience 33:11881191.Google Scholar
Thomas, P. E. 1983. Sources and dissemination of potato viruses in the Columbia basin of Northwestern United States. Plant Dis. 67:744747.Google Scholar
Thornton, R. E., Newberry, G. D., Joy, D., Hyde, G., and Schotzko, T. 2001. Potato volunteer project. Pages 189239 in. Progress Reports 2001. Moses Lake, WA Washington State Potato Commission. 189–239.Google Scholar
Van Heemst, H. D. J. 1985. The influence of weed competition on crop yield. Agric. Syst. 18:8193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wicks, G. A., Johnston, D. N., Nuland, D. S., and Kinbacher, E. J. 1973. Competition between annual weeds and sweet Spanish onions. Weed Sci. 21:436439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, M. M. II, Ransom, C. V., and Thompson, W. M. 2004. Effect of volunteer potato density on dry bulb onion yield and quality. Weed Sci. 52:754758.Google Scholar
Williams, M. M. II, Ransom, C. V., and Thompson, W. M. 2005. Duration of volunteer potato (Solanum tuberosum) interference in bulb onion. Weed Sci. 53:6268.Google Scholar