Premium
POTATO LEAF‐ROLL AND DEGENERATION IN YIELD
Author(s) -
WHITEHEAD T.
Publication year - 1924
Publication title -
annals of applied biology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.677
H-Index - 80
eISSN - 1744-7348
pISSN - 0003-4746
DOI - 10.1111/j.1744-7348.1924.tb05691.x
Subject(s) - biology , sowing , crop , yield (engineering) , agronomy , horticulture , metallurgy , materials science
Summary and Conclusions1 The present communication summarises the first results of work now being carried out at the College farm, Aber, Bangor. It is to be regarded as a first progress report. 2 Quanjer's statement as to communicability of leaf‐roll by grafting tubers is confirmed. 3 The unlikelihood that ‘seed’ sterilisation will be useful as a measure of control is indicated by the failure to effect any control by steeping infected ‘seed’ in 1/1000 mercuric chloride for an hour and a quarter. 4 Cutting diseased tubers before planting did not affect the yield. 5 The loss in yield due to leaf‐roll was 55.8 per cent. in 1921, 45.6 per cent, in 1922 and 52.6 per cent, in 1923. 6 The effects of leaf‐roll do not appear to be cumulative under the conditions at Bangor. 7 The proportion of seed‐size and small tubers—as determined by relative weights and numbers—to total crop was not increased in the variety Arran Comrade as a result of infection with leaf‐roll. 8 The reduction in total number of tubers produced by a leaf‐roll crop was = 54.4 per cent, in 1922 and 61 per cent, in 1923. 9 The transference of leaf‐roll to healthy plants at Bangor in 1921 and 1922 has been studied. Evidence of soil transmission in 1921 is submitted. In 1922 both aerial and soil transmission is believed to have taken place. 10 Maximum infection in 1921 did not affect the yield in that year. 11 The relation of leaf‐roll to seed‐potato production is discussed.