Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T06:19:46.307Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Eastern black nightshade (Solanum ptycanthum) reproduction and interference in transplanted plasticulture tomato

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Juliana K. Buckelew ,
David W. Monks ,
Katherine M. Jennings ,
Greg D. Hoyt  and
Robert F. Walls Jr.
David W. Monks
Affiliation:
Department of Horticultural Science, Box 7609, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695
Katherine M. Jennings
Affiliation:
Department of Horticultural Science, Box 7609, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695
Greg D. Hoyt
Affiliation:
Department of Soil Science, North Carolina State University Mountain Horticultural Crops Research and Extension Center, 455 Research Drive, Fletcher, NC 28732
Robert F. Walls Jr.
Affiliation:
FMC Corporation, 501 Parkwood Lane, Goldsboro, NC 27530
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Studies were conducted to determine the effect of in-row eastern black nightshade establishment and removal timings in plasticulture tomato on tomato yield loss and nightshade berry production and seed viability. Eastern black nightshade was transplanted at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 12 wk after tomato planting (WAP) and remained until tomato harvest, or was established at tomato planting and removed at 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 12 WAP to determine the critical weed-free periods. Eastern black nightshade seed viability increased with berry size and with length of establishment or removal time. The critical weed-free period to avoid viable nightshade seed production was 3–6 WAP. Tomato yield decreased with early weed establishment or with delayed time of weed removal. The critical weed-free period to avoid greater than 20% tomato yield loss for the sum weight of extra large and jumbo grades was 28 to 50 d after tomato transplanting.

Keywords

Eastern black nightshade, Solanum ptycanthum Dun. SOLPTtomato, Lycopersicon esculentumCritical periodinterferencemodelsweed-free periodviable seed production
Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 54 , Issue 3 , June 2006 , pp. 490 - 495
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

Alabama Cooperative Extension System. 2000. Guide to Commercial Staked Tomato Production in Alabama ANR-1156.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1997. United States Standards for Fresh Market Tomatoes. Fresh Products Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Division, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, p. 10.Google Scholar
Bassett, I. J. and Munro, D. B. 1985. The biology of Canadian weeds. 67. Solanum ptycanthum Dun., S. nigrum L. and S. sarrachoides Sendt. Can. J. Plant Sci 65:401–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cousens, R., Brain, P., O'Donovan, J. T., and O'Sullivan, P. A. 1987. The use of biologically realistic equations to describe the effects of weed density and relative time of emergence on crop yield. Weed Sci 5:720–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Draper, N. R. and Smith, H. 1981. Applied Regression Analysis. New York: Wiley. Pp. 33–42, 511.Google Scholar
EPA Environmental Protection Agency. 1990. Clean Air Act. http://www.epa.gov/oar/caa/contents.html.Google Scholar
Friesen, A. G. 1979. Weed interference in transplanted tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum). Weed Sci 27:11–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garvey, P. V. Jr. 1999. Goosegrass (Eleusine indica) and Palmer Amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) Interference in Transplanted Plasticulture Tomato. Ph.D. dissertation. North Carolina State University.Google Scholar
Gorski, S. F. and Wertz, M. K. 1987. Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) and eastern black nightshade (Solanum ptycanthum) tolerance to acifluorfen. Weed Technol 1:278–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keeley, P. E. and Thullen, R. J. 1983. Influence of planting date on growth of black nightshade (Solanum nigrum). Weed Sci 31:180–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knezevic, S. Z., Evans, S. R., Blankenship, E. E., Van Acker, R. C., and Lindquist, J. L. 2002. Critical period for weed control: the concept and data analysis. Weed Sci 50:773–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maynard, D. N. and Hochmuth, G. J. 1997. Field planting. Pages 116–119 in Knott's Handbook for Vegetable Growers. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
McAvoy, R. J. and Janes, H. W. 1989. Tomato plant photosynthetic activity as related to canopy age and tomato development. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci 114:478–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGiffen, M. E. Jr., Masiunas, J. B., and Hesketh, J. D. 1992. Competition for light between tomatoes and nightshades (Solanum nigrum or S. ptycanthum). Weed Sci 40:220–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monks, C. D., Monks, D. W., Basden, T., Selders, A., Poland, S., and Rayburn, E. 1997. Soil temperature, soil moisture, weed control, and tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) response to mulching. Weed Technol 11:561–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monks, D. W. and Oliver, L. R. 1988. Interactions between soybean (Glycine max) cultivars and selected weeds. Weed Sci 36:770–774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[NCDA] North Carolina Department of Agriculture Marketing Division. 2004. Daily F.O.B. Prices on Trellised Tomatoes at Western NC Shipping Point. July–September, 2004.Google Scholar
North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. 2005. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Agricultural Statistics.Google Scholar
Ogg, A. G. Jr., Rogers, B. S., and Schilling, E. E. 1981. Characterization of black nightshade (Solanum nigrum) and related species in the United States. Weed Sci 29:27–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perez, F. G. and Masiunas, J. B. 1990. Eastern black nightshade (Solanum ptycanthum) interference in processing tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum). Weed Sci 38:385–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pike, D. R., Stoller, E. W., and Wax, L. M. 1990. Modeling soybean growth and canopy apportionment in weed-soybean (Glycine max) competition. Weed Sci 38:522–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plant Disease and Insect Clinic. 2003. Sample No. 1945. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service, North Carolina State University.Google Scholar
Qasem, J. R. 1992. Pigweed (Amaranthus spp.) interference in transplanted tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum). J. Hortic. Sci 67:421–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quakenbush, L. S. and Andersen, R. N. 1984. Distribution and biology of two nightshades (Solanum spp.) in Minnesota. Weed Sci 32:529–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rao, P. V. 1998. Statistical Research Methods in the Life Sciences. Pacific Grove, CA: Duxbury. Pp. 511–514.Google Scholar
Sanders, D. C., Cook, W. P., and Granberry, D. 1996. Plasticulture for commercial vegetables. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service, North Carolina State University Pub. AG-489.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1999. SAS/STAT® User's Guide. Release 8.2. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1028 p.Google Scholar
Stoller, E. W. and Myers, R. A. 1989. Effects of shading and soybean Glycine max (L.) interference on Solanum ptycanthum (Dun.) (eastern black nightshade) growth and development. Weed Res 29:307–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teasdale, J. R. and Colacicco, D. 1985. Weed control systems for fresh market tomato production on small farms. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci 10/4:533–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomson, C. E. and Witt, W. W. 1987. Germination of cutleaf groundcherry (Physalis angulata), smooth groundcherry (Physalis virginiana), and eastern black nightshade (Solanum pytcanthum). Weed Sci 35:58–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weaver, S. E. 1984. Critical period of weed competition in three vegetable crops in relation to management practices. Weed Res 24:317–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weaver, S. E., Smits, N., and Tan, C. S. 1987. Estimating yield losses of tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum) caused by nightshade (Solanum Spp.) interference. Weed Sci 35:163–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weaver, S. E. and Tan, C. S. 1983. Critical period of weed interference in transplanted tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum): growth analysis. Weed Sci 31:476–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wien, H. C. and Minotti, P. L. 1987. Growth, yield, and nutrient uptake of transplanted fresh-market tomatoes as affected by plastic mulch and initial nitrogen rate. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci 112/5:759–763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wien, H. C. and Minotti, P. L. 1988. Increasing yield of tomatoes with plastic mulch and apex removal. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci 113/3:342–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar