American Potato Journal

, Volume 60, Issue 4, pp 271–280 | Cite as

Comparison of various weed control programs for potatoes

  • Mohsen Chitsaz
  • D. C. Nelson


All weed control programs resulted in satisfactory weed control. Costs of controlling weeds ranged from $10 to $93/ha. Cultivation alone was the cheapest method of controlling weeds. Controlling weeds by using herbicides alone with no cultivation resulted in the highest weed control costs but tended to give the best weed control at harvest. Herbicides saved one to two cultivations. EPTC (S-ethyl dipropylthiocarbamate) gave slightly better control of green foxtail [Setaria viridis (L.) Beauv.] and slightly poorer control of broadleaf weeds than trifluralin (α,α,α,-trifluoro-2,6-dinitro-N, N-dipropyl-p-toluidine). Cultivation helped control weeds but had no other apparent beneficial or adverse effect on potatoes. The correlation coefficient between total tuber yield and dry weight of weeds was −0.97 at Grand Forks, North Dakota and −0.85 at Casselton, North Dakota.

Key Words

EPTC trifluralin metribuzin diclofop cultivation potato Solanum tuberosum weed control 


Todos los programas de control de malezas dieron resultados satisfactorios. Los costos de estos programas variaron entre 10 y 93 dólares/ha. La labranza sola fue el método más barato de controlar malezas. El control de malezas con herbicidas y sin labranza tuvo como resultado los costos más altos de control de malezas pero tendía a ser, en el momento de la cosecha, el control más efectivo. Los herbicidas economizaron una o dos labranzas. El EPTC (S-etil dipropiltiocarbamato) ejerció un control ligeramente mejor deSetaria viridis (L.) Beauv. y en un control ligeramente inferior de malezas de hoja ancha que la “trifluralina” (α,α,α,-trifluoro-2,6-dinitro-N,N-dipropil-p-toluidina). La labranza ayudó a controlar las malezas pero no tuvo ningún otro efecto positivo a negativo en la papa. El coeficiente de correlación entre el rendimiento total en tubérculos y el peso seco de malezas fue −0,97 en Grand Forks y −0,85 en Casselton, ambas localidades en Dakota del Norte.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. 1.
    Aldrich, R.J., G.R. Blake and J.C. Campbell. 1954. Cultivation and chemical weed control in potatoes. New Jersey Agric Exp Stn Circ 557.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bell, R.S. and S. Kenyon. 1966. The control of ladysthumb and other annual weeds in Katahdin potatoes. Northeast Weed Control Conf Proc 20:168–173.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bell, R.S. and S. Kenyon. 1967. The control of wild radish and other annual weeds in Katahdin potatoes. Northeast Weed Control Conf Proc 21:128–131.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bell, R.S. and T.F. Tisdell. 1958. Preemergence and posthilling weed control tests with potatoes. Northeast Weed Control Conf Proc 12:61–65.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Benson, Fred J. 1980. Estimated production costs for potatoes. Valley Potato Grower 46:106, Dec., p. 14–18. Red River Valley Potato Growers Assoc., East Grand Forks, MN 56721.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Blake, G.R., D.H. Boelter, E.P. Adams and J.K. Aase. 1960. Soil compaction and potato growth. Am Potato J 37:409–413.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Blake, G.R., G.W. French and R.E. Nylund. 1962. Seedbed preparation and cultivation studies on potatoes. Am Potato J 39:227–234.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dallyn, Stewart L. 1971. Weed control methods in potatoes. Am Potato J 48:116–128.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dallyn, S.L. and R.D. Sweet. 1970. Weed control methods, losses and cost due to weeds and benefits of weed control in potatoes. FAO International Conf on Weed Control, p. 210–228.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Flocker, W.J. 1964. Soil compaction. Crops Soils Mag 17:14–15.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Flocker, W.J., H. Timm and J.A. Vomocil. 1960. Effect of soil compaction on tomato and potato yields. Agron J 52:345–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gould, Wilbur. 1976. Snack Food Quality Assurance Program Manual, p. 40. Potato Chip/ Snack Food Association, Baileys Crossroads, VA.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kehr, A.E., R.V. Akeley and G.V.C. Hougland. 1964. Commercial Potato Production, Agric Handbook 267, p. 54.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Moursi, M.A. 1954. The effect of weed competition and pruning of roots on the physiological ontogeny of the potato crop. Am Potato J 31:178–182.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Moursi, M.A. 1955. Effect of intensity and width of inter-row tillage on the yield of potato crop. Am Potato J 32:211–214.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nalewaja, J.D., A.G. Dexter, J. Buchli, W. Hamlin and G. Kimmet. 1980. Pesticide usage in major North Dakota crops, 1978. Agronomy Rep. 1. North Dakota State Univ., Fargo, p. 13.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nelson, D.C. and Myron C. Thoreson. 1981. Competition between potatoes (Solanum tuberosum) and weeds. Weed Sci 29:672–677.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sawyer, R.L. and A.L. Dallyn. 1963. Lay-by weed control in potatoes. Proc Northeastern Weed Control Conf 17:162–164.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sommerfeldt, T.G. and K.W. Knutson. 1968. Effects of soil conditions in the field on growth of Russet Burbank potatoes in southeastern Idaho. Am Potato J 45:238–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Struchtemeyer, R.A., E. Epstein and W.J. Grant. 1963. Some effects of irrigation and soil compaction on potatoes. Am Potato J 40:266–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Thompson, H.G., R.H. Wessels and H.S. Mills. 1931. Cultivation experiments with certain vegetable crops on Long Island. Cornell Univ Stn Bull 521.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    U.S. Dept. of Agric. 1971. United States standards for potatoes. Consumer and Marketing Serv., Washington, D.C. p. 1–19.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mohsen Chitsaz
    • 1
  • D. C. Nelson
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Horticulture and ForestryNorth Dakota State UniversityFargo

Personalised recommendations