Hostname: page-component-6b989bf9dc-zrclq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-14T23:59:56.464Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Emergent weed communities associated with tomato production systems in Indiana

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

David E. Hillger ,
Stephen C. Weller ,
Elizabeth T. Maynard  and
Kevin D. Gibson
Stephen C. Weller
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907-2010
Elizabeth T. Maynard
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907-2010
Kevin D. Gibson
Affiliation:
Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907-1155
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Weed species respond to the cumulative effect of multiple practices employed within weed management systems. However, this response is rarely studied at the system level, and the relationships between weed communities and management systems in crops are not well understood. We used multivariate analyses to assess relationships among tomato management systems and weed species identified through on-farm sampling of 59 fields. Giant foxtail, common lambsquarters, prickly sida, and carpetweed were common in all systems. Eastern black nightshade was common in the conventional processing and mixed fresh-market systems but largely absent from the organic system. Barnyardgrass and goosegrass were common in the organic fresh-market system but not in the other systems. Canonical correspondence analysis identified distinct associations between specific species and the management systems. Common purslane was strongly associated with the rain-fed, mixed fresh-market system, and barnyardgrass, goosegrass, yellow nutsedge, and green foxtail were associated with the irrigated, organic fresh-market system. Indicator species analysis identified five species that were significant indicators of the organic, fresh-market system and one species that was a significant indicator of the rain-fed, mixed fresh-market system. Weed populations persist or increase when a set of species-specific environmental conditions are met. The association of weed species in this study with particular systems supports the hypothesis that weed communities are strongly affected by management systems.

Keywords

Barnyardgrass, Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) Beauv. ECHCGcarpetweed, Mollugo verticillata L. MOLVEcommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. CHEALcommon purslane, Portulaca oleracea L. POROLeastern black nightshade, Solanum ptycanthum Dun. SOLPTgiant foxtail, Setaria faberi Herrm. SETFAgoosegrass, Eleusine indica (L.) Gaertn. ELEINgreen foxtail, Setaria viridis (L.) Beauv. SETVIprickly sida, Sida spinosa L.yellow nutsedge, Cyperus esculentus L. CYPEStomato, Solanum lycopersicum L.Canonical correspondence analysismultivariate analysisordinationorganic agricultureweed management
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 54 , Issue 6 , December 2006 , pp. 1106 - 1112
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.)

