'Umatilla Russet· and 'Russet Legend· Potato Yield and Quality Response
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
HORTSCIENCE 38(6):1117–1121. 2003. soil water potential could provide the level of precision necessary to successfully deficit irrigate potato. ‘Umatilla Russet· and ‘Russet Legend· The objective of this research was to com- pare two new cultivars, ‘Umatilla Russet·and Potato Yield and Quality Response to ‘Russet Legend·, with four commercial pro- cessing cultivars to determine the tuber yield Irrigation and quality response to deficit irrigation. The commercial cultivars tested were ‘Russet C.C. Shock1, E.B.G. Feibert2, and L.D. Saunders3 Burbank·, ‘Shepody·, ‘Frontier Russet·, and Malheur Experiment Station, Oregon State Univesity, 595 Onion Avenue, ‘Ranger Russet·. Ontario, OR 97914 Materials and Methods S.R. James4 The trials were conducted in three succes- Central Oregon Agricultural Research Center, Madras, OR 97741 sive years on an Owyhee silt loam (coarse- silty, mixed, mesic, Xerollic Camborthids) at Additional index words. Solanum tuberosum, soil water potential, evapotranspiration, the Oregon State Univ. Malheur Experiment ‘Russet Burbank·, ‘Shepody·, ‘Frontier Russet·, ‘Ranger Russet· Station, in Ontario, Oregon. Potatoes followed alfalfa in 1992, and spring wheat in 1993 and Abstract. ‘Umatilla Russet· and ‘Russet Legend·, two newly released potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) cultivars were compared with four established cultivars (‘Russet Bur- 1994. Fields were bedded into 0.9 m wide hills in the fall of each year. In late April tuber seed bank·, ‘Shepody·, ‘Frontier Russet·, and ‘Ranger Russet·). Potatoes were grown under four, season-long, sprinkler irrigation treatments in three successive years (1992–94) on pieces (60g) were planted at 0.23 m spacing. Residual soil nitrate-N plus ammonium-N in silt loam soil in eastern Oregon. At each irrigation, the full irrigation treatment received –1 up to the accumulated evapotranspiration (ET ) since the last irrigation. Three deficit the upper 0.3 m in late March was 62 kg·ha , c 45 kg·ha–1, and 30 kg·ha–1 in 1992, 1993, and irrigation treatments had progressively less water. The new cultivars ‘Umatilla Russet· 1994, respectively. Nitrogen fertilizer was and ‘Russet Legend· performed as well as or better than the other cultivars in the full applied uniformly to all plots at 22 kg·ha–1, irrigation treatment, with ‘Umatilla Russet·showing a higher yield potential at the higher 174 kg·ha–1, and 134 kg·ha–1 in 1992, 1993, water application rates than ‘Russet Legend·. All cultivars produced more U.S. No. 1 and 1994, respectively. Because of adequate tubers than ‘Russet Burbank·, except in 1993, an unusually cool and wet year. ‘Russet residual soil N following alfalfa in 1992, the Legend· was the only cultivar showing a tolerance to deficit irrigation. In two out of the N fertilizer was applied as a single post-emer- three years, ‘Russet Legend· was as productive of U.S. No. 1 yield over most of the range gence application. In 1993 and 1994, the N of applied water as ‘Shepody·, ‘Frontier Russet·, and ‘Ranger Russet· were at the higher end of the applied water range. Chemical names used: 0,0-diethyl S-[(ethylthio) methyl] fertilizer was applied as a combination of pre- phosphorodithioate (phorate); N-(1-ethylpropyl)-3,4-dimethyl-2,6-dinitrobenzenamine emergence and post-emergence applications. (pendimethalin); and 2-chloro-N-(2-ethyl-6-methylphenyl)-N-(2-methoxy-1methyl-ethyl) Pre-emergence applications were made within acetamide (metolachlor). one week after planting by banding urea in both sides of the potato hill at the same level as the seed piece and offset 0.23 m to the side. The release of new cultivars and their or costly irrigation water situations. However, N fertilizer for post-emergence applications adoption by growers and processors makes deficit irrigation of potato could be difficult to was applied to the plots as broadcast urea it desirable to determine cultivar tolerance to manage without loss of profitability. Potato immediately before an irrigation or as urea- deficit irrigation. ‘Umatilla Russet·and ‘Russet is sensitive to water stress and reductions in ammonium nitrate solution injected through Legend· have recently been released by the tuber yield and quality can result from even the sprinkler system. Agricultural Experiment Stations of Oregon, brief periods of water stress (Eldredge et al., In the experimental design, the four irriga- Idaho, and Washington and the U.S. Dept. of 1992, 1996; Lynch et al., 1995; Shock et al., tion treatments were the main plots, replicated Agriculture in 1998 (Mosley et al., 2000a, b). 1992, 1993; Wright and Stark, 1990). five times, and cultivars were split-plots within Potato cultivars can differ in their tolerance to By carefully reducing the irrigation rate the main plots. Irrigation treatments were ar- water stress (Jefferies and MacKerron, 1993a, for the full season, water stress levels that ranged in randomized complete blocks and 1993b; Lynch and Tai, 1989; Lynch et al., 1995; result in losses in potato yield and quality consisted of an adequately irrigated check Martin and Miller, 1983; Miller and Martin, could be avoided. Irrigation management and three deficit irrigation treatments (Table 1987a, b; Shock et al., 1993). Western U.S. ag- using sprinkler irrigation with scheduling by 1). At each irrigation, the check treatment had riculture is under increased pressure to reduce irrigation water use and to reduce groundwater Table 1. Actual water applied plus precipitation and average soil water potential at two depths in response to four irrigation treatments. Crop evapotranspiration, ET was estimated to be 666, 491, and 622 mm pollution (Schaible et al., 1995). Deficit irriga- c, tion, which can be defined as the deliberate in 1992, 1993, and 1994, respectively. under irrigation of a crop, is a strategy that 1992 1993 1994 could optimize crop production under scarce Treatment Total Avg soil Total Avg soil Total Avg soil irrigation Irrigation water water potentialz water water potential water water potential Received for publication 7 Mar. 2002. Accepted criteria intensity applied 0.2 m 0.5 m applied 0.2 m 0.5 m applied 0.2 m 0.5 m for publication 17 Oct. 2002. Oregon State Univ. kPa % of ET mm ----- kPa ----- mm ----- kPa ----- mm ----- kPa ----- technical paper no. 11869. We thank the Oregon c Potato Commission, the Oregon Dept. of Agricul- –60 100 589 –50 –72 466 –30 –45 544 –37 –91 ture, the Oregon Dept. of Environmental Quality, –80 100 566 -64 –75 255 –41 –67 380 –54 –99 and E.P.A. 319 funds for financial support for this –80 70 411 –58 –77 259 –51 –81 356 –59 –118 y study. Use of trade names does not imply endorse- –80 50,70,50 368 –72 –86 64 –63 –82 327 –60 –138 LSD 46 22 NS 39 14 25 70 17 37 ment of the products named nor criticism of similar 0.05 ones not named. zAverage of daily 8:00 AM measurements from 5 plots, recorded a few days before tuber set through 1Professor. 7 Sept. each year. 2 y Senior Faculty Research Assistant. 50% of accumulated ETc replaced until tuber set, then 70% of ETc replaced for six weeks, then 50% of 3 Biological Sciences Research Technician. ETc replaced until last irrigation. 4Senior Faculty Research Assistant. NSNonsignificant. HORTSCIENCE, VOL. 38(6), OCTOBER 2003 1117 13-7259, p1117-1121 1117 10/14/03, 5:05:10 PM SOIL MANAGEMENT, FERTILIZATION, & IRRIGATION no more water applied than the accumulated evapotranspiration (ETc) since the last irriga- tion. The deficit irrigation treatments had a percentage of the accumulated ETc applied at each irrigation: 1) nearly 100%; 2) 70%; and 3) 50% until tuber set, then 70% for six weeks, and 50% thereafter. To reduce the risk of water movement below the top 0.3 m of soil, water applications at each irrigation were limited to avoid exceeding the water holding capacity of the soil to a 0.3 m depth. Individual water applications did not exceed 30 mm for the check treatment and 35 mm for the other treatments. Irrigation scheduling was by soil water potential at a 0.2 m depth. When the average soil water potential reached –60 kPa for the check treatment and –80 kPa for the other treat- ments, all plots in the respective treatment were irrigated. Plots were irrigated individually as Fig. 1. Cumulative ETc and water applied plus rainfall for potatoes submitted to four irrigation treatments necessary. The level of –60 kPa for the check in 1992. Treatment 1 was irrigated at -60kPa and had a target of 100% of ETc applied. Treatments 2, 3, treatment was based upon previous research and 4 were irrigated at –80 kPa and had targets of 100%, 70%, and <70% of ETc applied, respectively. (Eldredge et al., 1992, 1996; Holder and Cary, Data for 1993 and 1994 were similar. 1984; Shock et al., 1992; van Loon, 1981). The level of –80 kPa for the other treatments was Table 2. Tuber yield, tuber size distribution and tuber internal quality for six cultivars averaged over four based on previous research showing that even irrigation treatments and 3 years. a brief exposure to this soil water potential U.S. U.S. No 1 and U.S. No. 2 by tuber size during tuber bulking could reduce ‘Russet Total No. 1 Small Medium Large Fry Specifi c Burbank· tuber grade and quality (Eldredge Cultivar yield yield <113 g 113–283 g >283 g color gravity et al., 1992, 1996). --- Mg·ha–1 --- ------------------- % ------------------ % reflectance g/cm3 Soil water potential was measured in each 1992 plot by two granular matrix sensors (GMS; Russet Burbank 64.3 32.3 21.1 32.6 33.1 35.3 1.083 Watermark Soil Moisture Sensors model Shepody 62.9 50.0 10.9 27.2 52.4 49.8 1.091 200SS; Irrometer Co., Riverside, Calif.) at Frontier Russet 51.1 41.6 17.2 31.8 35.2 38.3 1.083 the 0.2 m depth and two GMS at the 0.5 m Ranger Russet 59.6 45.6 13.5 26.6 49.1 43.3 1.100 depth.