Hostname: page-component-7f64f4797f-bnl7t Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-11-04T13:06:34.866Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Competitive interactions of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) and nutsedges (Cyperus spp.)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Bielinski M. Santos ,
Thomas A. Bewick ,
William M. Stall  and
Donn G. Shilling
Thomas A. Bewick
Affiliation:
Horticultural Sciences Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611
William M. Stall
Affiliation:
Horticultural Sciences Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611
Donn G. Shilling
Affiliation:
Agronomy Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Replacement series experiments were conducted under greenhouse conditions to evaluate effects of population densities and proportions on the intraspecific and interspecific interference of either purple nutsedge or yellow nutsedge with tomato cv. Sunny, under nonlimiting conditions of water and nutrients. When grown with either nutsedge species for 40 d, tomato dry weight per plant increased and dry weight per plant of nutsedge decreased as their relative proportions decreased in mixture. Relative yield analysis indicated tomato is a stronger competitor than either nutsedge species. Both nutsedges appeared to be weak interspecific competitors but strong intraspecific competitors. Attenuated light on a purple nutsedge canopy showed that tomato additions can reduce light received by the weed compared to pure nutsedge stands.

Keywords

Yellow nutsedge, Cyperus esculentus L. CYPESpurple nutsedge, Cyperus rotundus L. CYPROtomato, Lycopersicon esculentum MillReplacement seriesrelative yieldrelative yield totaltomato competitivenessnutsedge competitionCYPESCYPRO

Information

Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 45 , Issue 2 , April 1997 , pp. 229 - 233
Copyright
Copyright © 1997 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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

Cousens, R. 1991. Aspects of the design and interpretation of competition (interference) experiments. Weed Technol. 5: 664–673.Google Scholar
de Wit, C. T. 1960. On Competition. Versl. Landbouwk. Onderz. 66: 1–82.Google Scholar
Hall, R. L. 1974. Analysis of the nature of interference between plants of different species. I. Concepts and extension of the de Wit analysis to examine effects. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 25: 739–747.Google Scholar
Holm, L. G., Plucknett, D. L., Pancho, J. V., and Herberger, J. P. 1991. The World's Worst Weeds: Distribution and Biology. Malabar, FL: Krieger. pp. 8, 125.Google Scholar
Jolliffe, P. A., Minjas, A. N., and Runeckles, V. C. 1984. A reinterpretation of yield relationship in replacement series experiments. J. Appl. Ecol. 21: 227–243.Google Scholar
Radosevich, S. R. 1987. Methods to study interactions among crops and weeds. Weed Technol. 1: 190–198.Google Scholar
Radosevich, S. R. 1988. Methods to study crop and weed interactions. in Altieri, M. A. and Liebman, M., eds. Weed Management in Agroecosystems: Eological Approaches. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, pp. 121–143.Google Scholar
Rejmanek, M., Robinson, G. R., and Rejmankova, E. 1989. Weed-crop competition: experimental designs and models for data analysis. Weed Sci. 37: 276–284.Google Scholar
Roush, M. L., Radosevich, S. R., Wagner, R. G., Maxwell, B. D. and Petersen, T. D. 1989. A comparison of methods for measuring effects of density and proportion in plant competition experiments. Weed Sci. 37: 268–275.Google Scholar
Santos, B. M. 1995. Intra- and interspecific competitive interactions of nutsedges and tomato. Master's thesis. University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. pp. 25–27.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1987. SAS Procedures Guide. Version 6. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute, pp. 125–154.Google Scholar
Stall, W. M., Dusky, J. A., and Gilreath, J. P. 1994. Estimated effectiveness of recommended herbicides on selected common weeds in Florida vegetables. In Colvin, D., et al. 1994 Florida Weed Control Guide. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida, pp. 343–346.Google Scholar
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1994a. Vegetables 1993 summary. National Agricultural Statistic Service. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 10 p.Google Scholar
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1994b. Vegetable summary. Florida agricultural statistics. Orlando, FL: U.S. Department of Agriculture. pp. 4–5.Google Scholar
William, R. D. and Warren, G. F. 1975. Competition between purple nutsedge and vegetables. Weed Sci. 23: 317–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wills, G. D. 1987. Description of purple and yellow nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus and C. esculentus). Weed Technol. 1: 2–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar