Next Article in Journal
Characterizing a Year-Round Particulate Matter Concentration and Variation under Different Environmental Controls in a Naturally Ventilated Dairy Barn
Next Article in Special Issue
Assessment of the Economic Profitability of Fattening Selected Chicken Genotypes in an Organic Farm
Previous Article in Journal
The Effect of Applied Biostimulants on the Yielding of Three Non-Genetically Modified Soybean Cultivars
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agriculture
Volume 13
Issue 4
10.3390/agriculture13040901
agriculture-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Environmental and Agronomical Factors Limiting Differences in Potato Yielding between Organic and Conventional Production System

by
Krystyna Zarzyńska
*,
Cezary Trawczyński
and
Milena Pietraszko
Plant Breeding and Acclimatization Institute, National Research Institute in Radzików, Jadwisin Division, Potato Agronomy Department, 05-140 Serock, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agriculture 2023, 13(4), 901; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13040901
Submission received: 8 March 2023 / Revised: 4 April 2023 / Accepted: 18 April 2023 / Published: 19 April 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Organic Agriculture—Decreasing Yield Gap via Optimising Cultivation Methods and Agrarian Policy)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This paper presents the results of the authors’ own research and literature research on the impact of selected environmental and agronomical factors on the yield of potato grown under the organic system and the possibility of increasing the yield. The results are based on research conducted for several years at the Institute of Plant Breeding and Acclimatization in Jadwisin, Poland. The influence of factors such as soil quality and climatic conditions, selection of varieties, seed potato preparation, irrigation of plantations, complementary fertilization, and protection against the late blight was described. The aim of this work was to indicate which of these factors affect the yield increase and to what extent. It was stated that it is possible to increase the yield of potato tubers grown under the organic system through all of the proposed treatments. In our studies, using drip irrigation and complementary fertilization had the greatest effect (25.5% and 19%, respectively). Seed potato presprouting had a smaller influence (4.3%) on the final tuber yield. In the years with high pressure of the pathogen Phytophthora infestans, the selection of cultivars with high resistance was very important. Most of the agronomical treatments not only improved the total yield of tubers, but also increased the share of tubers with a larger diameter. A very high variability of potato yielding depending on weather conditions and a selection of cultivars was emphasized. We can say that a proper agronomical practice carried out on an organic potato plantation can largely eliminate the yielding gap between a conventional and an organic system.

1. Introduction

In the literature, there are many considerations regarding the differences in the yield of plants cultivated in the organic and conventional systems. The question is often asked whether organic farming can guarantee food for people [1,2]. Many researchers have tried to answer this question by evaluating the differentiation of yields in organic and conventional agriculture. Recent data for organic yield reduction are estimates between 9 and 25% [3]. Numerous studies and practices show that the organic production system gives lower, more variable yields than systems using synthetic fertilizers and chemical plant protection products [4]. However, the difference in yield between these systems is dependent on the crop species, with root crops showing a greater difference than cereals.
The potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) is one of the staple foods of modern western civilization and it is becoming increasingly important in developing countries. The potato is the fourth most important food crop in the world ranking at about 400 million tons per year [5]. Potato is not an easy crop to grow in organic production systems due to the high threat from diseases and pests. Out of the factors which limit yield of potato crops grown in organic production systems, soil nutrient deficits and the restriction on use of pesticides are two of the most common. The main pests worldwide are late blight caused by (Phytophthora infestans), and Colorado potato beetle (Leptinotarsa decemlineata). At the present stage, the problem of fighting the beetle is less troublesome due to the availability of effective biological agents for protection against this pest.
Each species has its limiting factor. The rule Sprengel’s and Liebig’s stating that yield losses are not determined by the sum of the factors affecting the yield, but by the factor having the greatest impact applies here. In the case of cereals, which are characterized by a rapid growth rate in the initial period, and potato, which has a high demand for nutrients in the short term, the availability of these nutrients is the main limiting factor. In the case of legumes, these are mainly weeds and pests.
The relatively large difference in yield between organic and conventional potato production is mainly attributed to inadequate protection against late blight caused by P. infestans [6]. Weaker development of the above-ground part of plants cultivated in the organic system has a direct impact on the yield of tubers and its structure.
As previously mentioned, the yield gap for tubers is often greater than for cereals, but it is are also more variable [7]. Of all crops, root crops have the second largest yield gap between the organic and conventional systems [8]. Comparing all European countries as regards 21 aspects, de Ponti et al. [9] found that potato yields from organic plantations accounted for only 70% of conventional crops. If potato was classified as a vegetable, where the difference is 33%, in the case of potato, the difference was almost 30%, as presented by Ponisio et al. [10]. As already emphasized in the case of potato, the main factor limiting the yield in organic production is the availability of nutrients, followed by pathogens. Möller et al. [11] found that 48% of the gap in organic potato yields can be attributed to reduced fertilization, especially nitrogen, and 25% to diseases, mainly late blight.
The aim of the work is to indicate the environmental and agrotechnical factors affecting the yield of potato tubers grown in the organic system and to show which of these factors can reduce the differences in yield between the organic and conventional systems.

2. Materials and Methods

The results presented in the paper are based on research conducted for several years (2005–2020) at the Institute of Plant Breeding and Acclimatization in Jadwisin on the cultivation of potato plants in various production systems, including the organic system. In the long-term studies, factors such as environmental conditions, including soil quality and weather conditions of the growing season, variety diversity and agronomical factors such as method of seed potato preparation, fertilization, irrigation, and differentiated protection against diseases were taken into account. Some of the research was carried out in two locations: Jadwisin—central Poland 52.51° N and 21.07° E and Osiny-south-eastern Poland 51.42° N and 21.97° E (Figure 1) on two different soil complexes: in Jadwisin—good rye, in Osiny—very good rye. Crop rotation adapted to the soil conditions was used in each locality. The research was conducted in accordance with the requirements applicable to organic farming. Detailed methodologies for individual experiments are described when discussing these studies.
Statistical analyses of the results were performed with an analysis of variance using Statistica software (StatSoft, Krakow, Poland). The significance of the sources of variation was tested with a Fisher–Snedecor test, and the significance of differences was assessed using Tukey’s test.
In addition to the results of own research, the results from the literature were also taken into account.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Influence of Climatic and Soil Conditions on the Yield of Potato Tubers Cultivated in an Organic System

The impact of climatic and soil conditions on the yield of tubers was presented on the basis of research conducted in the years 2005–2016 in two sites located in different regions of Poland, with different soil and climatic conditions. One experimental site was the Experimental Station Osiny and the other was Jadwisin. The research was conducted in 3-year cycles. While evaluating the yield of tubers, reference was made to the conditions of the vegetation period prevailing in particular localities. They are described by the Sielianinov coefficient, which takes into account temperature and precipitation (Table 1).
A very large diversification of tuber yield was found in both sites in individual years. In the first years of the experiment in Jadwisin, on lighter soil, yields were much lower than in Osiny. Particularly large differences concerned the years 2005 and 2006. Differences in yield in favor of heavier soil were found until 2006. After this period, these differences were smaller, and yields in Jadwisin were even higher than in Osiny. The greatest differences in favor of Jadwisin were recorded in 2008, 2009 and 2014. Higher yields in Osiny were obtained in 2013 and 2015. The yield was closely related to the weather conditions in a given locality. In 2013, very unfavorable conditions in Jadwisin contributed to a strong reduction in yields. However, 2015 was more favorable for obtaining higher yields in Osiny. The average yield from both organic plantations was similar and amounted to 23.7 t∙ha−1 in Jadwisin and 21.7 t∙ha−1 in Osiny. On average, in both localities, the highest yields were obtained in 2016, 2012 and 2009, and the lowest in 2005, 2006 and 2013. Greater yield stability was noted on the heavier soil (Figure 2).
The assessment of the impact of environmental factors on the yield showed that the years of research have the greatest impact. This is related to the development of diseases, especially potato blight, which causes the greatest losses in the crop.
The analysis of the weather course in particular years confirms the principle that “blight” years, i.e., with a lot of rainfall, are years of high potato yields. This mainly applies to the conventional system, where the use of mineral fertilization and pesticides is allowed. In the organic system, the situation is more difficult, which makes the yield in this system more dependent on climatic conditions, which is confirmed by the research of Zarzyńska and Pietraszko [12]. Although copper fungicides are allowed to protect potato plants against late blight in organic crops, their effectiveness is not as high as that of other fungicides. A serious factor limiting the yield is the lack of rainfall or its uneven distribution. The main reason for the drastically low yields in 2005 in Jadwisin, on lighter soil, were long periods of deep drought. Additionally, in 2006, the lack of precipitation in June and July adversely affected yields in both localities. A similar situation occurred in 2013 and 2015, when a very wet spring (especially in Jadwisin) in full vegetation, i.e., in July, was followed by a drought. The most favorable weather conditions in both sites were in 2016 and this year the highest yields were obtained.
The impact of extremely different weather conditions on the yield of potatoes grown in the organic and conventional system in Jadwisin was demonstrated in 2012 and 2013. In 2012, both the amount and distribution of precipitation, as well as the air temperature, were favorable for the growth and development of potato plants; however, in 2013, these were very unfavorable. After spring excess rainfall and low air temperatures, a large shortage of water was noted later. A significantly higher yield was obtained in the conventional system and compared to the years of research in 2012. It should be noted that the differences in the years were higher than between the production systems, and the plants grown in the organic system reacted with a greater decrease to unfavorable weather conditions. The decrease in yield between years was 65%, and between the production systems 50% [12].

