Weed Control, Yield, and Quality of Processing Tomato Production under Different Irrigation, Tillage, and Herbicide Systems

Abstract

A field experiment was conducted near Davis, CA, during the 2003 and 2004 summer growing seasons to compare weed control, yield, and fruit quality in different irrigation and tillage systems in processing tomato. Trial design was a subplots with the main plots as subsurface drip irrigation or furrow irrigation, subplots were standard tillage or conservation tillage, and sub-subplots were herbicide or no herbicide. The hypothesis was that subsurface drip irrigation could limit surface soil wetting and thus inhibit germination and growth of weeds equal to or better than standard tillage and/or herbicides. In both 2003 and 2004, weed densities in the subsurface drip irrigation treatments were over 98% lower than the levels in furrow irrigation treatments. In addition, weed densities were lower in the subsurface drip–conservation till–no herbicide treatment than in any of the furrow irrigation treatments, including the furrow irrigation–standard tillage–herbicide treatments. The time required for a hand-hoeing crew to remove weeds was 5 to 13 times greater in furrow irrigation treatments compared to subsurface drip irrigation treatments. Weed biomass on beds at tomato harvest was 10 to 14 times greater in the furrow systems as compared to the subsurface drip irrigation systems. These results demonstrate the effectiveness of subsurface drip irrigation in controlling weed germination and growth, compared to tillage or herbicide applications. Tomato yield was higher in the subsurface drip irrigation treatment compared to furrow irrigation in 2004. Herbicide treatment increased yield in 2004, but only in the furrow irrigation treatment in 2003. Fruit brix level was not related to treatment in 2003, but was lower in the subsurface drip irrigation plots in 2004. These results indicate that subsurface drip irrigation can reduce weed competition in conservation tillage systems, without requiring herbicide applications.

QUALITY OF PROCESSING TOMATO FRUITS IN COMPETITION WITH Solanum americanum

“…After crop harvest, tomato fruits were separated into three categories described above (Sutton et al, 2006;Beckles et al, 2012), hereon called as red (A grade), green (B grade) Quality of processing tomato fruits in competition with Solanum americanum and rot (C grade). On each category, the fruit mass was determined and the proportion of each class in relation to the total fruit mass was calculated.…”

“…The fruit type is classified according to the color and sanity of tomato fruits. Mature fruits with red color and without pathogen infections are classified as grade A tomato; partially green or yellow with less than 15% disease infection are qualified as grade B; and grade C is attributed to fruits over matured or with more than 15% disease infection (Sutton et al, 2006;Beckles et al, 2012). The total of soluble solids ( o brix) is determined using a refractometric index that indicates the percentage of soluble in a solution.…”

“…vulgaris) (Paolini et al, 1999); reduce cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) fiber properties like micronaire and strength (Wood et al, 1999); and diminish the size of several crop products such as onion (Allium cepa) bulbs (Williams et al, 2004); cranberry (Vaccinium oxycoccos) fruits (Patten & Wang, 1994) and sweet potatoes (Ipomoea batatas) roots (Meyers et al, 2010). However, of the few reports on the weed impact on the quality of the tomato crop fruits (Friesen, 1979;Caussanel et al, 1990;McGiffen et al, 1994;Buckelew & Monks, 2006;Sutton et al, 2006) there is no clear evidence of this hypothesis. For example, whereas there is an inverse relationship between Solanum ptycanthum density and large tomato fruits (Mcgiffen et al, 1994;Buckelew & Monks, 2006), there is no impact of the weed on the number of small fruits (Buckelew & Monks, 2006).…”

“…For example, whereas there is an inverse relationship between Solanum ptycanthum density and large tomato fruits (Mcgiffen et al, 1994;Buckelew & Monks, 2006), there is no impact of the weed on the number of small fruits (Buckelew & Monks, 2006). Likewise, there is no evidence of the impact of weeds on the brix values of the tomato fruits (Sutton et al, 2006).…”

Diversity and Spatial Heterogeneity of Weed Communities in a Sugarcane Cropping System in the Dry Tropics of Costa Rica

“…For example, where water is limiting, weed populations develop more in areas where water is directly provided via irrigation (Sutton et al 2006). Similarly, fertilizer placement can affect the distribution and density of weed populations.…”