Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T10:39:19.186Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Estimating Yield Losses of Tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum) Caused by Nightshade (Solanum spp.) Interference

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Susan E. Weaver ,
Nancy Smits  and
Chin S. Tan
Susan E. Weaver
Affiliation:
Res. Sci., Agric. Canada, Res. Stn., Harrow, Ontario NOR 1GO, Biol., Agric. Canada, Smithfield Exp. Farm, P.O. Box 340, Trenton, Ontario K8V 5R5
Nancy Smits
Affiliation:
Res. Sci., Agric. Canada, Res. Stn., Harrow, Ontario NOR 1GO, Biol., Agric. Canada, Smithfield Exp. Farm, P.O. Box 340, Trenton, Ontario K8V 5R5
Chin S. Tan
Affiliation:
Res. Sci., Agric. Canada, Res. Stn., Harrow, Ontario, Canada
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Reductions in yields of processing tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill. ‘H2653’ and ‘Earlirouge′) caused by interference from eastern black nightshade (Solanum ptycanthum Dun. # SOLPT) and hairy nighthsade (S. sarrachoides Sendt. # SOLSA) were estimated for transplanted and seeded tomatoes at two locations in southern Ontario. Tomato yield losses were significantly greater in seeded than in transplanted tomatoes. Stomatal conductance and transpiration rates of seeded tomatoes decreased more rapidly with increased nightshade density than did those of transplanted tomatoes. Percent yield losses also differed between sites. Seeded tomatoes grown at high density in twin rows (33 300 and 45 000 plants/ha) had higher yields and lower percent yield losses than did tomatoes grown at low density in single rows (12 500 to 22 500 plants/ha). Nightshade dry weight and seed production decreased per plant but increased per unit area with increasing nightshade density. Nightshade dry weights and seed production did not vary with site or method of tomato establishment. A hyperbolic model provided an excellent fit to data on both tomato yield losses and nightshade seed production as a function of nightshade density.

Keywords

Eastern black nightshadehairy nightshadeLycopersicon esculentumSolanum ptycanthumSolanum sarrachoidesSOLPTSOLSA
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 35 , Issue 2 , March 1987 , pp. 163 - 168
Copyright
Copyright © 1987 by the 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. Bassett, I. J. and Munro, D. B. 1985. The biology of Canadian weeds. 67. Solanum ptycanthum Dunn., S. nigrum L. and S. sarrachoides Sendt. Can. J. Plant Sci. 65:401–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Cousens, R. 1985. A simple model relating yield loss to weed density. Ann. Appl. Biol. 107:239–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Dew, D. A. and Keys, C. H. 1976. An index of competition for estimating loss of rape due to wild oats. Can. J. Plant Sci. 56:1005–1006.Google Scholar
4. Firbank, L. G. and Watkinson, A. R. 1985. On the analysis of competition within two-species mixtures of plants. J. Appl. Ecol. 22:503–517.Google Scholar
5. Friesen, G. H. 1979. Weed interference in transplanted tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum). Weed Sci. 27:11–13.Google Scholar
6. Maillet, J. and Abdel-Fatah, H. 1983. Etudes préliminaires sur la concurrence entre Solanum nigrum ssp. eu-nigrum L. (morelle moire) et Lycopersicon esculentum Mill. (tomate) en culture repiquée. Weed Res. 23:217–219.Google Scholar
7. Marra, M. C. and Carlson, G. A. 1983. An economic threshold model for weeds in soybeans. Weed Sci. 31:604–609.Google Scholar
8. Ogg, A. G. Jr., Rogers, B. S., and Schilling, E. E. 1981. Characterization of black nightshade (Solanum nigrum) and related species in the United States. Weed Sci. 29:27–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. SAS Institute, Inc. SAS User's Guide: Statistics. 1982 ed. Box 8000, Cary, NC.Google Scholar
10. Spitters, C.J.T. 1983. An alternative approach to the analysis of mixed cropping experiments. I. Estimation of competition effects. Neth. J. Agric. Sci. 31:1–11.Google Scholar
11. Vandeventer, J. W., Meggitt, W. F., and Penner, D. 1982. Morphological and physiological variability in black nightshade (Solanum spp.). Pestic. Sci. 13:257–262.Google Scholar
12. Weaver, S. E. 1984. Critical period of weed competition in three vegetable crops in relation to management practices. Weed Res. 24:317–325.Google Scholar
13. Weaver, S. E. 1986. Factors affecting threshold levels and seed production of jimsonweed (Datura stramonium L.) in soyabeans (Glycine max L.). Weed Res. 26:215–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Weaver, S. E. and Tan, C. S. 1983. Critical period of weed interference in transplanted tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum): Growth analysis. Weed Sci. 31:476–481.Google Scholar
15. Weaver, S. E. and Tan, C. S. 1987. Critical period of weed interference in field-seeded tomatoes and its relation to water stress and shading. Can. J. Plant Sci. (in press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Willey, R. W. and Heath, S. B. 1969. The quantitative relationships between plant population and crop yield. Adv. Agron. 21:281–321.Google Scholar