3.2. Influence of Cultivar on the Yield of Potato Tubers Cultivated in an Organic System

Within 12 years, 30 potato varieties belonging to different groups of maturity were tested. Their differentiation in terms of yield was significant. The highest yields (average for the years and the place of cultivation) were obtained for: Jurata, Tajfun, Ursus, Ignacy, Michalina, Vitara, Owacja, Agnes, Finezja, Oberon and Malaga (over 25 t∙ha−1), and the lowest for Drop and Gracja (below 15 t∙ha−1). The significance of the interaction of cultivar and place of cultivation was not proven, but a varied response of cultivars was observed. In Jadwisin, the largest number of cultivars yielded over 24.0 t∙ha−1 in Osiny in the range of 21–24.5 t∙ha−1. Some cultivars achieving the highest yields in Osiny gave one of the lower yields in Jadwisin and vice versa. Cultivars with extremely different yield levels in both localities were: Bartek, Berber and Vitara (Figure 3).
The yielding of several cultivars from the same groups of maturity originating from Polish and foreign breeding was also compared. Significant differences in tuber yield and its structure were found depending on their origin. Polish cultivars yielded higher than foreign. They were also characterized by a better yield structure, i.e., they gave a higher marketable yield and a higher yield of large tubers (Table 2).
The presented results show that the appropriate selection of varieties and adapting them to the soil and climatic conditions in a given region plays a very important role. Very early and early varieties are generally characterized by low resistance to the fungus-like organism P. infestans causing late blight; however, in organic cultivation, they are often found due to the faster rate of yield accumulation and the possibility of “escape” from the blight. Late mature cultivars are more susceptible to pathogen infection later in development, but they also have greater disease resistance [13,14,15,16,17]. It should be also emphasized that regional, domestic varieties turn out to be better than foreign ones in organic production [18,19].
Cultivation in organic conditions requires adaptability and greater stability of varieties [20]. The most important features of varieties suitable for organic farming are: rapid development in the initial growth period, large root system, high resistance to major diseases, low fertilization requirements [16,20,21]. These features occur mainly in older, native varieties [22]. On the other hand, numerous experiments suggest that modern varieties are well-adapted to harsh environmental conditions and show a higher level of disease resistance. The new varieties are also more acceptable for consumers [23].

3.3. Influence of Selected Agronomical Treatments on the Yield of Potatoes Cultivated in Organic System

As has been repeatedly emphasized, the yield from the organic system is lower than from the conventional which is why new solutions are constantly being sought to improve the efficiency of cultivation in the organic system and increase yields. These treatments include the proper preparation of seed potatoes, irrigation of the plantation, the use of additional fertilization, and the improvement of protection methods against pests. In our research, we assessed the effect of these treatments on the tuber yield.

The Effect of Seed Potato Preparation on the Yield of Potato Tubers Cultivated in an Organic System

The research was carried out in 2008–2010 in Jadwisin. The effect of seed potato presprouting on tuber yield and its structure was assessed. This treatment was used for 4 weeks. The seed potatoes were sprouted at 15 °C in the light. Eight potato cultivars belonging to different groups of maturity were tested: Berber, Miłek (very early), Owacja, Vitara (early), Tajfun, Agnes (medium early), Fianna, Ursus (medium late and late). Presprouting of seed potatoes increased the total yield of tubers, but the differences were not statistically significant. The yield increase was 4.3%. The treatment significantly increased the yield of large tubers, i.e., over 60 mm of 29.7% (Table 3).
Presprouting of seed potatoes plays a particularly important role in organic production, because it causes a faster development of plants, which promotes the so-called “escape from the blight”, and shifts the vegetation to a period of better sunlight, which increases the efficiency of photosynthesis. Presprouting also causes better development of the root system, which facilitates the uptake of water and nutrients and improves the resistance of plants to viruses. It also accelerates the maturation of tubers, which is conducive to their better storage. The positive effect of priming on plant development and tuber yield in organic potato cultivation was previously described in the work of [24,25,26,27]. Presprouting of seed potatoes has the greatest impact on accelerating the accumulation of the crop and its greatest effect is visible in the early dates of harvest. In the final harvest, this effect often disappears. This is confirmed by research of Karalus and Rauber [27] carried out on several potato cultivars grown in an organic system. In their experiment, in the trial dates of harvest, i.e., in July, presprouting significantly increased the tuber yield in relation to the control. There was no such effect at the final harvest. Presprouting reduced the percentage of undersized tubers and significantly increased the percentage of oversized tubers. A significant increase in yield due to presprouting was seen when the plants were damaged by Colorado beetle or late blight in the early growing season. Therefore, preprouting can be an important procedure to increase yield, mainly in systems without the use of pesticidies. For example, organic growers in temperate regions avoid severe damage from late blight by planting early maturing presprouted potato varieties early in the growing season so that tubers have grown to a reasonable size by the time late blight becomes pervasive.
The effect of accelerating of sprouting and plant emergence on their faster development and reducing diseases depends to a large extent on the nitrogen content of the soil. In the studies of Möller and Reents [28] in conditions of high N abundance, the acceleration of plant development and tuberization by presprouting resulted in an increase in yield by 18–23%, and the use of varieties with a short vegetation period increased the yield (by reducing the occurrence of late blight) by 0–21%. Under conditions of low N abundance, these strategies have less impact on increasing the yield. This is due to the fact that with low N abundance, plant growth is very weak and usually ends before the onset of the greatest severity of the disease. In Hagman’s research [26], the final yield of presprouted tubers was 7–24% higher compared to control. However, this effect decreased over time during the growing season.

3.4. Influence of the Complementary Fertilization on the Yield of Potato Cultivated in an Organic System

The priority issue in the potato organic production system is to maintain proper soil fertility, because the potato is a crop with high nutritional requirements. To produce 1 ton of tubers, it needs 4–5 kg of N, 0.7–0.8 kg of P, 5–6 kg of K and significant amounts of microelements. The basic source of these nutrients and humus, which determines the high fertility of the soil, is the introduction of an appropriate amount of natural or organic fertilizers produced on the farm into the soil. The use of farm-produced compost or manure obtained from animals, as well as plowing in straw and biomass of catch crops, as well as appropriate control of the decomposition of organic matter, allow you to provide plants with the necessary nutrients. The effectiveness of organic fertilization used in the organic system depends on many factors, both related to the type of fertilizer used (dose, date) as well as soil conditions or the course of weather during the vegetation period of plants. Mainly unfavorable combination of soil and climatic conditions may contribute to certain difficulties in the decomposition of the applied fertilizers and the uptake of nutrients from it. This may cause various types of stress and disorders in the development of potato plants, which should encourage the use of specific fertilization treatments to counteract these unfavorable changes [29,30,31,32,33].

3.4.1. The Use of Microbiological Preparations in the Organic Potato Cultivation

The application of microbiological preparations to the soil increases its biological activity and eliminates putrefactive processes, dissolves mineral compounds that are difficult to access for plants, improves fertility and structure, which may have a beneficial effect, among others, on potato yield. In the years 2004–2006 in our institute, field tests were carried out on light soil, the purpose of which was to determine the effect of the UG max Soil Fertilizer on the yield of potato tubers. The UG max Soil Fertilizer was applied to the straw immediately before its plowing in a dose of 3 L·ha−1 dissolved in 300 L·ha−1 of water. After the use of straw in combination with the UG max Soil Fertilizer, by 9.2% higher yield of potato tubers was obtained compared to the use of straw alone (Figure 4 [34]). The beneficial effect of UG max Soil Fertilizer was confirmed by Zarzecka and Gugała [35]. Soil Fertilizer UG max applied in different doses and dates contributed to an increase in the total yield and the yield of large potato tubers by 27.2 and 35.3%, respectively, compared to the control treatment. On the other hand, in the studies of Jabłoński [36] the UG max Soil Fertilizer in the dose of 1 L·ha−1 increased the total yield by 12.2%, marketable yield by 15.1%, and large tubers by 20.3%. In the research of Kowalska [37], the effect of two microbial preparations (EM Farma Plus and UG max) applied to the soil, foliar or together was evaluated. The application of combined microbiological treatments (soil spraying before planting and 4 foliar treatments during the growing season) significantly increased the yield of potatoes and the share of marketable tubers in the yield. On the other hand, the application of commonly used natural and organic fertilizers such as cattle manure, green manure and compost of effective microorganisms (EM), in addition to increasing potato yields by 10 to 16%, reduced the infestation with fungal diseases [38]. In turn, Kołodziejczyk [39] showed that the use of microbiological preparations, BactoFil B10, Effective Microorganisms EM and UG max, led to an increase in the nitrogen content of the soil after plant harvest and lower uptake of this component, reducing the NUE, NUpE, NAE and NRF indicators. Another bacterial strain (Bacillus cereaus), in addition to increasing the availability of potassium in the soil by 42% and potassium uptake by tubers by 62%, significantly increased the total potato yield by 21% compared to control plants [40]. In many studies conducted to date, the use of a microbiological preparation has also resulted in an improvement in plant health during the growing season and tuber quality characteristics after the final harvest [41,42,43].

3.4.2. The Use of Humic Preparations as an Alternative and Supplement to Traditionally Used Forms of Natural and Organic Fertilizers in Organic Potato Cultivation

In farms without livestock, especially, but also in the conditions of animal production, there may be problems with insufficient amount or obtaining the appropriate organic biomass that maintains soil fertility at the appropriate level, which allows one to obtain a high and appropriate quality yield of potato tubers. An alternative in this regard may be the use of humic preparations containing humic acids, the main component of humus [44]. One of them is organic preparation Rosahumus. Humic acids in Rosahumus are obtained from leonardites, a mineral easily soluble in water with a content of 85% of this compound. In addition to humic acids, the preparation is a rich source of potassium (K2O)—12% and iron (Fe)—0.6% (https://agrosimex.pl, accessed on 5 March 2023). In the authors’ own research conducted in the years 2018–2020, humic preparation was applied to the soil before planting tubers, immediately before ridding, in the form of spraying with a water solution at a dose of 4.5 kg∙ha−1 dissolved in 300 l∙ha−1 of water. Under the influence of this preparation, a significant increase in tuber yield was obtained, which amounted to 2.5 t∙ha−1, which was 11.9% compared to the control, without the use of humic preparation (Figure 5). In the study of Fatma et al. [45] humic acid added to irrigation water generally improved plant growth parameters and potato tuber yield. In addition, with the increase in the level of humic acids in the irrigation water, the vigor of plants increased and the quality of the crop improved. In other studies, it was proven that treatments with humic acid and algae extracts caused a significant increase in all morphological features of potato plants and its yield. After application of humic acid to the plants and spraying with a mixture of Alga 600 and Sea Force 2, significantly higher values of vegetative features were obtained compared to the control object. A significantly positive effect of humic acid and seaweed extracts and their interaction on all yield characteristics was obtained. After application of humic acid with Alga 600 and Sea Force 2 potato plants were characterized by the following values: number of tubers per plant 9.42, average tuber weight 82.49 g, crop yield 0.780 kg/plant and total yield per hectare 34.52 tones and dry weight of tubers at the level of 14.67%, while on the control object the values of these features were, respectively: 7.25; 73.10 g; 0.540 kg/plant, 23.88 tones and 13.37% [46]. Mon-hong et al. [47] found that humic acid increased the yield of tubers with water retention: 45%, 60% and 75% in the years 2014–2015, respectively, by 34.47–63.48%, 35.95–37.28% and 23.37–27.15%. In the research conducted by Suh et al. [48] after spraying potato plants with fulvic acid 50, 60 and 70 days after tuber planting, there was no significant difference in the number of tubers and total yield compared to the control. On the other hand, after applying humic acid to the soil in the dose of 40 and 80 g∙m2 before planting potato tubers, an increase in the weight of large tubers was found. However, in the studies of Ekin et al. [49] after treating potato tubers with humic acid in combination with bacterial strain cultures (Bacillus magatorium and Bacillus subtiles), a significant increase in potato plants, tuber yield and improvement in its quality was obtained.

3.4.3. Complementary Foliar Feeding of Potato Plants with the Use of Nutritional Biological Agents

It has happened quite often in recent years that during the vegetation of plants, the combination of weather factors, such as heavy rainfall alternating with periodic soil drought, high air temperature, etc., causes certain difficulties in the uptake of nutrients from the soil. This can cause various types of stress and disturbances in plant development [33]. Due to the relatively long period of harvesting and the large mass of the crop produced by the potato, efforts should be made to ensure its optimal supply with easily digestible nutrients throughout the entire vegetation period. Therefore, foliar application should be a form of supplementing ingredients during plant growth, especially in critical periods with fast-acting biological agents that provide the necessary ingredients and bioactive substances with a biostimulating effect. A very broad formula when it comes to foliar application are biostimulating preparations: humic acid, fulvic acid, protein hydrolysates, seaweed extracts, chitosan, inorganic compounds or beneficial microorganisms [50]. Based on the earlier research, it can be concluded that the proposed division does not exhaust the types of all biostimulating preparations used, which also include, for example, biological agents in the form of nanoparticles [51,52,53]. Biological agents of this type are produced using pro-ecological and innovative production technologies, and some of them were the subject of own research conducted on potatoes. In the studies carried out in 2018–2019, the effect of foliar feeding of potato plants with amino acid biostimulators, Naturamin Plus and Naturamin WSP used in the BBCH 19 and 39 phases on potato yielding, was determined. Under the influence of Naturamin Plus biological agent, tuber yield increased by 15.9%, and Naturamin WSP biological agent by 19.0% compared to the control, without foliar feeding, and this difference was not statistically proven (Figure 6) A greater increase in tuber yield under the influence of these foliar biological agents was obtained in 2018, which was characterized by a higher air temperature during the growing season than in 2019 [54]. A positive effect on the yield of potato tubers, but very diverse depending on the type of biostimulating biological agents with amino acids used, ranging from 3 to 36%, was obtained in other studies [55,56,57,58]. As in our research, a better yielding effect was generally obtained in years with unfavorable weather conditions during the plant vegetation period, which was caused by periodic drought or excess precipitation and high air temperature [46]. In 2018–2020, the effect of foliar feeding of potato plants with multi-component biological agents in the form of nanoparticles: Herbagreen Basic and Nano Active Forte on potato yielding was determined. Biological agents were applied twice during the growing season of potato plants, in a dose of 2 kg·ha−1, in the BBCH 20 and BBCH 59 phases. Under the influence of these compound biological agents, a similar increase in potato tuber yield of 3.0 t·ha−1 was obtained, which amounted to 11.5% in compared to the control, without foliar feeding (Figure 7) [59]. The beneficial effect of foliar application of nanopaticles biological agents has been demonstrated in other studies, and the increase in tuber yield ranged from 13 to 32% [60,61,62,63].
Table 4 presents a synthetic summary the effect of individual preparations on the yield increase in relation to the control.

3.5. Influence of Irrigation of a Plantation on the Yield of Potato Tubers Cultivated in an Organic System

Research on the irrigation of an organic potato plantation has been carried out in the years 2014–2015 in Jadwisin. Drip irrigation was used in both years. In 2014, the treatment was used twice in doses of 19.8 and 7.8 mm. In 2015, the rainfall deficit was greater; therefore, the plantation was irrigated four times in doses: 15.1, 18.5, 20 and 16.3 mm. The total amount of water supplied in 2014 was 37.6 mm and in 2015 it was 69.9 mm. Eight potato cultivars from different groups of earliness were tested in the experiment.
Irrigation of the plantation significantly increased the total yield and improved its tuber size distribution. The yield increase was 25.5%. The treatment significantly reduced the share of the smallest tubers and increased the share of large tubers (Table 5).
The influence of irrigation on tuber yield is well-known. Its importance is confirmed by many authors [25,64,65,66,67]. They emphasize that the lack of water not only reduces the yield but also causes its diminution [68,69,70,71,72,73]. This is especially important in organic production. Drought is a severe environmental stress limiting agricultural production in many countries. However, water availability for agriculture production is being reduced as a consequence of global climate change, and growing demand for other uses. Therefore, great emphasis is placed on water management based on plant physiology, with the aim of increasing water use efficiency. Potato is a species with high water requirements, and increasingly frequent shortages of water result in the final yield not being satisfactory. Deficiency of rainfall or its uneven distribution is the cause of inhibition of plant development, which affects the yield and its structure, and mainly the lower share of marketable tubers. The potato plant has different water needs during the growing season [74,75,76]. It needs the most water during tuber formation. In cultivars with a short vegetation period, this time is from June to early July. Late mature cultivars have the greatest demand for water from the second decade of June to the end of August [76,77]. Irrigation is the solution to water scarcity. Unfortunately, in smaller farms growing potatoes in an organic system, it is rarely used. The shortage of water combined with the inability to use mineral fertilizers can lead to large decreases in yield. Our experience shows that in practice, organic fertilization is often used on organic farms, mainly manure without irrigation. The use of nitrogen, especially in years with a large water shortage, is then very low [67]. In the study of Fatma et al. [78], four levels of irrigation were used (100, 75, 50 and 25% ETO, and four types of organic fertilization (control, cow, sheep, and chicken). Morphological and physiological parameters of plants and tuber yield were studied. The best results were obtained using chicken manure and irrigation at 100% ETO. The conclusion of this research is that if the farmer’s goal is to maximize yield, irrigation should be applied at 100% reference evapotranspiration.
However, the use of irrigation in organic potato cultivation can have negative consequences. Sprinkler irrigation of plantations increases the risk of late blight and may leach nutrients from the rhizosphere to the deeper layers of the soil. The drip irrigation used in our research seems to be the ideal solution.

3.6. Influence of Treatments Limiting the Development of Late Blight on the Yield of Potato Grown in an Organic System

As mentioned before, one of the most dangerous potato pathogens is the fungus P. infestans. causing potato blight. In organic production, the fight against this pathogen is particularly difficult. Our long-term observations show that on an organic plantation the appearance of the first symptoms of the blight is later and its rate of spread is slower than on a conventional plantation. This is related to the weaker development of plants, which is a consequence of restrictions on the use of mineral fertilizers and pesticides. Particular importance is the availability of nitrogen, both in the first weeks after emergence and during the flowering period when tuber formation begins [79,80,81,82,83].
In the experiment conducted in 2008–2010 by Zarzyńska and Szutkowska [7], four cultivars of potato were grown in the organic and conventional systems. The morphological and physiological parameters of plants, such as height, leaf mass, stem mass, LAI, PAR and SPAD, were evaluated. The rate of spread of late blight as well as the yield and its structure were also determined. Significant differentiation of most parameters has been proven. The values of plant productivity indices were lower in plants growing in the organic system. The result of these differences was a 22% lower tuber yield and a smaller tuber size. The positive side of the weaker development of plants in the organic system was the later appearance of blight symptoms and a slower rate of its development. As we know, this rate depends on the microclimate in the canopy [84]. In the case of a less developed above-ground part of plants, the canopy is more aerated and the development of the disease is slower [85].
These results show that in order to cause a less favorable climate for the late blight development, the density of plants in the canopy can be reduced. In our research conducted in 2012, we used different planting densities, shaping the canopy architecture accordingly, but the effects of this treatment were not visible due to the lack of disease occurrence (authors’ observation).
Studies conducted in the UK and the Netherlands tested strategies such as sprouting and early planting of seed potatoes, which were supposed to accelerate the development of plants and cause escape from the blight, and diversified plant configuration, so as to create a less favorable microclimate for the development of the disease. Both sprouting and early planting shifted harvesting to less severe disease symptoms, especially in years when blight onset was early. The varied canopy architecture had no influence on the development of the late blight [86].
In the years 2010 and 2011 with different pressures of P. infestans (2010—low and 2011—high preasure) the research was carried out on the development of late blight in two production systems, i.e., organic and conventional. Copper fungicides were used in the organic system, and chemical fungicides in the conventional one. The protection in the conventional system was carried out on two levels, i.e., limited (3 treatments) and intensive (7 treatments). The study was carried out on 10 cultivars with different resistance to P. infestans in three earliness groups: very early and early, medium early and late. In the year with low pathogen pressure (2010), the rate of disease spread in both systems was similar. In the case of varieties with higher resistance to the pathogen, the spread of the disease was even slower in the organic system than in conventional. However, when comparing the organic and conventional systems, but with intensive protection, a slower rate of disease development was noted in the conventional system. The situation was slightly different in 2011 with favorable conditions for the development of the late blight. Under these conditions, the rate of disease spread was significantly faster in the organic system compared to the conventional. Differences in the rate of spreading the disease in the conventional system at different levels of protection intensity were much smaller, although statistically significant. The maturity group of cultivars and their resistance to the pathogen were also important. However, this concerned only the group of cultivars least resistant to pathogen, i.e., very early and early, and the group of other cultivars. In the group of very early and early cultivars, the spread rate of the disease was significantly higher. Differences between the group of medium–early varieties and the group of late maturity varieties were not significant [17].
The yield of tubers depended significantly on all the studied factors, i.e., the production system, years of research and earliness groups of potato cultivars. The average yield of tubers from two years of research in the organic system was 23.6 t∙ha−1 in conventional with limited protection 44.8 t∙ha−1 and in conventional with intensive protection 49.1 t∙ha−1 Significantly higher tuber yields were achieved in 2011. Differences in tuber yield in individual production systems, however, depended on the years of research. In the organic system, despite different pest pressure, the yield was at a similar level in both years. In the conventional system, and especially those with intensive protection, in 2011, tuber yield was significantly higher than in 2010. It should be noted that in 2010, with low pathogen pressure, the difference in tuber yield between the conventional system with limited protection was the 17 t∙ha−1, and in the “blight” year, i.e., 2011, as much as 24.5 t∙ha−1.
Comparing the rate of spread of late blight in individual production systems and tuber yield, a strict inverse relationship was found, i.e., the faster the development of the disease in a given system, the lower the yield. On average, for two years of research, the highest rate of spreading the disease and, at the same time, the lowest yield of tubers were recorded in the organic system. In the conventional system with intensive protection, the rate of pathogen spread was the slowest and the yield of tubers was the highest. The increase in yield under the influence of treatments limiting the development of late blight in our studies ranged from 10 to 15%.
As can be seen from the presented results, the resistance of cultivars to P. infestans is of key importance. Kapsa research [15] shows that cultivars having a resistance of 7 to 8 on a 9-point scale can protect themselves from infection, especially in the late onset of the disease. Our research conducted in the years 2008–2010 confirmed the relationship between the resistance of the cultivar and the development of late blight. The Ursus variety with resistance 6.5 had almost six times slower rate of disease development than the Miłek variety with resistance 3 (Figure 8).
Many authors confirm similar relationships [15,87,88,89,90,91].
The demand for cultivars with increased resistance to P. infestans is increasing. Potato breeding companies are already successful in this field. In recent years, a highly resistant cultivar Gardena has been bred in Poland. The resistance of this cultivar to P. infestans is 7 out of 9. This cultivar was tested in our research in comparison to a cultivar commonly cultivated in Poland in organic farming—Denar with resistance 3. The spread rate of late blight in mid-August 2021 was 0.119 for the Denar cultivar and the disease did not progress in the Gardena cultivar (authors’ observation).
In addition to the above-mentioned agrotechnical treatments limiting the development of late blight, alternative methods of controlling late blight are still being sought. Research on biological methods using the antagonistic effects of bacteria and fungi in combating late blight is being conducted all the time [92]. Positive results are most often obtained in laboratory tests. In field conditions, these effects are generally small. Two factors, probably among others, that make biocontrol difficult to this disease are rapid establishment of infection and explosive disease development. It is reasonable to assume that many attempts to use biocontrol for potato late blight have been unsuccessful and this may be the reason why the literature in this field is so scarce [93].
In our research, Trichoderma fungus was used, which slightly limited the spread of the disease. In the research of Kowalska et al. [94], in field trials, a possibility of limitation of potato late blight by Trichoderma asperellum as well as its influence on vitality of plants and yielding was assessed. In experiments the tested fungus to soil and leaves was applied. Degree of infection was noted as area of infected parts of plant. One application to the soil and four foliar treatments resulted in the efficacy comparable with two copper treatments. Many foliar treatments (10×) reduced the infected area of the plant by 30% compared to the level of infection on untreated plants. The yield from microbial treated fields revealed a higher number of small tubers, the total yield was significantly higher.
Of the remaining agronomic factors combating late blight, the destruction of sources of infection and the use of healthy seed potatoes are also emphasized [95,96].

4. Main Conclusions

Summarizing our own and other research on the topic in question, the following conclusions can be drawn:
The yield of potatoes grown in the organic system depends greatly on weather conditions in the vegetation period and cultivar. The highest yields are obtained in the years of the best distribution of rainfall during the growing season (provided effective protection against late blight). In the years of unfavorable weather conditions, more significant losses in yield can be expected in the organic than conventional farms.
There are very large cultivar differences in tuber yield. Most cultivars yielded in the range of 20–30 t∙ha−1. The proper selection of cultivar for the conditions prevailing in a given area should be taken into account. The domestic varieties seem to be better for cultivation in the organic system.
A weaker development of potato plants in the organic system results in a lower yield and a smaller share of marketable tubers. The advantage of slower plant development is a later date of appearance of late blight and a slower rate of its development. It is possible to increase the yield of potato tubers grown in the organic system through cultivation treatments such as accelerating vegetation through presprouting of seed potatoes, the use of complementary fertilization allowed in organic farming, irrigation of the plantation with the use of drip irrigation, and the use of agronomical treatments limiting the development of late blight. In our research, drip irrigation increased the yield by 25.5%, complementary fertilization by up to 19%, agrotechnical treatments limiting the development of late blight by 15%, and presprouting of seed potatoes by 4.3%. Most agronomical treatments not only improved the total yield of tubers, but also increased the share of tubers with a larger diameter.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, K.Z.; methodology, K.Z. and C.T.; investigation, K.Z.; data curation, K.Z. and C.T.; writing—original draft preparation, K.Z.; writing—review and editing, K.Z.; visualization, M.P.; supervision, K.Z.; project administration, K.Z.; funding acquisition, K.Z. and C.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

Polish Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, DC, IHAR-PIB (6):3.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available upon request from the first author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders has no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Cassman, K. Editorial response by Kenneth Cassman: Can organic agriculture feed the world—Science to the rescue? Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2007, 22, 83–84. [Google Scholar]
  2. Connor, D.J. Organic agriculture cannot feed the world. Field Crops Res. 2008, 106, 187–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Wilbois, K.-P.; Schmidt, J.E. Reframing the Debate Surrounding the Yield Gap between Organic and Conventional Farming. Agronomy 2019, 9, 82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Smith, R.G.; Gross, K.L.; Robertson, G.P. Effects of crop diversity on agroecosystem function: Crop yield response. Ecosystems 2008, 11, 355–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. FAO. World Food and Agriculture—Statistical Pocketbook; Food & Agriculture Organization: Rome, Italy, 2020; ISBN -13: 978-9251334720/-10: 9251334722. Available online: https://www.fao.org/3/cb1521en/CB1521EN.pdf (accessed on 24 May 2021).
  6. Finckh, M.R.; Schulte-Geldermann, E.; Bruns, C. Challenges to Organic Potato Farming: Disease and Nutrient Management. Potato Res. 2006, 49, 27–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Palmer, M.W.; Cooper, J.; Tétard-Jones, C.; Średnicka-Tober, D.; Barański, M.; Eyre, M.; Shotton, P.N.; Volakakis, N.; Cakmak, I.; Ozturk, L.; et al. The influence of organic and conventional fertilisation and crop protection practices, preceding crop, harvest year and weather conditions on yield and quality of potato (Solanum tuberosum) in a long-term management trial. Eur. J. Agron. 2013, 49, 83–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Badgley, C.; Moghtader, J.; Quintero, E.; Zakem, E.; Jahi Chappell, M.; Avilés-Vázquez, K.; Samulon, A.; Perfecto, I. Organic agriculture and the global food supply. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2007, 22, 86–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. de Ponti, T.; Rijk, B.; van Ittersum, M.K. The crop yield gap between organic and conventional agriculture. Agric. Syst. 2012, 108, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ponisio, L.C.; M’Gonigle, L.K.; Mace, K.C.; Palomino, J.; de Valpine, P.; Kremen, C. Diversification practices reduce organic to conventional yield gap. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2015, 282, 20141396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Möller, K.; Habermeyer, J.; Zinkernagel, V.; Reents, H. Impact and Interaction of Nitrogen and Phytophthora infestans as Yield-limiting and Yield-reducing Factors in Organic Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) Crops. Potato Res. 2007, 49, 281–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Zarzyńska, K.; Pietraszko, M. Influence of climatic conditions on development and yield of potato plants growing under organic and conventional systems in Poland. Am. J. Potato Res. 2015, 92, 511–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Lapwood, D.H. Factors affecting the field infection of potato tubers of different cultivars by blight (Phytophthora infestans). Ann. Appl. Biol. 1997, 85, 23–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Platt, H.; Tail, G. Relationship between resistance to late blight in potato foliage and tubers of cultivars and breeding selections with different resistance levels. Am. J. Potato Res. 1998, 75, 173–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Kapsa, J. The use of cultivar resistance in protection against late blight. Ziem. Pol. 2005, 4, 20–23. [Google Scholar]
  16. Zarzyńska, K.; Goliszewski, W. The role of cultivar in orgnic potato production. J. Res. Appl. Agric. Eng. 2006, 51, 214–219. [Google Scholar]
  17. Zarzyńska, K.; Szutkowska, M. Develpment of potato fungal diseases and tuber yield on organic and conventional plantation. J. Res. Appl. Agric. Eng. 2012, 57, 205–212. [Google Scholar]
  18. Zarzyńska, K. Polish and foreign potato cultivars under organic production—Comparison. J. Res. Appl. Agric. Eng. 2011, 56, 208–212. [Google Scholar]
  19. Zarzyńska, K.; Goliszewski, W. Cultivar differentiation of potato plant production in organic and integrated systems. Fragm. Agron. 2015, 32, 113–120. [Google Scholar]
  20. Haase, T.; Schuler, C.; Kolsch, E.; Heb, J. The influence of variety, stand density and tuber seed size on yield and grading of potatoes (Solanum tuberosum L.) in organic farming. In Proceedings of the Potatoes Today and Tomorrow. 15th Triennial Conference of EAPR, Hamburg, Germany, 14–19 July 2002; Wenzel, G., Wulfert, I., Eds.; WPR Communication GmbH and Co. KG: Hamburg, Germany, 2022; p. 106. [Google Scholar]
  21. Koppel, M. Selection of potato varieties for organic growing. In Proceedings of the Abstracts of Conference Papers, EAPR Patology Section Meeting, Bonin, Poland, 10–15 July 2001; pp. 73–74. [Google Scholar]
  22. El Hage Scialabba, N.; Hattam, C. (Eds.) Organic Agriculture, Environment and Food Security; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2002; p. 252. [Google Scholar]
  23. Skrabule, I.; Gaile, Z.; Vigovskis, J. Optimizing agricultural output production: Theory and praxis. Evaluation of potato varieties for organic farming. Latv. J. Agron. 2005, 8, 348. [Google Scholar]
  24. Zarzyńska, K. Preparation of seed potatoes, for organic production. Zesz. Probl. Post. Nauk Roln. 2002, 489, 103–113. [Google Scholar]
  25. Zarzyńska, K.; Goliszewski, W. The role of selected agrotechnical treatments in shaping the size and structure of the yield of potatoes cultivated in an organic system. Ziem. Pol. 2011, 3, 16–20. [Google Scholar]
  26. Hagman, J. Pre-sprouting as a Tool for Early Harvest in Organic Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) Cultivation. Potato Res. 2012, 55, 185–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Karalus, W.; Rauber, R. Effect of presprouting on yield of maincrop potatoes (Solanum tuberosum) in organic farming. J. Agron. Crop Sci. 1997, 179, 241–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Möller, K.; Reents, H.J. Impact of Agronomic Strategies (Seed Tuber Pre-sprouting, Cultivar Choice) to Control Late Blight (Phytophthora infestans) on Tuber Growth and Yield in Organic Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) Crops. Potato Res. 2007, 50, 15–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Awad, M.; Ali, A.M.; Hegab, S.A.; Abd El Gawad, A.M. Organic Fertilization Affects Growth and Yield of Potato (Cara. cv) Plants Grown on Sandy Clay Loam. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2022, 53, 688–698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Hamouz, K.; Lachman, J.; Dvořǎk, P.; Pivec, V. The effect of ecological growing on the potatoes yielding and quality. Plant Soil Environ. 2005, 51, 397–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Islam, R.; Hoque, T.S.; Islam, S.; Ahmed, M.; Hoque, M. Performance of Different Organic Manures with Chemical Fertilizers in Increasing Growth, Yield and Nutritional Quality of Potato (Solanum tuberosum, L.). Bangladesh J. Bot. 2021, 50, 651–657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Makarewicz, A.; Płaza, A.; Gąsiorowska, B. Yield and quality of potato tubers fertilized with undersown crops in an integrated and organic production system. Acta Sci. Pol. Agric. 2015, 14, 39–48. [Google Scholar]
  33. Schrama, M.; de Haan, J.J.; Kroonen, M.; Verstegen, H.; Van der Putten, W.H. Crop yield gap and stability in organic and conventional farming systems. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2018, 256, 123–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Trawczyński, C.; Bogdanowicz, P. The use of Soil Fertiliser in the aspect of ecological potato cultivation. J. Res. Appl. Agric. Eng. 2007, 52, 94–97. [Google Scholar]
  35. Zarzecka, K.; Gugała, M. The effects of soil fertilizer UG max on yield of potato tubers and its structure. Biul. Inst. Hod. I Aklim. Roślin 2013, 267, 107–112. [Google Scholar]
  36. Jabłoński, K. Directions of expected changes in potato production technology until 2020. Stud. I Rap. IUNG—PIB 2009, 17, 117–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Kowalska, J. Effect of fertilization and microbiological biostimulators on healthiness and yield of organic potato. Prog. Plant Prot. 2016, 56, 230–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Wijesinghe, D.; Sangakkara, R.; Rahmann, G.; Aksoy, U. (Eds.) Successful Potato production in Nature Farming with effective Microorganisms—A case Study. In Proceedings of the 4th ISOFAR Scientific Conference. ‘Building Organic Bridges’, at the Organic World Congress, Istanbul, Turkey, 13–15 October 2014. (eprint ID 24318). [Google Scholar]
  39. Kołodziejczyk, M. Effectiveness of nitrogen fertilization and application of microbial preparations in potato cultivation. Turk. J. Agric. For. 2014, 38, 299–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Ali, A.M.; Awad, M.Y.M.; Hegab, S.A.; Abd El Gawad, A.M.; Eissa, M.A. Effect of potassium solubilizing bacteria (Bacillus cereus) on growth and yield of potato. J. Plant Nutr. 2020, 44, 411–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Baranowska, A.; Zarzecka, K.; Mystkowska, I.; Gugała, M. The impact of the soil fertilizer UGmax on the yield of commercial fraction, the content of protein nitrogen and nitrates in potato tubers (Solanum tuberosum L.). Zesz. Probl. Post. Nauk Rol. 2016, 585, 3–11. [Google Scholar]
  42. Jeske, M.; Pańka, D.; Wichrowska, D. Effect of chemical protection, organic fertilization and UGmax soil conditioner on health status of potato tubers. Prog. Plant Prot. 2015, 55, 92–97. [Google Scholar]
