Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T21:21:38.223Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effective mechanical weed control in processing tomato: Seven years of results

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 November 2013

A. Cirujeda ,
J. Aibar ,
M.M. Moreno  and
C. Zaragoza
A. Cirujeda*
Affiliation:
Unidad de Sanidad Vegetal, Centro de Investigación y Tecnología Agroalimentaria (CITA), Avda. Montañana 930, 50059 Zaragoza, Spain
J. Aibar
Affiliation:
Universidad de Zaragoza, Escuela Politécnica Superior, Ctra. de Cuarte s/n, 22071 Huesca, Spain
M.M. Moreno
Affiliation:
Escuela de Ingenieros Agrónomos, Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, Ronda de Calatrava 7, 13071 Ciudad Real, Spain
C. Zaragoza
Affiliation:
Unidad de Sanidad Vegetal, Centro de Investigación y Tecnología Agroalimentaria (CITA), Avda. Montañana 930, 50059 Zaragoza, Spain
*
*Corresponding author: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Open-air crops are important in Spanish horticulture. The limited number of herbicide active ingredients in minor crops, the waste problem of polyethylene (PE) plastic mulch and the high prices of biodegradable plastics leave hand-weeding and mechanical weed control as the most viable weed control methods. Different tools have been tested in northern European countries but their performance remains unknown in the edaphoclimatic situation of southern Europe. The objective of this work was to test novel physical weed control methods on processing tomato in northeastern Spain compared with other effective control methods, i.e., plastic and paper mulches. A first sequence of field trials was established from 2005 to 2008 at Zaragoza (Spain) to select the best physical control methods out of flamer, torsion weeder, finger weeder, flex-tine harrow and brush hoe used alone or in combination. The best method was the brush hoe which was then compared from 2009 to 2011 with PE mulch, biodegradable plastic mulch and paper mulch. Flamer, flex-tine harrow, torsion weeder and finger weeder performed quite irregularly due to crusty soil conditions and needed additional tools or repeated treatments to increase weed control efficacy. The brush hoe performed best in this soil situation working at about 5 cm depth. Weed biomass reduction was higher than 80% in 6 out of 7 years and similar yield was obtained in the brushed plots compared to the yield obtained with PE, biodegradable plastic and paper mulch. The brush hoe is thus a suitable option for weed control in processing tomato while the other tools were too weak to control aggressive summer weeds in the tested conditions.

Keywords

brush hoefinger weedertorsion weederflex-tine harrowflamerpolyethylene mulchCyperus rotundus
Type
Research Papers
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 30 , Issue 3 , June 2015 , pp. 223 - 232
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

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

1Oerke, E.C. 2006. Crop losses to pests. Journal of Agricultural Sciences 144:31–43.Google Scholar
2Cirujeda, A., Aibar, J., Anzalone, A., Martin-Closas, L., Meco, R., Moreno, M.M., Pardo, A., Pelacho, A.M., Rojo, F., Royo-Esnal, A., Suso, M.L., and Zaragoza, C. 2012. Biodegradable mulch instead of polyethylene for weed control of processing tomato production. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 32:889–897.Google Scholar
3MAGRAMA (Ministerio de Agricultura, Alimentación y Medio Ambiente). 2012. Anuario de Estadística Agroalimentaria 2011. Available at Web site http://www.magrama.gob.es/es/estadistica/temas/estad-publicaciones/anuario-de-estadistica/2011/ (accessed November 28, 2012).Google Scholar
4MAGRAMA (Ministerio de Agricultura, Alimentación y Medio Ambiente). 2013. Registro de Productos Fitosanitarios. http://www.magrama.gob.es/es/agricultura/temas/sanidad-vegetal/productos-fitosanitarios/registro/productos/conaplipla.asp (accessed June 17, 2013).Google Scholar
5Melander, B., Rasmussen, I.A., and Barberi, P. 2005. Integrating physical and cultural methods of weed control – Examples from European research. Weed Science 53:369–381.Google Scholar
6Van der Schans, D., Bleeker, P., Molendijk, L., Plentinger, M., and van der Weide, R. 2006. Practical weed control in arable farming and outdoor vegetable cultivation without chemicals. Applied Plant Research, Wageningen, UR.Google Scholar
7Raffaelli, M., Fontanelli, M., Frasconi, C., Ginanni, M., and Peruzzi, A. 2010. Physical weed control in protected leaf-beet in central Italy. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 25:8–15.Google Scholar
8Raffaelli, M., Fontanelli, M., Frasconi, C., Ginanni, M., and Peruzzi, A. 2011. Physical weed control in processing tomatoes in Central Italy. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 26:95–103.Google Scholar
9Cirujeda, A., Anzalone, A., Pardo, G., León, M., and Zaragoza, C. 2007. Mechanical weed control in processing tomato. In Cloutier, D.C. (ed.). Proceedings of the Seventh EWRS Workshop on Physical and Cultural Weed Control, Salem, Germany, March 11–14, p. 105–111.Google Scholar
10Cirujeda, A., Aibar, J., Fernández-Cavada, S., Zuriaga, P., Anzalone, A., and Zaragoza, C. 2009. The use of flex-tine harrow, torsion weeder and finger weeder in Mediterranean crops. In Cloutier, D.C. (ed.). Proceedings of the Eighth EWRS Workshop on Physical and Cultural Weed Control, Zaragoza, Spain, March 9–11, p. 33.Google Scholar
11Geier, B. and Vogtmann, H. 1986. The multiple row brush hoe – a new tool for mechanical weed-control. In Cavaroll, R. and El Titi, A.V. (eds). Weed Control in Vegetable Production. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam/Brockfield, p. 179–185.Google Scholar
12Colquhoun, J.B. and Bellinder, R.R. 1999. Efficacy of mechanical cultivation with and without herbicides in broccoli (Brassica oleracea), snap bean (Phaseolus vulgaris), and sweet corn (Zea mays). Weed Technology 13:244–252.Google Scholar
13Kelly, M.J., Pritts, M.P., and Bellinder, R.R. 2007. Evaluation of new cultivation tools to reduce labor requirements in matted-row strawberry culture. HortTechnology 17:87–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14Ascard, J. and Mattsson, B. 1994. Inter-row cultivation in weed-free carrots – the effect on yield of hoeing and brush weeding. Biological Agriculture and Horticulture 10:161–173.Google Scholar
15Ascard, J. and Bellinder, R.R.B. 1996. Mechanical in-row cultivation in row crops. In Brown, H., Cussans, G.W., Devine, M.D., Duke, S.O., Fernandez-Quintanilla, C., Helweg, A., Labrada, R.E., Landes, M., Kudsk, P., and Streibig, J.C. (eds). Proceedings of the Second International Weed Control Congress, Copenhagen, Denmark, June 25–28, p. 1121–1126.Google Scholar
16Bleeker, P., van der Weide, R., and Kurstjens, D. 2002. Experiences and experiments with new intra-row weeders. In Cloutier, D.C. (ed.). Proceedings of the Fifth EWRS Workshop on Physical and Cultural Weed Control, Pisa, Italy, March 11–13, p. 97–100.Google Scholar
17Leinonen, P., Saastamoinen, A., and Vilmunen, J. 2004. Finger weeder for cabbage and lettuce cultures. In Cloutier, D.C. (ed.). Proceedings of the Sixth EWRS Workshop on Physical and Cultural Weed Control, Lillehammer, Norway, March 8–10, p. 98.Google Scholar
18Smith, R.F. and Silva Ruiz, M. 2009. Evaluation of finger and torsion weeders for cultivating cool season vegetables in Salinas, CA, USA. In Cloutier, D.C. (ed.). Proceedings of the Eighth EWRS Workshop on Physical and Cultural Weed Control, Zaragoza, Spain, March 9–11, p. 78.Google Scholar
19Peruzzi, A., Di Ciolo, S. and Raffaelli, M., 1998. Effects of flame weeding on velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti L.) common amaranth (Amaranthus retroflexus L.) and cockspur grass (Echinochloa crus-galli L.). In Proceedings of the AgEng 1998 International Conference on Agricultural Engineering, Oslo, Norway, 98-A-026.Google Scholar
20Ascard, J. 1995. Effects of flame weeding on weed species at different development stages. Weed Research 35:397–411.Google Scholar
21Raffaelli, M., Filippi, F., Peruzzi, A., and Graifenberg, A. 2004. Flaming for intra-row weed control in Globe Artichoke. In Cloutier, D.C. (ed.). Proceedings of the Sixth Workshop on Physical and Cultural Weed Control, Lillehammer, Norway, p. 139–142.Google Scholar
22Netland, J., Balvoll, G., and Holmoy, R. 1994. Band spraying, selective flame weeding and hoeing in late white cabbage. Acta Horticulturae 372:235–243.Google Scholar
23Liebman, M. and Gallandt, E.R. 1997. Many little hammers: Ecological management of crop-weed interactions. In Jackson, L.E. (ed.). Ecology in Agriculture. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, USA, p. 291–343.Google Scholar
24Tei, F., Montemurro, P., Baumann, D.T., Dobrzanski, A., Giovinazzo, R., Kleifeld, Y., Rocha, F., Rzozi, S.B., Sonseovic, T., Simoncic, A., and Zaragoza, C. 2002. Weeds and weed management in processing tomato. Acta Horticulturae 613:111–120.Google Scholar
25Mohler, C. 2001. Mechanical management of weeds. In Liebman, M., Mohler, C.L., and Staver, C.P. (eds) Ecological Management of Agricultural Weeds. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, p. 139–192.Google Scholar
26Ascard, J. and Fogelberg, F. 2002. Mechanical intra-row weed control in organic onion production. In Cloutier, D.C. (ed.). Proceedings of the Fifth EWRS Workshop on Physical and Cultural Weed Control, Pisa, Italy, March 11–13, p. 125.Google Scholar
27Knezevic, S., Datta, A., Stepanovic, S., Bruening, C., Neilson, B., and Gogos, G. 2011. Weed control with flaming and cultivation in corn. In Rubin, B. (ed.). Proceedings of the joint Workshop of the EWRS working groups Weed Management in Arid and Semi-arid Climate and Weed Management Systems in Vegetables, Huesca, September 4–8, p. 16.Google Scholar
28Ronchi, C.P., Serrano, L.A.L., Silva, A.A., and Guimaraes, O.R. 2010. Weed management in tomato. Planta Daninha 28:215–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29Bàrberi, P., Silvestri, N., Peruzzi, A., and Raffaelli, M. (2000). Finger-harrowing of durum wheat under different tillage systems. Biological Agriculture and Horticulture 17:285–303.Google Scholar
30Vanhala, P., Kurstjens, D., Ascard, J., Bertram, A., Cloutier, D.C., Mead, A., Raffaelli, M., and Rasmussen, J. 2004. Guidelines for physical weed control research: Flame weeding, weed harrowing and intra-row cultivation. Internal Report, Fifth EWRS Workshop on Physical and Cultural Weed Control, Pisa, Italy, 2002.Google Scholar
31Bowley, S.R. 1999. A Hitchhiker's Guide to Statistics in Plant Biology. Any Old Subject Books, Guelph, Ontario, Canada, 250 p.Google Scholar
32Ascard, J. 1995. Effects of flame weeding on weed species at different developmental stages. Weed Research 35:397–411.Google Scholar
33Cirujeda, A., Anzalone, A., Aibar, J., Moreno, M.M., and Zaragoza, C. 2012. Purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus L.) control with paper mulch in processing tomato. Crop Protection 39:66–71.Google Scholar
34Berihun, B. 2011. Effect of mulching and amount of water on the yield of tomato under drip irrigation. Journal of Horticulture and Forestry 3:200–206.Google Scholar