Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T06:08:00.227Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Critical Period of Weed Interference in Transplanted Tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum): Growth Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Susan E. Weaver  and
Chin S. Tan
Susan E. Weaver
Affiliation:
Agric. Canada, Harrow, Ontario, Canada NOR 1GO
Chin S. Tan
Affiliation:
Agric. Canada, Harrow, Ontario, Canada NOR 1GO
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The critical period of weed interference in transplanted tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill. 'Springset’) was from 28 to 35 days after transplanting. A single weeding during this period was sufficient to prevent yield reductions. A growth analysis revealed that significant differences in plant dry weight and fruit number between tomatoes from weed-free and weed-infested plots were not apparent until 56 to 70 days after transplanting. The shorter the initial weed-free period, or the longer weeds were allowed to remain in the plots before removal, the earlier reductions in tomato dry weight and fruit number appeared. Weed interference was due primarily to shading rather than water stress. Tomatoes from weed-infested plots had significantly lower stomatal conductances than those from weed-free plots, but did not differ in xylem-pressure potential or in canopy temperature. If tomatoes were kept weed-free for more than 28 days, or when weeds were present for less than 28 days after transplanting, stomatal conductances were not significantly reduced.

Keywords

Competitionxylem-pressure potentialstomatal conductancecanopy temperature
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 31 , Issue 4 , July 1983 , pp. 476 - 481
Copyright
Copyright © 1983 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. Burnside, O. C. and Wicks, F. A. 1967. The effect of weed removal treatments on sorghum growth. Weeds 15:204–207.Google Scholar
2. Dawson, J. H. 1977. Competition of late - emerging weeds with sugar beets. Weed Sci. 25:168–170.Google Scholar
3. Friesen, G. H. 1978. Weed interference in pickling cucumbers (Cucumis sativus). Weed Sci. 26:626–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Friesen, G. H. 1979. Weed interference in transplanted tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum). Weed Sci. 27:11–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Hagood, E. S. Jr., Bauman, T. T., Williams, J. L. Jr., and Schreiber, M. M. 1980. Growth analysis of soybeans (Glycine max) in competition with velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti). Weed Sci. 28:729–734.Google Scholar
6. Kanemasu, E. T., Thurtell, G. W., and Tanner, C. B. 1969. Design, calibration and field use of a stomatal diffusion porometer. Plant Physiol. 44:881–885.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. McWhorter, C. G. and Anderson, J. M. 1979. Hemp sesbania competition in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 27:58–64.Google Scholar
8. Nieto, J. N., Brondo, M. A., and Gonzalez, J. T. 1968. Critical periods of the crop growth cycle for competition from weeds. PANS(C) 14:159–166.Google Scholar
9. Oliver, L. R., Frans, R. E., and Talbert, R. E. 1976. Field competition between tall morningglory and soybean. I. Growth Analysis. Weed Sci. 24:482–488.Google Scholar
10. Roberts, H. A. 1976. Weed competition in vegetable crops. Ann. Appl. Biol. 83:321–324.Google Scholar
11. Scholander, P. F., Hammel, H. F., Bradstreet, E. D. and Hemmingsen, E. A. 1965. Sap pressure in vascular plants. Science 148:339–346.Google Scholar
12. Thurlow, D. L. and Buchanan, G. A. 1972. Competition of sicklepod with soybeans. Weed Sci. 20:379–384.Google Scholar
13. Weaver, S. E. 1979. Weed competition in early market tomatoes. Res. Rep., Expert Comm. on Weeds (East. Section), p. 398. (Abstr.).Google Scholar