Hostname: page-component-669899f699-7xsfk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-27T10:14:53.822Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Volunteer potato interference and removal timing in sugar beet

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2021

Albert T. Adjesiwor Open the ORCID record for Albert T. Adjesiwor [Opens in a new window] ,
Joel Felix Open the ORCID record for Joel Felix [Opens in a new window]  and
Don W. Morishita Open the ORCID record for Don W. Morishita [Opens in a new window]
Albert T. Adjesiwor*
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, University of Idaho, Kimberly Research & Extension Center, Kimberly, ID, USA
Joel Felix
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Oregon State University, Department of Crop and Soil Science, Malheur Experiment Station, Ontario, OR, USA
Don W. Morishita
Affiliation:
Professor Emeritus, University of Idaho, Kimberly Research & Extension Center, Kimberly, ID, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Albert T. Adjesiwor, Assistant Professor, University of Idaho, Kimberly Research & Extension Center, 3806 N 3600 E, Kimberly, ID83341, Email: aadjesiwor@uidaho.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted from 2005 to 2009 in Idaho and Oregon to 1) evaluate the competitive effect of volunteer potato on sugar beet yield (volunteer potato competition experiment), and 2) determine the optimum timing of volunteer potato removal from glyphosate-tolerant sugar beet fields using glyphosate (volunteer potato removal timing experiment). The volunteer potato competition experiment consisted of eight potato densities, including the untreated check: 0, 6,741, 10,092, 13,455, 16,818, 20,184, 26,910, and 40,365 tubers ha−1. The volunteer potato removal experiment consisted of 10 removal timings (including the untreated check) ranging from the 10-cm rosette stage to mid-tuber bulking. There was a linear decrease in sugar beet root and sucrose yield as volunteer potato density increased (P < 0.001) such that with every volunteer potato tuber per square meter, sugar beet root yield decreased by 15% and sucrose yield decreased by 14%. At the highest volunteer potato density (40,365 tubers ha−1), sugar beet root yield was 29,600 kg ha−1 (compared to 73,600 kg ha−1 for the untreated), representing a 60% reduction in sugar beet root yield. In the removal timing study, a one-time application of glyphosate at the 10-cm rosette, hooking, and tuber initiation stages provided 74% to 98% reduction in volunteer potato tuber biomass. Delaying volunteer potato removal beyond the tuber initiation stage reduced sugar beet root and sucrose yield (12% to 20%), resulting in an economic loss of $104 to $161 per hectare. The best potato removal timing that optimizes the trade-off between improved control and potential for sugar beet yield reductions is before or at the tuber initiation stage.

Keywords

glyphosatepotatoSolanum tuberosum Lcommon beetBeta vulgaris L.timing of weed removalvolunteer cropweed competitionweed interference
Type
Note
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 35 , Issue 4 , August 2021 , pp. 669 - 673
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of 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

Footnotes

Associate Editor: Prashant Jha, Iowa State University

References

Bates, D, Maechler, M, Bolker, B, Walker, S (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Softw 67:1–48 10.18637/jss.v067.i01CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barton, K (2020). MuMIn: Multi-Model Inference. R package version 1.43.17. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=MuMIn. Accessed: October 1, 2020Google Scholar
Boydston, RA, Williams, MM 2nd (2003) Effect of soil fumigation on volunteer potato (Solanum tuberosum) tuber viability. Weed Technol 17:352–357 10.1614/0890-037X(2003)017[0352:EOSFOV]2.0.CO;2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hothorn, T, Bretz, F, Westfall, P (2008) Simultaneous Inference in General Parametric Models. Biometrical J 50:346–363 10.1002/bimj.200810425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kniss, AR, Sbatella, GM, Wilson, RG (2012) Volunteer glyphosate-resistant corn interference and control in glyphosate-resistant sugarbeet. Weed Technol 26:348–355 10.1614/WT-D-11-00125.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuznetsova, A, Brockhoff, PB, Christensen, RH (2017). “lmerTest Package: Tests in Linear Mixed Effects Models.” J Stat Softw 82:1–26 10.18637/jss.v082.i13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenth, R (2018) emmeans: Estimated Marginal Means, aka Least-Squares Means. R package version 1. 3 pGoogle Scholar
Lutman, PJ (1977) Investigations into some aspects of the biology of potatoes as weeds. Weed Res 17:123–132 10.1111/j.1365-3180.1977.tb00455.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lutman, PJ, Richardson, WG (1978) The activity of glyphosate and aminotriazole against volunteer potato plants and their daughter tubers. Weed Res 18:65–70 10.1111/j.1365-3180.1978.tb01137.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Core Team (2020). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/. Accessed: October 1, 2020Google Scholar
Smid, D, Hiller, LK (1981) Phytotoxicity and translocation of glyphosate in the potato (Solanum tuberosum) prior to tuber initiation. Weed Sci 29:218–223 10.1017/S004317450006183XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steiner, CM, Newberry, G, Boydston, R, Yenish, J, Thronton, R (2005). Volunteer potato management in the Pacific Northwest rotational crops. Washington State University Extension, EB1993. http://whatcom.wsu.edu/ag/documents/seedpotatoes/eb1993.pdf. Accessed: August 24, 2020Google Scholar
[USDA-NASS] U.S. Department of Agriculture–National Agricultural Statistics Service (2019) Idaho Annual Statistical Bulletin. https://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Idaho/Publications/Annual_Statistical_Bulletin/2019/ID_ANN_2019.pdf. Accessed: August 12, 2020Google Scholar
Walton, RC, Morishita, DW, Quinn, MP (2007) Volunteer potato timing of removal in sugar beet. West Soc Weed Sci Res Prog Rep 58:83–84 Google Scholar
Williams, MM 2nd, Ransom, CV, Thompson, WM (2004) Effect of volunteer potato density on bulb onion yield and quality. Weed Sci 52:754–758 10.1614/WS-03-154RCrossRefGoogle Scholar