Next Article in Journal
Research on Industrial Innovation Efficiency and the Influencing Factors of the Old Industrial Base Based on the Lock-In Effect, a Case Study of Jilin Province, China
Previous Article in Journal
An Empirical Study of Determinants of Pay-for-Performance in PPP Procurement
Previous Article in Special Issue
Effect of New Pre-Emergence Herbicides on Quality and Yield of Potato and Its Associated Weeds
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 14
Issue 19
10.3390/su141912737
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Integrated Use of Herbicides and Mulching for Sustainable Control of Purple Nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus) in a Tomato Crop

by
Rouzbeh Zangoueinejad
1,†,
Behnaz Sirooeinejad
2,
Mohammad Taghi Alebrahim
1 and
Ali Ahsan Bajwa
3,*
1
Department of Plant Production and Genetics, Faculty of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, Ardabil 56199-11367, Iran
2
Department of Horticultural Sciences, University of Tehran, Karaj 14179-35840, Iran
3
Weed Research Unit, New South Wales Department of Primary Industries, Wagga Wagga, NSW 2650, Australia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
Former address: Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University, Starkville, MS 39762, USA.
Sustainability 2022, 14(19), 12737; https://doi.org/10.3390/su141912737
Submission received: 7 September 2022 / Revised: 25 September 2022 / Accepted: 28 September 2022 / Published: 6 October 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Management of Weeds and Herbicide Resistance)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus L.) is a problematic weed in tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum L.) crops causing significant yield losses. Although several chemical options are available for this weed, the level of control is often unsatisfactory, and the consistent use of herbicides has a risk of resistance evolution. Therefore, we evaluated the efficacy of two herbicide options, halosulfuron and fomesafen + S-metolachlor, alone or integrated with natural and plastic mulches in controlling purple nutsedge in tomato crops in a three-year field study. The use of herbicides or mulches alone did not provide effective weed control (below 65%). However, the combination of natural mulch and fomesafen + S-metolachlor provided the most effective weed control by reducing the density and biomass of purple nutsedge by up to 83% and 81%, respectively, as compared with the season-long untreated control. The use of a natural mulch in combination with the herbicides halosulfuron or fomesafen + S-metolachlor also resulted in the highest tomato yield (ca. 3.3 kg per plant). This integrated treatment improved tomato yield by over 400% as compared with the season-long untreated control. The integrated use of a plastic mulch and two chemical options resulted in a 67–74% weed biomass reduction and a 332–368% yield increase over the season-long untreated control. These findings suggest that the combinations of herbicides and mulches are effective integrated weed management options for purple nutsedge in tomato crops.

1. Introduction

Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum L.) is the second most important vegetable crop in the world, after potato. In 2020, the world produced ~187 million tonnes of tomato from an area of 3.7 million ha [1]. This crop is highly vulnerable to weed infestations and purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus L.) has been reported to be one of the most problematic weeds in tomato production systems [2]. Purple nutsedge negatively interferes with crops due to high-density infestations causing severe resource competition as well as allelopathic effects [3,4,5]. The reduction in crop yield production depends on purple nutsedge density, with higher losses at high weed density [6,7,8]. The yield losses can vary due to several biological and environmental factors, as is often the case with weed-crop competition. Reductions of up to 28% and 44% in tomato shoot biomass and fruit yield production, respectively, have been reported due to purple nutsedge interference at a weed density of 200 plants m−2 [3].
Weed management is critical to ensure tomato production. Several pre- and post-emergence herbicides and some non-chemical methods such as mulching have been evaluated for weed control in vegetable crops grown in different cropping systems [9,10,11,12,13,14]. In the United States of America (USA), different herbicide mixtures involving S-metolachlor have been shown to reduce purple nutsedge density by 84–90% in tomato crops [14]. The pre-transplanting application of sulfentrazone and S-metolachlor followed by the post-transplanting application of halosulfuron reduced purple nutsedge density by up to 95% compared with the weedy control plots in a tomato field [15]. In another study from the USA, Adcock et al. [9] reported that the pre-transplanting application of halosulfuron (11.6 g ha−1) reduced the biomass of yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus L.; a close relative of purple nutsedge) by up to 90%. To achieve similar control with post-transplanting applications, halosulfuron was required at higher rates of 17.1 g ha−1 (foliar-only) or 28.1 g ha−1 (soil-only). Akin and Shaw [16] reported that purple nutsedge density was reduced by 97% after the application of glyphosate (0.84 kg ha−1; 9 weeks after planting). In another study, a tank-mix of halosulfuron (53 g ai ha−1) + rimsulfuron (140 g ai ha−1) provided 79% control of purple nutsedge in tomato while many other herbicide options, including chlorimuron-ethyl, flazasulfuron and fomesafen, did not provide highly effective control [17]. Therefore, chemical control is often successful but may fault under certain conditions and is not sustainable due to the risk of herbicide resistance evolution.
The use of non-chemical weed control options is desirable from a sustainability point of view and is becoming popular in the wake of rising cases of herbicide resistance evolution in weed species around the world [18,19]. Mulching is one such non-chemical option which has shown good weed control potential alongside other soil and water conservation benefits in cropping systems [20]. The use of mulching has shown good promise for purple and yellow nutsedge control; however, there can be significant variation among different types of mulches [21]. For example, the use of a paper mulch reduced the biomass of nutsedge plants by more than 80% as compared with a black polyethylene mulch (8). Anzalone et al. [12] reported the effective control of a wide range of weed species with natural mulches such as rice straw, barley straw, maize harvest residue and absinth wormwood, as well as manufactured material such as brown kraft paper and black biodegradable plastic mulch in tomato crops. However, purple nutsedge was only effectively controlled with the brown kraft paper mulch [12]. In another study, Webster [21] reported that in plots covered with black and clear plastic mulches the number of yellow nutsedge shoots were reduced by 96% compared with the control plot (without mulch). On the other hand, there was no significant difference in purple nutsedge tuber biomass in black polyethylene mulch and the untreated control, while clear mulch significantly reduced the purple nutsedge tuber biomass over the control.
Most of these results are from the USA, with little information available for Iranian conditions. Therefore, we started several studies to investigate the role of mulching in weed control for vegetable crops such as tomato. In our recent studies, we evaluated the weed control potential of different mulches made from natural or synthetic materials and found some promising results [22,23]. For example, a natural mulch made of shredded date (Phoenix dactylifera L.) tree leaves and sawdust displayed 85% efficacy in reducing the total weed density in a tomato crop compared with the weedy control [22,23]. Moreover, the highest tomato marketable yield was also obtained from this treatment [22]. In another study, this mulch performed better in weed biomass reduction than herbicides metribuzin and metribuzin + rimsulfuron [23]. These results suggested a good fit for mulches in an integrated weed management program which is vital to avoid or delay the evolution of herbicide resistance. The use of combinations of chemical and non-chemical options often provide more effective and sustainable weed control.
In this three-year field study, we evaluated the efficacy of an innovative natural mulch (shredded date leaves + sawdust) and a typical/commonly used plastic mulch alone and in combination with two pre-emergence herbicide options, including halosulfuron and fomesafen + S-metolachlor to control purple nutsedge in tomato crops. The objective was to compare the effect of each mulching and herbicide option as standalone treatments and in different combinations to control purple nutsedge and improve the marketable yield of a tomato crop.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experimental Site

A field study was carried out in 2019 and repeated in 2020 and 2021 at the Liyan Kasht Agricultural Research and Development Center, Abtavil, Bushehr (29°50′ N 51°60′ E; elevation 29 m) in partnership with University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, Ardabil, Iran. The soil at the research station was a silty clay loam with a pH of 7.3 and 1.2% organic matter. The mean temperature, rainfall, and mean relative humidity during the months of the study are shown in Figure 1.
The study was carried out in an area of the research station that had a uniform natural infestation of purple nutsedge. Purple nutsedge was by far the most dominant weed species in experimental plots during all three years of the study. Some other species that were present in low density included cheeseweed (Malva neglecta L.) and quackgrass (Agropyron repens L.). Based on the cropping history (2010 to 2018) of the field used, the crop sequence included fallow from 2010 to 2012, wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) from 2012 to 2015, and then fallow from 2016 to 2018.

2.2. Experimental Design and Treatments

The study was laid out in a randomized complete block design consisting of four replicated blocks. There were ten treatments in total, involving two chemical herbicide treatments, two mulching treatments, two-way combinations of the chemical and mulching treatments, a season-long weed-free control and a season-long weedy/untreated control (Table 1).
The first chemical treatment comprised of a tank mixture of Fomesafen (Reflex; 0.42 kg ai ha−1; Gowan Co., Yuma, AZ, USA) and S-metolachlor (Dual Magnum; 1.07 kg ai ha−1; Syngenta Crop Protection, Greensboro, NC, USA). The second chemical treatment was the application of the halosulfuron (Sandea; 0.05 kg ai ha−1; Gowan Co., Yuma, AZ, USA). These herbicides were chosen due to their better performance in controlling purple nutsedge [14]. Herbicides were sprayed before tomato transplanting on the planting beds using a carbon dioxide (CO2) pressurized backpack sprayer equipped with flat spray nozzles (TeeJet 8002 XR; Spraying Systems, Wheaton, IL, USA), delivering a spray volume of 140 L ha−1 at 131 kPa pressure. In the treatments involving a combination of chemical and mulching, herbicides were first applied on the beds followed by the application of the mulching treatments. The season-long weed-free control was achieved by weekly hand weeding throughout the study duration while weeds were left untreated for the whole duration in the season-long untreated control. These two treatments were included to compare the efficacy of other treatments. Two types of mulching materials were used in this study: natural and plastic. The natural mulch was a mixture (50:50 weight/weight) of the shredded leaves of date trees, and sawdust. The sawdust was derived from the honey mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa var. glandulosa Torr.). This type of mulch was opted for because it provided good results in our previous research [22,23]. For the plastic mulch treatment, a black plastic sheet of 25 μm thickness was used.
The land was prepared using a disk plough and a basal fertilizer (NPK, 20:20:20; YaraRega™, Oslo, Norway) was incorporated into the soil at a rate of 180 kg ha−1. Then, the 20 cm high raised beds were formed. Each experimental plot was 4.5 m wide and 6.0 m long and comprised of three raised beds where the distance between the center of two beds was 1.5 cm. All the standard crop management practices were carried out following the procedures described in the southeastern US vegetable crop handbook with certain minor modifications to suit the local conditions [24]. A drip irrigation system was set up with a water dropper interval of 20 cm to irrigate the beds. To raise tomato seedlings for field transplanting, tomato (Early Urbana Y) seeds were sown in 200-cell trays (the size of each tray: 54 cm × 28 cm × 5 cm; the size of each cell: 2.4 cm × 2.4 cm/13 cc) filled with potting mix (Mikskaar AS® Company, Professional Substrate 300, Tallinn, Estonia) in late August of each year of the study (2019–2021). The trays were checked daily and irrigated manually as required for five weeks after seeding. Tomato seedlings were transplanted onto the raised beds at the experimental site on September 28, 25, and 30 in 2019, 2020, and 2021, respectively. The plant × plant distance on each row was 40 cm and the tomato density was 2.5 plants m−2.

2.3. Experimental Observations

Data on weed density, weed biomass and crop yield were collected in each year of the study. To determine the purple nutsedge density, the number of nutsedge shoots was counted in the whole experimental plot 4, 8, 12, and 16 weeks after transplanting the tomato seedlings. Weed density is reported as weed plants m−2. Before the crop harvest, purple nutsedge plants were cut near the ground level in a 1 m × 1 m quadrate from each plot, placed in paper bags and dried at 70 °C for two days to measure weed biomass. Tomatoes were harvested at the red-ripe stage from 13 to 16 weeks after transplanting to record the number of fruits and the fresh weight of the marketable yield. The fruit harvesting was conducted at the end of the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 16th weeks after transplanting each year.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

The normality of the data distribution was checked using the PROC UNIVARIATE procedure which determined that no transformations were required for any parameter. Data were subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA) using the statistical software Statistix (ver. 8.1, Tallahassee, FL, USA). The means of weed control treatments were compared using the least significant difference (LSD) test at p < 0.05.

3. Results and Discussion

The ANOVA revealed that the weed density, weed biomass, and weed control were significantly (p < 0.05) affected by the year, so data for these parameters were analysed separately for each year. However, the interaction of years and weed control treatments was not significant for the number of tomato fruits, tomato yield, and yield gain, for which data of three years were pooled before further analysis (Supplementary data, Tables S1–S3).

