Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T06:06:11.803Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Effect of eastern black nightshade (Solanum ptycanthum) on transplanted plasticulture tomato grade and yield

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Juliana K. Buckelew
Affiliation:
Department of Horticultural Science, Box 7609, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695

Abstract

Field experiments were conducted to determine density-dependent effects of eastern black nightshade season-long interference on tomato-yield loss when growing in-row with staked plasticulture tomato. Eastern black nightshade was transplanted at densities of zero, one, two, three, four, or five plants per crop plant hole in the plastic. Eastern black nightshade densities of one to five reduced the number and weight of larger fruit grades (threes, extra larges, jumbos, marketables, totals) similarly but did not reduce yields of smaller fruit grades (culls, mediums, and larges) from the weed-free. Eastern black nightshade reduced percent yield loss of jumbo grade, the premium grade, which could be predicted by a rectangular hyperbola model. The value ($ ha−1) of jumbo fruit and the value of the sum of large, extra large, and jumbo grade was reduced at densities of eastern black nightshade as low as one plant per hole.

Type
Weed Management
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

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
Cousens, R. 1985. A simple model relating yield loss to weed density. Ann. Appl. Biol 107:239252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croster, M. P. and Masiunas, J. B. 1998. The effect of weed-free period and nitrogen on eastern black nightshade competition with English pea. Hortscience 33:8891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[EPA] Environmental Protection Agency. 1990. Clean Air Act. www.epa.gov/oar/caa/contents.html.Google Scholar
Friesen, A. G. 1979. Weed interference in transplanted tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum). Weed Sci 27:1113.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, Raleigh, NC.Google Scholar
Gorski, S. F. and Wertz, M. K. 1987. Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) and eastern black nightshade (Solanum ptycanthum) tolerance to acifluorfen. Weed Technol 1:278281.CrossRefGoogle 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 40:8689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGiffen, M. E. Jr., Masiunas, J. B., and Hesketh, J. D. 1992a. Competition for light between tomatoes and nightshades (Solanum nigrum or S. ptycanthum). Weed Sci 40:220226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGiffen, M. E. Jr., Masiunas, J. B., and Huck, M. G. 1992b. Tomato and nightshade (Solanum nigrum L. and S. ptycanthum Dun.) effects on soil water content. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci 117:730735.CrossRefGoogle 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 black nightshade. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci 119:611.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 11:561566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monks, D. W. and Oliver, L. R. 1988. Interactions between soybean (Glycine max) cultivars and selected weeds. Weed Sci 36:770774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[NCDA], North Carolina Department of Agriculture. 2004. Daily free on board: prices on trellised tomatoes at western NC shipping point. July–September, 2004.Google Scholar
Perez, F. G. M. and Masiunas, J. B. 1990. Eastern black nightshade (Solanum ptycanthum) interference in processing tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum). Weed Sci 38:385388.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 38:522527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanders, D. C., Cook, W. P., and Granberry, D. 1996. Plasticulture for Commercial Vegetables. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service, NC State University Publication AG-489.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1999. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Release 8.2. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1028p.Google Scholar
Spitters, C. J. T. and Van Den Bergh, J. P. 1982. Competition between crop and weeds: a system approach. Pages 137148. in Holzner, W. and Numata, N. eds. Biology and Ecology of Weeds. Boston: Dr. W. Junk Pub.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weaver, S. E. and Tan, C. S. 1983. Critical period of weed interference in transplanted tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum): growth analysis. Weed Sci 31:476481.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 35:163168.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 112:759763.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 113:342347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar