Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T08:06:02.977Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Kipp F. Sutton ,
W. Thomas Lanini ,
Jefferey P. Mitchell ,
Eugene M. Miyao  and
Anil Shrestha
Kipp F. Sutton
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences, University of California, Davis, CA 95616
W. Thomas Lanini*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences, University of California, Davis, CA 95616
Jefferey P. Mitchell
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences, University of California, Davis, CA 95616
Eugene M. Miyao
Affiliation:
University of California Cooperative Extension, 70 Cottonwood Street, Woodland CA, 95695
Anil Shrestha
Affiliation:
University of California Statewide Integrated Pest Management Program, Kearney Agricultural Center, 9240 S. Riverbend Avenue, Parlier, CA 93648
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: wtlanini@ucdavis.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

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.

Keywords

Tomato, Lycopersicum esculentum MillArid regionscropping systemsfertigationhand weeding
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 20 , Issue 4 , December 2006 , pp. 831 - 838
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

Ayars, J. E., Phene, C. J., Hutmacher, R. B., Davis, K. R., Schoneman, R. A., Vail, S. S., and Mead, R. M. 1999. Subsurface drip irrigation of row crops: a review of 15 years of research at the Water Management Research Laboratory. Agric. Water Manage. 42:1–27.Google Scholar
Bar-Yosef, B., Sagiv, B., and Markovitch, T. 1989. Sweet corn response to surface and subsurface trickle phosphorus fertigation. Agron. J. 81:443–447.Google Scholar
Bell, A. A., Liu, L., Reidy, B., Davis, R. M., and Subbarao, K. V. 1998. Mechanisms of subsurface drip irrigation-mediated suppression of lettuce drop caused by Sclerotinia minor . Phytopathology 88:252–259.Google Scholar
Bjorneberg, D. L., Sojka, R. E., and Aase, J. K. 2002. Pre-wetting effect on furrow irrigation erosion: a field study. Trans. Amer. Soc. Agric. Eng. 45:717–722.Google Scholar
Bogle, C., Hartz, T. K., and Nunez, C. 1989. Comparison of subsurface trickle and furrow irrigation on plastic-mulched and bare soil for tomato production. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 114:40–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camp, C. R. 1998. Subsurface drip irrigation: a review. Trans. Amer. Soc. Agric. Eng. 41:1353–1367.Google Scholar
Carroll, C., Halpin, M., Bell, K., and Mollison, J. 1995. The effect of furrow length on rain and irrigation-induced erosion on a vertisol in Australia. Aust. J. Soil Res. 33:833–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, L. M. 1996. Tillage. in Hake, S.J., Kerby, T.A., Hake, K.D., eds. Cotton Production Manual. Oakland, CA: University of California, DANR Publication 3352. 175–186.Google Scholar
Clausnitzer, H. and Singer, M. J. 1996. Respirable dust production from agricultural operations in the Sacramento Valley, California. J. Environ. Qual. 25:877–884.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conservation Technology Information Center 2002. National Crop Residue Management Survey. Web page: http://www.ctic.purdue.edu/Core4/CT/CTSurvey/NationalData.html.Google Scholar
Conservation Technology Information Center 2004. Core 4—Conservation for Agriculture's Future. Tillage Systems Definitions. Web page: http://www.conservationinformation.com/ Accessed: September 28, 2006.Google Scholar
Davis, R. M., Hamilton, G., Lanini, W. T., Spreen, T. H., and Osteen, C. 1998. The importance of pesticides and other pest management practices in U.S. tomato production. U.S. Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Pesticide Impact Assessment Program Document 1-CA-98. 263.Google Scholar
Grattan, S. R., Schwankl, L. J., and Lanini, W. T. 1988. Weed control by subsurface drip irrigation. Calif. Agric. 42:22–24.Google Scholar
Hartz, T. and Hanson, B. 2004. Drip irrigation and fertigation management of processing tomato. Davis University of California, Davis, Vegetable Crops Research and Information Center Publication Web page: http://vric.ucdavis.edu/selectnewcrop.tomato.htm. Accessed September 28, 2006.Google Scholar
Hebbar, S. S., Ramachandrappa, B. K., Nanjappa, H. V., and Prabhakar, M. 2004. Studies on NPK drip fertigation in field grown tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.). Eur. J. Agron. 21:117–127.Google Scholar
Kuminoff, N. V., Sumner, D. E., and Goldman, G. 2000. The Measure of California Agriculture. University of California Agricultural Issues Center Web page: http://aic.ucdavis.edu/pubs/moca.pdf. Accessed: August 29, 2006.Google Scholar
Le Strange, M. W. L., Schrader, T., and Hartz, K. 2000. Fresh-market tomato production in California. University of California, DANR Publication 8017. 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magliano, K. L., Hughes, V. M., Chinkin, L. R., Coe, D. L., Haste, T. L., Kumar, N., and Lurmann, F. W. 1999. Spatial and temporal variations in PM10 and PM2.5 source contributions and comparison to emissions during the 1995 integrated environment study. Atm. Environ. 33:4757–4773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, J. M., Chevre, N., Spack, L., Tarradellas, J., and Mermoud, A. 2001. Degradation in soil and water and ecotoxicity of rimsulfuron and its metabolites. Chemosphere 45:515–522.Google Scholar
Mitchell, J. P., Thomsen, C. D., Graves, W. L., and Shennan, C. 1999. Cover crops for saline soils. J. Agron. Crop Sci. 183:167–178.Google Scholar
Miyao, G., Klonsky, K. M., and DeMoura, R. L. 2001. Sample costs to produce processing tomatoes—Sacramento Valley. University of California Cooperative Extension. 19. Web page: http://www.agecon.ucdavis.edu/uploads/cost_return_articles/tomssv2001.pdf. Accessed: August 29, 2006.Google Scholar
Ogbuchiekwe, E. J. and McGiffen, M. E. 2001. Efficacy and economic value of weed control for drip and sprinkler irrigated celery. HortScience 36:1278–1282.Google Scholar
Patterson, M. G., Wehtje, G., and Goff, W. D. 1990. Effects of weed control and irrigation on the growth of young pecans. Weed Technol. 4:892–894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phene, C. J., Davis, K. R., Hutmacher, R. B., and McCormick, R. L. 1987. Advantages of subsurface irrigation for processing tomatoes. Acta Hort. 200:101–114.Google Scholar
Reicosky, D. C., Dugas, W. A., and Torbert, H. A. 1997. Tillage-induced soil carbon dioxide loss from different cropping systems. Soil Till. Res. 41:105–118.Google Scholar
Sanders, D. C., Howell, T. A., Hile, M. M. S., Hodges, L., Meek, D., and Phene, C. J. 1989. Yield and quality of processing tomatoes in response to irrigation rate and schedule. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 114:904–908.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems 2000. SAS User's Guide, Version 8.1. Cary, NC Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1686.Google Scholar
Sauerbeck, D. R. 2001. CO2 emissions and C sequestration by agriculture—perspectives and limitations. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 60:253–266.Google Scholar
Singandhupe, R. B., Rao, G. G. S. N., Patil, N. G., and Brahmanand, P. S. 2003. Fertigation studies and irrigation scheduling in drip irrigation system in tomato crop (Lycopersicon esculentum L.). Eur. J. Agron. 19:327–340.Google Scholar
Six, J., Callewaert, P., Lenders, S., De Gryze, S., Paustian, K., Morris, S. J., Gregorich, E. G., and Paul, E. A. 2002. Measuring and understanding carbon storage in afforested soils by physical fractionation. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 66:1981–1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Six, J., Elliott, E. T., and Paustian, K. 1999. Aggregate and soil organic matter dynamics under conventional and no-tillage systems. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 63:1350–1358.Google Scholar
Stirzaker, R. J., Sutton, B. G., and Collis-George, N. 1993. Soil management for irrigated vegetable production. 1. The growth of processing tomatoes following soil preparation by cultivation, zero-tillage and an insitu-grown mulch. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 44:817–829.Google Scholar
Swinton, S. M., Lybecker, D. W., and King, R. P. 1995. The effect of local triazine restriction policies on recommended weed management in corn. Rev. Agric. Econ. 17:243–351–367.Google Scholar
Troiano, J., Garretson, C., Krauter, C., Brownell, J., and Huston, J. 1993. Influence of amount and method of irrigation water application on leaching of atrazine. J. Environ. Qual. 22:290–298.Google Scholar
[USDA-NASS] United States Department of Agriculture-National Agricultural Statistics Service 2003. Table 6. Land irrigated by drip, trickle, or low-flow micro sprinklers: 2003 and 1998. Web page: http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census02/fris/tables/fris03_06.pdf. Accessed: August 29, 2006.Google Scholar
Uri, N. D., Atwood, J. D., and Sanabria, J. 1999. The environmental benefits and costs of conservation tillage. Environ. Geol. 38:111–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watts, D. W. and Hall, J. K. 1996. Tillage and application effects on herbicide leaching and runoff. Soil Till. Res. 39:241–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yohannes, F. and Tadesse, T. 1998. Effect of drip and furrow irrigation and plant spacing on yield of tomato at Dire Dawa, Ethiopia. Agric. Water Manage. 35:201–207.Google Scholar