  43. Wichrowska, D.; Szczepanek, M. Possibility of Limiting Mineral Fertilization in Potato Cultivation by Using Bio-fertilizer and Its Influence on Protein Content in Potato Tubers. Agriculture 2020, 10, 442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Mijwel, A.K.; Abed Al-Aedha, A.N.; Bresim, T.H. Effect of Compost and Humic Acid on Potato Growth and Quality. Eng. Technol. J. 2019, 37 Pt C, 145–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Rizk, F.A.; Shaheen, A.M.; Singer, S.M.; Sawan, O.A. The Produtivity of Potato Plants Affected by Urea Fertilizer as Foliar Spraying and Humic Acid added with Irrigation Water. Middle East J. Agric. Res. 2013, 2, 76–83. [Google Scholar]
  46. Sarhan, T.Z. Effect of humic acid and seaweed extracts on growth and yield of potato plant (Solanum tubersum) Desiree cv. Mesop. J. Agric. 2011, 39, 19–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Man-hong, Y.; Lei, Z.; Sheng-tao, X. Effect of water soluble humic acid applied to potato foliage on plant growth, photosynthesis characteristics and fresh tuber yield under different water deficits. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 7854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Suh, H.Y.; Yoo, K.S.; Suh, S.G. Tuber growth and quality of potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) as affected by foliar or soil application of fulvic and humic acids. Hortic. Environ. Biotechnol. 2014, 55, 183–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Ekin, Z. Integrated Use of Humic Acid and Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria to Ensure Higher Potato Productivity in Sustainable Agriculture. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Du Jardin, P. Plant biostimulants: Definition, concept, main categories and regulation. Sci. Hortic. 2015, 196, 3–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Naderi, M.R.; Danesh-Shahraki, A. Nanofertilizers and their roles in sustainable agriculture. Int. J. Agric. Crop Sci. 2013, 5, 2229–2232. [Google Scholar]
  52. De Rosa, M.C.; Montreaal, C.M.; Schnitzer, M.; Walsh, R.; Sultan, Y. Nanotechnology in fertilizers. Nat. Nanotechnol. 2010, 5, 91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Siddiqui, M.H.; Al-Whaibi, M.H.; Firoz, M.; Al-Khaishany, M.Y. Role of nanoparticles in plants. In Nanotechnology and Plant Sciences; Siddiqui, M., Al-Whaibi, M., Mohammad, F., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Trawczyński, C. The effect of biostimulators on the yield and quality of potato tubers grown in drought and high temperature conditions. Biul. IHAR 2020, 289, 11–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Mystkowska, I.T. Biostimulators as a factor affecting the yield of edible potato. Acta Agroph. 2018, 25, 307–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Prajapati, A.; Patel, C.K.; Singh, N.; Jain, S.K.; Chongtham, S.K.; Maheshwari, M.N.; Patel, R.N. Evaluation of seaweed extract on growth and yield of potato. Environ. Ecol. 2016, 34, 605–608. [Google Scholar]
  57. Röder, C.; Mógor, Á.F.; Szilagyi-Zecchin, V.J.; Gemin, L.G.; Mógor, G. Potato yield and metabolic changes by use of biofertilizer containing L-glutamic acid. Comun. Sci. 2018, 9, 211–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Wierzbowska, J.; Cwalina-Ambroziak, B.; Głosek-Sobieraj, M.; Sienkiewicz, S. Effect of biostimulators on yield and selected chemical properties of potato tubers. J. Elem. 2015, 20, 757–768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Trawczyński, C. Effect of foliar fertilization with multicomponent fertilizers in form nanoparticle on the yield and quality of potato tubers. Agron. Sci. 2002, 77, 77–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Al-Juthery, H.W.A.; Ali, N.S.; Al-Taey, D.K.A.; Ali, E.A.H.M. The impact of foliar application of nanofertilizer, seaweed and hypertonic on yield of potato. Plant Arch. 2018, 18, 2207–2212. [Google Scholar]
  61. Al-Zebari, Y.I.; Kahlel, A.M.S.; AL-Hamdan, S. Response of four potato (Solanum tuberosum, L.) varieties to four nano fertilizers. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2021, 761, 012060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Janmohammadi, M.; Sabaghnia, N.; Nouraein, M.; Dashti, S. Responses of potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) var. Agria to application of bio, bulk and nano-fertilizers. Ann. Univ. Lub. Pol. 2015, 70, 57–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Mahmoud, A.W.M.; Abdeldaym, E.A.; Abdelaziz, S.M.; Mohamed, B.I.E.; Mottaleb, S.A. Synergetic effects of zinc, boron, silicon, and zeolite nanoparticles on confer tolerance in potato plants subjected to salinity. Agronomy 2020, 10, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Fabeiro, C.; de Santa Olalla, F.M.; de Juan, J.A. Yield and size of deficit irrigated potatoes. Agric. Water Manag. 2001, 48, 255–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Lahlou, O.; Ouattar, S.L.; Ledent, J.F. The effect of drought and cultivar on growth parameters, yield and yield components of potato. Agronomie 2003, 23, 257–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Gładysiak, S.; Grześ, S. Yield of very early potatoes depending on irrigation, sprouting of seed potatoes and nitrogen fertilization. Rocz. Akad. Rol. W Poznaniu. CCCXXX Rol. 2006, 66, 91–97. [Google Scholar]
  67. Mazurczyk, W.; Głuska, A.; Trawczyński, C.; Nowacki, W.; Zarzyńska, K. Using of irrigation in organic farm growing potatoes. In Organic Potato Production; Polish Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development: Warsaw, Poland, 2007; pp. 132–143. [Google Scholar]
  68. Clark, M.E.; Horwaht, W.R.; Shennan, C.; Scow, K.M.; Lantni, W.T.; Ferris, H. Nitrogen, weeds and water as yield limiting factors in conventional, low input and organic tomato systems. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 1998, 73, 257–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Ojala, J.C.; Stark, J.C.; Kleinkopf, G.E. Influence of Irrigation and Nitrogen Management on Potato Yield and Quality. Am. Potato J. 1990, 67, 29–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Ierna, A.; Parisi, B. Crop growth and tuber yield of early potato crop under organic and conventional farming. Sci. Hortic. 2014, 165, 260–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Rębarz, K.; Borówczak, F. The influence of sprinkler irrigation, cultivation technology and nitrogen fertilization on the quality of Bila potatoes. Zesz.Prob. Post. Nauk Roln. Zeszyt 511. Part. II. Food and industrial potato and its processing. Qual. Pol. Potato Var. 2006, 287–301. [Google Scholar]
  72. Van Delden, A. Yield and growth of potato and wheat under organic N- Management. Agron. J. 2001, 93, 1370–1385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Kazimierczak, R.; Średnicka-Tober, D.; Hallmann, E.; Kopczyńska, K.; Zarzyńska, K. The impact of organic vs. conventional agricultural practices on selected quality features of eight potato cultivars. Agronomy 2019, 9, 799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Baukema, H.P.; Van der Zaag, D.E. Introduction to Potato Production; Pudoc: Wagheningen, The Netherlands, 1990. [Google Scholar]
  75. Dzierżyc, J. Agriculture under Irrigation Conditions; PWRiL: Warszawa, Poland, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  76. Głuska, A. Influence of water shortage at different stages of potato plant and tuber yield quality. Potato Res. 2004, 41, 195–196. [Google Scholar]
  77. Borówczk, F. Irrigation of potatoes. In Production and Market of Potato; Chotkowski, J., Ed.; Wieś Jutra: Warsaw, Poland, 2012; pp. 205–211. [Google Scholar]
  78. Fatma, A.H.; Mohamed, A.I.A.A.; Abdel-Nasser, G.; Abd-Alla, S.M.; Yousryn, M.M. Response of Potato to Irrigation Water Levels and Organic Manure Fertilization Under Drip Irrigation System. J. Adv. Agric. Res. (Fac. Agric. Saba Basha) 2018, 23, 230–249. [Google Scholar]
  79. Harris, P.L. The Potato Crop—The Scientific Basis for Improvement, 2nd ed.; Chapman & Hall: London, UK, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  80. Marscher, H. MINERAL Nutrition for Higher Plants, 2nd ed.; Academic Press: London, UK, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  81. Bruns, C.; Finckh, M.R.; Długowski, S.; Leifert, C.; Hospers, M. Interaction between soil fertility management and variety specific characteristics with the infestation of potatoes with Phytophthora infestans. In Őkologischer Landbau der Zukunft. Beiträge zur 7. Wissenschaftstagung zum Őkologischen Landbau; Freyer, B., Ed.; Őkologischer: Frankfurt am Main, Germany, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  82. Lynch, D.H.; Sharifi, M.; Hammermeister, A.; Burton, D. Nitrogen management in organic potato production. In Sustainable potato Production: Global Case Studies; He, Z., Larkin, R., Honeycutt, W., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Wright, I. Nutrition, Blight and Skin Finish in Early Potato Production—Organic Advisory Service Organic Early Potato Production in Devon. In Proceedings of the UE Project QLK-Ct-2000-01065 BLIGHT- MOP. Workshop, a HDRA Event, Beesands near Kinderbridge, South Devon, UK, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  84. Harrison, J.G. Factors involved in the development of potato late blight disease (Phytophthora infestans). In Potato Modeling and Ecology of Crops under Conditions Limiting Growth; Haverkort, A.J., MacKerron, D.K.L., Eds.; Kluwer: London, UK, 1995; pp. 215–236. [Google Scholar]
