American Potato Journal

, Volume 58, Issue 5, pp 227–237 | Cite as

Yield and quality of Russet Burbank potato as influenced by interactions ofRhizoctonia, maleic hydrazide, and PCNB

  • J. R. Davis
  • M. D. Groskopp


Soil treatment with pentachloronitrobenzene (PCNB) at 22.4 kg/ha a.i. reduced symptoms of theRhizoctonia disease (Rhizoctonia solani Kühn) on potato (Solarium tuberosum L.) and resulted in significant increases in the numbers of stems and stolons. With disease control there was no effect on either total or U.S. #1 yield, but decreases of tuber size were evident and effects were observed on grade. Yield of malformed tubers was reduced by 35%, but this benefit was counteracted by a 41% increase of undersized tubers. Among U. S. 1’s, yield of non-size A’s (113 to 170 g) were increased by 22%, while tubers in optimum size ranges for french fries and bakers (> 284 g) were decreased by 24%. No effect was observed on carton sized tubers (170 to 369 g). Foliar sprays of maleic hydrazide (MH) applied on either of several dates (23 July, 2 Aug., 13 Aug.) at 3.4 kg/ha a.i. reduced total yield by 4.9 to 5.7%, but yields of U.S. #1 potatoes or sizes > 170 g were unaffected. Treatments with MH on either 23 July or 2 Aug. reduced yield of undersized potatoes by 23%. MH treatments did not interact with PCNB treatment to change either total yield or size, but adverse effects on U.S. #1 yields were indicated. MH treatments applied on either 2 Aug. or 13 Aug. reduced U.S. #1 yields among PCNB treated plots by 7 to 10%. MH reduced length/width ratios and, depending on date of application, increased specific gravity. PCNB did not influence tuber shape or specific gravity, but a significant reduction of standard deviations among length/width ratios indicated greater uniformity of shape with treatment.

Key words

Rhizoctonia maleic hydrazide yield size 


El tratamiento del suelo con pentachloronitrobenzeno (PCNB) en la dosis de 22.4 kg/ha i.a. redujo los síntomas de rhizoctoniasis (Rhizoctonia solani Kühn) en papa (Solanum tuberosum L.), y aumrntó significativamente el número de tallos y estolones. El control de la enfermedad no tuvo efecto en el rendimiento total como tampoco en el rendimiento de papa grado U.S. #1, pero disminuyó el tamaño de los tubℰculos y el efecto fue observado en al grado #1. El rendimiento de tubérculos malformados fue reducido en un 35% pero este beneficio fue contrarrestado por un aumento del 41% en tubérculos de poco tamaño. Dentro del grado U.S. #1, el rendimiento de tubérculos de 113 a 170 g (“non-size A”) fue incrementado en un 22%, mientras que el rendimiento de tubérculos de óptimo tamaño para papas y asadas (> 284 g) fueron disminuídos e un 24%. Ningún efecto fue observado en tubérculos de 170 a 369 g (“carton sized”). Aspersiones foliares de hidrazida maleica (HM) efectuadas en cualquiera de las fechas (Julio 23, Agosto 2, Agosto 13), en la dosis 3.4 kg/ha i.a. redujo el rendimiento total en 4.9 a 5.7% pero, el rendimiento de papa grado U.S. #1 6 tamaño sobre 170 g no fueron afectados. El tratamiento con HM en Julio 23 ó Agosto 2 redujo el rendimiento de papa de bajo tamaño en un 23%. El tratamiento con HM no tuvo interactión con el de PCNB en cuanto al rendimiento total o el tamaño pero efectos adversos fueron observados en el rendimiento de papa grado U.S. #1. Los tratamientos de HM efectuados en Agosto 2 y Agosto 13 redujeron los rendimientos de papa grado U.S. #1 en las parcelas tratadas con PCNB en un 7 a 10%. HM redujo la relación largo/ancho y dependiendo de la fecha de aplicación incrementó la gravedad específica de los tubérculos. PCNB no influenció la forma del tubérculo o su gravedad específica pero, una reducción significativa de la desviación standard en la relación largo/ancho indicó una mayor uniformidad de forma del tubérculo con los tratamientos.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. 1.
    Davis, J.R. 1977. Rhizoctonia disease of potato and its control. Univ. of Idaho College of Agric. CIS Bull. No. 381.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Davis, J.R. 1978. The Rhizoctonia disease of potato in Idaho. Am Potato J 55: 58–59.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Davis, J.R. and M.D. Groskopp. 1979. Influences of the Rhizoctonia disease on production of the Russet Burbank potato. Am Potato J 56: 253–264.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Davis, J.R., M.D. Groskopp and R.H. Callihan. 1971. Seed and soil treatments for control of rhizoctonia on stems and stolons of potato. Plant Dis Rep 55: 550–554.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Davis, J.R. and W.B. Jones. 1979. SeedborneRhizoctonia solani inoculum and its impor tance to the rhizoctonia disease of potato. Am Potato J 56: 457–458 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Easton, Gene D. 1978. The Rhizoctonia disease of potato in Washington. Am Potato J 55: 57–58.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Farley, J.C. and J.L. Lockwood. 1969. Reduced nutrient competition by soil microorganisms as a possible mechanism for pentachloronitrobenzene induced disease accentuation. Phy topathology 59: 718–724.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Frank, J.A. and S.S. Leach. 1980. Comparison of tuberborne and soilborne inoculum in the Rhizoctonia disease of potato. Phytopathology 70: 51–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hooker, W. J. 1978. The Rhizoctonia disease of potatoes; description and introductory observations in Michigan. Am Potato J 55: 55–56.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kreutzer, W.A. 1960. Soil treatment. Vol. III, p. 431–476.In J.G. Horsfall and A.E. Dimond (Ed.)Plant Pathology, an advanced treatise. Academic Press, N.Y.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kretuzer, W.A. 1963. Selective toxicity of chemicals to soil microorganisms. Annu Rev Phy topathology 1: 101–126.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Weis, G.G., J.A. Schoenemann and M.D. Groskopp. 1976. The effects of maleic hydrazide on the yield and quality of Russet Burbank potatoes. Am Potato J 53: 405 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zukel, J.W. (editor). 1963. A literature summary on maleic hydrazide. U.S. Rubber Co., Naugatuck Chemical Division. 111 pp.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 1981

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. R. Davis
    • 1
  • M. D. Groskopp
    • 2
  1. 1.University of Idaho Research & Extension CenterIdaho
  2. 2.American Potato CompanyWisconsin

Personalised recommendations