3.1. Purple Nutsedge Control

All weed control treatments significantly reduced the density and dry biomass of purple nutsedge compared with the season-long untreated control in all three years of the study (Table 2). However, there was significant variation in these parameters across three years. In 2019 and 2021, natural mulch plus fomesafen + S-metolachlor treatment resulted in the lowest weed density (20 and 27 purple nutsedge shoots m−2) and the lowest weed biomass production (31 and 40 g m−2) which resulted in the highest weed control (81 and 76%), just behind the season-long weed-free treatment in which 100% weed control was achieved by regular hand weeding (Table 2). In 2020, the lowest purple nutsedge density was observed from the use of plastic mulch plus fomesafen + S-metolachlor (27 shoots m−2) and natural mulch plus halosulfuron (28 shoots m−2). These treatments were also equally most effective in biomass suppression, providing the best purple nutsedge control (76%) just behind the complete control (100%) in the case of the season-long weed-free treatment (Table 2). The highest weed density was observed in the untreated control in all three years (118–135 shoots m−2). The use of herbicides or mulches alone failed to provide effective control (ca. < 60%) across three years of the study (Table 2).
Clearly, mulching treatments varied in terms of their weed control and subsequent yield production. A natural mulch was evaluated to control purple nutsedge in tomato crops for the first time in this study. It performed better than more commonly used plastic mulch in terms of the density and biomass reduction of purple nutsedge. This may be due to the fact that the natural mulch had some biological impact, such as allelopathic effect on weed germination and growth in addition to physical suppression alone [25,26]. Previously, it has been reported that a paper mulch controlled purple nutsedge more effectively as compared to rice straw, barley straw, maize harvest residue, absinth wormwood plants, black biodegradable plastic, and black polyethylene mulch [12].
It is well-known that mulching suppresses weeds by creating a physical barrier to weed emergence as well as by changing the soil temperature, moisture, and light (quantity and quality) which affect weed germination and emergence [27,28,29]. It is obvious that different mulching materials could have different direct suppressive effects as well as a variable impact on the soil and micro-climate under the mulch, which affects their weed control potential [30].
It has been reported previously that plastic mulching alone did not provide effective control of purple and yellow nutsedge, as weed plants could emerge by piercing the mulch or could grow through the holes in which tomato plants were transplanted [31,32]. We also observed this in our study and believe this might have been a contributing factor toward lower weed control using mulching alone. In a separate study, biodegradable plastic mulch had the greatest level of perforation by purple nutsedge compared with paper mulches [8]. The paper mulch provided 73–100% control of purple nutsedge while the plastic mulch performed poorly with only 26% weed control [8]. Similarly, Anzalone et al. [12] reported that the plastic mulch was easily perforated by purple nutsedge which resulted in a fairly high weed density (114 plants m−2) and therefore weed control was 30% lower than that of hand weeding treatment.
Although the use of natural mulch is recommendable based on the current results, it is not easy to source these materials at an economically competitive price. It would be useful to conduct economic analyses of different mulch and integrated weed management options in future studies.
The sole use of herbicides did not provide effective weed control in the current study. The variable control of nutsedge species has been reported in the past. For instance, the application of S-Ethyl dipropylthiocarbamate (EPTC) (4.48 kg ai ha−1) reduced the purple nutsedge tuber sprouting by only 44% when assessed at two weeks after treatment [33]. Similarly, a pre-emergent application of fomesafen (0.42 kg ha−1) reduced the density of purple and yellow nutsedge by just 50% at 28 days after treatment in cotton [34]. However, a pre-emergent application of fomesafen provided highly effective control (>90%) of a yellow nutsedge infestation in a separate study [35]. The application timing also affects herbicide efficacy. For example, Grichar et al. [36] reported that pre-emergence and post-emergence applications of halosulfuron (66 g ha−1) provided 92% and 77 to 95% control of purple nutsedge, respectively, in a potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) crop.
The sequential herbicide applications often provide better weed control, mainly due to a complimentary/overlay effect. For instance, 80% control of purple nutsedge shoots was reported by the successive use of halosulfuron (70 followed by 36 g ha−1; early post-emergence followed by late post-emergence application), monosodium methyl arsenate (MSMA, 2240 followed by 2240 g ha−1; early post-emergence followed by late post-emergence application), and sulfentrazone (420 followed by 140 g ha−1; pre-emergence followed by early post-emergence application) [37]. Sequential applications often perform better because they can also control weed cohorts that emerge later in the season; however, the efficacy of these treatments is influenced by weather conditions [38,39,40].
In the current study, weed control treatments had variable efficacy across different years of the study. This might be due to seasonal variations. Therefore, conducting more field experiments in different areas with various climate conditions would increase the confidence in any best practice recommendations. It was observed that the density of purple nutsedge was lower in most of the treatments in 2020 as compared to 2019 and 2021. It seems this lower density resulted in producing higher dry biomass because of lower intraspecific competition in 2020.
The integrated use of mulching and herbicides proved to be highly effective in weed control, which is consistent with some of the previous reports [42,43]. We believe this integrated approach improved the herbicide efficacy, extending the duration of effective weed control [41,42]. This improved efficacy may be due to the better interception of herbicides in the presence of physical and/or biological suppression provided by mulches [43,44]. According to a previous study, herbicide volatility was reduced after incorporating dichlobenil granules into a peat moss mulch, which resulted in improved herbicide efficacy and better weed control [45]. In another study, higher weed control was achieved when the Douglas fir [Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirbel) Franco] mulch was treated with acetochlor as compared to the sole application of herbicide or mulch [46].