  85. Fry, W.E.; Apple, A.E. Disease implications of age—Related changes in susceptibility of potato foliage to Phytophthora infestans. Am. Potato 1986, 63, 47–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Hospers-Brand, A.J.T.M.; Ghorbani, R.; Bremer, E.; Bain, R.; Litterick, A.; Holder, F.; Leifer, C.; Wilcockson, S.J. Effects of Presprouting, Planting Date, Plant Population and Configuration on Late Blight and Yield of Organic Potato Crops Grown with Different Cultivars. Potato Res. 2008, 51, 131–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Phillips, S.L.; Shaw, M.W.; Wolfe, M.S. The effect of potato variety mixture on epidemic of late blight in relation to plot size and level of resistance. Ann. App. Biol. 2005, 147, 245–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Visker, M.H.P.W.; Keizer, L.C.P.; Budding, D.J.; Van Loon, L.C.; Colon, L.T.; Struik, P.C. Leaf position prevails over plant age in reflecting resistance to late blight in potato. Pthytopathology 2003, 93, 666–674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Chmielarz, M.; Sobkowiak, S.; Dębski, K.; Cooke, D.E.L.; Brurberg, M.B.; Śliwka, J. Diversity of Phytophthora infestans from Poland. Plant Pathol. 2014, 63, 203–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Hansen, J.G.; Koppel, M.; Valskyte, A.; Turka, I.; Kapsa, J. Evaluation of foliar resistance in potato to Phytophthora infestans based on an international field trial network. Plant Pathol. 2005, 54, 169–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Runno-Paurson, E.; Ronis, A.; Hansen, M.; Aav, A.; Williams, I.H. Lithuanian populations of Phytophthora infestans revealed a high phenotypic diversity. J. Plant Dis. Prot. 2015, 122, 57–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Lalaymia, I.; Naveau, F.; Arguelles Arias, A.; Ongena, M.; Picaud, T.; Declerck, S.; Calonne-Salmon, M. Screening and efficacy evaluation of antagonistic fungi against Phytophthora infestans and combination with arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi for biocontrol of late blight in potato. Front. Agron. 2022, 4, 948309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. El-Naggar, M.A.; Abouleid, H.Z.; El-Deeb, H.M.; Abd-El-Kareem, F.; Elshahawy, I.E. Biological and Chemical Sciences Biological Control of Potato Late Blight by Means of Induction Systemic Resistance and Antagonism. Res. J. Pharm. Biol. Chem. Sci. 2016, 7, 1339–1348. [Google Scholar]
  94. Kowalska, J.; Remlein-Starosta, D. Influence of frequency and way of application of bio-preparate (Trichoderma asperellum) on limitation of potato late blight and yield of organic potato. Prog. Plant Prot. 2012, 52, 347–350. [Google Scholar]
  95. Zarzyńska, K.; Boguszewska-Mańkowska, D.; Feledyn-Szewczyk, B.; Jończyk, K. The Vigor of Seed Potatoes from Organic and Conventional Systems. Agriculture 2022, 12, 1764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Wasilewska-Nascimento, B.; Boguszewska-Mańkowska, D.; Zarzyńska, K. Challenges in the Production of High-Quality Seed Potatoes (Solanum tuberosum L.) in the Tropics and Subtropics. Agronomy 2020, 10, 260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Agriculture 13 00901 g001 550
Figure 1. Places of investigation (Jadwisin, Osiny) in Poland.
Figure 1. Places of investigation (Jadwisin, Osiny) in Poland.
Agriculture 13 00901 g001
Agriculture 13 00901 g002 550
Figure 2. Tuber yield depending on site and years of growing (mean for 30 varieties).
Figure 2. Tuber yield depending on site and years of growing (mean for 30 varieties).
Agriculture 13 00901 g002
Agriculture 13 00901 g003 550
Figure 3. Yield of cultivars depending on site of growing (mean for 3 years).
Figure 3. Yield of cultivars depending on site of growing (mean for 3 years).
Agriculture 13 00901 g003
Agriculture 13 00901 g004 550
Figure 4. Effect of UG max Soil Fertilizer on potato tuber yield. a,b-mean values indicated by the same letters are not statistically significant at the 0.05 level by Tukey’s test.
Figure 4. Effect of UG max Soil Fertilizer on potato tuber yield. a,b-mean values indicated by the same letters are not statistically significant at the 0.05 level by Tukey’s test.
Agriculture 13 00901 g004
Agriculture 13 00901 g005 550
Figure 5. Effect of organic preparation Rosahumus on potato tuber yield. a,b-mean values indicated by the same letters are not statistically significant at the 0.05 level by Tukey’s test.
Figure 5. Effect of organic preparation Rosahumus on potato tuber yield. a,b-mean values indicated by the same letters are not statistically significant at the 0.05 level by Tukey’s test.
Agriculture 13 00901 g005
Agriculture 13 00901 g006 550
Figure 6. The effect of foliar biological agents based on amino acids on potato tuber yield. a,b-mean values indicated by the same letters are not statistically significant at the 0.05 level by Tukey’s test.
Figure 6. The effect of foliar biological agents based on amino acids on potato tuber yield. a,b-mean values indicated by the same letters are not statistically significant at the 0.05 level by Tukey’s test.
Agriculture 13 00901 g006
Agriculture 13 00901 g007 550
Figure 7. The effect of multi-component nanoparticle biological agents on potato tuber yield. a,b-mean values indicated by the same letters are not statistically significant at the 0.05 level by Tukey’s test.
Figure 7. The effect of multi-component nanoparticle biological agents on potato tuber yield. a,b-mean values indicated by the same letters are not statistically significant at the 0.05 level by Tukey’s test.
Agriculture 13 00901 g007
Agriculture 13 00901 g008 550
Figure 8. Rate of late blight development depending on cultivars resistance to P. infestans (Jadwisin 2008–2010).
Figure 8. Rate of late blight development depending on cultivars resistance to P. infestans (Jadwisin 2008–2010).
Agriculture 13 00901 g008
Table
Table 1. The vegetation period conditions expressed by the Sielianinov hydrothermal coefficient in the years of research for Jadwisin and Osiny, 2005–2016.
Table 1. The vegetation period conditions expressed by the Sielianinov hydrothermal coefficient in the years of research for Jadwisin and Osiny, 2005–2016.
YearSiteSielianinov Hydrothermal Coefficient (K)YearSielianinov Hydrothermal Coefficient (K)
2005Jadwisin1.020111.8
Osiny1.31.5
2006Jadwisin1.120121.5
Osiny1.31.2
2007Jadwisin1.720131,8
Osiny1,70.8
2008Jadwisin1.120140.9
Osiny1.41.8
2009Jadwisin1.220150,6
Osiny1.20.9
2010Jadwisin2.020161.3
Osiny1.51.2
K = 0–0.5 drought, K = 0.6–1.0 dryness, K > 1 wet conditions.
Table
Table 2. Tuber yield and its structure of Polish and foreign cultivars cultivated in an organic system (Jadwisin, 2008–2010).
Table 2. Tuber yield and its structure of Polish and foreign cultivars cultivated in an organic system (Jadwisin, 2008–2010).
Maturity GroupCultivarCountry of OriginTotal Yield (t∙ha−1)Yield of Big Tubers (>60 mm) (t∙ha−1)
Very earlyMiłekPoland22.91.9
BerberThe Netherlands20.12.0
EarlyOwacjaPoland27.05.3
VitaraGermany27.85.5
Mid earlyTajfunPoland29.55.0
AgnesGermany26.14.4
Mid late and lateUrsusPoland28.84.6
FiannaThe Netherlands19.11.0
Mean for Polish cultivars 27.15.7
Mean for foreign cultivars23.33.2
LSD3.11.9
LSD—least significant difference.
Table
Table 3. The influence of seed potatoes presprouting on tuber yield and tuber size distribution (Jadwisin, 2008–2010).
Table 3. The influence of seed potatoes presprouting on tuber yield and tuber size distribution (Jadwisin, 2008–2010).
Seed Potatoes PreparationTotal Yield
(t∙ha−1)		Yield of Small Tubers
(<35 mm) t∙ha−1		Yield of Medium Tubers
(35–60 mm), t∙ha−1		Yield of Large Tubers (>60 mm) t∙ha−1
Presprouted 32.2 a1.9 a26.6 a3.7 a
Without presprouting (control)30.8 a1.8 a25.5 a2.6 b
Difference in relation to control (%)4.3−5.34.129.7
a, b—mean values indicated by the same letters are not statistically significant at the 0.05 level by Tukey’s test.
Table
Table 4. Yield increase under the influence of the tested natural preparations (Jadwisin 2004–2020).
Table 4. Yield increase under the influence of the tested natural preparations (Jadwisin 2004–2020).
Bilogical AgentIncrease of Total Tuber Yield [%]
UG max9.2
Rosahumus11.9
Naturamin Plus
Naturamin WSP		15.9
19.0
Herbagreen Basic
Nano Active Forte		10.8
11.5
Table
Table 5. Influence of irrigation on tuber yield and tuber size distribution.
Table 5. Influence of irrigation on tuber yield and tuber size distribution.
CombinationTotal Yield (t∙ha−1)Share of Small Tubers (<35 mm) (%)Share of Medium Tu Bers (35–60 mm) (%)Share of Big Tubers (>60 mm) (%)
With irrigation33.3 a3.7 b82.1 a14.2 a
Without irrigation (control)24.8 b5.4 a87.5 a6.1 b
Difference in relation to control (%)25.5−30.9−6.256.7
a,b-mean values indicated by the same letters are not statistically significant at the 0.05 level by Tukey’s test.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zarzyńska, K.; Trawczyński, C.; Pietraszko, M. Environmental and Agronomical Factors Limiting Differences in Potato Yielding between Organic and Conventional Production System. Agriculture 2023, 13, 901. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13040901

AMA Style

Zarzyńska K, Trawczyński C, Pietraszko M. Environmental and Agronomical Factors Limiting Differences in Potato Yielding between Organic and Conventional Production System. Agriculture. 2023; 13(4):901. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13040901

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zarzyńska, Krystyna, Cezary Trawczyński, and Milena Pietraszko. 2023. "Environmental and Agronomical Factors Limiting Differences in Potato Yielding between Organic and Conventional Production System" Agriculture 13, no. 4: 901. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13040901

APA Style

Zarzyńska, K., Trawczyński, C., & Pietraszko, M. (2023). Environmental and Agronomical Factors Limiting Differences in Potato Yielding between Organic and Conventional Production System. Agriculture, 13(4), 901. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13040901

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop