Weeds and Weed Management in Processing Tomato

F. Tei¹, P. Montemurro², D.T. Baumann³, A. Dobrzanski⁴, R. Giovinazzo⁵, Y. Kleifeld⁶, F. Rocha⁷, S.B. Rzozi⁸, T. Sanseovic⁹, A. Simonèiè ¹⁰, C. Zaragoza¹¹

¹University of Perugia, Italy - ²University of Bari, Italy - ³Swiss Federal Research Station, Waedenswil, Switzerland - ⁴Institute of Vegetable Crops, Skierniewice, Poland - ⁵SONITO, Avignon, France - ⁶ARO-Newe-Ya'ar Research Center, Ramat Yishay, Israel - ⁷DGPC, Oeiras, Portugal - ⁸I.A.V. Hassan II, Rabat, Morocco - ⁹Agricultural Research Center, Osijek, Croatia - ¹⁰Institute of Hop Research and Brewing, Zalec, Slovenija - ¹¹SIA-DGA, Zaragoza, Spain

INTRODUCTION

Weed control is generally deemed a crucial aspect of the crop management for the success in processing tomato (Dumas, 1992).
The EWRS (European Weed Research Society) Working Group "Weed Management Systems in Vegetables" collected information about key weeds, new weeds or species that have recently began to spread, critical period of competition, authorised and under registration herbicides in processing tomatoes in Croatia (HR), France (F), Israel (IL), Italy (I), Morocco (MA), Poland (PL), Portugal (P), Spain (E), Slovenia (SLO), and Switzerland (CH), and elaborated Integrated Weed Management programmes.

Weed flora Weed competition thresholds Weeds as hosts of pathogens Integrated Weed Management Crop management Physical weed control Chemical weed control Integrated Weed Management programmes Literature Cited Details from single countries Abstract for 11th EWRS Symposium Basel 1999

WEEDS

The composition of the weed flora is strongly dependent on countries (Table 1) in relation to environmental (climatic conditions, soil texture and reaction, etc. ) and cultural practices (mainly planting method and time, and crop rotation). Crops are mostly transplanted from mid spring but a quite large proportion (10-30 % upon regions) of direct-sown tomatoes is in Spain.
The weed communities are commonly very rich of species, both broad-leaved and grass weeds (Zaragoza et al., 1994; Montemurro and Tei, 1998). In Italy, for example, a recent survey (Viggiani et al., 1998; Viggiani and Montemurro, 2000), recorded 130 species belonging to 34 botanical families with about 40 main weeds. However, the weed flora (Table 1) is made up by a small group of common species (i.e. Echinochloa crus-galli, Amaranthus spp., Chenopodium album, Polygonum spp., Portulaca oleracea and Solanum spp.) throughout the Mediterranean area. In early direct-sown crops and also in transplanted crops in Central-Northern Europe, early-emergence weeds like Alopecurus myosuroides, Lolium spp., Phalaris spp., several species of Cruciferae (e.g. Sinapis arvensis, Capsella bursa-pastoris, Raphanus raphanistrum, Thlaspi arvense, Coronopus squamatus) and Asteraceae (e.g. Matricaria chamomilla, Senecio vulgaris, Sonchus spp. Cirsium arvense, Galinsoga parviflora), and other species like Fumaria officinalis, Anagallis arvensis, Stachys annua, Lamium spp., and Veronica spp. are frequent and pretty important.
The species belonging to Amaranthus and Chenopodium genders are numerous and their relative importance through the countries is pretty different (Table 2): A. retroflexus and C. album are the main species in all the countries but it is also apparent the high frequency of A. albus (Italy), A. blitoides (Israel and Portugal), A. deflexus (Portugal and Northern Italy), A. hibridus (F), A. lividus (Northern Italy), C. opulifolium (Portugal), C. polyspermum (Israel and Italy), and C. murale (Morocco).
Among the Polygonaceae, the main species are Polygonum aviculare, Fallopia convolvulus (P. convolvulus) and P. persicaria (Table 3).
Solanum nigrum is very frequent in all the countries, it is a key weed in the mediterranean area (Branthôme, 1990, 1994; Dumas, 1992; Zaragoza et al., 1994; Montemurro and Tei, 1998; Viggiani et al., 1998; Viggiani and Montemurro, 2000) while it is not so important in Poland. This species is characterised by a long period of emergence: for example, in Central Italy fluxes of emergence are from mid-April to mid-July (Covarelli and Peccetti, 1986). Other species very close to Solanum nigrum are present in some countries: S. sarrachoides and S. physalifolium in Spain (Zaragoza et al., 1994), S. luteum in France (Branthôme, 1990, 1994; Dumas, 1992) and S. eleagnifolium in Israel.
Echinochloa crus-galli is the most important grass weed in all the countries (other than in Israel) but Digitaria sanguinalis, Setaria spp., Sorghum halepense, and Cynodon dactylon are very frequent in wide mediterranean areas. Lolium multiflorum and Phalaris spp. are very widespread in Central-Southern Italy (Viggiani and Montemurro, 2000).
Among the perennial species, besides already mentioned C. arvense, S. halepense and C. dactylon, Rumex spp., Convolvulus arvensis, and Cyperus spp. are locally a key problem.
Among parasitic plants, Orobanche spp. (Table 4) is a problem in Spain, Portugal, Morocco, Southern Italy (Zonno et al., 2000) and Israel while Cuscuta campestris in Spain and Israel.
However, due to the selection caused by the agronomic practices (mainly by weed control methods and crop rotation) several species have become more important and are locally causing increasing problems. The new weeds or the species that have recently began to spread are:

• Poland: Galinsoga parviflora;
  
• France: Ambrosia artemisiifolia, Cirsium arvense and triazine-resistant biotypes of Amaranthus hybridus;
  
• Spain: Datura stramonium, Abutilon theophrasti, Xanthium strumarium, Salsola kali, Euphorbia chamaesyce, Cynodon dactylon, Cyperus spp., Sorghum halepense, Orobanche ramosa;
  
• Portugal: Datura stramonium, C. dactylon, Paspalum paspaloides, Cyperus spp., Orobanche crenata;
  
• Northern Italy: Abutilon theophrasti, Hibiscus trionum, Phytolacca americana, Calystegia sepium;
  
• Central Italy: Anthemis spp., Equisetum spp., Fumaria spp., Veronica spp.;
  
• Southern Italy: Cyperus spp., Ecbalium elaterium, Tribulus terrestris, Xanthium spinosum, O. ramosa;
  
• Croatia: A. theophrasti, A. artemisiifolia and D. stramonium;
  
• Morocco: C. arvensis, D. stramonium, Malva parviflora, C. dactylon, Orobanche spp.
  
• Israel: triazine-resistant biotypes of Amaranthus blitoides, C. arvensis, Euphorbia heterophylla, E. maculata, Polygonum arenastrum, O. aegyptiaca.
  

To the top

---

 

Weed competition thresholds

Weed competition can cause high yield decrease (Monaco et al., 1981; Weaver & Tan, 1987; Qasem, 1993; Pratap & Shaik, 1997; Viggiani and Dellacecca, 1998) and be an obstacle for the harvest.
Threshold density of S. nigrum in Italy and France is about 1 plant per linear meter in transplanted crops (Maillet & Abdel Fatah, 1983; Damato & Montemurro, 1986) and close to zero in direct seeded crops (Caussanel et al., 1989 e 1990; Jacquard & Abdel Fatah, 1988).
Sown crops show slow emergence and initial growth and as a consequence they are very sensitive to weed competition. Transplanting allows a more thorough mechanical weed control before planting and gives to the crop a competitive advantage against weeds. In S. nigrum-tomato competition studies was found that the late-season threshold (minimum weed-free period) was 5 weeks after transplanting and 8 weeks after emergence (Weaver et al., 1987).
Several researches were carried out on the effect of the duration of weed competition on processing tomato yield; results showed that the critical period for weed control (Zimdahl, 1988) in field-seeded crops was about from 30 to 60 days after emergence (Duranti & Carone, 1983; Weaver & Tan, 1983; Marana et al., 1983; Weaver, 1984;) while in transplanted crops it was about from 24 to 40 days after planting (Labrada, 1977; Friesen, 1979; Weaver & Tan, 1983; Lugo et al., 1988; Montemurro et al., 1991; Qasem, 1992). The critical period of weed competition begins at the end of the exponential growth phase, while it ends at the middle of the linear growth phase; indeed the critical period of weed competition corresponds to the phases during which tomato shows the highest crop growth rates.

To the top

---

 

Weeds as hosts of pathogens

Weeds can be hosts for important pathogens of processing tomato like viruses (Table 5) and bacteria (Table 6). Besides the use of tolerant and resistant cultivars when they exist, an Integrated Crop Protection should include an adequate weed management at this regard in order to reduce the risk of transmission of those pathogens to the crop.

To the top

INTEGRATED WEED MANAGEMENT

Kropff and Walter (2000) in their paper on the challenges for weed research at the start of a new millennium pinpointed that "..increasing concern about the environmental effects of herbicides, the development of herbicide-resistant weeds and the necessity to reduce the cost of inputs have resulted in a greater pressure on farmers to reduce the use of herbicides…The challenge today is to develop a truly integrated crop management system, in which preventive measures are taken first, followed by precision control…". The preventive measures involve any aspect of crop management that can favour the crop relative to weeds (e.g. crop rotations, competitive crop cultivars, transplanting instead of direct-seeding, false seedbed preparation…). A “precision” control deals with the improvement of weed control methods (biological, mechanical and chemical) and is strongly related to precision technology and strategy (e.g. in-row mechanical control, localised application of herbicides, optimisation of herbicide rates, use of threshold density…). Moreover an adequate decision-making process involves both short- and long-term strategies for weed management.
All these aspects have to be taken into consideration in the definition of integrated weed management systems for processing tomatoes as already reviewed by different authors (Branthôme, 1990, 1994; Zaragoza et al., 1994; Montemurro and Tei, 1998; Tei et al., 1999; Montemurro and Preziosa, 2000; Tei, 2001).