References

Literature Cited

Bárberi, P., Silvestri, N., and Bonari, E. 1997. Weed communities of winter wheat as influenced by input level and rotation. Weed Res. 37:301–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumann, D. T., Kropff, M. J., and Batiaans, L. 2000. Intercropping leeks to suppress weeds. Weed Res. 40:359–374.Google Scholar
Bell, C. E., Fennimore, S. A., and McGiffen, M. E. et al. 2000. My view. Weed Sci. 48:1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonanno, A. R. 1996. Weed management in plasticulture. Horttechnology. 6:186–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bond, W. and Grundy, A. C. 2001. Non-chemical weed management in organic farming systems. Weed Res. 41:383–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brainard, D. C. and Bellinder, R. R. 2004. Weed suppression in a broccoli– winter rye intercropping system. Weed Sci. 52:281–290.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D., Hartzler, R. G., and Forcella, F. 1998. Weed seed bank dynamics: implications to weed management. J. Crop Prod. 1:145–168.Google Scholar
Creamer, N. G., Bennett, M. A., Stinner, B. R., Cardina, J., and Regnier, E. E. 1996. Mechanisms of weed suppression in cover crop-based production systems. Hortscience. 31:410–413.Google Scholar
Clements, D. R., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1994. Integrated weed management and weed species diversity. Phytoprotection. 75:1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, A. S., Renner, K. A., and Gross, K. L. 2005. Weed seedbank and community shifts in long-term cropping systems experiment. Weed Sci. 53:296–306.Google Scholar
Derksen, D. A., Thomas, A. G., Lafond, G. P., Loeppky, H. A., and Swanton, C. J. 1995. Impact of post-emergence herbicides on weed community diversity within conservation-tillage systems. Weed Res. 35:311–320.Google Scholar
Eizenberg, H., Goldwasser, Y., Achdary, G., and Hershenhorn, J. 2003. The potential of sulfosulfuron to control troublesome weeds in tomatoes. Weed Technol. 17:133–137.Google Scholar
Gallandt, E. R. 2004. Soil improving practices for ecological weed management. Pages 267–284 in Inderjit, ed. Principles and Practices in Weed Management: Weed Biology and Weed Management. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Gibson, K. D., Johnson, W. G., and Hillger, D. E. 2005. Farmer perceptions of problematic corn and soybean weeds in Indiana. Weed Technol. 19:1065–1070.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grubb, P. J. 1977. Maintenance of species-richness in plant communities— importance of regeneration niche. Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. 52:107–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haar, M. J., Fennimaore, S. A., McGiffen, M. E., Lanini, W. T., and Bell, C. E. 2002. Evaluation of preemergence herbicides in vegetable crops. Horttechnology. 12:95–99.Google Scholar
Hilgenfeld, K. L., Martin, A. R., Mortensen, D. A., and Mason, S. C. 2004. Weed management in glyphosate resistant soybean: weed emergence patterns in relation to glyphosate treatment timing. Weed Technol. 18:277–283.Google Scholar
Hillger, D. E., Weller, S. C., Maynard, E., and Gibson, K. D. 2006. Weed management systems in Indiana tomato production. Weed Sci. 54:516–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Homoya, M. A., Abrell, D. B., Aldrich, J. R., and Post, T. W. 1985. The natural regions of Indiana. Proc. Indiana Acad. Sci. 94:245–268.Google Scholar
Hume, L. 1987. Long-term effects of 2,4-D application on plants, 1: Effects on the weed community in a wheat crop. Can. J. Bot. 65:2530–2536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, W. C. III and Mullinix, B. G. Jr. 2000. Evaluation of tillage implements for stale seedbed tillage in peanuts (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Technol. 14:519–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leeson, J. Y., Sheard, J. W., and Thomas, A. G. 1999. Multivariate classification of farming systems for use in integrated pest management studies. Can J. Plant Sci. 79:647–654.Google Scholar
Leeson, J. Y., Sheard, J. W., and Thomas, A. G. 2000. Weed communities associated with arable Saskatchewan farm management systems. Can J. Plant Sci. 80:177–185.Google Scholar
Leps, J. and Smilauer, P. 2003. Multivariate analysis of ecological data using Canoco. New York: Cambridge University. 269 p.Google Scholar
Madden, N. M., Mitchell, J. P., Lanini, W. T., Cahn, M. D., Herrero, E. V., Park, S., Temple, S. R., and Vna Horn, M. 2004. Evaluation of conservation tillage and cover crop systems for organic processing tomato production. Horttechnology. 14:243–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magurran, A. E. 1988. Ecological diversity and its measurement. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.Google Scholar
Mayor, J. P. and Dessaint, F. 1998. Influence of weed management strategies on soil seedbank diversity. Weed Res. 38:95–105.Google Scholar
McCune, B. and Grace, J. B. 2002. Analysis of ecological communities. Gleneden Beach, OR: MjM Software Design. 300 p.Google Scholar
McGiffen, M. E., Masiunas, J. B., and Hesketh, J. D. 1992. Competition for light between tomatoes and nightshades (Solanum nigrum and S. ptycanthum). Weed Sci. 40:220–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Melander, B. and Rasmussen, K. 2000. Reducing intrarow weed numbers in row crops by means of a biennial cultivation system. Weed Res. 40:205–218.Google Scholar
Menalled, F. D., Gross, K. L., and Hammond, M. 2001. Weed aboveground and seedbank community responses to agricultural management systems. Ecol. Appl. 11:1586–1601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mortensen, D. A., Bastiaans, L., and Sattin, M. 2000. The role of ecology in the development of weed management systems: an outlook. Weed Res. 40:49–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myers, M. W., Curran, W. S., Van Gessel, M. J., Calvin, D. C., Mortensen, D. D., Majek, B. A., Karsten, H. D., and Roth, G. W. 2004. Predicting weed emergence for eight annual species in the northeastern United States. Weed Sci. 522:913–919.Google Scholar
Ngouajio, M., McGiffen, M. E. Jr., and Hutchinson, C. M. 2003. Effect of cover crop and management system on weed populations in lettuce. Crop Prot. 22:57–64.Google Scholar
Rasmussen, J. 2003. Punch planting, flame weeding and stale seedbed for weed control in row crops. Weed Res. 43:393–403.Google Scholar
Sankula, S., Van Gessel, M. J., Kee, W. E., and Glancey, J. L. 1999. Impact of row spacing and herbicide rate and application method on weed control and harvest efficiency of lima bean. Horttechnology. 9:363–341.Google Scholar
Shaw, D. R. 1996. Development of stale seedbed weed control programs for southern row crops. Weed Sci. 44:413–416.Google Scholar
Shennan, C., Drinkwater, L. E., van Bruggen, A. H. C., Letourneau, D. K., and Workneh, F. 1991. Comparative study of organic and conventional tomato production systems: an approach to on-farm studies. in Rice, B. J., ed. Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education in the Field. Washington, DC: National Academy.Google Scholar
Smeda, R. J. and Weller, S. C. 1996. Potential of rye (Secale cereale) for weed management in transplant tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum). Weed Sci. 44:596–602.Google Scholar
Stubbendieck, J., Friisoe, G. Y., and Bolick, M. R. 1995. Weeds of Nebraska and the Great Plains. 2nd ed. Lincoln, NE: Nebraska Department of Agriculture. 589 p.Google Scholar
Thomas, A. G. 1985. Weed survey system used in Saskatchewan for cereal and oilseed crops. Weed Sci. 33:34–43.Google Scholar
Thomas, A. G., Derksen, D. A., Blackshaw, R. E., Van Acker, R. C., Legere, A., Watson, P. R., and Turnbull, G. C. 2004. A multistudy approach to understanding weed population shifts in medium- to long-term tillage systems. Weed Sci. 52:874–880.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uva, R. H., Neal, J. C., and DiTomaso, J. M. 1997. Weeds of the Northeast. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University. 397 p.Google Scholar
Vitta, J. I., Tuesca, D., and Puricelli, E. 2004. Widespread use of glyphosate tolerant soybean and weed community richness in Argentina. Agric. Ecosys. Environ. 103:621–624.Google Scholar
Wahle, E. A. and Masiunas, J. B. 2003. Comparison of nitrogen use by two population densities of eastern black nightshade (Solanum ptycanthum). Weed Sci. 51:394–401.Google Scholar
Weaver, S. E., Smits, N., and Tan, C. S. 1987. Estimating yield loss of tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum) caused by nightshade (Solanum spp.) interference. Weed Sci. 35:163–168.Google Scholar