Weed competitiveness and herbicidal sensitivity of grafted tomatoes (Solanum lycopersicon Mill.)
More details
Hide details
Department of Plant Production, Faculty of Agriculture, Jordan University of Science and Technology P.O. Box 3030, Irbid, 22110, Jordan
Corresponding author
Ghosheh Hani
Department of Plant Production, Faculty of Agriculture, Jordan University of Science and Technology P.O. Box 3030, Irbid, 22110, Jordan
Journal of Plant Protection Research 2010;50(3):305-312
Field and greenhouse experiments were conducted in 2007 and 2008 to evaluate weed competitiveness and herbicidal sensitivity of grafted tomatoes. Three weed interference levels were established in the field by imposing different weeding pressures. Results indicated that grafting of tomato seedlings did not increase the ability of plants to suppress weeds over self rooted plants. Grafted tomatoes had more vigorous growth and fruit yield compared to self rooted tomatoes across all weed levels. Weeds were found to have more prominent adverse effects on tomato productivity, but had less adverse effects on plant growth. Greenhouse experiments were conducted to detect herbicidal sensitivity of grafted and self rooted tomatoes towards metribuzin and sethoxydim herbicides. The experiments revealed that grafted tomatoes showed a relatively higher herbicidal sensitivity than self rooted seedlings. Grafted plants probably were less able to metabolize and detoxify high herbicide rates whenever variations in plant height or dry matter accumulations were detected in the experiments. Researchers and producers should be aware of this newly observed sensitivity when designing herbicide application programs for weed management in grafted crops.
The authors have declared that no conflict of interests exist.
Abu-Irmaileh B. 2000. Weeds of Cultivated Fields. Amman. 2nd ed. Publications of The Deanship of Research, University of Jordan: 4–15.
Al-Khatib K., Libbeey C., Kadir S., Boydston R. 1997. Differential varietal response of green pea (Pisum sativum) to metribuzin. Weed Technol. 11 (3): 775–781.
Besri M. 2003. Tomato grafting as an alternative to methyl bromide in Morocco. p. 12–14. In: Proc. Int. Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emission Reductions. 3–6 November, San Diego, California.
Besri M. 2005. Current situation of tomato grafting as alternative to methyl bromide for tomato production in the Mediterranean region. p. 47–53. Ann. Int. Res. Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. 3 November 2005. San Diego, CA, USA.
Bunnell B., Baker D., McCarty B., Hall W., Colvin L. 2003. Differential response of five bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum) cultivars to metsulfuron. Weed Technol. 17 (3): 550–553.
Dear B., Sandral G., Coombes N. 1995. Differential tolerance of Trifolium subterraneum L. (subterranean clover) cultivars to broadleaf herbicides 1. Herbage yield. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 35 (4): 467–474.
El-Mougy, N.S., El-Gamal, N.G., Mohamed, M.M.M., Abdel-Kader, M.M. 2008. Furfural approaches as control measures against root rot and root-knot incidence of tomato under greenhouse and field conditions. J. Plant Protection Res. 48 (1): 93–105.
Fernández Garcia N., Martinez V., Cerda A., Carvajal M. 2002. Water and nutrient uptake of grafted tomato plants grown under saline conditions. J. Plant Physiol. 159 (8): 899–905.
Fortino J., Splittstoesser W. 1974. Response of tomato to metribuzin. Weed Sci. 22 (5): 460–463.
Glaze N. 1988. Weed control in direct-seeded tomato, Lycopersicon esculentum, for transplants. Weed Technol. 2: 333–337.
Karajeh, M.R., 2008. Interaction of root-knot nematode (Meloidogyne javanica) and tomato as affected by hydrogen peroxide. J. Plant Protection Res. 48 (2): 181–187.
Kazinczi G., Varga P., Takacs A., Torma M., Horvath J. 2007. Early competition between tomato and Convolvulus arvensis in additive experiment. Cereal Res. Commun. 35 (2): 601–604.
Khah E., Kakava E., Mavromatis A., Chachalis D., Goulas C. 2006. Effect of grafting on growth and yield of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) in greenhouse and open-field. J. Appl. Hortic. 8 (1): 3–7.
Khresat S., Rwajfeh Z., Mohammad M. 1998. Morphological, physical, and chemical properties of selected soils in the arid and semi-arid region in Northestrern Jordan. J. Arid Environ. 40 (1): 15–25.
Lee M. 1994. Cultivation of grafted vegetables I, current status, grafting methods and benefits. HortScience 29 (2): 235–239.
Lucier G., Biing-Hwan L., Jane A., Linda K. 2000. Factors Affecting Tomato Consumption in the United States. USDA’s Economic Research Service, November 2000: 26–32.
Marsic N., Osvald J. 2004. The influence of grafting on yield of two tomato cultivars (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) grown in plastic house. Acta Agric. Slovenica 83 (2): 243–249.
McAvoy R. 2005. Grafting techniques for greenhouse tomatoes, commercial vegetable and fruit crops newsletter. University of Connecticut Cooperative Extension System and Department of Plant Science 1: 1–4.
McGiffen M.E., Masiunas J.B., Hesketh J.D. 1992. Competition for light between tomatoes and nightshades (Solanum nigrum or S. ptycanthum). Weed Sci. 40: 220–226.
Milton E., McGiffen J., John B., Masiunas H.J. 1992. Competition for light between tomatoes and nightshades (Solanum nigrum or S. ptycanthum). Weed Sci. 40 (2): 220–226.
Monaco T., Grayson A., Sanders D. 1981. Influence of four weed species on the growth, yield, and quality of direct-seeded tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum). Weed Sci. 29 (4): 394–397.
Monaco T., Weller S., Shton F. 2002. Weed Science: Principles and Practices. 4th ed. Willey, 700 pp.
Montanya S., Ponce R. 2006. Competition for nitrogen between thorn apple and tomato and pepper. J. Plant Nutr. 29 (3): 565–574.
Ngouajio M., McGiffen M.E., Hembree K. 2001. Tolerance of tomato cultivars to velvetleaf interference. Weed Sci. 49 (1): 91–98.
Porterfeild D., Wilcut J., Clewis S., Edmistenk K. 2002. Weed-free yield response of seven cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) cultivars to CGA-362622 post-emergence. Weed Technol. 16: 180–183.
Qaryouti M., Qawasmi W., Hamdan H., Edwan M. 2007. Tomato fruit yield and quality as affected by grafting and growing system. Acta Hortic. 41 (2): 199–206.
Radosevich S., Holt J., Ghersa C. 1997. Weed Ecology: Implications for Management. 2nd ed. Wiley, 589 pp.
SAS Institute. 1989. SAS/STAT User’s Guide, Version 6. 4th ed., Vol. 2. Cary, NC, SAS Institute.
Senseman S.A. 2007. Herbicide Handbook. 9th ed. Weed Sci. Soc. Am., Champaign, IL, USA, 515 pp.
Stephenson G., McLeod J., Phatak S. 1976. Differential tolerance of tomato cultivars to metribuzin. Weed Sci. 24 (2): 161–165.
Szpyrka E., Sadło S. 2009. Disappearance of azoxystrobin, cyprodinil, and fludioxonil residues on tomato leaves in a greenhouse. J. Plant Protection Res. 49 (2): 204–208.
Tei F., Montemurro D.T., Baumann D.T., Dobrzańiski A., Giovinazzo R., Kleifeld Y., Rocha F., Rzozi S.B., Sanseovic T., Simoncic A, Zaragoza C. 2003. Weeds and weed management in processing tomato. Acta Hortic. 613 (1): 111–121.
Weaver S., Smits N., Tan S. 1987. Estimating yield losses of tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum) caused by nightshade (Solanum spp.) interference. Weed Sci. 35 (1): 163–168.
Zhao D., Atlin G., Bastiaans L., Spiertz J. 2006. Cultivar weed-competitiveness in aerobic rice: heritability, correlated traits, and the potential for indirect selection in weed-free environments. Crop Sci. 46 (1): 372–380.
Journals System - logo
Scroll to top