Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T05:09:30.876Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed management systems in Indiana tomato production

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

David E. Hillger ,
Stephen C. Weller ,
Elizabeth Maynard  and
Kevin D. Gibson
Stephen C. Weller
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907-2010
Elizabeth Maynard
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907-2010
Kevin D. Gibson
Affiliation:
Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907-1155
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The influence of management practices at a system level is rarely studied in weed science, even though weed communities respond to the cumulative effect of farm management systems. On-farm visits and detailed grower surveys were used to objectively classify 59 Indiana tomato fields into management systems. Fields were chosen to represent a range of practices used to grow conventional and organic tomatoes. Multivariate statistical analyses identified five distinct management systems based primarily on differences in hours spent hand-weeding, use of plastic mulch, irrigation, row spacing, and whether tomatoes were staked. Farmers generally reported many more hours of hand-weeding for organically managed fields than for fields in the other groups. This finding may reflect a trade-off between the use of herbicides and the need for hand-weeding. However, some organically managed fields were grouped with conventional fresh market fields, suggesting that management practices besides herbicide inputs can be used to reduce hand-weeding. Although some fresh market fields used to produce organic or conventional tomatoes had similar management systems, there was little overlap between fields in fresh market or processing tomato production. Further research is needed to determine underlying relationships among management systems and weed control in Indiana tomato production.

Keywords

Tomato, Solanum lycopersicum L.Weed managementorganic agriculturecluster analysisordination
Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 54 , Issue 3 , June 2006 , pp. 516 - 520
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

Anderson, R. L., Tanaka, D. L., Black, A. L., and Schweizer, E. E. 1998. Weed community and species response to crop rotation, tillage, and nitrogen fertility. Weed Technol 12:531–536.Google Scholar
Bàrberi, P., Cozzani, A., Macchia, M., and Bonari, E. 1998. Size and composition of the weed seedbank under different management systems for continuous maize cropping. Weed Res 38:319–334.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E., Larney, F. J., Lindwall, C. W., Watson, P. R., and Derksen, D. A. 2001. Tillage intensity and crop rotation affect weed community dynamics in a winter wheat cropping system. Can. J. Plant Sci 81:805–813.Google Scholar
Clark, M. S., Horwath, W. R., Shennan, C., Scow, K. M., Lantni, W. T., and Ferris, H. 1999. Nitrogen, weeds and water as yield-limiting factors in conventional low-input, and organic tomato systems. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ 73:257–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, A. S., Renner, K. A., and Gross, K. L. 2005. Weed seedbank and community shifts in a long-term cropping systems experiment. Weed Sci 53:296–306.Google Scholar
Edwards, C. A. 1989. The importance of integration in sustainable agricultural systems. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ 27:25–35.Google Scholar
Hume, L. 1987. Long-term effects of 2,4-D application on plants. 1. Effects on the weed community in a wheat crop. Can. J. Bot 65:2530–2536.Google Scholar
Hyvönen, T., Holopainen, J., and Tiainen, J. 2005. Detecting the spatial component of variation in the weed community at the farm scale with variation partitioning by canonical correspondence analysis. Weed Res 45:48–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyvönen, T., Ketoja, E., Salonen, J., Jalli, H., and Tiainen, J. 2003. Weed species diversity and community composition in organic and convention cropping of spring cereals. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ 97:131–149.Google Scholar
Kenkel, N. C., Derksen, D. A., Thomas, A. G., and Watson, P. R. 2002. Review: multivariate analysis in weed science research. Weed Sci 50:281–292.Google Scholar
Leeson, J. Y., Sheard, J. W., and Thomas, A. G. 1998. Monitoring of weed populations and development of biological indicators of sustainablity within arable farming systems of Saskatchewan. Final Project Report for Project CPM-94-3, Canada-Saskatchewan Agriculture Green Plan Agreement, Saskatoon SK. 74 pp.Google Scholar
Leeson, J. Y., Sheard, J. W., and Thomas, A. G. 1999. Multivariate classification of farming systems for use in integrated pest management studies. Can. J. Plant Sci 79:647–654.Google Scholar
Leeson, J. Y., Sheard, J. W., and Thomas, A. G. 2000. Weed communities associated with arable Saskatchewan farm management systems. Can. J. Plant Sci 80:177–185.Google Scholar
Legere, A. and Samson, N. 1999. Relative influence of crop rotation, tillage, and weed management on weed associations in spring barley cropping systems. Weed Sci 47:112–122.Google Scholar
Legere, A., Stevenson, F. C., and Benoit, D. L. 2005. Diversity and assembly of weed communities: contrasting responses across cropping systems. Weed Res 45:303–315.Google Scholar
Liebman, M. and Davis, A. S. 2000. Integration of soil, crop and weed management in low-external-input farming systems. Weed Res 40:27–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ludwig, J. A. and Reynolds, J. F. 1988. Statistical Ecology. New York: J. Wiley.Google Scholar
McCune, B. and Grace, J. B. 2002. Analysis of Ecological Communities. Gleneden Beach, OR: MjM Software Design.Google Scholar
McClune, B. and Mefford, M. J. 1999. PC-ORD. Multivariate Analysis of Ecological Data, Version 4. Gleneden Beach, OR: MjM Software Design.Google Scholar
Menalled, F. D., Gross, K. L., and Hammond, M. 2001. Weed aboveground and seedbank community responses to agricultural management systems. Ecol. Appl 11:1586–1601.Google Scholar
Poggio, S. L., Satorre, E. H., and de la Fuente, E. B. 2004. Structure of weed communities occurring in pea and wheat crops in the Rolling Pampa (Argentina). Agric. Ecosyt. Environ 103:225–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shennan, C., Drinkwater, L. E., van Bruggen, A. H. C., Letourneau, D. K., and Workneh, F. 1991. Comparative study of organic and conventional tomato production systems: an approach to on-farm studies. in Rice, B. J., ed. Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education in the Field. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
Stevenson, F. C., Legere, A., Simard, R. R., Angers, D. A., Pageau, D., and Lafond, J. 1997. Weed species diversity in spring barley varies with crop rotation and tillage, but not with nutrient source. Weed Sci 45:798–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, A. G. and Dale, M. R. T. 1991. Weed community structure in spring-seeded crops in Manitoba. Can. J. Plant Sci 71:1069–1080.Google Scholar