The weed infestation and yielding of potato depending on the method of weed control

Marek Gugała

marek.gugala@uph.edu.pl
Katedra Szczegółowej Uprawy Roślin, Akademia Podlaska, Siedlce (Poland)

Krystyna Zarzecka


Katedra Szczegółowej Uprawy Roślin, Akademia Podlaska, Siedlce (Poland)

Abstract

The field experiment was carried out in 2005–2007. It was set up in a split blocks design. The effects of two factors were evaluated: I — two potato cultivars (Irga and Balbina), II — four methods of weed control: 1. mechanical weed control alone as a control object, 2. combined mechanical and chemical weed control, including ridging and harrowing before potato emergence and treatment with herbicide Plateen 41,4 WG at a dose of 2.0 kg∙ha-1immediately before the emergence of potato plants, 3. combined mechanical and chemical weed control, comprising single ridging and treatment with herbicide Racer 250 EC applied at a dose of 3.0 l∙ha-1 up to 10 days after planting of potato tubers, 4. combined mechanical and chemical weed control, including ridging and harrowing in the period prior to potato emergence, and treatment with herbicide Sencor 70 WG, dosed 1.0 kg∙ha-1, immediately before the potato emergence. The work was aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of the methods applied to reduce potato crop infestation with weeds and to assess their effects on yielding of two cultivars of table potato. Fresh mass of weeds was determined twice, before closing of potato rows and before harvest of tubers. It significantly depended on the method of weed control and on the weather conditions during the vegetation seasons. The lowest fresh mass of weeds at both dates of evaluation was recorded with potato plots in which the herbicide Sencor 70 WG had been applied. No significant effects of the main crop, i.e. potato cultivars, on the rate of crop infestation with weeds was found. Statistical analysis showed that yield of potato tubers strongly depended on the cultivar, weed control method applied and the weather conditions in the vegetation periods.


Keywords:

cultivars, fresh mass of weeds, potato, total yield, weed control methods

Bac S., Koźmiński Cz., Rojek M. 1998. Agrometeorologia. Wyd. PWN, Warszawa: 274.
Google Scholar

Badowski M. 2004. Stan i stopień zachwaszczenia upraw ziemniaka przez chwasty segetalne w południowo-zachodniej Polsce. Mat. Konf. Nauk. nt. „Nasiennictwo i ochrona ziemniaka”. Kołobrzeg 4–5 marca: 41 — 44.
Google Scholar

Gawęda D. 2008. Plonowanie ziemniaka w warunkach zróżnicowanej uprawy roli. Acta Agroph., 11 (3): 623 — 632.
Google Scholar

Giebel J., Wnękowski S., Słomińska R., Dziedzic M. 1992. Effect of Sencor (metribuzin) on the inoculum activity of potato gangrene (Phoma exiqua var. foveata). Mat. 32. Sesji Nauk. Inst. Ochr. Roślin, Cz. II.: 28 — 32.
Google Scholar

Gruczek T. 2001. Efektywne sposoby walki z chwastami i ich wpływ na jakość bulw ziemniaka. Biul. IHAR 217: 221 — 231.
Google Scholar

Gugała M., Zarzecka K. 2008. Wpływ sposobów odchwaszczania na plonowanie dwóch odmian ziemniaka. Zesz. Probl. Post. Nauk Rol. 530: 143 — 149.
Google Scholar

Hoffman-Kąkol I. 1990. Plonowanie ziemniaka w zależności od pozostawania chwastów w łanie. Zesz. Nauk. AR w Szczecinie, Rol. 141: 49 — 63.
Google Scholar

Kalbarczyk R. 1999. Wpływ czynników agrometeorologicznych na plonowanie ziemniaka w województwie lubelskim. Zesz. Nauk. AR w Szczecinie 202, Agricultura 79: 91 — 98.
Google Scholar

Kraska P., Pałys E. 2002 a. Wpływ systemów uprawy roli oraz nawożenia i ochrony roślin na zachwaszczenie ziemniaka uprawianego na glebie lekkiej. Annales UMCS, E – 57 (3): 27 — 39.
Google Scholar

Pałys E. 1994. Możliwości zwiększania plonów ziemniaka na rędzinie poprzez opanowanie problemu zachwaszczenia. Sesja Nauk. nt. Makroproblemy produkcji ziemniaka w Polsce w okresie przemian organizacyjno – ekonomicznych. Jadwisin, 6–7 lipca: 36 — 39.
Google Scholar

Pytlarz- Kozicka M. 2002. Wpływ sposobów pielęgnowania na wysokość i jakość plonów ziemniaka. Zesz. Probl. Post. Nauk Rol. 489: 147 — 155.
Google Scholar

Szymankiewicz K., Jankowska D., Deryło S., Gawęda D. 2002. Kształtowanie się zachwaszczenia ziemniaka w płodozmianie i monokulturze w warunkach zróżnicowanej uprawy roli. Pam. Puł. 130: 719 — 729.
Google Scholar

Trętowski J., Wójcik R. 1988. Metodyka doświadczeń rolniczych. Wyd. WSRP Siedlce: 1 — 500.
Google Scholar

Urbanowicz J. 2008. Ocena chwastobójczego działania herbicydu Flumioksazin 50 WP w uprawie ziemniaka. Prog. in Plant Protection/Post. w Ochr. Roślin 48 (2): 691 — 694.
Google Scholar

Woźnica Z., Adamczewski K., Frank A., Manthey F. A. 1996. Biotypy chwastów odpornych na herbicydy. Prog. in Plant Protection/Post. w Ochr. Roślin 36 (1): 96 — 101.
Google Scholar

Zarzecka K. 1997. Wpływ pielęgnacji na zachwaszczenie, wysokość i jakość plonu, Rozpór. Hab. 49, Wyd. WSRP w Siedlcach: 1 — 82.
Google Scholar

Zarzecka K. 2002 a. Ocena różnych sposobów odchwaszczania ziemniaka. Cz. I. Zachwaszczenie i plonowanie. Rocz. Nauk Roln., 116 — A — 1 — (4): 177 — 191.
Google Scholar

Zarzecka K. 2002 b. Zmiany składu gatunkowego i liczby chwastów w uprawie ziemniaka pod wpływem zróżnicowanej pielęgnacji. Acta Agrobot. 56, (2): 209 — 220.
Google Scholar


Published
2010-03-31

Cited by

Gugała, M. and Zarzecka, K. (2010) “The weed infestation and yielding of potato depending on the method of weed control”, Bulletin of Plant Breeding and Acclimatization Institute, (255), pp. 59–65. doi: 10.37317/biul-2010-0048.

Authors

Marek Gugała 
marek.gugala@uph.edu.pl
Katedra Szczegółowej Uprawy Roślin, Akademia Podlaska, Siedlce Poland

Authors

Krystyna Zarzecka 

Katedra Szczegółowej Uprawy Roślin, Akademia Podlaska, Siedlce Poland

Statistics

Abstract views: 23
PDF downloads: 23


License

Copyright (c) 2010 Marek Gugała, Krystyna Zarzecka

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)

1 2 3 > >> 

Similar Articles

<< < 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.