Damage of tuber flesh by soil pests decreasing the value of table and processing potatoes

Tomasz Erlichowski

t.erlichowski@ihar.edu.pl
Instytut Hodowli i Aklimatyzacji Roślin — PIB w Radzikowie, Zakład Nasiennictwa i Ochrony Ziemniaka w Boninie (Poland)

Abstract

Damage of tuber flesh by soil pests, in particular wireworms — larvae of genus Agriotes spp., grubs (Scarabaeidae larvae) and cutworms (caterpillars of Noctuinae), often observed after the harvest, is an increasing problem at present. The severe damages occur locally, in the fields where larval development was facilitated (potatoes grown after fallows, insufficient agricultural procedures, monocultures). Tubers harvested from such unprotected fields, are characterized by low visual quality and low technological value. The quantity and density of pits (shallow or deep flesh damage) caused by the larvae depends on the population of larvae in the field and the length of the growing season. The damage appears as holes of small diameter (2 mm), inside the tubers as channels of irregular shape (refers to wireworms), as well as the outer holes and large deep cavities within the parenchyma (refers to grubs and cutworms). When modern technologies are applied and in potato trade, a high quality product is required, without visible injuries caused by pests and without symptoms of diseases. Low-quality of tubers can cause a decrease of sale for the market and for the processing, and low cost-efficiency or even losses. Damaged tubers are not suitable for the production of French fries, crisps, slices, cubes and other frozen products. Processing factories are very restrictive to any damage of tubers (caused mechanically, by pests and pathogens), which can cause problems later in the technological process. During the laboratory evaluation in autumn, a degree of damage and the quality of the tubers for processing is assessed. Potato processing factories are using a point system to evaluate the delivered product, in which the lots below a specified value are rejected, while tubers of above average quality are bought and properly granted.


Keywords:

cutworms, defects, grubs, potato processing, soil pets, wireworms

Bereś P. 2013. Studium nad doskonaleniem integrowanej ochrony kukurydzy przed zachodnią kukurydzianą stonką korzeniową (Diabrotica virgifera virgifera LeConte) i omacnicą prosowianką (Ostrinia nubilalis Hbn). Rozpr. Nauk. IOR — PIB, 29: 183 s.
Google Scholar

Dzięgielewska M., Erlichowski T. 2010. Wykorzystanie nicieni owadobójczych do biologicznego zwalczania szkodników glebowych w uprawach rolniczych. Ziemn. Pol. 4: 31 — 35.
Google Scholar

Dzięgielewska M., Erlichowski T. 2011. Zgrupowania nicieni owadobójczych (Steinernematidae, Heterorhabditidae) i larw sprężykowatych w wybranych agrocenozach. Prog. Plant Prot. 51 (4): 1750 — 1756.
Google Scholar

Erlichowski T. 2003. Wpływ zaprawy Prestige 290 FS na zdrowotność i plonowanie ziemniaka. Biul. IHAR 228: 225 — 231.
Google Scholar

Erlichowski T. 2007. Skład gatunkowy, szkodliwość i zwalczanie drutowców (Col.: Elateridae). Rozpr. dokt., IHAR ZNiOZ Bonin: 94 s.
Google Scholar

Erlichowski T. 2008. Znaczenie gospodarcze oraz czynniki warunkujące rozwój i szkodliwość szkodników glebowych w uprawie ziemniaka. Wieś Jutra 2: 16 — 19.
Google Scholar

Erlichowski T. 2010. Podatność różnych odmian ziemniaka na uszkodzenia bulw powodowane przez drutowce (Elateridae) i wykorzystanie tego zjawiska w uprawie ekologicznej i integrowanej. Prog. Plant Prot. 50 (3): 1230 — 1235.
Google Scholar

Erlichowski T. 2012. Ochrona ziemniaka przed szkodnikami glebowymi. W: Produkcja i rynek ziemniaka, red. J. Chotkowski, wyd. Wieś Jutra (340 s.), Warszawa: 163 — 173.
Google Scholar

Erlichowski T., Jakubowska M. 2013. Monitoring szkodliwości rolnic (Noctiunae) w uprawach ziemniaka- zmiany zachodzące w ostatnich latach. Ziemn. Pol. 1: 23 — 28.
Google Scholar

Erlichowski T. 2014. Ochrona plantacji ziemniaka przed szkodnikami glebowymi. Komunikat. Ziemn. Pol. 1: 25 — 28.
Google Scholar

Górski P. 2014. Ogólne warunki zakupu dla FFP S.A. na sezon 2014/2015 i 2015/2016. Zakup ziemniaków przeznaczonych do wytwarzania produktów ziemniaczanych, z wyłączeniem produkcji płatków. Farm Frites Pol. Lębork, Wyd. 1: 1 — 13.
Google Scholar

GUS. 2013. Wyniki produkcji roślinnej w 2012 r. GUS Warszawa: 112 s.
Google Scholar

Johnson S., Anderson E., Dawson G., Griffiths W. 2008. Varietal susceptibility of potatoes to wireworm herbivory. Agric. And Forest Entomol. 10: 167 — 174.
Google Scholar

Jonasson T., Olsson K. 1994. The influence of glycoalkaloids, chlorogenic acid and sugars on the susceptibility of potato tubers to wireworm damage. Potato Res. 37 (2): 205 — 216.
Google Scholar

Kwon M., Hahm Y. I., Shin K. Y., Ahn Y. J. 1999. Evaluation of various potato cultivars for resistance to wireworms (Coleoptera: Elateridae). Am. J. Potato Res. 76: 317 — 319.
Google Scholar

Krzysztofik B. 2012. Parametry jakościowe ziemniaka oferowanego do przetwórstwa spożywczego. Biul. IHAR 266: 225 — 233.
Google Scholar

Michalak K. Yin Z. 2013. Monitoring wirusa nekrotycznej kędzierzawki tytoniu (TRV) w wybranych rejonach Polski. W: Nasiennictwo i Ochrona ziemniaka. Konf. nauk-szkol. Dźwirzyno, 16–17. 05.2013. IHAR ZNiOZ Bonin: 107 — 109.
Google Scholar

Molendijk L. 2007. Free-living Nematodes. Potato Res. 50: 267 — 269.
Google Scholar

Mrówczyński M., Wachowiak H., Pruszyński. 2006. Zagrożenie upraw rolniczych przez szkodniki glebowe. Prog. Plant Prot., vol. 46 (1): 298 — 304.
Google Scholar

Neuhoff D., Christen Ch., Paffrath A., Schepl U. 2007. Approaches to wireworm control in Organic Potato Production. IOBC/WPRS Bull. 30 (1): 65 — 68.
Google Scholar

Nowacki W. 2006. Straty plonu handlowego ziemniaków powodowane przez choroby i szkodniki w 2005 roku. Prog. Plant Prot., Vol. 46 (1): 193 — 204.
Google Scholar

Olsson K., Jonasson T. 1995. Genotypic differences in susceptibility to wireworm attack in potato. Mechanisms and implications for plant breeding. Plant Breed. 114: 66 — 69.
Google Scholar

Parker W. E., Howard J. J. 2001. The biology and management of wireworms (Agriotes spp.) on potato with particular reference to the United Kingdom. Agric. Forest Entomol. 3: 85 — 98.
Google Scholar

Ropek D., Frączek K. 2010. Występowanie i szkodliwość szkodników glebowych w uprawie ziemniaka. Prog. Plant Prot. 50 (4): 1737 — 1740.
Google Scholar

Sądej W. 2008. Ocena zespołu sprężykowatych (Elateridae) na stanowisku po zlikwidowanym sadzie. Prog. Plant Prot., vol. 48 (3): 952 — 955.
Google Scholar

Sądej W., Rozmysłowicz R., Sądej W. 2003. Populacje sprężykowatych Elateridae gleby płowej ukształtowane różnymi sposobami jej użytkowania. Prog. Plant Prot. 43 (2): 904 — 906.
Google Scholar

Thiel W., Heeren F. 2012. Gesamteindruck Gut. Freiwillige Qualitätskontrolle Kartoffeln 2011 in Niedersachsen. Kartoffelbau 1/2: 50 — 53.
Google Scholar

Zgórska K. 2002. Jakość ziemniaków jadalnych i do przetwórstwa spożywczego. Ziemn. Pol. 4: 14 — 20.
Google Scholar


Published
2014-09-30

Cited by

Erlichowski, T. (2014) “Damage of tuber flesh by soil pests decreasing the value of table and processing potatoes”, Bulletin of Plant Breeding and Acclimatization Institute, (273), pp. 161–170. doi: 10.37317/biul-2014-0025.

Authors

Tomasz Erlichowski 
t.erlichowski@ihar.edu.pl
Instytut Hodowli i Aklimatyzacji Roślin — PIB w Radzikowie, Zakład Nasiennictwa i Ochrony Ziemniaka w Boninie Poland

Statistics

Abstract views: 100
PDF downloads: 53


License

Copyright (c) 2014 Tomasz Erlichowski

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Upon submitting the article, the Authors grant the Publisher a non-exclusive and free license to use the article for an indefinite period of time throughout the world in the following fields of use:

  1. Production and reproduction of copies of the article using a specific technique, including printing and digital technology.
  2. Placing on the market, lending or renting the original or copies of the article.
  3. Public performance, exhibition, display, reproduction, broadcasting and re-broadcasting, as well as making the article publicly available in such a way that everyone can access it at a place and time of their choice.
  4. Including the article in a collective work.
  5. Uploading an article in electronic form to electronic platforms or otherwise introducing an article in electronic form to the Internet or other network.
  6. Dissemination of the article in electronic form on the Internet or other network, in collective work as well as independently.
  7. Making the article available in an electronic version in such a way that everyone can access it at a place and time of their choice, in particular via the Internet.

Authors by sending a request for publication:

  1. They consent to the publication of the article in the journal,
  2. They agree to give the publication a DOI (Digital Object Identifier),
  3. They undertake to comply with the publishing house's code of ethics in accordance with the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), (http://ihar.edu.pl/biblioteka_i_wydawnictwa.php),
  4. They consent to the articles being made available in electronic form under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license, in open access,
  5. They agree to send article metadata to commercial and non-commercial journal indexing databases.

Most read articles by the same author(s)