To the top

Crop management

Besides the crucial effect in the reduction of specific pathogens and pests and “soil sickness” (Dumas, 1992), crop rotation is the foundation for an IWM system. Vergniaud et al. (1984) showed that the composition of weed flora in tomato was mainly dependent on preceding crops and on the strategy used on these crops to control weeds. Viggiani and Montemurro (2000) pinpointed that in Northern Italy Abutilon theophrasti, Hibiscus trionum, Phytolacca americana, and Calystegia sepium could increase their presence in tomato because this crop is generally grown in rotation with maize, where those weeds are already dominant. The rotation of crops and associated cultural practices contribute towards an equilibrated composition of weed flora and can allow an easier control of some key weeds. Montemurro and Preziosa (2000), for example, proposed a list of crops and selective herbicides for the control of Solanum nigrum in the crop rotation in Italy (Table 7). Moreover, in the case of infestation of Orobanche ramosa, peas, soyabean, common bean, alfalfa, garlic, sorghum and maize should be included in the crop rotation as trap crops as they stimulate broomrape seed germination but are not parasitised (Zonno et al., 2000): in a single season the use of these crops can stimulate the germination of 15-35% of soil broomrape seed bank (Linke and Saxena, 1991; Schnell et al., 1994).
An early soil preparation (i.e. false seedbed preparation) followed by a shallow harrowing or a pre-sowing or pre-planting application of glyphosate, glyphosate trimesium or glufosinate-ammonium allows a control of the early-emerging weeds, including first emergence fluxes of S. nigrum.
As already underlined, transplanting in comparison with the direct seeding gives a higher competitive advantage to the crop and allows easier mechanical and chemical weed control. This is particularly important with S. nigrum infestation because herbicide selectivity and efficacy are dramatically dependent on crop and weed growth stages (Onofri et al., 1995; Mcleod and Frost, 2002). False seedbed preparation and transplanting often allows to apply selective herbicides in post-planting only (Branthôme, 1994).
Localised irrigation instead of sprinkler irrigation and fertigation instead of broadcast fertilisation can also help to reduce weed emergence and competition.

To the top

Physical weed control

Considerable improvements have been reached in the last decade in non-chemical weed management in vegetables (Parish, 1990; Rasmussen & Ascard, 1995; Bond and Grundy, 2001).
Flaming could be used in pre-sowing or pre-planting instead of herbicides or harrowing in order to control weed emerged after false seedbed preparation (Ascard, 1995).
Mechanical inter-row weed control (e.g. hoeing, harrowing and brush weeding) generally causes little problems, because the effectiveness of mechanical weed control implements is generally very high (Baumann, 1992; Rasmussen, 1996; Melander, 1997, 1998). Inter-row cultivation close to the row is a way to further reduce the application of chemical weed control to a narrow strip in the row (i.e. band spraying), to complete the effect of herbicides (Zaragoza et al., 1994), and also to reduce the need for hand weeding.
Mechanical intra-row weed control are based on old principles but with new implements and improved versions (e.g. finger weeder, torsion weeder, split-hoe) (Ascard and Bellinder, 1996).
However, the above-mentioned investigations have clearly shown that direct physical weed control in row crops based on mechanical and thermal methods can be effective only if a sound cultural method is applied.

To the top

Chemical weed control

The chemical weed control is the most important and widespread weed control method in processing tomato: in Israel the acreage is totally treated with herbicides and 50-60% is treated with more than one herbicide; the treated area is 100% in Portugal, 70-75% in Spain, at least 30% in Poland, 5 to 80% before plantation depending on rainfall in Morocco. In Italy it is estimated that from 1984 to 1999 the treated area increased from about 40% to 80%, the number of treatments per hectare increased from 1 to 1.7, the total amount of applied commercial product decreased from 2.5 to 1.2 kg ha^-1, and the relative proportion of post-emergence treatments increased from 28 to 57% of the treated area (Montemurro and Preziosa, 2000).
This behaviour was probably due to the spreading of transplanting and to the adoption of splitted treatments at reduced rates (Montemurro and Sarli, 1994; Rapparini and Rubboli, 1994; Palczynski et al., 1997; Dobrzanski and Palczynski, 1998).
Herbicides authorised for the use in processing tomato allow an effective weed control in different application timings in both direct-seeded and transplanted crops, hoever, the availability of authorised active ingredients is very different in relation to the country (Table 8).
Aclonifen (1.2-1.5 kg a.i. ha^-1) is effective against Amaranthus spp., Cruciferae, Chenopodium spp., Polygonaceae, Stellaria media but not against grasses and S. nigrum; this herbicide is also partially effective on P. oleracea, and Asteraceae. In direct-seeded tomato, aclonifen can be mixed to metribuzin, while in transplanted crops it can be mixed to pendimethalin for controlling S. nigrum.
Metribuzin (0.1-0.7 kg a.i. ha^-1) can be sprayed in any application timing, though particular care is to be taken to avoid phytotoxicity to the crop. Preventive treatments can be phytotoxic on soil with coarse texture and so in those soils metribuzin should be applied at reduced rates. In post-emergence and post-transplanting treatments, metribuzin can be applied from the first crop growth stages. It controls seedlings and prevents emergence of the main broadleaved species except Solanum nigrum and triazine-R Amaranthus spp. Its action is pretty weak on grasses. Sprinkler irrigation after application is needed for effective weed control. For contact effective action one recommends to apply sprinkler irrigation after 24 hours. Crop selectivity is low during cloudy periods, therefore treatments should be delayed or lower rates should be applied on those periods. In Italy and Poland it is now possible to be used a mixture with flufenacet in pre-transplanting that completes metribuzin efficacy against S. nigrum and grasses.
Oxyfluorfen (0.36-0.48 kg a.i. ha^-1) is sprayed on beds 4 weeks to 4 days before planting and activated by rain or sprinkler irrigation. It controls most annual weeds including S. nigrum until drip irrigation favours new germinations and emergences. Sensitive weeds starts to emerge from soil slits. Heavy rains soon after planting or heavy sprinkler irrigation may splash soil + herbicide on lower tomato foliage and cause leaf burn.
Oxadiargyl (0.6-0.8 kg a.i. ha^-1) can be applied like oxyfluorfen, but it is safer for tomato and with a longer residual effect in preventing Amaranthus spp. and S. nigrum emergences (Tracchi et al., 1997).
Oxadiazon (0.7-1.5 L a.i. ha^-1, 10-20 kg a.i. ha^-1) is effective against S. nigrum, Amaranthus spp., Chenopodium spp. Datura stramonium, and Polygonum spp.
Pendimethalin (0.7-1.2 kg a.i. ha^-1) should be applied 1-8 days before planting. It is very effective against S. nigrum, summer grasses, Polygonum spp., Chenopodium spp. Amaranthus spp. Efficacy against Cruciferae and Asteraceae can be completed by mixing pendimethalin to aclonifen or metribuzin or by post-transplanting treatments with metribuzin or metribuzin+rimsulfuron.
Flurochloridone (0.7-1.2 kg a.i. ha^-1) should be applied 7-8 days before planting. It is very effective against S. nigrum, Polygonum spp., Chenopodium spp. Amaranthus spp., and Cruciferae.
Rimsulfuron (0.0125-0.030 kg a.i. ha^-1) is applied post emergence/post-transplanting to broadleaf weeds at seedling stage, grasses and Cyperus rotundus. It controls Solanum nigrum at cotyledon stages (Branthôme, 1994; Rapparini and Rubboli, 1994; Montemurro and Sarli, 1994; Onofri et al., 1995; Dobrzanski and Palczynski, 1998; Muellen et al., 1999, 2001). Low post-transplanting split-rates of rimsulfuron (6.25 g a.i. ha^-1) + metribuzin (70 g a.i. ha^-1) are recommended. A high rate is needed for Amaranthus blitoides control. For Cyperus rotundus and Sorghum halepense control a post-emergence or post-planting application of 0.025 kg a.i. ha^-1 is required, followed by another 0.0125-0.0025 kg a.i. ha^-1, 3 weeks after the first treatment.
Trifluralin (0.5-1.5 kg a.i. ha^-1) should be mechanically incorporated into the soil at about 10 cm, 6 to 1 weeks before planting. It controls Amaranthus spp., Portulaca spp., Chenopodium spp. and annual summer grasses during growth season and also Convolvulus arvensis and S. halepense. It does not control S. nigrum G. parviflora, Anthemis spp., Matricaria spp., Sinapis arvensis, Thlaspi arvense, and Cyperus rotundus. Low soil temperatures may halt tomato root system and inhibit plant growth in trifluralin treated fields. Trifluralin (1.0-1.5 kg a.i. ha^-1) can also be sprayed on tomato transplants, following a mechanical incorporation between the rows and on bed shoulders with a "band" power driven incorporator to 8-10 cm depth. The treatment goal is to prevent C. arvensis infestation as well as emergence of many broadleaf and grass weeds.
Several selective grass killers are recommended for use in tomato post-emergence and post-transplanting of tomato (see, for example, Anyszka and Palczynski, 1997).
Recent research developments in tomato weed management (Muellen et al., 1999, 2001, 2002) carried out in the USA showed the efficacy of pre-emergence rimsulfuron (alone and plus napropamide or metolachlor), halosulfuron (alone or plus metolachlor), and sulfentrazone against Solanum spp. and C. rotundus, and post-emergence halosulfuron against C. rotundus. Muellen et al. (1999) also found a good efficacy of metolachlor and dimethenamid against Solanum spp. and other weeds on layby incorporated direct-seeded tomatoes when the crop had 5 to 6 true leaves or more.

