Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pftt2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-04T14:17:44.826Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Interference of Common Lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) in Transplanted Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Prasanta C. Bhowmik  and
Krishna N. Reddy
Prasanta C. Bhowmik
Affiliation:
Dep. Plant Soil Sci., Univ. Mass., Amherst, MA 01003
Krishna N. Reddy
Affiliation:
Dep. Plant Soil Sci., Univ. Mass., Amherst, MA 01003
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field studies were conducted in 1982 to 1984 to determine the effects of common lambsquarters on growth, yield, and nutrient concentration of transplanted tomato. Common lambsquarters densities ranged from 16 to 64 plants/m tomato row and fresh weight ranged from 26 360 kg/ha at 16 plants/m to 46 000 kg/ha at 64 plants/m row. Common lambsquarters did not affect tomato shoot dry weight at the vegetative stage but decreased the weight at the early fruit stage. Season-long interference of common lambsquarters reduced marketable tomato fruit number and also, marketable fruit weight ranging from 17% at 16 plants/m to 36% to 64 plants/m row. Concentrations of N in tomato leaves were unaltered at vegetative and flowering stages but decreased regardless of common lambsquarters density at early fruit and harvest stages. Weed density did not alter concentrations of P, K, and Ca in tomato leaves.

Keywords

Common lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. # CHEALtomato, Lycopersicon esculentum Mill. ‘Jetstar’CHEALcompetitionnutrientsweed density
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 2 , Issue 4 , October 1988 , pp. 505 - 508
Copyright
Copyright © 1988 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. Bhowmik, P. C., and Reddy, K. N. [1988]. Effects of barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) on growth, yield and nutrient status of transplanted tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum). Weed Sci. (in press).Google Scholar
2. Conn, J. S., and Thomas, D. L. 1987. Common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) interference in spring barley. Weed Technol. 1:312–313.Google Scholar
3. Dawson, J. H. 1965. Competition between irrigated sugarbeets and annual weeds. Weeds 13:245–249.Google Scholar
4. Dawson, J. H., and Rincker, C. M. 1982. Weeds in new seedlings of alfalfa (Medicago sativa) for seed production: Competition and control. Weed Sci. 30:20–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Greweling, T. 1976. Chemical analyses of plant tissue. Search (New York Agric. Exp. Stn.) 6:1–33.Google Scholar
6. Holm, L. G., Plucknett, D. L., Pancho, J. V., and Herberger, J. P. 1977. The World's Worst Weeds, Distribution and Biology. Univ. Press Hawaii, Honolulu. p. 84–91.Google Scholar
7. Mohammad, E. S., and Sweet, R. D. 1978. Redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.) and tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum L.) competition studies. I. Influence of plant densities. Abstr. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. p. 38.Google Scholar
8. Monaco, T. J., Grayson, A. S., and Sanders, D. C. 1981. Influence of four weed species on the growth, yield, and quality of direct-seeded tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum). Weed Sci. 29:394–397.Google Scholar
9. Sanders, D. C., Grayson, A. S., and Monaco, T. J. 1981, Mineral content of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) and four competing weed species. Weed Sci. 29:590–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Schweizer, E. E. 1983. Common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) interference in sugarbeets (Beta vulgaris). Weed Sci. 31:5–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Stubblefield, F. M., and DeTurk, E. E. 1940. Effect of ferric sulfate in shortening Kjeldahl digestion. Ind. Eng. Chem. Anal. Ed. 12:396–399.Google Scholar
12. Welbank, P. J. 1963. A comparison of competitive effects of some common weed species. Ann. Appl. Biol. 51:107–125.Google Scholar