Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-kwt9d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T19:53:58.543Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Eastern Black Nightshade (Solanum ptycanthum) Interference in Processing Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Frances G. M. Perez and
John B. Masiunas
Frances G. M. Perez
Affiliation:
Dep. Hortic, Univ. Illinois, 1103 W. Dorner Dr., Urbana, IL 61801
John B. Masiunas
Affiliation:
Dep. Hortic, Univ. Illinois, 1103 W. Dorner Dr., Urbana, IL 61801
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In replacement experiments in the greenhouse, plant relative yield (PRY) of both eastern black nightshade and tomato increased as the proportion of nightshade plants increased in the pots, indicating that nightshade is less competitive than tomato. In field studies tomato yield was reduced by two-thirds if three nightshade plants m–1 of row were allowed to grow with tomato more than 6 weeks following tomato establishment The percent marketable fruit decreased linearly from 73% with no nightshade to 49% when nightshade were present for 12 weeks. When nightshade and tomato were transplanted together, tomato yield was 9000 kg ha–1 and 49% of the fruit was marketable, while tomato yields were 30 000 kg ha–1 and 70% of the fruit was marketable when nightshade was established 9 weeks after tomato planting.

Keywords

Eastern black nightshade, Solanum ptycanthum Dun. # SOLPTtomato, Lycopersicon esculentum Mill. ‘Heinz 6004′Competitiontomato yieldreplacement seriesSOLPT

Information

Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 38 , Issue 4-5 , September 1990, pp. 385 - 388
Copyright
Copyright © 1990 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

1. Bhowmik, P. C. and Reddy, K. N. 1988. Effects of barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) on growth, yield, and nutrient status of transplanted tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum). Weed Sci. 36:775–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Friesen, G. H. 1979. Weed interference in transplanted tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum). Weed Sci. 27:11–13.Google Scholar
3. Keeley, P. E. and Thullen, R. J. 1983. Influence of planting date on growth of black nightshade (Solanum nigrum). Weed Sci. 31:180–184.Google Scholar
4. Majek, B. A. 1981. Nightshade identification and control. Weeds Today. 12:5.Google Scholar
5. Manley, W. T. 1983. United States standards for grades of tomatoes for processing. U.S.D.A. Agric. Marketing Serv., Washington, DC.Google Scholar
6. Monaco, T. J., Grayson, A. S., and Sanders, D. S. 1981. Influence of four weed species on the growth, yield, and quality of direct-seeded tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum) cultivar Roma-VF. Weed Sci. 29:394–397.Google Scholar
7. Myers, R. 1986. Effects of shade on the biology of eastern black nightshade (Solanum ptycanthum). Ph.D. Thesis. Univ. Illinois, Urbana.Google Scholar
8. Ogg, A. G. Jr., Rogers, B. S., and Schilling, E. E. 1981. Characterization of black nightshade (Solanum nigrum) and related species in the United States. Weed Sci. 29:27–32.Google Scholar
9. Patterson, D. T. 1985. Comparative ecophysiology of weeds and crops. Pages 101–129 in Duke, S. O., ed. Weed Physiology. I. Reproduction, Ecophysiology. CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, FL.Google Scholar
10. Quackenbush, L. S. and Andersen, R. N. 1984. Effect of soybean (Glycine max) interference on eastern black nightshade (Solanum ptycanthum). Weed Sci. 32:638–645.Google Scholar
11. Quackenbush, L. S. and Andersen, R. N. 1985. Susceptibility of five weed species of Solanum nigrum complex to herbicides. Weed Sci. 33:386–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Radosevich, S. R. 1987. Methods to study interactions among crops and weeds. Weed Technol. 1:190–198.Google Scholar
13. Rejmanek, M., Robinson, G. R., and Rejmankova, E. 1989. Weed crop competition: experimental design and models for data analysis. Weed Sci. 37:276–284.Google Scholar
14. Roberts, H. A. and Lockett, P. M. 1978. Seed dormancy and field emergence in Solanum nigrum . Weed Res. 18:231–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Schilling, E. E. Jr. 1981. Systematics of Solanum section Solanum in North America. Syst Bot. 6:172–185.Google Scholar
16. Stoller, E. W., Harrison, S. K., Wax, L. M., Regnier, E. E., and Nafziger, E. D. 1987. Weed interference in soybeans (Glycine max). Rev. Weed Sci. 3:155–181.Google Scholar
17. Weaver, S. E. 1984. Critical period of weed competition in three vegetable crops in relation to management practices. Weed Res. 24:317–325.Google Scholar
18. Weaver, S. E. and Tan, C. S. 1983. Critical period of weed interference in transplanted tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum) growth analysis. Weed Sci. 31:476–481.Google Scholar
19. Weaver, S. E., Smits, N., and Tan, C. S. 1987. Estimating yield losses of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) caused by nightshade (Solanum spp.) interference. Weed Sci. 35:163–168.Google Scholar