To the top

Integrated Weed Management programmes

Examples of IWM programmes for direct-seeded and transplanted tomatoes are showed in Table 9 and 10, respectively. The false seedbed preparation is recommended in both cases, and a tank mixture of residual and total herbicides is suggested in the areas where there is a risk of virus attacks. A S. nigrum management system should be based on: 1) chemical control in the previous crops where it is easier; 2) preferring transplanted than direct seeded tomatoes; 3) early soil preparation and chemical control of first emergence fluxes of Solanum before tomato planting; 4) row localisation of effective residual herbicides at planting integrated by inter-row mechanical control and/or by split low-dose treatments with metribuzin+rimsulfuron against S. nigrum at very early growth stage (cotyledons).
Regarding the control of Orobanche spp. (Zonno et al., 2000), besides the adoption of trap crops ((Linke and Saxena, 1991; Schnell et al., 1994), good results were obtained by solarization (Abu-Irmailen, 1991) and some attempts were performed to find resistance in tomato germplasm (Abu-Gharbieh et al., 1973; Kaswari and Abu-Irmaileh, 1989); however, the most effective method is to apply sulfonylurea herbicides (i.e. rimsulfuron, sulfosulfuron, chlosulfuron, triasulfuron) on tomato foliage followed by sprinkler irrigation and then by herbicide injection through the drip irrigation system at the late growth season (Kotoula-Syka and Eleftherohorinos, 1991; Kleifeld et al., 1994; Hershenhorn et al., 1998; Eizenberg et al., 2002).
Rotations are generally not effective in eradicating dodder (Cuscuta spp.) because this plant can be hosted by a wide range of crops and its seeds can remain viable for years. However, a reduction in seed population of dodder cab be achieved by inserting in the rotation trap crops such as maize, cereals, garlic, and cotton. The traditional way to control dodder was to destroy the host tomato plants as soon as dodder was observed. If dodder is flowering, the host plants should be removed from the field and the dodder should be burnt to kill the seed. Three low-rate applications of rimsulfuron at 7- to 10-day intervals when the tomato is in the seedling stage were shown to be effective in reducing dodder growth (Muellen et al., 1997) even if some dodder can survive these treatments. Three tomato varieties, Heinz 9492, 9553, and 9992 have shown good resistance to dodder infestation (www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG). Transplanting can help reduce problems with dodder as most dodder germinates early in the spring.

To the top

Literature Cited

Abu-Gharbieh, W.I., Makkouk, K.M. and Saghir, A.R. 1973. Response of different tomato cultivars to the roots-knot nematode, tomato yellow leaf cur virus and Orobanche in Giordan. Plant Disease Reporter 62, 262-266.

Abu-Irmailen, B.E. 1991. Soil solarization controls broomrapes (Orobanche spp.) in host vegetable crops in the Jordan Valley. Weed Technology 5, 575-581.

Anyszka, z. and Palczynski, j. 1997. The evaluation of some graminicides in tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.). In: Proc. Polish Conference on Improvement Production of Vegetable Crops: 43-46.

Ascard, J. 1995. Thermal weed control by flaming: biological and technical aspect. PhD thesis, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Alnarp, Sweden.

Ascard, J. and Bellinder, R.M. 1996. Mechanical in-row cultivation in row crop. In: Proceedings Second International Weed Control Congress, Copenhagen, Denmark, 1121-1126.

Baumann, D.T. 1992. Mechanical weed control with spring tine harrows (weed harrows) in row crops. In: Proceedings 9th International Symposium on the Biology of Weeds, Dijon, France, 123-128.

Bond, W. and Grundy, A. 2001. Non-chemical weed management in organic farming systems. Weed Research 41, 383-405.

Branthôme, X. 1990. Lutte raisonnée contre les mauvaises herbes dans les cultures de tomate d'industrie. Acta Horticulturae 277: 103-114.

Branthôme, X. 1994. Perspectives de lutte contre les adventices dans les cultures légumières méditerranéennes. 5th EWRS Mediterranean Symposium on Weed Control in Sustainable Agriculture in the Mediterranean Area, Perugia, Italy 6-8 June 1994: 147-155.

Caussanel, J.P., Abdel Fatah, H., Branthôme, X., Maillet, J. and Jacquard, P. 1989. La concurrence morelle (Solanum spp.)-tomate (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.): résultats expérimentaux obtenus en France. 4th Symposium on Weed Problems in the Mediterranean Climates 2:33-45.

Caussanel, J.P., Branthôme, X., Maillet, J. and Carteron, A. 1990. Influence de la densité et de la période de concurrence de Solanum nigrum L. sur la tomate de semis directe en relation avec le désherbage. Weed Res. 30:341-354.

Conti, M., Gallitelli, D., Lisa, V., Lovisolo, O., Martelli, G.P., Ragozzino, A., Rana, G.L. and Vovlas, C. 1996. I principali virus delle piante ortive. Ed. Bayer, Milano, pp. 206.

Covarelli, G. and Peccetti, G. 1986. Effect of time of seedbed preparation on evolution of weed flora. Riv. di Agron. 20, 2-3, 301-305.

Damato, G. and Montemurro, P. 1986. Studio della competizione tra Solanum nigrum L. e pomodoro da industria trapiantato. La Difesa delle Piante 9 (4):359-364.

Dobrzanski, A. and Palczynski, J. 1998. New herbicides in tomato. Nowosci Warzywnicze 32:51-55.

Dumas, Y. 1992. Crop management for processing tomatoes in the year 2000. Acta Horticulturae 301: 117-134.

Duranti, A. and Carone, F. 1983. Rapporti di competitività tra pomodoro seminato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill., cv Petegrò) ed infestanti. Riv. Ortoflofrutt. It. 67: 191-207.

Eizenberg, E., Kleifeld, Y., Graph, S. and Manor, H. 2002. Orobanche aegyptiaca control in tomato with sulfonylurea herbicides. 8^th ISHS Symposium on Processing Tomato, Istanbul, Turkey, 8-10 June 2002. Acta Horticulturae (in press).

Friesen, G.H. 1979. Weed interference in transplanted tomatoes (Lycopersicum esculentum). Weed Sci. 27: 11-13.

Hershenhorn, J., Goldwasser, Y., Plakhine, D., Ali, R., Blumenfeld, T., Bucsbaum, H., Herzlinger, G., Golan, S., Chilf, T., Einzenberg, H., Dor, E. and Kleifeld Y. 1998. Orobanche aegyptiaca control in tomato fields with sulfonylurea herbicides. Weed Research 38, 343-349.

Jacquard, P. and Abdel Fatah, H. 1988. Compétition entre adventices et plantes cultivées: cas de Solanum nigrum L. et Lycopersicon esculentum Mill. VIII Coll. Intern. Biol. Ecol. System. Mauvaises Herbes 2: 537-548.

Kaswari, M.A. and Abu-Irmaileh, B.E. 1989. Resistance to branched broomrape (Orobanche ramosa) in tomato germplasm. HortScience 24, 822-824.

Kleifeld, Y., Goldwasser, Y., Herzlinger, G., Golan, S., Blumenfeld, T. and Buxbaum, H. 1994. Selective control of broomrape in tomatoes with rimsulfuron. In: Proceedings Third Workshop on Orobanche and Related Striga Research (Eds: Pieterse, A.H. Verkleij, J.A.C. ter Borg, S.J.). Royal Tropical Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands: 561-571.

Kotoula-Syka, E. and Eleftherohorinos, I.G. 1991. Orobanche ramosa L. (broomrape) control in Tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) with chlorsulfuron, glyphosate and imazaquin. Weed Research 31, 19-27.

Kropff, M. and Walter, H. 2000. EWRS and the challenge for weed research at the start of a new millennium. Weed Research 40, 7-10.

Labrada, R. and Santos, J. 1977. Critical period of weed competition in transplanted tomatoes. Agrotecnica de Cuba 9 (2): 111-119.

Linke, K.H. and Saxena, M.C. 1991. Towards an integrated control of Orobanche spp. in some legume crops. In: K. Wegmann and L.J.Musselman(eds) “Progress in Orobanche research”. Proc. International Workshop on Orobanche Research, Obermarchtal, Germany, 248-256.

Lugo, M., Liu, L.C. and Almodovar, L. 1988. The critical period of weed competition in transplanted tomatoes. J. Agric. Univ. Puerto Rico 72 (2): 291-296.

Macleod, I. and Frost, P. 2002. Improved management of black nightshade (Solanum nigrum) in processing tomatoes. 8^th ISHS Symposium on Processing Tomato, Istanbul, Turkey, 8-10 June 2002. Acta Horticulturae (in press).

Maillet, J. and Abdel Fatah, H. 1983. Etudes préliminaires sur la concurrence entre Solanum nigrum ssp. eu-nigrum L. (morelle noire) et Lycopersicum esculentum Mill (tomate) en culture repiquée. Weed Res. 23: 217-219.

Marana, J., Gongola, R., Paredes E. and Labrada R. 1983. Critical period for competition from weeds and direct-sown tomato. Ciencia y Tecnica en la Agricoltura, Hortizalas, Papa, Granos y Fibra 2: 73-83.

Melander, B. 1997. Optimization of the adjustment of a vertical axis rotary brush weeder for intra-row weed control in crops. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research 68, 39-50.

Melander, B. 1998. Interaction between soil cultivation in darkness, flaming, and brush weeding when used for in-row weed control in vegetables. Biological Horticulture and Agriculture 16, 1-14.

Monaco, T.J., Grayson, A.S. and Sanders, D.C. 1981. Influence of four weed species on the growth and quality of direct-seeded tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum). Weed Science 29 (4), 394-397.

Montemurro, P., Cascarano, A. and Castrignanò, A.M. 1991. Effetti della durata e del periodo di competizione delle malerbe nella coltura del pomodoro da industria trapiantato (Lycopersicon esclulentum Mill.). Riv. Agron. 35, 489-494,

Montemurro, P. and Sarli, G. 1994. Diserbo a dosi frazionate e ridotte nella coltura del pomodoro da industria trapiantato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.). Atti Giornate Fitopatologiche, vol. 1: 307-312.

Montemurro, P. and Tei, F. 1998. Weed Management in Vegetables. Proc. XI Italian Weed Research Society S.I.R.F.I. Symposium "Weed Management in Vegetables", Bari 12-13 November 1998, 1-61.

Montemurro, P. and Preziosa, P. 2000. Weed control optimisation in the tomato for processing crop. Proc. XII Italian Weed Research Society S.I.R.F.I. Symposium, 151-173.

Mullen, R.J., Orr, J.P., Caprile, J., Viss, T.C. and Whiteley, R.W., 1997. Preemergence and postemergence studies with rimsulfuron for the control of Solanum and other weed species in processing tomatoes. In: Proc. 1st International conference on the processing tomato, Recife, Pernambuco, Brazil, 18-21 November 1996, 63-66.

Muellen, R.J., Caprile, J., Viss, T.C., Whiteley, R.S. and Rivara, C.J. 1999. Recent research developments in tomato weed management. Proc. 6^th ISHS Int. Symp. on Processing Tomato (Ed. B.J. Biéche). Acta Horticulturae 487:165-170.

Muellen, R.J., Caprile, J., Viss, T.C., Rego, M., Brunmeier, D., Cancilla, C. and Rivara, C.J. 2001. New weed management research in processing tomatoes. Proc. 7^th ISHS Int. Symp. on Processing Tomato (Ed. T.K. Hartz). Acta Horticulturae 542:39-45.

Muellen, R.J., Caprile, J., Whiteley, R.S., Leinfelder, M., Prochard, N., Cancilla, C. and Williamson, J. 2002. Recent pre-emergence and post-emergence weed management studies in processing tomatoes. 8^th ISHS Symposium on Processing Tomato, Istanbul, Turkey, 8-10 June 2002. Acta Horticulturae (in press).

Onofri, A., Covarelli, L. and Tei, F. 1995. Efficacy of rimsulfuron and metribuzin against Solanum nigrum L. at different growth stages in tomato. Proc. 16th COLUMA Conference, International Meeting on Weed Control, Reims, France: 993-1000.

Palczynski, J., Dobrzanski, A. and Anyska, Z. 1997. The efficiency of reduced rate of metribuzin with adjuvants in tomatoes. Postepy w Ochronie Roslin 37, 2: 163-166.

Parish, S. 1990. A review of non-chemical weed control techniques. Biological Agriculture and Horticulture 7, 117-137.

Patrap, M., Kumar, B.V., Shaik, M. 1997. Effect of herbicides and time of weeding on weed control and fruit yield of tomato. Crop Research (Hisar) 14 (1): 113-117.

Qasem, J.R. 1992. Nutrient accumulation by weeds and their associated vegetable crops. Journal of Horticultural Sciences 67: 189-197.

Qasem, J.R. 1993. Root growth, development and nutrient uptake of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) and Chenopodium album. Weed Res. 33 (1): 35-42.

Rapparini, G. and Rubboli, V. 1994. The control of Solanum nigrum L. in transplanting tomato. Proc. 5th EWRS Mediterranean Symposium on Weed Control in Sustainable Agriculture in the Mediterranean Area, Perugia, Italy, 6-8 June 1994: 163-170.

Rasmussen, J. 1996. Mechanical weed management. In: Proceedings Second International Weed Control Congress, Copenhagen, Denmark, 943-948.

Rasmussen, J. and Ascard, J. 1995. Weed control in organic farming systems. In: D.M. Glen, M.P. Greaves and H.M. Anderson (eds) “Ecology and Integrated Farming Systems”, John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, UK, 49-67.

Schnell, H., Linke, K.H. and Sauerborn, J. 1994. Trap cropping and its effect on yield and Orobanche crenata Forsk. infestation on following pea (Pisum sativum L.) crops. Tropical Science 34, 306-314.

Tei F. 2001. Il diserbo delle colture orticole. In: P. Catizone and G. Zanin (eds) “Malerbologia”, Pàtron Editore, Bologna, 777-815.

Tei, F., Baumann, D.T., Dobrzanski, A., Giovinazzo, R., Kleifeld, Y., Rocha, F., Rzozi, S.B., Sanseovic, T. and Zaragoza, C. 1999. Weeds and weed management in tomato - a review. Proc. 11th EWRS (European Weed Research Society) Symposium 1999, Basel, Switzerland, 132.

Tracchi, G., Loubiere, P. and Montagnon, M. 1997. Oxadiargyl: a novel herbicide for sunflower and vegetables. Proc. Brighton Crop Protection Conference - Weeds, Vol. 2: 885-889.

Vergniaud, P., Maillet, J., Abdel Fatah, H. and Boneff, M. 1984. Influnce des techniques culturales sur les peuplements d'adventices des cultures des tomate dans la basse vallée du Rhône. Proc. 3^rd EWRS Symposium on Weed Problems in the Mediterranean Area, vol. 2, 381-388.

Viggiani, P. and Dellacecca, V. 1998. Competitive effects between cocklebur (Xanthium italicum Moretti) and three vegetable Solanaceae. Proc. XI Italian Weed Research Society S.I.R.F.I. Symposium "Weed Management in Vegetables", Bari 12-13 November 1998, 229-239.

Viggiani, P. and Montemurro, P. 2000. La vegetazione infestante nel pomodoro da industria in alcune aree italiane. Inf. Fitopatologico 50 (5): 9-16.

Viggiani, P., Baldoni, G. and Montemurro, P. 1998. Weed survey in processing tomato crops of typical Italian areas. Proc. XI Italian Weed Research Society S.I.R.F.I. Symposium "Weed Management in Vegetables", Bari, 12-13 November 1998, 241-251.

Weaver, S.E. 1984. Critical period of weed competition in three vegetable crops in relation to management practices. Weed Res. 24: 317-325.

Weaver, S.E. and Tan, C.S. 1983. Critical period of weed interference in transplanted tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum): growth analysis. Weed Sci. 31: 476-481.

Weaver, S.E. and Tan, C.S. 1987. Critical period of weed interference in field-seeded tomatoes and its relation to water stress and shading. Can. J. Plant Sci. 67: 557-583.

Weaver, S.E., Smits N. and Tan, C.S. 1987. Estimating yield losses of tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum) caused by nightshade (Solanum spp.) interference. Weed Sci. 35: 163-168.

Zaragoza, C., Branthôme, X., Portugal, J.M., Pardo, A., Suso, M.L., Rodriguez del Rincon, A., Monserrat, A., Tiebas, A., Fernandez-Cavada, S. and Gutierrez, M. 1994. Itinéraires techniques comparés pour le contrôle des mauvaises herbes chez la tomate en différentes régions européennes. 5th EWRS Mediterranean Symposium on Weed Control in Sustainable Agriculture in the Mediterranean Area, Perugia, Italy, 6-8 June 1994:179-186.

Zimdahl, R.L. 1988. The concept and application of the critical weed-free period. In: M.A. Altieri e M. Liebman (eds) “Weed management in agroecosystems: ecological approach”, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, 145-155.

Zonno, M.C., Montemurro, P. and Vurro, M. 2000. Orobanche ramosa, un'infestante parassita in espansione nell'Italia Meridionale. Inf. Fitopatologico 4, 13-21.

To the top

backward

backward

backward

backward

backward

backward

backward

Table 8. Chemical weed control of tomato: active ingredient, controlled weeds, application timing, and countries where the active ingredient is authorised for the use in processing tomato.

Active ingredients

Efficacy against

Application timing

Country

PRES

PREE

PRET

POSTE POSTT

HR

F

IL

I

MO

PL

P

SLO

E

CH

Aclonifen

B

+

+

x

Alloxydim

G

+

x

Butralin

G + B

+

x

Chlorthal-dimethyl

B + G

+

+

x

x

x

Clethodim

G

+

x

x

x

x

Cycloxydim

G

+

x

x

x

x

x

Diclofop-methyl

G

x

Dinitramine

G + B

+

+

+

x

x

Diphenamid

G + B

+

+

+

x

Ethalfluralin

G + B

+

+

x

Fenoxaprop-P-ethyl

G

+

x

x

x

Fluazifop-P-butyl

G

+

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Flufenacet

G + B

+

x

x

Flurochloridone

B + G

+

x

Haloxyfop-ethoxyethyl

G

+

x

x

Metolachlor

G + B

+

x

Metribuzin

B + G

+

+

+

+

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Napropamide

B + G

+

+

+

x

x

x

x

Oxadiazon

B

+

+

x

Oxyfluorfen

B + G

+

x

x

Oxadiargyl

B + G

+

+

x

Pendimethalin

G + B

+

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Prometrine

G + B

+

x

Propaquizafop

G

+

x

x

x

x

x

x

Quizalofop-P-ethyl

G

+

x

x

x

x

x

x

Rimsulfuron

G + B

+

x

x

x

x

Sethoxydim

G

+

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Trifluralin

G + B

+

+ (1)

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

G = grasses ; B = broad-leaved weeds; (1) Inter-row soil incorporated post-emergence. PRES = pre-sowing, PREE = pre-emergence, PRET = pre-transplanting, POSTE = post-emergence, POSTT = post-transplanting.

backward

---

 

Table 9. Integrated Weed Management programmes in a sown tomato crop
IWM Programme	False seedbed preparation	Pre-sowing	Pre-emergence	Post-emergence
				At thinning	Post- thinning
A	Harrowing + residual herbicides or total + residual herbicides		Total herbicides	Inter-row/intra-row mechanical control	Row localisation of selective herbicides and inter-row mechanical control
B	Harrowing + residual herbicides or total + residual herbicides			Inter-row/intra-row mechanical control	Row localisation of selective herbicides and inter-row mechanical control
C	Harrowing and total herbicides		Total herbicides	Inter-row/intra-row mechanical control	Row localisation of selective herbicides and inter-row mechanical control
D	Harrowing or flaming	Harrowing or flaming		Inter-row/intra-row mechanical control	Inter-row/intra-row mechanical control
E	Harrowing + residual herbicides or total + residual herbicides	Residual herbicides		Inter-row/intra-row mechanical control	Row localisation of selective herbicides and inter-row mechanical control

backward

---

 

Table 10. Integrated Weed Management programmes in a transplanted tomato crop
IWM Programme	False seedbed preparation	Pre-planting*	Post-planting
			1st application	2nd application
A	Harrowing + residual herbicides or total + residual herbicides		Row localisation of low split-dose and inter-row mechanical control	Row localisation of low split-dose and inter-row mechanical control
B	Harrowing + residual herbicides or total + residual herbicides		Row localisation of low split-dose and inter-row mechanical control	Row localisation of low split-dose and inter-row mechanical control
C	Harrowing and total herbicides		Row localisation of low split-dose and inter-row mechanical control	Row localisation of low split-dose and inter-row mechanical control
D	Harrowing or flaming	Harrowing or flaming	Inter-row/intra-row mechanical control	Inter-row/intra-row mechanical control
E		Residual herbicides	Row localisation of low split-dose and inter-row mechanical control	Row localisation of low split-dose and inter-row mechanical control
A. Crop infested by grass and broadleaved weeds with high presence of Solanum nigrum. B. Areas with risk of virus attacks. C. Organic soils. D. Organic farming systems. E. Crop infested by grass and broadleaved weeds without any specific problem.

backward

---

 

To the top