Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-684899dbb8-489z4 Total loading time: 0.274 Render date: 2022-05-27T01:02:16.521Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true }

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Sushila Chaudhari*
Affiliation:
North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695
Katherine M. Jennings
Affiliation:
North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695
David W. Monks
Affiliation:
North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695
David L. Jordan
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695
Christopher C. Gunter
Affiliation:
North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695
Samuel J. McGowen
Affiliation:
North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695
Frank J. Louws
Affiliation:
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: schaudh@ncsu.edu

Abstract

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.

Type
Weed Management
Copyright
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.)

Footnotes

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

References

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 CrossRefGoogle 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 CrossRefGoogle 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 CrossRefGoogle 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colla, G, Suãrez, CMC, Cardarelli, M, Rouphael, Y (2010) Improving nitrogen use efficiency in melon by grafting. HortScience 45: 559565 CrossRefGoogle 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Everman, WJ, Clewis, SB, Thomas, WE, Burke, IC, Wilcut, JW (2008) Critical period of weed interference in peanut. Weed Technol 22: 6367 CrossRefGoogle 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 CrossRefGoogle 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 CrossRefGoogle 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 CrossRefGoogle 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 CrossRefGoogle 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 CrossRefGoogle 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 CrossRefGoogle 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monks, DW, Schultheis, JR (1998) Critical weed-free period for large crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis) in transplanted watermelon (Citrullus lanatus). Weed Sci 46: 530532 CrossRefGoogle 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Motis, TN, Locascio, JPSJ, Gilreath, JP (2004) Critical yellow nutsedge-free period for polyethylene-mulched bell pepper. Hortscience 39: 10451049 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[NCDACS] North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (2015) 2014 Marketing Season for North Carolina Fruits and Vegetables. https://www.marketnews.usda.gov/mnp/fv-home. Accessed May 29, 2015Google Scholar
Ngouajio, M, McGiffen, ME, Hembree, K (2001) Tolerance of tomato cultivars to velvetleaf interference. Weed Sci 49: 9198 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norsworthy, JS, Oliveira, MJ (2004) Comparison of the critical period for weed control in wide- and narrow-row corn. Weed Sci 52: 802807 CrossRefGoogle 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 CrossRefGoogle 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 CrossRefGoogle 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 CrossRefGoogle 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weaver, SE, Tan, CS (1983) Critical period of weed interference in transplanted tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum): growth analysis. Weed Sci 31: 476481 CrossRefGoogle 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

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

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

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

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

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

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *