Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T20:54:55.122Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Above- and belowground interference of purple and yellow nutsedge (Cyperus spp.) with tomato

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

J. Pablo Morales-Payan ,
William M. Stall ,
Donald G. Shilling ,
Raghavan Charudattan ,
Joan A. Dusky  and
Thomas A. Bewick
William M. Stall
Affiliation:
Horticultural Sciences Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611
Donald G. Shilling
Affiliation:
Mid-Florida Research and Education Center, University of Florida, Apopka, FL 32703
Raghavan Charudattan
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Pathology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611
Joan A. Dusky
Affiliation:
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611
Thomas A. Bewick
Affiliation:
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, USDA, Washington, D.C. 20250-2220
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Studies were conducted to determine the extent of full and partitioned interference of two nutsedge species with tomato. For full interference, the crop and the weed were transplanted in the same container. For belowground interference, tomato and either weed species were grown in the same container, but the canopies were separated. For aboveground interference, tomato and nutsedges were grown in separate containers placed adjacently, whereas for the no-interference treatment, tomato and nutsedge plants were grown in individual containers. Full interference by yellow nutsedge was more detrimental to tomato shoot dry weight accumulation (34% reduction) than was full interference by purple nutsedge (28% reduction). Belowground interference by purple nutsedge reduced tomato shoot dry weight (18%) more than did aboveground interference (9%). Yellow nutsedge interference above- or belowground reduced tomato shoot dry weight to a similar extent (19%). The belowground interference of both nutsedges with tomato resulted in deficient concentrations of nitrate in the sap of tomato (> 18% reduction). The growth of purple nutsedge was influenced more strongly by tomato shading than by belowground interference from the crop, whereas yellow nutsedge growth was equally affected by tomato above- and belowground. According to these results, shoot dry weight accumulation in tomato was affected to the same extent by belowground interference from purple and yellow nutsedge, and the higher effect of full interference by yellow nutsedge may be attributed to increased aboveground competition between tomato and yellow nutsedge.

Keywords

Purple nutsedge, Cyperus rotundus L. CYPROyellow nutsedge, Cyperus esculentus L. CYPEStomato, Lycopersicon esculentum Mill. ‘Solimar’Competitionlight interferencepartitioning of interferenceweed–crop interferenceweed–vegetable interferenceweeds in vegetables
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 51 , Issue 2 , April 2003 , pp. 181 - 185
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

Agamalian, H. S. 1996. Evaluation of norfluarazon for the control of yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus) in established asparagus. Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Asparagus. Acta Hortic. 415:258–288.Google Scholar
Bewick, T. A., Smith, K., Stall, W. M., and Olson, S. M. 1995. Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) cultivar and weed sensitivity to DPX-E9636. Weed Technol. 9:499–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buker, R. S. III, Olson, S. M., Stall, W. M., and Shilling, D. G. 1998. Watermelon yield as affected by competition from varying yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus) populations. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 51:95–96.Google Scholar
Casper, B. B. and Jackson, R. B. 1997. Plant competition underground. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 28:545–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cousens, R. 2000. Greenhouse studies of interactions between plants: the flaws are in interpretation rather than in design. J. Ecol. 88:352–353.Google Scholar
Doll, J. D. 1994. Cyperus rotundus L. FAO Plant Production and Protection Paper 120:56–64.Google Scholar
Dusky, J. A., Deren, C. W., and Jones, D. B. 1997. Competition between yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus) and rice (Oryza sativa). Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 50:152.Google Scholar
Fiebig, W. W. 1990. Common Cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium L.) Interference with Peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Ph.D. dissertation. University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. 96 p.Google Scholar
Freckleton, R. P. and Watkinson, A. R. 2000. Designs for greenhouse studies of interactions between plants: an analytical perspective. J. Ecol. 88:386–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groves, R. H. and Williams, J. D. 1975. Growth of skeleton weed (Chondrilla juncea L.) as affected by growth of subterranean clover (Trifolium subterraneaum L.) and infection by Puccinia chondrillina Bubak & Syd. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 26:975–983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hochmuth, G. J. 1995. Tomato Fertilizer Management. Proceedings of the Florida Tomato Institute. Naples, FL. pp. 113–124.Google Scholar
Hochmuth, G., Maynard, D., Vavrina, C., and Hanlon, E. 1991. Plant Tissue Analysis and Interpretation for Vegetable Crops in Florida. Gainsville, FL: Florida Cooperative Extension Service SS-VEC-42.Google 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 610 p.Google Scholar
Hunt, R. 1988. Analysis of growth and resource allocation. Weed Res. 28:459–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keeley, P. and Thullen, R. 1975. Influence of yellow nutsedge competition on furrow-irrigated cotton. Weed Sci. 23:171–175.Google Scholar
Keeley, P. and Thullen, R. 1978. Light requirement of yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus) and light interception by crops. Weed Sci. 26:10–16.Google Scholar
Martin, M. P. and Field, R. J. 1987. Competition between vegetation of wild oat (Avena fatua L.) and wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Weed Res. 27:119–124.Google Scholar
Morales-Payan, J. P., Santos, B. M., and Bewick, T. A. 1999. Influence of nitrogen fertilization on the competitive interaction of cilantro (Coriandrum sativum) and purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus). Journal of Herbs, Spices, and Medicinal Plants. 6:59–66.Google Scholar
Morales-Payan, J. P., Santos, B. M., and Stall, W. M. 1997a. Weed management in solanaceous crops in the Dominican Republic. Proc. Caribb. Food Crops Soc. 33:333–339.Google Scholar
Morales-Payan, J. P., Santos, B. M., and Stall, W. M. 1997b. Nitrogen and purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus) density effects on radish (Raphanus sativus) yield. Proc. Caribb. Food Crops Soc. 33:422–425.Google Scholar
Morales-Payan, J. P., Santos, B. M., Stall, W. M., and Bewick, T. A. 1997c. Effects of purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus) on tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) and bell pepper (Capsicum annuum) vegetative growth and fruit yield. Weed Technol. 11:672–676.Google Scholar
Morales-Payan, J. P., Santos, B. M., Stall, W. M., and Dusky, J. A. 1998. Above and below ground interference of purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus L.) with three carrot (Daucus carota L.) cultivars. Fla. Sci. 61S:3.Google Scholar
Morales-Payan, J. P. and Stall, W. M. 1997. Effect of purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus) population densities on the yield of eggplant (Solanum melongena). Hortscience 32 (3): 431.Google Scholar
Okafor, L. and DeDatta, S. 1976. Competition between upland rice and purple nutsedge for nitrogen, moisture, and light. Weed Sci. 24:25–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, D. T. 1982. Shading responses of purple and yellow nutsedges (Cyperus rotundus and C. esculentus). Weed Sci. 30:25–30.Google Scholar
Prasad, M., and Spiers, T. M. 1984. Evaluation of a rapid method for plant sap nitrate analysis. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 15:673–679.Google Scholar
Regnier, E. E., Stoller, E. W., and Nafziger, E. D. 1989. Common cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium) root and shoot interference in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 37:308–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Santos, B. M., Morales-Payan, J. P., Stall, W. M., Bewick, T. A., and Shilling, D. G. 1997. Effects of shading on the growth of nutsedges (Cyperus spp). Weed Sci. 45:670–673.Google Scholar
Satorre, E. H. and Snaydon, R. W. 1992. A comparison of root and shoot competition between spring cereals and Avena fatua L. Weed Res. 32:45–55.Google Scholar
Shetty, S.V.R., Sivakumar, M.V.K., and Ram, S. A. 1982. Effect of shading on the growth of some common weeds of the semi-arid tropics. Agron. J. 74:1023–1029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stall, W. M. and Gilreath, J. 2001. Estimated effectiveness of recommended herbicides on selected common weeds in Florida vegetables. Pages 59–61 In Stall, W. M., ed. Weed Management in Florida Vegetables and Fruits. SP-53. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Science.Google Scholar
Stoller, E. W. and Wooley, J. T. 1985. Competition for light by broadleaf weeds in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 33:199–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taber, H. G. 2001. Petiole sap nitrate sufficiency values for fresh market tomato production. J. Plant Nutr. 24:945–959.Google Scholar
Vershcwele, A. and Niemann, P. 1993. Indireckte unkrautbekampfung durch sortenwhal bei weizen. Proc. Eur. Weed Res. Soc. 8:799–806.Google Scholar
William, R. D. 1973. Competição entre a titirica (Cyperus rotundus L.) e o feijoeiro (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Rev. Ceres 20:424–432.Google Scholar
William, R. D. 1976. Purple nutsedge: tropical scourge. Hortscience 11 (4): 357–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
William, R. D. and Warren, G. F. 1975a. Competition between purple nutsedge and vegetables. Weed Sci. 23:317–323.Google Scholar
William, R. D. and Warren, G. F. 1975b. Suppression of Cyperus rotundus L. in carrots with night applications of nitrofen and herbicidal oil. Weed Res. 15:285–290.Google Scholar