Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-skm99 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T00:08:43.201Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed Interference in Transplanted Tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

G. H. Friesen
G. H. Friesen*
Affiliation:
Agric. Canada, Res. Stn., Harrow, Ontario, NOR 1GO
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Transplanted tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill. ‘Springset’) kept weed free for 36 days after transplanting, or weeded from the 24th day after transplanting, gave yields equal to those that had been kept weed free throughout the growing season. Conversely, when weeds were allowed to remain in the crop for more than 24 days after transplanting, yields were progressively reduced. Therefore, the ‘critical period’ of weed interference in tomatoes was between 24 and 36 days after transplanting. The yield of tomatoes was reduced significantly when only 5% of the weeds were allowed to remain in the plots longer than 21 days after transplanting. Weed interference appeared to have little, if any, effect on tomato juice quality as measured by color, consistency, and flavor.

Keywords

Competitioninteractionallelopathy
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 27 , Issue 1 , January 1979 , pp. 11 - 13
Copyright
Copyright © 1979 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. Bowden, B. A. and Friesen, G. 1967. Competition of wild oats (Avena fatua L.) in wheat and flax. Weed Res. 7:349–359.Google Scholar
2. Dawson, J. H. 1977. Competition of late-emerging weeds with sugar beets. Weed Sci. 25:168–170.Google Scholar
3. Hauser, E. W., Buchanan, G. A., and Ethredge, W. J. 1975. Competition of Florida beggarweed and sicklepod with peanuts. I. Effects of periods of weed-free maintenance on weed competition. Weed Sci. 23:368–372.Google Scholar
4. Knake, E. L. and Slife, F. W. 1962. Competition of Setaria faberi with corn and soybeans. Weeds 10:26–29.Google Scholar
5. Nieto, J. H., Brondo, M. A., and Gonzalez, J. T. 1968. Critical periods of the crop growth cycle for competition from weeds. PANS 14(2):159–166.Google Scholar
6. Shadbolt, C. A. and Holm, L. G. 1956. Some quantitative aspects of weed competition in vegetable crops. Weeds 4:111–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Shebeski, L. H. and Friesen, G. 1955. Weed competition as affected by time of spraying. Proc. West. Can. Weed Conf. pp.1–5.Google Scholar
8. Sharma, H. C., Singh, H. B., and Friesen, G. H. 1977. Competition from weeds and their control in direct-seeded rice. Weed Res. 17:103–108.Google Scholar
9. Thompson, H. C., Wessels, P. H., and Mills, H. S. 1931. Cultivation experiments with certain vegetable crops on Long Island. Cornell Univ. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. No. 521. 14pp.Google Scholar
10. Wicks, G. A., Johnston, D. N., Nylund, D. S., and Kimbacher, E. J. 1973. Competition between annual weeds and sweet Spanish onions. Weed Sci. 21:436–439.Google Scholar