Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T05:29:14.416Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reduced herbicide rates for control of living mulch and weeds in fresh market tomato

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 August 2019

Vinay Bhaskar Open the ORCID record for Vinay Bhaskar [Opens in a new window] ,
Robin R. Bellinder ,
Stephen Reiners  and
Antonio DiTommaso Open the ORCID record for Antonio DiTommaso [Opens in a new window]
Vinay Bhaskar*
Affiliation:
Graduate Student, Horticulture Section, School of Integrative Plant Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA
Robin R. Bellinder
Affiliation:
Professor, Horticulture Section, School of Integrative Plant Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA
Stephen Reiners
Affiliation:
Professor, Horticulture Section, School of Integrative Plant Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA
Antonio DiTommaso
Affiliation:
Professor, Soil and Crop Sciences Section, School of Integrative Plant Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Vinay Bhaskar, Horticulture Section, School of Integrative Plant Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Living mulches can provide many sustainability benefits. However, living mulch–cash crop competition and unreliable weed control are major challenges in living mulch systems. In this study, we evaluated the potential of herbicides used at reduced rates in combination with living mulch to suppress weeds, while simultaneously reducing living mulch vigor. Herbicide treatments were a combination of two POST applications, each consisting of a single, different herbicide. Field trials were conducted in Freeville, NY, USA, using: fresh market field tomato as cash crop; sesbania and sunn hemp as living mulch; and the herbicides fomesafen, halosulfuron, metribuzin, and rimsulfuron. In 2015, when water was not limiting, tomato yield and living mulch biomass were positively correlated. This relationship was negative in 2016, likely because of drought during the growing season. Compared with the untreated living mulch check, using the herbicide treatments in combination with living mulch reduced tomato yield losses by up to 71% in 2015 and 51% in 2016. In these herbicide plus living mulch plots, weed biomass was reduced by up to 97%, compared with the weedy check. Living mulch in herbicide treatments generated up to 2500 kg ha−1 of dry matter during both 2015 and 2016, with an average ground cover of 63% in 2015 and 85% in 2016. A predominantly PRE herbicide with residual soil activity (metribuzin), followed by a herbicide with greater POST activity (halosulfuron/rimsulfuron) was the most effective herbicide application sequence. Results from our study indicate that well-designed herbicide applications may enhance the practicability of living mulch systems.

Keywords

Darren Robinson, University of GuelphFomesafenhalosulfuronmetribuzinrimsulfuronsesbania, Sesbania sesban (L.) Merr.sunn hemp, Crotalaria juncea L.tomato, Solanum lycopersicum L.Cropping diversityherbicide combinationsintercroppingresource use efficiencysoil coversoil erosion controlsustainable vegetable productionsustainable weed management
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 34 , Issue 1 , February 2020 , pp. 55 - 63
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2019 

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.)

Footnotes

*

Current: Associate Scientist–Senior Horticulturist, World Vegetable Center–South Asia Office, ICRISAT Campus, Patancheru, Hyderabad, Telangana 502324, India

†

Deceased.

References

Akobundu, IO, Sweet, RD, Duke, WB, Minotti, PL (1975) Weed response to atrazine and alachlor combinations at low rates. Weed Sci 23:67–70 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhaskar, V, Bellinder, R, DiTommaso, A, Walter, M (2018) Living mulch performance in a tropical cotton system and impact on yield and weed control. Agriculture 8:19 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brainard, DC, Bellinder, RR (2004) Weed suppression in a broccoli–winter rye intercropping system. Weed Sci 52:281–290 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brainard, DC, Bellinder, RR, Miller, AJ (2004) Cultivation and interseeding for weed control in transplanted cabbage. Weed Technol 18:704–710 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardina, J, Hartwig, NL (1980) Suppression of crownvetch for no-tillage corn. Pages 53–58 in Proceedings of the 34th Northeastern Weed Science Society Meeting. Beltsville, MD: Northeastern Weed Science SocietyGoogle Scholar
Echtenkamp, GW, Moomaw, RS (1989) No-till corn production in a living mulch system. Weed Technol 3:261–266 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elkins, DM, George, JD, Birchett, GE (1982) No-till soybeans in forage grass sod. Agron J 74:359–363 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elkins, DM, Vandeventer, JW, Kapusta, G, Anderson, MR (1979) No-tillage maize production in chemically suppressed grass sod. Agron J 71:101–105 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, K, Hartwig, NL, Hoffman, LD (1984) Cyanazine losses in runoff from no-tillage corn in “living” and dead mulches vs. unmulched, conventional tillage. J Environ Qual 13:105–110 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamill, AS, Zhang, J (1995) Herbicide reduction in metribuzin-based weed control programs in corn. Can J Plant Sci 75:927–933 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartwig, NL (1976) Legume suppression for double cropped no-tillage corn in crownvetch and birdsfoot trefoil removed for haylage. Pages 82–85 in Proceedings of the 30th Northeastern Weed Science Society Meeting. Salisbury, MD: Northeastern Weed Science SocietyGoogle Scholar
Hartwig, NL (1977) Nutsedge control in no-tillage corn with and without a crownvetch cover crop. Pages 20–23 in Proceedings of the 31st Northeastern Weed Science Society Meeting. Beltsville, MD: Northeastern Weed Science SocietyGoogle Scholar
Hartwig, NL, Ammon, HU (2002) Cover crops and living mulches. Weed Sci 50:688–699 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hiltbrunner, J, Liedgens, M, Bloch, L, Stamp, P, Streit, B (2007) Legume cover crops as living mulches for winter wheat: components of biomass and the control of weeds. Eur J Agron 26:21–29 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, BJ, Sweet, RD (1979) Living mulch: a preliminary report on grassy cover crops interplanted with vegetables. Page 109 in Proceedings of the 33rd Northeastern Weed Science Society Meeting. Beltsville, MD: Northeastern Weed Science SocietyGoogle Scholar
Kemper, B, Derpsch, R (1981) Results of studies made in 1978 and 1979 to control erosion by cover crops and no-tillage techniques in Parana, Brazil. Soil Tillage Res 1:253–267 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linscott, DL, Hagin, RD (1975) Potential for no-tillage corn in crownvetch sods. Page 81 in Proceedings of the 29th Northeastern Weed Science Society Meeting. Salisbury, MD: Northeastern Weed Science SocietyGoogle Scholar
Little, NG, Mohler, CL, Ketterings, QM, DiTommaso, A (2015) Effects of organic nutrient amendments on weed and crop growth. Weed Sci 63:710–722 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Masiunas, JB (1998) Production of vegetables using cover crop and living mulches—a review. J Veg Crop Prod 4:11–31 Google Scholar
Meisinger, JJ, Hargrove, WL, Mikkelsen, RL, Williams, JR, Benson, VW (1991) Effects of cover crops on groundwater quality. Pages 57–68 in Hargrove, WL, ed. Cover Crops for Clean Water. Ankeny, IA: Soil and Water Conservation Society Google Scholar
Moomaw, RS, Martin, AR (1976) Herbicides for no-tillage corn in alfalfa sod. Weed Sci 24:449–453 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, RA, Currey, WL (1970) Influence of sod species in no-tillage corn production. Pages 421–425 in Proceedings of the 24th Northeastern Weed Science Society Meeting. Farmingdale, NY: Northeastern Weed Science SocietyGoogle Scholar
Robertson, WK, Lundy, HW, Prine, GM, Currey, WL (1976) Planting corn in sod and small grain residues with minimum tillage. Agron J 68:271–274 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vrabel, TE, Minotti, PL, Sweet, RD (1980) Seeded legumes as living mulches in sweet corn. Pages 171–175 in Proceedings of the 34th Northeastern Weed Science Society Meeting. Beltsville, MD: Northeastern Weed Science SocietyGoogle Scholar
Vrabel, TE, Minotti, PL, Sweet, RD (1981) Legume sods as living mulches in sweet corn. Pages 158–159 in Proceedings of the 35th Northeastern Weed Science Society Meeting. Beltsville, MD: Northeastern Weed Science SocietyGoogle Scholar