Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-7drxs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-22T23:47:25.876Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Critical Period for Weed Control in Grafted and Nongrafted Fresh Market Tomato

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Sushila Chaudhari*
North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695
Katherine M. Jennings
North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695
David W. Monks
North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695
David L. Jordan
Department of Crop Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695
Christopher C. Gunter
North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695
Samuel J. McGowen
North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695
Frank J. Louws
Department of Plant Pathology and Director of National Science Foundation–Center for Integrated Pest Management, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695
Corresponding author's E-mail:


Field experiments were conducted to determine the critical period for weed control (CPWC) in nongrafted ‘Amelia’ and Amelia grafted onto ‘Maxifort’ tomato rootstock grown in plasticulture. The establishment treatments (EST) consisted of two seedlings each of common purslane, large crabgrass, and yellow nutsedge transplanted at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 12 wk after tomato transplanting (WAT) and remained until tomato harvest to simulate weeds emerging at different times. The removal treatments (REM) consisted of the same weeds transplanted on the day of tomato transplanting and removed at 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 12 WAT to simulate weeds controlled at different times. The beginning and end of the CPWC, based on a 5% yield loss of marketable tomato, was determined by fitting log-logistic and Gompertz models to the relative yield data representing REM and EST, respectively. In both grafted and nongrafted tomato, plant aboveground dry biomass increased as establishment of weeds was delayed and tomato plant biomass decreased when removal of weeds was delayed. For a given time of weed removal and establishment, grafted tomato plants produced higher biomass than nongrafted. The delay in establishment and removal of weeds resulted in weed biomass decrease and increase of the same magnitude, respectively, regardless of transplant type. The predicted CPWC was from 2.2 to 4.5 WAT in grafted tomato and from 3.3 to 5.8 WAT in nongrafted tomato. The length (2.3 or 2.5 wk) of the CPWC in fresh market tomato was not affected by grafting; however, the CPWC management began and ended 1 wk earlier in grafted tomato than in nongrafted tomato.

Weed Management
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)


Associate Editor for this paper: William Vencill, University of Georgia.


Literature Cited

Agostinho, FH, Gravena, R, Alves, PLCA, Salgado, TP, Mattos, D (2006) The effect of cultivar on critical periods of weed control in peanuts. Peanut Sci 33: 2935 Google Scholar
Ahmadvand, G, Mondani, F, Golzardi, F (2009) Effect of crop plant density on critical period of weed competition in potato. Sci Hort 121: 249254 Google Scholar
Buckelew, JK, Monks, DW, Jennings, KM, Hoyt, GD, Walls, RF (2006) Eastern black nightshade (Solanum ptycanthum) reproduction and interference in transplanted plasticulture tomato. Weed Sci 54: 490495 Google Scholar
Chase, CA, Sinclair, TR, Shilling, DG, Gilreath, JP, Locascio, SJ (1998) Light effects on rhizome morphogenesis in nutsedges (Cyperus spp.): implications for control by soil solarization. Weed Sci 46: 575580 Google Scholar
Colla, G, Suãrez, CMC, Cardarelli, M, Rouphael, Y (2010) Improving nitrogen use efficiency in melon by grafting. HortScience 45: 559565 Google Scholar
Evans, SP, Knezevic, SZ, Lindquist, JL, Shapiro, CA, Blankenship, EE (2003) Nitrogen application influences the critical period for weed control in corn. Weed Sci 51: 408417 Google Scholar
Everman, WJ, Clewis, SB, Thomas, WE, Burke, IC, Wilcut, JW (2008) Critical period of weed interference in peanut. Weed Technol 22: 6367 Google Scholar
Garvey, PV, Meyers, SL, Monks, DW, Coble, HD (2013) Influence of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) on the critical period for weed control in plasticulture-grown tomato. Weed Technol 27: 165170 Google Scholar
Ghosheh, H, Al-Kawamleh, M, Makhadmeh, I (2010) Weed competitiveness and herbicidal sensitivity of grafted tomatoes (Solanum lycopersicon mill.). J Plant Prot Res 50: 307313 Google Scholar
Kacjan-Marsić, N, Osvald, J (2004) The influence of grafting on yield of two tomato cultivars (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) grown in a plastic house. Acta Agric Slov 83: 243249 Google Scholar
Kemble, JM, ed (2015) Southeastern U.S. Vegetable Crop Handbook US—2015. Lincolnshire, IL: Vance. 277 pGoogle Scholar
Khah, E, Kakava, E, Mavromatis, A, Chachalis, D, Goulas, C (2006) Effect of grafting on growth and yield of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) in greenhouse and open-field. J Appl Hortic 8: 37 Google Scholar
Knezevic, SZ, Evans, SP, Blankenship, EE, Acker, RCV, Lindquist, JL (2002) Critical period for weed control: the concept and data analysis. Weed Sci 50: 773786 Google Scholar
Knezevic, SZ, Evans, SP, Mainz, M (2003) Row spacing influences the critical timing for weed removal in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol 17: 666673 Google Scholar
Lee, JM, Oda, M (2003) Grafting of herbaceous vegetable and ornamental crops. Hortic Rev 28: 61124 Google Scholar
Leoni, S, Grudina, R, Cadinu, M, Madeddu, B, Garletti, MC (1990) The influence of four rootstocks on some melon hybrids and a cultivar in greenhouse. Acta Hort 287: 127134 Google Scholar
Louws, FJ, Rivard, CL, Kubota, C (2010) Grafting fruiting vegetables to manage soilborne pathogens, foliar pathogens, arthropods and weeds. Sci Hort 127: 127146 Google Scholar
MacRae, AW, Webster, TM, Sosnoskie, LM, Culpepper, AS, Kichler, JM (2013) Cotton yield loss potential in response to length of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) interference. J Cotton Sci 17: 227232 Google Scholar
McGiffen, ME, Masiunas, JJB, Hesketh, JD (1992) Competition for light between tomatoes and nightshades (Solanum nigrum or S. ptycanthum). Weed Sci 40: 220226 Google Scholar
Monaco, TJ, Grayson, AS, Sanders, DC (1981) Influence of four weed species on the growth, yield, and quality of direct-seeded tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum). Weed Sci 29: 394397 Google Scholar
Monks, DW, Schultheis, JR (1998) Critical weed-free period for large crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis) in transplanted watermelon (Citrullus lanatus). Weed Sci 46: 530532 Google Scholar
Morales-Payan, JP, Stall, WM, Shilling, DG, Charudattan, R, Dusky, JA, Bewick, TA (2003) Above- and below-ground interference of purple and yellow nutsedge (Cyperus spp.) with tomato. Weed Sci 51: 181185 Google Scholar
Motis, TN, Locascio, JPSJ, Gilreath, JP (2004) Critical yellow nutsedge-free period for polyethylene-mulched bell pepper. Hortscience 39: 10451049 Google Scholar
[NCDACS] North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (2015) 2014 Marketing Season for North Carolina Fruits and Vegetables. Accessed May 29, 2015Google Scholar
Ngouajio, M, McGiffen, ME, Hembree, K (2001) Tolerance of tomato cultivars to velvetleaf interference. Weed Sci 49: 9198 Google Scholar
Norsworthy, JS, Oliveira, MJ (2004) Comparison of the critical period for weed control in wide- and narrow-row corn. Weed Sci 52: 802807 Google Scholar
Rivard, CL, Louws, FJ (2006) Grafting for disease resistance in heirloom tomatoes. North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service, Bulletin Ag–675. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service. 8 pGoogle Scholar
Romano, D, Paratore, A (2001) Effects of grafting on tomato and eggplant. Acta Hort 559: 149153 Google Scholar
Sanders, DC, Cook, WP, Cranberry, D (1996) Plasticulture of Commercial Vegetables. North Carolina Cooperative Extension Services, North Carolina State University. Pub. AG–489. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Cooperative Extension Services. 28 pGoogle Scholar
Schwarz, D, Rouphael, Y, Colla, G, Venema, JH (2010) Grafting as a tool to improve tolerance of vegetables to abiotic stresses: thermal stress, water stress and organic pollutants. Sci Hort 127: 162171 Google Scholar
Tateishi, K (1927) Grafting watermelon onto pumpkin. J Jpn Hort Sci 39: 58 Google Scholar
Turhan, A, Ozmen, N, Serbeci, MS, Seniz, V (2011) Effects of grafting on different rootstocks on tomato fruit yield and quality. Hort Sci (Prague) 38: 142149 Google Scholar
[USDA-AMS] U.S. Department of Agriculture–Agricultural Marketing Service (1997) United States Standards for Grades of Fresh Tomatoes. Washington, DC: USDA. 13 pGoogle Scholar
Weaver, SE (1984) Critical period of weed competition in three vegetable crops in relation to management practices. Weed Res 24: 317325 Google Scholar
Weaver, SE, Tan, CS (1983) Critical period of weed interference in transplanted tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum): growth analysis. Weed Sci 31: 476481 Google Scholar
Webster, TM (2010) Weed survey—southern states: vegetable, fruit and nut crops subsection (annual weed survey). Proc South Weed Sci Soc 63: 246257 Google Scholar
Wien, HC, Minotti, PL (1987) Growth, yield, and nutrient uptake of transplanted fresh-market tomatoes as affected by plastic mulch and initial nitrogen rate. J Am Soc Hortic Sci 112: 759763 Google Scholar
Zimdahl, RL (2004) Weed–Crop Competition: A Review. 2nd ed. San Diego, CA: Blackwell. P 220 Google Scholar