Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T02:07:02.692Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tolerance of tomato cultivars to velvetleaf interference

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Mathieu Ngouajio ,
Milton E. McGiffen Jr.  and
Kurt J. Hembree
Mathieu Ngouajio
Affiliation:
Botany and Plant Science Department, University of California, Riverside, CA 92521
Kurt J. Hembree
Affiliation:
University of California Cooperative Extension, 1720 S. Maple Avenue, Fresno, CA 93702
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field experiments were conducted in 1998 and 1999 at Five Points, CA, in the San Joaquin Valley under irrigated conditions to study competition between four commonly grown tomato cultivars and velvetleaf and to identify cultivar characteristics associated with greater tolerance to velvetleaf. The effect of velvetleaf competition varied with both year and tomato cultivar. When grown with 5 velvetleaf plants m−1 of row, marketable yield of tomato was reduced 8% in 1998 and 60% in 1999 for cultivar H8892 and 58% in 1998 and 80% in 1999 for cultivar H9661, compared to cultivars grown in monoculture. Across velvetleaf densities, height of tomato cultivars was not reduced compared to that of cultivars grown in monoculture. However in 1999, canopy width of tomato cultivars grown with velvetleaf was less than that of cultivars grown in monoculture. At early stages of growth, the leaf area index of tomato cultivars grown with velvetleaf was less than that of cultivars grown in monoculture. Crop growth rate and aboveground dry biomass of tomato cultivars grown with velvetleaf were generally less than those of cultivars grown in monoculture. Yield loss at high weed density was similar among cultivars, whereas yield loss at low weed density varied among cultivars. Cultivar tolerance to velvetleaf varied with year. However, cultivar H8892 had low yield loss and cultivar H9661 high yield loss at low weed density in 1998 and 1999. For cultivar H8892, leaf area expansion rate was also among the greatest for both years.

Keywords

Tomato, Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.velvetleaf, Abutilon theophrasti Medicus ABUTHCompetitionyield lossintegrated weed managementABUTH
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 49 , Issue 1 , February 2001 , pp. 91 - 98
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

Alm, D. M., McGiffen, M. E. Jr., and Hesketh, J. D. 1991. Modelling weed phenology. Pages 191–228 In Hodges, T., ed. Physiological Aspects of Predicting Phenology. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Baghestani, A., Lemieux, C., Leroux, G. D., Baziramakenga, R., and Simard, R. 1999. Determination of allelochemicals in spring cereal cultivars of different competitiveness. Weed Sci. 47:498–504.Google Scholar
Callaway, M. B. 1990. A compendium of crop varietal tolerance to weeds. Am. J. Alternat. Agric. 7:169–180.Google Scholar
Cavero, J., Zaragoza, C., Suso, M. L., and Pardo, A. 1999. Competition between maize and Datura stramonium in an irrigated field under semi-arid conditions. Weed Res. 39:225–240.Google Scholar
Challaiah, R. E. Ramsel, Wicks, G. A., Burnside, O. C., and Johnson, V. A. 1983. Evaluation of competitive ability of winter wheat cultivars. Proc. North Cent. Weed Cont. Conf. 38:85–91.Google Scholar
Christensen, S. 1995. Weed suppressive ability of spring barley cultivars. Weed Res. 35:241–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cousens, R. 1985. A simple model relating yield loss to weed density. Ann. Appl. Biol. 107:239–252.Google Scholar
Defelice, M. S., Witt, W. W., and Barrett, M. 1988. Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) growth and development in conventional and no-tillage corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 36:609–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forcella, F. 1987. Tolerance of weed competition associated with high leaf-area expansion rate in tall fescue. Crop Sci. 27:146–147.Google Scholar
Hartz, T. K. and Miyao, G. 1997. Processing Tomato Production in California. Oakland, CA: University of California, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources Publ. 7228. 3 p.Google Scholar
Kropff, M. J. 1993. Mechanisms of competition for light. Pages 33–61 In Kropff, M. J. and van Laar, H. H., eds. Modelling crop-weed interactions. Wallinford, Great Britain: CAB International and the International Rice Research Institute.Google Scholar
Kropff, M. J. and Lotz, L.A.P. 1993. Eco-physiological characterization of the species. Pages 83–104 In Kropff, M. J. and van Laar, H. H., eds. Modelling crop-weed interactions. Wallinford, Great Britain: CAB International and the International Rice Research Institute.Google Scholar
Kropff, M. J., Spitters, C.J.T., Schnieders, B. J., Joenje, W., and De Groot, W. 1992. An eco-physiological model for interspecific competition, applied to the influence of Chenopodium album L. on sugar beet. II. Model evaluation. Weed Res. 32:451–463.Google Scholar
Lindquist, J. L. and Mortensen, D. A. 1998. Tolerance and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) suppressive ability of two old and two modern corn (Zea mays) hybrids. Weed Sci. 46:569–574.Google Scholar
Lindquist, J. L. and Mortensen, D. A. 1999. Ecophysiological characteristics of four maize hybrids and Abutilon theophrasti . Weed Res. 39:271–285.Google Scholar
Lindquist, J. L., Mortensen, D. A., and Johnson, B. E. 1998. Mechanisms of corn tolerance and velvetleaf suppressive ability. Agron. J. 90:787–792.Google Scholar
Marwat, K. B. and Nafziger, E. D. 1990. Cocklebur and velvetleaf interference with soybean grown at different densities and planting patterns. Agron. J. 82:531–534.Google Scholar
McDonald, A. J. and Riha, S. J. 1999. Model of crop: weed competition applied to maize: Abutilon theophrasti interactions. I Model description and evaluation. Weed Res. 39:355–369.Google Scholar
McGiffen, M. E. Jr., Forcella, F., Lindstrom, M. J., and Reicosky, D. C. 1997. Covariance of cropping systems and foxtail density as predictors of weed interference. Weed Sci. 45:388–396.Google Scholar
McGiffen, M. E. Jr., and Masiunas, J. B. 1992. Prediction of black and eastern black nightshade (Solanum nigrum and S. ptycanthum) growth using degree days. Weed Sci. 40:86–89.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.Google Scholar
McGiffen, M. E. Jr., Ogbuchiekwe, E. J., and Saharan, B. S. 1995. Protocol for developing weed-tolerant crops. Hortic. Sci. 30:819.Google Scholar
McGiffen, M. E. Jr., Pantone, D. J., and Masiunas, J. B. 1994. Path analysis of tomato yield components in relation to competition with black and eastern nightshade. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 119:6–11.Google Scholar
McLachlan, S. M., Tollenaar, M., Swanton, C. J., and Weise, S. F. 1993. Effect of corn-induced shading on dry matter accumulation, distribution, and architecture of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus). Weed Sci. 41:568–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ni, H., Moody, M., Robles, R. P., Paller, E. C. Jr., and Lales, J. S. 2000. Oryza sativa plant traits conferring competitive ability against weeds. Weed Sci. 48:200–204.Google Scholar
Patterson, D. T. 1992. Temperature and canopy development of velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) and soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 6:68–76.Google Scholar
Perez, F.G.M. and Masiunas, J. B. 1990. Eastern black nightshade (Solanum ptycanthum) interference in processing tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum). Weed Sci. 38:385–388.Google Scholar
Ponce, R. G., Zancada, C., Verdugo, M., and Salas, L. 1996. Plant height as a factor in competition between black nightshade and two horticultural crops (tomato and pepper). J. Hortic. Sci. 71:453–460.Google Scholar
Qasem, J. R. 1992. Pigweed (Amaranthus spp.) interference in transplanted tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum). J. Hortic. Sci. 67:421–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Regnier, E. E. and Stoller, E. W. 1989. The effects of soybean (Glycine max) interference on the canopy of common cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium), jimsonweed (Datura stramonium), and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti). Weed Sci. 37:187–195.Google Scholar
Rick, C. M. 1976. Natural variability in wild species of Lycopersicon and its bearing on tomato breeding. Genet. Agric. 30:249–259.Google Scholar
Rick, C. M. 1978. The tomato. Sci. Am. 239:76–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, S. J., Burnside, O. C., Specht, J. E., and Swisher, B. A. 1984. Competition and allelopathy between soybeans and weeds. Agron. J. 76:523–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selleck, G. W. and Dallyn, S. L. 1978. Herbicide treatments and potato cultivar interactions. Proc. Northeast Weed Sci. Soc. 32:152–156.Google Scholar
Smith, B. S., Murray, D. S., and Weeks, D. L. 1990. Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) interference with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 4:799–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spencer, N. R. 1984. Velvetleaf, Abutilon theophrasti (malvaceae), history and economic impact in the United States. Econ. Bot. 38:407–416.Google Scholar
Spitters, C.J.T. 1989. Weeds: population dynamics, germination and competition. Pages 182–216 In Rabbinge, R., Ward, S. A., and van Laar, H. H., eds. Simulation and System Management in Crop Protection. Simulation Monographs. Wageningen, The Netherlands: Pudoc.Google Scholar
Staniforth, D. W. 1961. Responses of corn hybrids to yellow foxtail competition. Weeds 9:132–136.Google Scholar
Sweet, R. D., Yip, C. P., and Sieczka, J. B. 1974. Crop cultivars: can they suppress weeds? N.Y. Food Life Sci. Q. 7:3–5.Google Scholar
Weaver, S. E., Kropff, M., and Groeneveld, R.M.W. 1992. Use of ecophysiological models for crop-weed interference: the critical period of weed interference. Weed Sci. 40:302–307.Google 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.Google Scholar
Wicks, G. A., Nordquist, P. T., Hanson, G. E., and Schmidt, J. W. 1994. Influence of winter wheat (Triticum aestivum) cultivars on weed control in sorghum (Sorghum bicolor). Weed Sci. 42:27–34.Google Scholar
Yip, C. P., Sweet, R. D., and Sieczka, J. B. 1974. Competitive ability of potato cultivars with major weeds. Proc. Northeast Weed Sci. Soc. 28:271–281.Google Scholar