Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-16T19:25:58.364Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Comparison of Threshold Strategies in Tomatoes and Soybean

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Carlos D. Mayén ,
Kevin D. Gibson  and
Stephen C. Weller
Carlos D. Mayén
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907
Kevin D. Gibson*
Affiliation:
Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907
Stephen C. Weller
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: kgibson@purdue.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Weed control strategies based on conserving crop yields rather than preventing weed seed production may result in increased weed densities and management costs over the long-term, particularly in less competitive crops such as tomatoes. The effect of crop, tillage, and duration of weed control on weed seed bank size and composition was examined from spring 2001 to spring 2003 near Lafayette, IN. Main plots in 2001 and 2002 contained soybean or tomato planted in rotation (soybean-tomato, tomato-soybean). Subplots were managed with either conventional or no-till practices. Sub-subplots contrasted threshold strategies in which weeds were either controlled for four to six weeks (period threshold, PT) or throughout the growing season (no-seed-threshold, NST). Seed banks were sampled annually in the spring. Emergent weeds were counted` at four and twelve weeks after planting (WAP) in 2001 and 2002. Weed seed banks did not significantly change in the NST plots in any year. However, seed bank densities increased substantially following tomatoes in PT plots. In contrast, weed seed bank densities decreased following soybeans in PT plots. The difference in seed banks and emergent weeds between soybean and tomatoes could be attributed primarily to greater suppression of giant foxtail by the soybean canopy. Giant foxtail control was greater in PT soybeans than in PT tomatoes in both years and giant foxtail comprised most of the PT tomato seed bank in 2002 and 2003. Tillage did not affect weed seed banks in any year. This study highlights the need to control later emerging weeds in tomatoes to prevent large increases in the weed seed bank.

Keywords

Giant foxtail, Setaria faberi Herrm. SETFASoybean, Glycine max L.Tomato, Lycopersicon esculentum L.Competitioncrop rotationintegrated weed managementno seed thresholdtillageweed seed bank
Type
Weed Biology and Competition
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 22 , Issue 4 , December 2008 , pp. 729 - 735
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

Ambrosio, L., Dorado, J., and Del Monte, J. P. 1997. Assessment of the simple size to estimate the weed seed bank in the soil. Weed Res 37:129–137.Google Scholar
Baumann, D. T., Bastiaans, L., and Kropff, M. J. 2002. Intercropping system optimization for yield, quality and weed suppression combining mechanistic and descriptive models. Agron. J. 94:734–742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benoit, D. L., Kenkel, N. C., and Cavers, P. B. 1989. Factors influencing the precision of soil seed bank estimates. Can. J. Bot 67:2833–2840.Google Scholar
Bhowmik, P. C. and Reddy, K. N. 1988. Interference of common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) in transplanted tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum). Weed Technol 2:550–552.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D. 1995. Influence of tillage systems on weed population dynamics and management in corn and soybean production in the central USA. Crop Sci 35:1247–1257.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D., Hartzler, R. G., Forcella, F., and Gunsolus, J. L. 1997. Relative Emergence of Weeds of Corn and Soybean. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Extension Publications. SA-11. 4.Google Scholar
Cardina, J. and Sparrow, D. H. 1996. A comparison of methods to predict weed seedling populations from the soil seed bank. Weed Sci 44:46–51.Google Scholar
Cardina, J., Herms, C. P., and Doohan, D. D. 2002. Crop rotation and tillage system effects on weed seed banks. Weed Sci 50:448–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chandler, K., Shrestha, A., and Swanton, C. J. 2001. Weed seed return as influenced by the critical weed-free period and row spacing of no-till glyphosate-resistant soybean. Can. J. Plant Sci 81:877–880.Google Scholar
Chauvel, B., Gasquez, J., and Darmency, H. 1989. Changes of weed seed bank parameters according to species, time and environment. Weed Res 29:213–219.Google Scholar
Conley, S. P., Binning, L. K., Boerboom, C. M., and Stoltenberg, D. E. 2002. Estimating giant foxtail cohort productivity in soybean based on weed density, leaf area, or volume. Weed Sci 50:72–78.Google Scholar
Cordes, R. C. and Bauman, T. T. 1984. Field competition between ivyleaf morningglory (Ipomoea hederacea) and soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci 32:364–370.Google Scholar
Dawson, J. H. 1986. The concept of period thresholds. Pages 327–331. in. Proc. Eur. Weed Res. Soc. Symposium 1986, Economic weed control. Stuttgart, Germany: European Weed Science Society.Google Scholar
Dessaint, F., Chadoeuf, R., and Barralis, G. 1991. Spatial pattern analysis of weed seed in the cultivated soil seed bank. J. Appl. Ecol 28:721–730.Google Scholar
Egel, D., Lam, F., Foster, R., Maynards, E., Weinzierl, R., Babadoost, M., Taber, H., Hutchinson, B., and Jett, L. W. 2006. Midwest Vegetable Production Guide for Commercial Growers. West Lafayette. in. Agricultural Communication Media Distribution Center, Purdue University.Google Scholar
Forcella, F. 1992. Prediction of weed seedling densities from buried seed reserves. Weed Res 32:29–38.Google Scholar
Gallandt, E. 2006. How can we target the weed seed bank. Weed Sci 54:588–596.Google Scholar
Gibson, K. D., Fischer, A. J., Foin, T. C., and Hill, J. E. 2002. Implications of delayed Echinochloa germination and duration of competition for integrated weed management in water-seeded rice. Weed Res 42:351–358.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
Gross, K. L. 1990. A comparison of methods for estimating seed numbers in the soil. J. Ecol 78:1079–1093.Google Scholar
Hilgenfield, K. L., Martin, A. R., Mortensen, D. A., and Mason, S. C. 2004. Weed management in glyphosate resistant soybean system: weed species shifts. Weed Technol 18:284–291.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.Google Scholar
Kegode, G. O., Forcella, F., and Clay, S. 1999. Influence of crop rotation, tillage, and management inputs on weed seed production. Weed Sci 47:75–183.Google Scholar
Kovach, D. A., Thill, D. C., and Young, F. L. 1988. A water-spray system for removing seed from soil. Weed Technol 2:338–341.Google Scholar
Liebman, M. and Gallandt, E. R. 1997. Many little hammers: ecological approaches for management of crop-weed interactions. Pages 291–346. in Jackson, L., editor. Ecology in Agriculture. San Diego, CA: Academic.Google Scholar
Little, T. M. and Jackson, F. J. 1978. Agricultural Experimentation Design and Analysis. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Murphy, S. D., Clements, D. R., Belaoussoff, S., Kevan, P. G., and Swanton, C. J. 2006. Promotion of weed species diversity and reduction of weed seed banks with conservation tillage and crop rotation. Weed Sci 54:69–77.Google Scholar
Norris, R. F. 1999. Ecological implications of using thresholds for weed management. Pages 31–58. in Buhler, D., editor. Expanding the Context of Weed Management. London, England: Haworth.Google Scholar
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
Rzewnicki, P. 2000. Ohio Organic Producers: Final Survey Results. City: Special Circular 174 Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center in Partnership with Ohio State University Extension. 17. Available at http://ohioline.osu.edu/sc174/sc174.9.html. Accessed: September 26, 2008.Google Scholar
SAS 1990. SAS Procedures Guide Version 6, 3rd ed. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc. 705.Google Scholar
Stoller, E. W. and Myers, R. A. 1989. Response of soybeans (Glycine max) and four broadleaf weeds to reduced irradiance. Weed Sci 37:570–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, K. L. and Hartzler, R. G. 2000. Effect of seed bank augmentation on herbicide efficacy. Weed Technol 14:261–267.Google Scholar
Van Acker, R. C., Swanton, C. J., and Weise, S. F. 1993. The critical period of weed control in soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.]. Weed Sci 41:194–200.Google Scholar
Zimdahl, R. L. 1988. The concept and application of the critical weed-free period. Pages 145–155. in Altieri, M. A. and Liebman, M., editors. Weed Management in Agroecosystems: Ecological Approaches. Boca Raton, FL: CRC.Google Scholar