Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T00:01:15.600Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An alternative, low-input production system for fresh market tomatoes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2009

D.O. Chellemi ,
F.M. Rhoads ,
S.M. Olson ,
J.R. Rich ,
D. Murray ,
G. Murray  and
D.M. Sylvia
D.O. Chellemi*
Affiliation:
Research Plant Pathologist, USDA, ARS, U.S. Horticultural Research Laboratory, 2199 South Rock Rd., Ft. Pierce, FL 34945;
F.M. Rhoads
Affiliation:
Professors, University of Florida, IFAS, North Florida Research and Education Center, Route 3 Box 4370, Quincy, FL 32351;
S.M. Olson
Affiliation:
Professors, University of Florida, IFAS, North Florida Research and Education Center, Route 3 Box 4370, Quincy, FL 32351;
J.R. Rich
Affiliation:
Professors, University of Florida, IFAS, North Florida Research and Education Center, Route 3 Box 4370, Quincy, FL 32351;
D. Murray
Affiliation:
Owners/ growers, Murray Farms, Route 1 Box 1061, Bainbridge, GA 31717;
G. Murray
Affiliation:
Owners/ growers, Murray Farms, Route 1 Box 1061, Bainbridge, GA 31717;
D.M. Sylvia
Affiliation:
Professor, University of Florida, Dept. Soil and Water Science, Gainesville, FL 32611.
*
Corresponding author is D.O. Chellemi ([email protected]).
Get access

Abstract

An alternative, low-input production system for fresh market tomato was developed using strip tillage practices in conjunction with established bahiagrass pasture. The alternative system was designed to reduce the impact of soilborne pests, minimize agricultural inputs, improve soil conservation and optimize yields. Field experiments indicate that competition from bahiagrassfor nutrients within the tilled strips significantly impacted yield. Selective colonization of tomato roots by arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi isolated from field plots was observed. Damage from root-knot nematodes was minimized by planting tomato into established bahiagrass pastures. The alternative system was validated on a commercial tomato production farm in a side by side comparison with a conventional production system consisting of raised beds, fumigated with methyl bromide and covered by black polyethylene plastic. Yields were 6.5 t/ha greater under the conventional system. However, the net return was $568/ha greater in the alternative system. The results indicate that the alternative system has the potential to replace or supplement the conventional production system.

Keywords

agricultural production systemsmethyl bromidemycorrhizal fungi
Type
Articles
Information
American Journal of Alternative Agriculture , Volume 14 , Issue 2 , June 1999 , pp. 59 - 68
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1999

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

1.Beaty, E.R., and Tan, K.H.. 1972. Organic matter, N, and base accumulation under Pensacola bahiagrass. J. Range Management 25:38–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Brenneman, T.B., Sumner, D.R., Baird, R.E., Burton, G.W., and Minton, N.A.. 1995. Suppression of foliar and soilborne peanut diseases in bahiagrass rotations. Phytopathology 85:948–952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Burton, G.W. 1954. Root penetration, distribution and activity in southern grasses measured by yields, drought symptoms and P32 uptake. Agronomy J. 46:229–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Cantliffe, D.J., Hochmuth, G.J., Locascio, S.J., Stansly, P.A., Vavrina, C.S., Polston, J.E., Schuster, D.J., Seal, D.R., Chellemi, D.O., and Olson, S.M.. 1995. Production of solanacea for fresh market under field conditions: Current problems and potential solutions. Acta Horticulturae 414:229–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Chambliss, C.G. 1996. Bahiagrass. Univ. of Florida, Cooperative Extension Service, SS-AGR-36. 6 p.Google Scholar
6.Cook, R.J., and Baker, K.F.. 1983. The Nature and Practice of Biological Control of Plant Pathogens. APS Press, St. Paul, MN.Google Scholar
7.Dickson, D.W., and Hewlett, T.E.. 1989. Effects of bahiagrass and nematicides on Meloidogyne arenaria on peanut. J. Nematology (Supp.) 21:671–676.Google ScholarPubMed
8.EPA. 1997. Environmental Protection Agency, Methyl Bromide Use. Website: http://www.epa.gov/spdpublc/mbr/ambtoc.html. April.Google Scholar
9.Federal Register. 1993. Fed. Registr. 58:65018–65082.Google Scholar
10.Florida Agricultural Statistics: Vegetable Summary. 1997. Florida Dept. Agric. Consum. Serv., Orlando, FL.Google Scholar
11.Geraldson, C.M. 1975. Evaluation of tomato production efficiency with relevance to contributing components. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 88:152–155.Google Scholar
12.Geraldson, C.M. 1977. Pepper production efficiency using the gradientmulch concept. Proc. Florida State Hort. Soc. 90:152–155.Google Scholar
13.Geraldson, C.M., Overman, A.J., and Jones, J.P.. 1965. Combination of high analysis fertilizers, plastic mulch, and fumigation for tomato production on old agricultural land. Soil Crop Sci. Soc. Florida 25:18–24.Google Scholar
14.Giovannetti, M., and Mosse, B.. 1980. An evaluation of techniques for measuring vesicular arbuscular mycorrhizal infection in roots. New Phytol. 84:489–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15.Glynne, M.D. 1965. Crop sequence in relation to soil-borne pathogens. In Baker, K.F. and Snyder, W.C. (eds.). Ecology of Soil-borne Plant Pathogens. Univ. Calif. Press, Berkeley, p. 423–433.Google Scholar
16.Greenhough, D.R., Black, L.L., and Bond, W.P.. 1990. Aluminum-surfaced mulch: An approach to the control of tomato spotted wilt virus in solanaceous crops. Plant Dis. 74:805–808.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.Jones, J.P., Overman, A.J., and Geraldson, C.M.. 1966. Effect of fumigants and plastic film on the control of several soil-borne pathogens of tomato. Phytopathology 56:929–932.Google Scholar
18.Levins, R. 1986. Perspectives in integrated pest management: From an industrial to ecological model of pest management. In Kogan, M. (ed.). Ecological Theory and Integrated Pest Management Practice. John Wiley and Sons. p. 1–18.Google Scholar
19.Locascio, S.J., Gilreath, J.P., Dickson, D.W., Kucharek, T.A., Jones, J.P., and Noling, J.W.. 1997. Fumigant alternatives to methyl bromide for polyethylene-mulched tomato. HortScience 32:1208–1211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20.Madden, L.V., Wilson, L.L., and Ellis, M.A.. 1993. Field spread of anthracnose fruit rot of strawberry in relation to ground cover and ambient weather conditions. Plant Dis. 77:861–866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21.Moffitt, H.R. 1964. A color preference of the western flower thrips, Frankliniella occidentalis. J. Econ. Entomol. 54:604–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22.Ohr, H.D., Sims, J.J., Grech, N.M., Becker, O.J., and McGiffen, M.E. Jr. 1996. Methyl iodide, an ozone-safe alternative to methyl bromide as a soil fumigant. Plant Dis. 80:731–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23.Overman, A.J., Jones, J.P., and Geraldson, C.M.. 1965. Relation of nematodes, diseases and fertility to tomato production on old land. Proc. Florida State Hort. Soc. 78:136–142.Google Scholar
24.Pernezny, K., Hewitt, M., Infante, J., and Datnoff, L.. 1992. Wind and windgenerated sand injury as factors in infection of pepper by Xanthomonas campestris pv. vesicatoria. Plant Dis. 76:1036–1039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25.Ristaino, J.B., Parra, G., and Campbell, C.L.. 1997. Suppression of Phytophthora blight in bell pepper by a no-till wheat cover crop. Phytopathology 87:242–249.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26.Rodriguez-Kabana, R., Weaver, C.F., Robertson, D.G., and Ivey, H.. 1988. Bahiagrass for the management of Meloidogyne arenaria in peanut. Ann. Applied Nematology 2:110–114.Google Scholar
27.Rodriguez-Kabana, R., Robertson, D.G., Weaver, C.F., and Wells, L.. 1991. Rotations of bahiagrass and castorbean with peanut for the management of Meloidogyne arenaria. J. Nematology (Supp.) 23:658–661.Google ScholarPubMed
28.Scow, K.M., Somasco, O., Gunapala, N., Lau, S., Venette, R., Ferris, H., Miller, R., and Shennan, C.. 1994. Transition from conventional to low-input agriculture changes soil fertility and biology. California Agric. 48:20–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29.Smith, S.A., and Taylor, T.G.. 1996. Production cost for selected vegetables in Florida. Univ. Florida Coop. Ext. Serv. Circ. 1176.Google Scholar
30.Spreen, T.H., VanSickle, J.J., Moseley, A.E., Deepak, M.S., and Mathers, L.. 1995. Use of methyl bromide and the economic impact of its proposed ban on the Florida fresh fruit and vegetable industry. Univ. Florida Inst. Food Agric. Sci. Bull. 898.Google Scholar
31.Sylvia, D.M. 1994, Vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizal (VAM) fungi. In R.W. Weaver, S. Angle, P. Bottomley, D. Bezdicek, S. Smith, A. Tabatabai, and A. Wollum. (eds.). Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 2. Microbiological and Biochemical Properties. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer., Madison, WI. p. 351–378.Google Scholar
32.Taylor, T.G. 1984. Projected costs and returns for Florida vegetables for 1984–85 production season. Univ. Florida, IFAS Economic Information Report 201.Google Scholar