3.2. Tomato Yield

Unlike the weed control parameters, tomato yield did not vary significantly across three years of the study. All the weed control treatments significantly improved the number of tomato fruits and tomato yield per plant as compared with the season-long weedy control (Table 3). The highest number of tomatoes (38 fruits per plant) and tomato yield (3.8 kg per plant) were recorded for the season-long weed-free treatment (Table 3). Among other weed control treatments, the integrated use of the natural mulch and fomesafen + S-metolachlor resulted in the highest number of fruits (33 per plant) and the highest yield (3.3 kg per plant) which were quite similar in the case of natural mulch plus halosulfuron (Table 3).
Overall, the integrated treatments (mulches plus herbicides) outperformed the sole treatments (mulches or herbicides alone) in terms of the yield gain as compared with the season-long weedy control. For example, the integration of the natural mulch with the two herbicide options increased the tomato yield by 368–407% over the weedy control while the integrated use of the plastic mulch with herbicides resulted in a 297–332% yield increment (Table 3). On the other hand, both herbicide options and plastic mulch performed similarly with an approximately 215% yield gain over the weedy control while the sole use of natural mulch was relatively better, with 281% yield gain (Table 3). The season-long weed competition had a drastic impact on tomato fruit (only 11 fruits per plant) and yield production (0.7 kg per plant).
Our results on tomato yield are supported by the variable efficacy of different weed control treatments observed in the study. Clearly, sole treatments (either herbicides or mulches) were not good enough to maximize the yield gains which happened to be the case for integrated treatments (mulches + herbicides). Previous studies have shown that even combining/layering herbicides can enhance the yield significantly. For example, Boyed [14] reported that applications of EPTC + fomesafen + S-metolachlor and fomesafen + S-metolachlor + napropamide ensured higher tomato yield production as compared with other herbicide options. However, some studies have reported that the use of natural mulches as standalone treatment can be highly effective in yield improvement. Zangoueinejad and Alebrahim [22] reported the highest tomato yield from plots treated with the same natural mulch we used in the current study (shredded date leaves + sawdust) as compared with some other mulching materials. They also reported that none of mulching and herbicide options displayed higher tomato yield production than the natural mulch [23]. Similar results from integrated approaches have been reported in several other studies [47,48,49]. Overall, better weed control in integrated treatments translated into better yields in those treatments. Therefore, the use of mulching in combination with herbicides could be a potential opportunity in transplanted crops such as tomato.

4. Conclusions

The integrated use of natural or plastic mulches with the herbicides fomesafen + S-metolachlor or halosulfuron was highly effective in reducing the purple nutsedge density and biomass production, which resulted in higher tomato yield in these treatments. In particular, the combination of natural mulch and herbicides was more effective as compared with the plastic mulch. The sole use of either chemicals or mulches did not provide effective weed control. Therefore, it can be recommended to use the integrated approach of mulching plus herbicides for the effective control of purple nutsedge in tomato crops.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/su141912737/s1, Table S1: Analysis of variance for all the study parameters to determine the effect of the study year; Table S2: Analysis of variance for weed parameters for three years of the study; Table S3: Analysis of variance for number of tomatoes, tomato yield and yield gain (based on the pooled data of three years).

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, R.Z. and B.S.; methodology, R.Z., B.S., M.T.A. and A.A.B.; validation, R.Z., B.S., M.T.A. and A.A.B.; investigation, R.Z., B.S., M.T.A. and A.A.B.; writing—original draft preparation, R.Z. and B.S.; writing—review and editing, R.Z., B.S., M.T.A. and A.A.B.; visualization, R.Z., B.S., M.T.A. and A.A.B.; supervision, R.Z., B.S. and M.T.A.; funding acquisition, R.Z. and M.T.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the University of Mohaghegh Ardabili.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

All the essential data are included withing the manuscript. Raw data can be made available by corresponding author upon request.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank all staff at the Liyan Kasht Agricultural Research and Development Center, Abtavil, Bushehr, Iran, for their kind assistance throughout this project.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations statistics (FAOs). Statistics Division. Available online: https://www.fao.org (accessed on 2 June 2022).
  2. Boyd, N.S. Pre-and postemergence herbicides for row middle weed control in vegetable plasticulture production systems. Weed Technol. 2016, 30, 949–957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Morales-Payan, J.P.; Stall, W.M.; Shilling, D.G.; Charudattan, R.; Dusky, J.A.; Bewick, T.A. Above-and be-lowground interference of purple and yellow nutsedge (Cyperus spp.) with tomato. Weed Sci. 2003, 51, 181–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Kaur, S.; Kaur, R.; Chauhan, B.S. Understanding crop-weed-fertilizer-water interactions and their implications for weed management in agricultural systems. Crop Prot. 2018, 103, 65–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Peerzada, A.M. Biology, agricultural impact, and management of Cyperus rotundus L.: The world’s most tenacious weed. Acta Physiol. Plant. 2017, 39, 270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Yu, J.; Sharpe, S.M.; Boyd, N.S. Fumigants alone or in combination with herbicide for weed management in bell pepper (Capsicum annuum). Crop Prot. 2019, 118, 31–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. De Souza, G.P.; Borges, I.A.; Benett, C.G.S.; Leão-Araújo, É.F.; Curvêlo, C.D.S.; Benett, K.S.S. Allelopathic effects of purple nutsedge extract on the physiological quality of cabbage and tomato seeds. J Agric. Sci. 2019, 11, 260–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Cirujeda, A.; Anzalone, A.; Aibar, J.; Moreno, M.M.; Zaragoza, C. Purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus L.) control with paper mulch in processing tomato. Crop Prot. 2012, 39, 66–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Adcock, C.W.; Foshee, W.G.; Wehtje, G.R.; Gilliam, C.H. Herbicide combinations in tomato to prevent nutsedge (Cyperus esulentus) punctures in plastic mulch for multi-cropping systems. Weed Technol. 2008, 22, 136–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Bangarwa, S.K.; Norsworthy, J.K.; Jha, P.; Malik, M. Purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus) management in an organic production system. Weed Sci. 2008, 56, 606–613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Bangarwa, S.K.; Norsworthy, J.K.; Gbur, E.E. Cover crop and herbicide combinations for weed control in polyethylene-mulched bell pepper. HortTechnology 2009, 19, 405–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Anzalone, A.; Cirujeda, A.; Aibar, J.; Pardo, G.; Zaragoza, C. Effect of biodegradable mulch materials on weed control in processing tomatoes. Weed Technol. 2010, 24, 369–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Campiglia, E.; Mancinelli, R.; Radicetti, E.; Caporali, F. Effect of cover crops and mulches on weed control and nitrogen fertilization in tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.). Crop Prot. 2010, 29, 354–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Boyd, N.S. Evaluation of preemergence herbicides for purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus) control in tomato. Weed Technol. 2015, 29, 480–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Yu, J.; Sharpe, S.S.; Boyd, N.S. PRE herbicides and POST halosulfuron for purple nutsedge control in tomato grown in plasticulture systems. Weed Technol. 2020, 34, 642–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Akin, D.S.; Shaw, D.R. Purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus) and yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus) control in glyphosate-tolerant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 2001, 15, 564–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Boyd, N.S.; Dittmar, P. Evaluation of postemergence-directed herbicides for purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus) control in fresh-market tomato. Weed Technol. 2018, 32, 260–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Bajwa, A.A. Sustainable weed management in conservation agriculture. Crop Prot. 2014, 65, 105–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Bajwa, A.A.; Mahajan, G.; Chauhan, B.S. Nonconventional weed management strategies for modern agriculture. Weed Sci. 2015, 63, 723–747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Jabran, K.; Hussain, M.; Fahad, S.; Farooq, M.; Bajwa, A.A.; Alharrby, H.; Nasim, W. Economic assessment of different mulches in conventional and water-saving rice production systems. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2016, 23, 9156–9164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Webster, T.M. Mulch type affects growth and tuber production of yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus) and purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus). Weed Sci. 2005, 53, 834–838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Zangoueinejad, R.; Alebrahim, M.T. Use of conventional and innovative organic materials as alternatives to black plastic mulch to suppress weeds in tomato production. Biol. Agric. Hortic. 