Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c4f8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T00:39:09.877Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Impact of Rye Cover Crops on Weed Populations in a Tomato Cropping System

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

John B. Masiunas ,
Leslie A. Weston  and
Stephen C. Weller
John B. Masiunas
Affiliation:
Dep. Hortic., Univ. Illinois, 1201 W. Gregory Dr., Urbana, IL 61801
Leslie A. Weston
Affiliation:
Dep. Hortic., Univ. Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40546
Stephen C. Weller
Affiliation:
Dep. Hortic., Purdue Univ., W. Lafayette, IN 47906
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A reduced-till (RT) experiment determined the effect of rye seeding density and method of kill on rye biomass persistence, weed suppression, and tomato yield. ‘Wheeler’ rye was seeded at 56, 110, and 170 kg ha−1 in the fall of 1988 and 1989 in Champaign, IL; Lexington, KY; and Lafayette, IN. One wk before transplanting tomatoes, rye was desiccated either by applying glyphosate at 1.1 kg ha−1 and mowing (RT-glyphosate) or by mowing alone (RT-mowed). Both methods left rye residues on the soil surface as a mulch. Seeding density did not affect rye biomass, weed control, or tomato yield. Rye biomass differed depending on location and year, ranging from 320 to 1150 gm−2. Rye was completely killed by glyphosate, but regrew following mowing. RT-glyphosate suppressed weeds for 4 to 8 wk, which was similar to the suppression from conventional tillage (fall plowing with spring disking and harrowing) with trifluralin and metribuzin (CT-herbicide). Weed communities varied, but redroot pigweed and giant foxtail were present at all three locations. All treatments required supplemental weed management for commercially acceptable control. Except for IL in 1990, processing tomato yields (kg ha−1) in RT-glyphosate with hand-weeding were equal or better than yields in the CT treatments.

Keywords

Glyphosate, N-(phosphonomethyl) glycinemetribuzin, 4-amino-6-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-3-(methylthio)-1,2,4-triazin-5(4H)-onetrifluralin, 2,6-dinitro-N,N-dipropyl-4-(trifluoromethyl)benzenaminegiant foxtail, Setaria faberi Herrm. #3 SETFAredroot pigweed, Amaranthus retroflexus L. # AMARErye, Secale cereale L. ‘Wheeler’tomato, Lycopersicon esculentum Mill. ‘Ohio 8245.’Lycopersicon esculentumSecale cerealereduced-tillrelay cropmulchSETFAAMARE
Type
Special Topics
Information
Weed Science , Volume 43 , Issue 2 , June 1995 , pp. 318 - 323
Copyright
Copyright © 1995 by the 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

1. Andres, L. A. and Clement, S. L. 1984. Opportunities for reducing chemical inputs for weed control. Pages 129–140 in Bezdicek, D. F., Power, J. F., Keeney, D. R., and Wright, M. J., ed. Organic Farming: Current Technology and Its Role in Sustainable Agriculture. ASA Special Publication No. 46. ASA, CSSA, SSSA. Madison, WI.Google Scholar
2. Barnes, J. P. and Putnam, A. R. 1983. Rye residues contribute weed suppression in no-tillage cropping systems. J. Chem. Ecol. 9:1045–1057.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Blevins, R. L., Cook, D., Phillips, S. H., and Phillips, R. E. 1971. Influence of no-tillage on soil moisture. Agron. J. 63:593–596.Google Scholar
4. Chou, C. H. and Patrick, Z. A. 1976. Identification and phytotoxic activity of compounds produced during decomposition of corn and rye residues in soil. J. Chem. Ecol. 2:369–387.Google Scholar
5. Facelli, J. M. and Pickett, S. T. 1991. Plant litter: Its dynamics and effects on plant community structure. Bot. Rev. 57:2–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Friesen, G. H. 1979. Weed interference in transplanted tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum). Weed Sci. 27:11–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Gupta, S. C., Larson, W. E., and Linden, D. R. 1983. Tillage and surface residue effects on soil upper boundary temperatures. Soil Sci. 47:1212–1218.Google Scholar
8. Khan, M. J., Monje, E. J., and Foster, G. R. 1988. Mulch cover and canopy effect on soil loss. Trans. of A.S.A.E. 31:706–711.Google Scholar
9. Leather, G. R. 1983. Weed control using allelopathic crop plants. J. Chem. Ecol. 9:983–989.Google Scholar
10. Liebman, M. and Janke, R. R. 1990. Sustainable weed management practices. Pages 111–143 in Francis, C. A., Flora, C. B., and King, L. D., ed. Sustainable Agriculture in Temperate Zones. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.Google Scholar
11. McGiffen, M. E. Jr., Masiunas, J. B., and Hesketh, J. 1992. Competition for light between tomatoes and nightshades (Solanum nigrum and S. ptycanthum). Weed Sci. 40:220–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Perez, F.G.M. and Masiunas, J. B. 1990. Eastern black nightshade (Solanum ptycanthum) interference in processing tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum). Weed Sci. 38:385–388.Google Scholar
13. Putnam, A. R. 1986. Allelopathy: Can it be managed to benefit horticulture? HortSci. 21:411–413.Google Scholar
14. Putnam, A. R. 1988. Allelochemicals from plants as herbicides. Weed Technol. 2:510–518.Google Scholar
15. Putnam, A. R. and DeFrank, J., 1983. Use of phytotoxic plant residues for selective weed control. Crop Prot. 2:173–181.Google Scholar
16. Putnam, A. R., DeFrank, J., and Barnes, J. P. 1983. Exploitation of allelopathy for weed control in annual and perennial cropping systems. J. Chem. Ecol. 9:1001–1010.Google Scholar
17. Qasem, J. R. and Hill, T. A. 1989. Possible role of allelopathy in competition between tomato, Senecio vulgaris and Chenopodium album L. Weed Res. 29:349–356.Google Scholar
18. Radosevich, S. R. and Holt, J. S. 1984. Weed Ecology. Implications for Vegetation Management. John Wiley & Sons. New York.Google Scholar
19. Schonbeck, M., Herbert, S., DeGregorio, R., Mangan, F., Guillard, K., Sideman, E., Herbst, J., and Jaye, R. 1993. Cover cropping systems for brassicas in northeastern United States: 1. Cover crop and vegetable yields, nutrients and soil conditions. J. Sustain. Agric. 3:105–132.Google Scholar
20. Scott, T. W., Mt. Pleasant, J., Burt, R. F., and Otis, D. J. 1987. Contributions of ground cover, dry matter, and nitrogen from intercrops and cover crops in a corn polyculture system. Agron. J. 79:792–798.Google Scholar
21. Shaw, D. R. and Rainero, H. P. 1990. Weed control in soybean under different cropping and tillage systems. J. Prod. Agric. 3:453–460.Google Scholar
22. Shelby, P. P. Jr., Coffey, D. L., Rhodes, G. N. Jr., and Jeffery, L. S. 1988. Tomato production and weed control in no-tillage versus conventional tillage. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 113:675–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23. Stoller, E. W. and Wax, L. M. 1973. Periodicity of germination and emergence of some annual weeds. Weed Sci. 21:574–580.Google Scholar
24. Tukey, H. B. Jr. 1969. Implications of allelopathy in agricultural plant science. Bot. Rev. 35:1–16.Google Scholar
25. Weaver, S. E. 1984. Critical period of weed competition in three vegetable crops in relation to management practices. Weed Res. 24:317–325.Google Scholar
26. Weaver, S. E. and Tan, C. S. 1983. Critical period of weed interference in transplanted tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum): growth analysis. Weed Sci. 31:476–481.Google Scholar
27. Weaver, S. E., Smits, N., and Tan, C. S. 1987. Estimating yield losses of tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum) caused by nightshade (Solanum spp.) interference. Weed Sci. 35:163–168.Google Scholar
28. Weston, L. A. 1990. Cover crop and herbicide influence on row crop seedling establishment in no-tillage culture. Weed Sci. 38:166–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar