Abstract
Methyl bromide has been widely used as a broad-spectrum fumigant for weed control in polyethylene-mulched bell pepper. However, because of environmental hazards, the phase-out of methyl bromide requires development of alternative weed management strategies. Brassicaceae plants produce glucosinolates which are hydrolyzed to toxic isothiocyanates following tissue decomposition, and therefore can be used as a cultural strategy. Field experiments were conducted in 2007 and 2009 to study the influence of soil amendment (‘Seventop’ turnip cover crop vs. fallow) and the effect of initially planted yellow nutsedge tuber density (0, 50, and 100 tubers m −2 ) on the interference of yellow nutsedge in raised-bed polyethylene-mulched bell pepper. Total glucosinolate production by the turnip cover crop was 12,635 and 22,845 µmol m −2 in 2007 and 2009, respectively, and was mainly contributed by shoots. In general, soil amendment with the turnip cover crop was neither effective in reducing yellow nutsedge growth and tuber production nor in improving bell pepper growth and yield compared to fallow plots at any initial tuber density. Averaged over cover crops, increasing initial tuber density from 50 to 100 tubers m −2 increased yellow nutsedge shoot density, shoot dry weight, and tuber production ≥ 1.4 times. However, increased tuber density had minimal impact on yellow nutsedge height and canopy width. Compared to weed-free plots, interference of yellow nutsedge reduced bell pepper dry weight and marketable yield ≥ 42 and ≥ 47%, respectively. However, bell pepper dry weight and yield reduction from 50 and 100 tubers m −2 were not different. Light was the major resource for which yellow nutsedge competed with bell pepper. Yellow nutsedge shoots grown from initially planted 50 and 100 tubers m −2 caused up to 48 and 67% light interception in bell pepper, respectively. It is concluded that yellow nutsedge interference from initial densities of 50 and 100 tubers m −2 are equally effective in reducing bell pepper yield and that soil biofumigation with turnip is not a viable management option for yellow nutsedge at these densities.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 14
Claim · model-written summary
Turnip cover crop produced 12,635 µmol m −2 glucosinolates in 2007.
- Taxon
- turnip
.jpg?width=60)
Brassica rapa subsp. rapae0 - Outcome
- Total glucosinolate productione0
- Value
- 12,635e0
- Qualifier
- 2007e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
e0“Total glucosinolate production by the turnip cover crop was 12,635 and 22,845 µmol m −2 in 2007 and 2009, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Turnip cover crop produced 22,845 µmol m −2 glucosinolates in 2009.
- Taxon
- turnipBrassica rapa subsp. rapae0
- Outcome
- Total glucosinolate productione0
- Value
- 22,845 µmol m −2e0
- Qualifier
- 2009e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Total glucosinolate production by the turnip cover crop was 12,635 and 22,845 µmol m −2 in 2007 and 2009, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Shoots contributed most turnip glucosinolate production.
- Taxon
- turnipBrassica rapa subsp. rapae0
- Organ / stage
- shootse0
- Outcome
- glucosinolate productione0
- Direction
- mainlye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Total glucosinolate production by the turnip cover crop was 12,635 and 22,845 µmol m −2 in 2007 and 2009, respectively, and was mainly contributed by shoots.”
Claim · model-written summary
Turnip amendment did not reduce yellow nutsedge growth relative to fallow.
Verbatim
e0“soil amendment with the turnip cover crop was neither effective in reducing yellow nutsedge growth and tuber production nor in improving bell pepper growth and yield compared to fallow plots at any initial tuber density.”
Claim · model-written summary
Turnip amendment did not improve bell pepper growth or yield relative to fallow.
Verbatim
e0“soil amendment with the turnip cover crop was neither effective in reducing yellow nutsedge growth and tuber production nor in improving bell pepper growth and yield compared to fallow plots at any initial tuber density.”
Claim · model-written summary
Raising initial nutsedge density from 50 to 100 tubers m −2 increased shoot density, shoot dry weight and tuber production at least 1.4 times.
Verbatim
e0“increasing initial tuber density from 50 to 100 tubers m −2 increased yellow nutsedge shoot density, shoot dry weight, and tuber production ≥ 1.4 times”
t0“Bell Pepper”
Claim · model-written summary
Increased initial nutsedge density had minimal impact on nutsedge height and canopy width.
Verbatim
e0“increased tuber density had minimal impact on yellow nutsedge height and canopy width”
t0“Bell Pepper”
e1“increasing initial tuber density from 50 to 100 tubers m −2”
Claim · model-written summary
Nutsedge interference reduced pepper dry weight at least 42% relative to weed-free plots.
Verbatim
e0“Compared to weed-free plots, interference of yellow nutsedge reduced bell pepper dry weight and marketable yield ≥ 42 and ≥ 47%, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
Nutsedge interference reduced pepper marketable yield at least 47% relative to weed-free plots.
Verbatim
e0“Compared to weed-free plots, interference of yellow nutsedge reduced bell pepper dry weight and marketable yield ≥ 42 and ≥ 47%, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
Pepper dry weight and yield reduction did not differ between 50 and 100 nutsedge tubers m −2.
Verbatim
e0“bell pepper dry weight and yield reduction from 50 and 100 tubers m −2 were not different”
e1“interference of yellow nutsedge reduced bell pepper dry weight and marketable yield”
Claim · model-written summary
Light was the major resource contested by nutsedge and bell pepper.
Verbatim
e0“Light was the major resource for which yellow nutsedge competed with bell pepper.”
Claim · model-written summary
Nutsedge at 50 tubers m −2 intercepted up to 48% of light in pepper.
Verbatim
e0“Yellow nutsedge shoots grown from initially planted 50 and 100 tubers m −2 caused up to 48 and 67% light interception in bell pepper, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
Nutsedge at 100 tubers m −2 intercepted up to 67% of light in pepper.
Verbatim
e0“Yellow nutsedge shoots grown from initially planted 50 and 100 tubers m −2 caused up to 48 and 67% light interception in bell pepper, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors conclude turnip soil biofumigation is not viable for nutsedge at the tested densities.
Verbatim
e0“soil biofumigation with turnip is not a viable management option for yellow nutsedge at these densities.”
t0“Bell Pepper”
The same questions in other papers
cover crop · yield · Capsicum annuum (sweet pepper)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- no effect
- no effect
other · yield · Capsicum annuum (sweet pepper)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 25 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
24 papers more in this group
See all 28 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.