2021, 37, 267–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Zangoueinejad, R.; Alebrahim, M.T. Shredded date palm (Phoenix dactylifera L.) leaves and cereal straws as much material vs. herbicide options for weed suppression in processing tomato. Int. J. Pest Manag. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Kuhar, T.P.; Arancibia, R.A.; Rideout, S.L.; Reiter, M.S. Southeastern US Vegetable Crop Handbook; The Southeastern Vegetable Extension Workers Group: Huntsville, AL, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  25. Kumar, V.; Obour, A.; Jha, P.; Liu, R.; Manuchehri, M.R.; Dille, J.A.; Holman, J.; Stahlman, P.W. Integrating cover crops for weed management in the semiarid US Great Plains: Opportunities and challenges. Weed Sci. 2020, 68, 311–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Sias, C.; Wolters, B.R.; Reiter, M.S.; Flessner, M.L. Cover crops as a weed seed bank management tool: A soil down review. Ital. J. Agron. 2021, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Patterson, D.T. Factors Affecting the Suppression of Nutsedge by Translucent Plastic Film Mulch. 1997. Available online: http://www.mbao.org/1997airc/018patterson (accessed on 12 September 2006).
  28. Scavo, A.; Mauromicale, G. Crop allelopathy for sustainable weed management in agroecosystems: Knowing the present with a view to the future. Agronomy 2021, 11, 2104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Scavo, A.; Mauromicale, G. Integrated weed management in herbaceous field crops. Agronomy 2020, 10, 466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Chalker-Scott, L. Impact of mulches on landscape plants and the environment—A review. J. Environ. Hortic. 2007, 25, 239–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Tarrant, A.R. Crop Production and Soil Health Tradeoffs of Between-row Weed and Soil Management Strategies in Organic Plasticulture Vegetable Production. Master’s Thesis, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  32. Johnson, W.C.; Mullinix, B.G. Effect of herbicide application method on weed management and crop injury in transplanted cantaloupe production. Weed Technol. 2005, 19, 108–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Holt, E.C.; Long, J.A.; Allen, W.W. The toxicity of EPTC to nutsedge. Weeds 1962, 10, 103–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Wilcut, J.W.; Jordan, D.L.; Vencill, W.K.; Richburg, J.S. Weed management in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) with soil-applied and post-directed herbicides. Weed Technol. 1997, 11, 221–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Miller, M.R.; Dittmar, P.J. Effect of PRE and POST-directed herbicides for season-long nutsedge (Cyperus spp.) control in bell pepper. Weed Technol. 2014, 28, 518–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Grichar, W.J.; Besler, B.A.; Brewer, K.D. Purple nutsedge control and potato (Solanum tuberosum) tolerance to sulfentrazone and halosulfuron. Weed Technol. 2003, 17, 485–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Brecke, B.J.; Stephenson, D.O.; Unruh, J.B. Control of purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus) with herbicides and mowing. Weed Technol. 2005, 19, 809–814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Landau, C.A.; Hager, A.G.; Williams, M.M. Diminishing weed control exacerbates maize yield loss to adverse weather. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2021, 27, 6156–6165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Bradley, K.W.; Hagood, E.S. Influence of sequential herbicide treatment, herbicide application timing, and mowing on mugwort (Artemisia vulgaris) control. Weed Technol. 2002, 16, 346–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Landau, C.A.; Hager, A.G.; Tranel, P.J.; Davis, A.S.; Martin, N.F.; Williams, M.M. Future efficacy of pre-emergence herbicides in corn (Zea mays) is threatened by more variable weather. Pest Manag. Sci. 2012, 77, 2683–2689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Shafiq, M.; Kaur, S. Weed control using paddy straw mulch in integration with herbicides in autumn Potato in North-West India. Potato Res. 2012, 64, 761–773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Marble, S.C. Herbicide and mulch interactions: A review of the literature and implications for the landscape maintenance industry. Weed Technol. 2015, 29, 341–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Carter, A.D. Herbicide movement in soils: Principles, pathways and processes. Weed Res. 2000, 40, 113–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Blumhorst, M.R.; Weber, J.B.; Swain, L.R. Efficacy of selected herbicides as influenced by soil properties. Weed Technol. 1990, 4, 279–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Lanphear, F.O. Incorporation of dichlobenil in mulches. Weed Sci. 1968, 16, 230–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Mathers, H.M.; Case, L.T. Field evaluation of various herbicide and mulch combinations for ornamental weed control. Hortscience 2006, 40, 977–978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Harker, K.N.; O’Donovan, J.T. Recent weed control, weed management, and integrated weed management. Weed Technol. 2013, 27, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Mathers, H.M. Novel methods of weed control in containers. HortTechnology 2003, 13, 28–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Olorunmaiye, P.M.; Olorunmaiye, K.S. Effect of integrated weed management on weed control and yield components of maize and cassava intercrop in a southern Guinea savanna ecology of Nigeria. Aust. J. Crop Sci. 2009, 3, 129. [Google Scholar]
Sustainability 14 12737 g001 550
Figure 1. Mean temperature, rainfall, and mean relative humidity during the months of the study in 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022.
Figure 1. Mean temperature, rainfall, and mean relative humidity during the months of the study in 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022.
Sustainability 14 12737 g001
Table
Table 1. List of weed control treatments used in this study.
Table 1. List of weed control treatments used in this study.
Treatment No.Treatment DescriptionTerm/Name Used for the Treatment in Manuscript Text
1Fomesafen (0.42 kg ai ha−1) + S-metolachlor (1.07 kg ai ha−1)Fomesafen + S-metolachlor
2Halosulfuron (0.05 kg ai ha−1)Halosulfuron
3Shredded date leaves + sawdustNatural mulch
4Black plastic mulchPlastic mulch
5Shredded date leaves + sawdust + fomesafen and S-metolachlorNatural mulch plus Fomesafen + S-metolachlor
6Shredded date leaves + sawdust + HalosulfuronNatural mulch plus Halosulfuron
7Black plastic mulch + fomesafen and S-metolachlorPlastic mulch plus Fomesafen + S-metolachlor
8Black plastic mulch + HalosulfuronPlastic mulch plus Halosulfuron
9Season-long hand weedingSeason-long weed-free control
10Season-long weedy (no weed control)Season-long untreated control
Table
Table 2. Effect of different weed control treatments on purple nutsedge density, biomass and control during three years of the study.
Table 2. Effect of different weed control treatments on purple nutsedge density, biomass and control during three years of the study.
Weed Control Treatments201920202021
Density (Shoots m−2)Biomass (g m−2)Control (% Biomass Reduction) 1Density (Shoot m−2)Biomass (g m−2)Control (% Biomass Reduction)Density (Shoot m−2)Biomass (g m−2)Control (% Biomass Reduction)
Fomesafen + S-metolachlor48 c68 d58 g58 c92 c51 e45 cd65 c62 de
Halosulfuron55 b75 c54 h47 d75 d60 d43 d63 c63 d
Natural mulch41 d57 e65 f45 d71 d62 d48 c74 b57 ef
Plastic mulch58 b80 b50 i68 b109 b42 f55 b82 b51 f
Natural mulch plus Fomesafen + S-metolachlor20 g31 i81 b34 e55 e71 c27 g40 e76 b
Natural mulch plus Halosulfuron26 f36 h78 c28 f45 f76 b31 f46 de73 bc
Plastic mulch plus Fomesafen + S-metolachlor35 e46 g71 d27 f45 f76 b30 fg43 de74 bc
Plastic mulch plus Halosulfuron38 de52 f67 e35 e60 e68 c36 e51 d70 c
Season-long weed-free0 h0 j100 a0 g0 g100 a0 h0 f100 a
Untreated control118 a162 a-135 a186 a-123 a169 a-
LSD at p < 0.054.104.112.214.076.513.573.878.875.62
1 Control was calculated as the percentage reduction in biomass over untreated/weedy control treatment. Treatments means sharing same letters in each column do not differ significantly according to the LSD test at p < 0.05.
Table
Table 3. Effect of different treatments on the number of tomato fruits per plant, yield per plant, and yield gain during three years of study.
Table 3. Effect of different treatments on the number of tomato fruits per plant, yield per plant, and yield gain during three years of study.
Weed Control TreatmentsNumber of Fruits (Fruits per Plant)Yield (kg per Plant)Yield Gain (% Yield Increase) 1
Fomesafen + S-metolachlor22 e2.0 e216 d
Halosulfuron23 e2.0 e216 d
Natural mulch27 d2.6 d281 cd
Plastic mulch21 e2.1 e215 d
Natural mulch plus Fomesafen + S-metolachlor33 b3.3 b407 ab
Natural mulch plus Halosulfuron32 bc3.1 bc368 bc
Plastic mulch plus Fomesafen + S-metolachlor30 cd2.8 cd332 bcd
Plastic mulch plus Halosulfuron27 d2.5 d297 bcd
Season-long weed-free38 a3.8 a490 a
Untreated control11 f0.7 f-
LSD at p < 0.053.010.32122.1
1 Yield gain was calculated as the percentage increase in yield over untreated/weedy control treatment. Data for three years were pooled as the interaction of years and weed control treatments was not significant for these parameters. Treatments means sharing same letters in each column do not differ significantly according to the LSD test at p < 0.05.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zangoueinejad, R.; Sirooeinejad, B.; Alebrahim, M.T.; Bajwa, A.A. Integrated Use of Herbicides and Mulching for Sustainable Control of Purple Nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus) in a Tomato Crop. Sustainability 2022, 14, 12737. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141912737

AMA Style

Zangoueinejad R, Sirooeinejad B, Alebrahim MT, Bajwa AA. Integrated Use of Herbicides and Mulching for Sustainable Control of Purple Nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus) in a Tomato Crop. Sustainability. 2022; 14(19):12737. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141912737

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zangoueinejad, Rouzbeh, Behnaz Sirooeinejad, Mohammad Taghi Alebrahim, and Ali Ahsan Bajwa. 2022. "Integrated Use of Herbicides and Mulching for Sustainable Control of Purple Nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus) in a Tomato Crop" Sustainability 14, no. 19: 12737. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141912737

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop