Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-zzh7m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T11:49:30.493Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of Purple Nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus) on Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) and Bell Pepper (Capsicum annuum) Vegetative Growth and Fruit Yield

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Jose P. Morales-Payan ,
Bielinski M. Santos ,
William M. Stall  and
Thomas A. Bewick
Jose P. Morales-Payan
Affiliation:
Horticultural Science Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-0690
Bielinski M. Santos
Affiliation:
Horticultural Science Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-0690
William M. Stall
Affiliation:
Horticultural Science Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-0690
Thomas A. Bewick
Affiliation:
Horticultural Science Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-0690
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Additive series experiments were conducted under greenhouse conditions to determine the effect of season-long interference of different initial population densities of purple nutsedge on the shoot dry weight and fruit yield of tomato and bell pepper. Purple nutsedge densities up to 200 plants/m2 linearly reduced shoot dry weight at flowering and fruit yield of both crops as weed density increased. Both variables were directly correlated, and for each percentage unit of tomato shoot dry weight loss at flowering, fruit yield was reduced 1.24 units, whereas for bell pepper this relationship was 1 to 2.01. Total shoot and tuber biomass of purple nutsedge increased as density increased. The presence of either crop caused a decline in the total shoot dry weight accumulation of purple nutsedge, with tomato producing a higher degree of loss than bell pepper to the weed. Fruit yield losses due to purple nutsedge interference reached 44% for tomato and 32% for bell pepper.

Keywords

Purple nutsedge, Cyperus rotundus L. # CYPROtomato, Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.pepper, Capsicum annuum L.Purple nutsedge competitioninterferencedry matter reductionfruit yield reductionDAT, days after transplanting
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 11 , Issue 4 , December 1997 , pp. 672 - 676
Copyright
Copyright © 1997 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

Cousens, R. 1985. A simple model relating yield loss to weed density. Ann. Appl. Biol. 107:239–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cousens, R. 1991. Aspects of the design and interpretation of competition (interference) experiments. Weed Technol. 5:664–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilreath, J. P. 1981. Allelopathic Potential of Cyperus rotundus L. . University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. 139 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holm, L. G., Plucknett, D. L., Pancho, J. V., and Herberger, J. P. 1991. The World's Worst Weeds: Distribution and Biology. Malabar, FL: Krieger Publ. 610 p.Google Scholar
Kasasian, L. and Seeyave, J. 1969. Critical periods for weed competition. PANS 15:208–212.Google Scholar
Meissner, R., Nel, P. C., and Smith, N.S.H. 1979. Influence of red nutgrass (Cyperus rotundus) on growth and development of some crop plants. Proc. Third Natl. Weed Conf. Cape Town, South Africa. 3:39–52.Google Scholar
Morales-Payan, J. P., Santos, B. M., and Bewick, T. A. 1996. Purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus L.) interference on lettuce under different nitrogen levels. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 49:201.Google Scholar
Nel, P. C., Botha, P. J., and Bornman, J. J. 1976. Facets of the biological control of Cyperus rotundus with emphasis in light and nutrients requirements. Crop Prod. 5:105–109.Google Scholar
Okafor, L. I. and De Datta, S. K. 1974. Competition between weeds and upland rice in Monsoon Asia. Philipp. Weed Sci. Bull. 1:39–45.Google Scholar
Okafor, L. I. and De Datta, S. K. 1976. Competition between upland rice and purple nutsedge for nitrogen, moisture, and light. Weed Sci. 24:43–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osgood, R.V., Floresca, E., and Hilton, H. W. 1976. How important is nutsedge competition with sugarcane. Aiea, HI: Hawaii Sugar Plant. Assoc. Exp. Stn. Annu. Rep. pp. 42–43.Google Scholar
Radosevich, S. R. 1987. Methods to study interactions among crops and weeds. Weed Technol. 1:190–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salvador, P. C. 1986. Estudos de interferencia entre tiririca (Cyperus rotundus L.) e a culture do milho (Zea mays L.) em condicoes de casa de vegetacao. Trabalho de graduacao. Univ. Est. Paulista, Jaboticabal, SP, Brazil. 64 p.Google Scholar
Santos, B. M., Bewick, T. A., Stall, W. M., and Shilling, D. G. 1997a. Competitive interactions of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) and nutsedges (Cyperus spp.). Weed Sci. 45:229–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Santos, B. M., Morales-Payan, J. P., and Bewick, T. A. 1996. Purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus L.) interference on radish under different nitrogen levels. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 36:69.Google Scholar
Santos, B. M., Morales-Payan, J. P., Stall, W. M., Bewick, T. A., and Shilling, D. G. 1997b. Effects of shading on the growth of nutsedges (Cyperus spp.). Weed Sci. 45:670–673.Google Scholar
Stall, W. M., Dusky, J. A., and Gilreath, J. P. 1996. Estimated effectiveness of recommended herbicides on selected common weeds in Florida vegetables. In Colvin, D., et al. (eds.) 1996, Florida Weed Control Guide. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida, pp. 343–346.Google Scholar
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1997. Vegetable Summary. Florida Agricultural Statistics. Orlando, FL: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 71 p.Google Scholar
William, R. D. 1973. Competicao entre tiririca (Cyperus rotundus L.) e o feijoeiro (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Rev. Ceres 20:424–432.Google Scholar
William, R. D. and Warren, G. F. 1975. Competition between purple nutsedge and vegetables. Weed Sci. 23:317–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimdahl, R. L. 1980. Weed–Crop Competition: A Review. Corvallis, OR: Intl. Plant Prot. Cent, Oregon St. Univ. 195 p.Google Scholar