Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T10:12:28.976Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Yield potential and soil quality under alternative crop production practices for fresh market pepper

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2007

Dan O. Chellemi  and
Erin N. Rosskopf
Dan O. Chellemi*
Affiliation:
US Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, 2001 South Rock Road, Fort Pierce, Florida, 34945USA.
Erin N. Rosskopf
Affiliation:
US Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, 2001 South Rock Road, Fort Pierce, Florida, 34945USA.
*
*Corresponding author: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study was conducted in Florida in 1999 and 2000 to examine the impact of alternative crop production practices on soil quality and yields of fresh market pepper (Capsicum annuum). Replicated field plots were established on an organic vegetable farm that had been under certification for 5 years and on a conventional pepper farm that had been fumigated with methyl bromide for 25 consecutive years. Production practices evaluated included raised beds covered by white plastic mulch, soil solarization, no-till in a stubble crop of sunn hemp (Crotolaria juncea) or iron-clay pea (Vigna unguiculata) and the addition of 67 t ha−1 of urban plant debris (UPD). Soil fumigation with methyl bromide–chloropicrin was also evaluated at the conventional farm site. Soil organic carbon significantly increased following the addition of UPD in both years at the organic site but only in the second year at the conventional site. Cation exchange capacity increased significantly after addition of UPD in both years at both sites and a significant interaction with production practices was observed in the second year at the organic site. Soil phosphorus levels were high at both sites but were not impacted by production practices or UPD. In 1999, the addition of UPD significantly decreased soil nitrate levels at the organic site and the conventional site, except under the no-till treatments. In 2000, soil nitrate levels were not affected by UPD or production practice. Stand counts, determined by the number of surviving pepper plants 21–28 days after transplanting, were severely impacted in no-till treatments due to intense competition from weeds. Marketable yields equal to, or above, the 1999/2000 statewide average for conventional production systems were obtained with soil fumigation and soil solarization at the conventional site in 1999. In 2000, an epidemic of Phytophthora blight (Phytophthora capsici) eliminated production at the conventional site. Marketable yield at the organic site approached the statewide average for conventional systems under the solarization treatment. Yields under plastic mulch were increased at both sites with the addition of UPD. The results demonstrated that organic pepper yields from soil-solarized plots were similar to yields obtained by conventional farmers using high inputs of rapidly mobile nitrogen sources. However, no-till systems for fall production do not appear to be a viable alternative under Florida conditions due to the rapid proliferation of weeds under the cover crop stubble. The addition of urban plant debris was associated with an increase in soil organic carbon and cation exchange capacity in sandy soils typical of those found in Florida.

Keywords

conservation tillagecover cropsmethyl bromideorganic agriculturepeppersoil solarization
Type
Research Article
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 19 , Issue 3 , September 2004 , pp. 168 - 175
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2004

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

1NASS 2002. National Agricultural Statistics Service. Florida Facts. Available at website http://www.nass.usda.gov/fl/homepage.htm (verified 20 January 2004).Google Scholar
2Cantliffe, D.J.Hochmuth, G.J.Locascio, S.J., Stansly, P.A.Vavrina, C.S., Polston, J.E.Schuster, D.J., Seal, D.R.Chellemi, D.O. & Olson, S.M. (1995) Production of solanacea for fresh market under field conditions: Current problems and potential solutions. Acta Horticulturae 414: 229–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3Maynard, D.N. & Olson, S.M. 2002. Vegetable Production Guide for Florida. University of Florida, IFAS Publ.HS710, Gainesville, Florida.Google Scholar
4Weed Science Society of America. 2002. International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. Available at website http://www.weedscience.org/in.asp (verified 20 January 2004).Google Scholar
5Offner, J. 2000. Organic foods niche growing into big business. The Packer, 25 December, 2000, p. A6.Google Scholar
6Van Bruggen, A.H.C. (1995) Plant disease severity in high-input compared to reduced input and organic farming systems. Plant Disease 79: 976–984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7Malajczuk, N. (1983) Microbial antagonism to Phytophthora. In Erwin, D.C., Bartnicki-Garcia, S. & Tsao, P.H. (eds) Phytophthora–Its Biology, Taxonomy, Ecology, and Pathology. American Phytopathological Society St. Paul, MN197–218.Google Scholar
8Workneh, F. & van Bruggen, A.F.C. (1994) Suppression of corky root of tomatoes in soils from organic farms associated with soil microbial activity and nitrogen status of soil and tomato tissue. Phytopathology 84: 688–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9Economic Research Service, US Department of Agriculture. 2002. Organic production data. Available at website www.ers.usda.gov/data/organic (verified 20 January 2004).Google Scholar
10Echtenkamp, G.W. & Moomaw, R.S. (1989) No-till corn production in a living mulch system. Weed Technology 3: 261–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11Nicholson, A.G. & Wien, H.C. (1983) Screening of turfgrasses and clovers for use as living mulches in sweet corn and cabbage. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science 108: 1071–1076.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12Chellemi, D.O.Rhoads, F.M., Olson, S.M., Rich, J.R., Murray, D., Murray, G. & Sylvia, D.M. (1999) An alternative, low-input production system for fresh market tomatoes. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 14: 59–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13Abdul-Baki, A.A. & Teasdale, J.R. (1993) A no-tillage tomato production system using hairy vetch and subterranean clover mulches. HortScience 28: 106–108.Google Scholar
14Abdul-Baki, A.A., Teasdale, J.R., Korcak, R., Chitwood, D.J. & Huettel, R.N. (1996) Fresh-market tomato production in a low-input alternative system using a cover crop mulch. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science 31: 65–69.Google Scholar
15Herrero, E.V., Mitchell, J.P., Lanini, W.T., Temple, S.R., Miyao, E.M., Morse, R.D. & Campiglia, E. (2001) Use of cover crop mulches in a no-till furrow irrigated processing tomato production system. HortTechnology 11: 43–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16Thomas, R., Sullivan, J.O., Hamill, A. & Swanton, C.J. (2001) Conservation tillage systems for processing tomato production. HortScience 36: 1264–1268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17Abdul-Baki, A.A. & Teasdale, J.R. 1996. Growing peppers on polyethylene and hairy vetch mulches. Proceedings of the National Pepper Conference (December), Vance Publishing, Tampa, Florida. p. 100–101.Google Scholar
18Chellemi, D.O., Olson, S.M., Mitchell, D.J., Secker, I. & McSorley, R. (1997) Adaptation of soil solarization to the integrated management of soilborne pests of tomato under humid conditions. Phytopathology 87: 250–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19Chellemi, D.O.Hochmuth, R.C., Winsberg, T., Guetler, W., Shuler, K.D., Datnoff, L.E., Kaplan, D.T., McSorley, R., Dunn, R.A. & Olson, S.M. (1997) Application of soil solarization to fall production of cucurbits and pepper. Proceedings of the Florida State Horticultural Society 110: 333–336.Google Scholar
20Chellemi, D.O., McSorley, R., Rich, J.R. & Olson, S.M. (1997) Field validation of soil solarization for fall production of tomato. Proceedings of the Florida State Horticultural Society 110: 330–332.Google Scholar
21Gamliel, A. & Stapleton, J.J. (1997) Improvement of soil solarization with volatile compounds generated from organic amendments. Phytoparasitica 25 31S–38S.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22Nelson, D.W. & Sommers, L.E. (1982) Total carbon, organic carbon, and organic matter Page, A.L. (eds) Methods of soil analysis. part 2. Chemical and Microbiological Proerities.American Society of Agronomy Madison, WI. 539–579.Google Scholar
23Obreza, T.A. & Collins, M.E. (2002) Common soils used for citrus production in Florida production in florida. University of flotrida, Extension Publication SL 193, Gainesville, FL.Google Scholar
24Roe, N.E.Stofella, P.J. & Bryan, H.H. (1994) Growth and yields of bell pepper and winter squash grown with organic and living mulches. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science 119: 1193–1199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25Bray, R.H. & Kurtz, L.T. (1945) Determination of total organic and available forms of phosphorus in soils. Soil Science 59: 39–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26Winsberg, T., Chellemi, D.O., Mellinger, M. & Shuler, K.D. (1998) Transition to a biorational farm management system using soil solarization in a commercial pepper operation. Proceedings of the Florida State Horticultural Society 111: 78–79.Google Scholar
27Delate, K. & Friedrich, H. 2002. Evaluation of soil amendments and cover crops for certified organic pepper production. Available at website http://extension.agron.iastate.edu/organicag/researchreports/muscatine02.PDF (verified 2 April 2004).Google Scholar
28Delate, K. (2002) Using an agroecological approach to farming systems research. HortTechnology 12: 345–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29Albrecht, W.A. (1975) Walters, C. Jr (eds) The Albrecht Papers, vol.2. Soil Fertility and Animal Health. Acres USAKansas City, MO.Google Scholar
30Kinsey, N. & Walters, C. (1993) Neal Kinsey's Hands-On Agronomy. Acres USAKansas City, MO.Google Scholar
31Schonbeck, M. 2000. Soil nutrient balancing in sustainable vegetable production. Organic Farming Research Foundation Project Report No. 99–05. Available at website http://ofrf.org/research/reports.html (verified 20 January 2004).Google Scholar