Paper · 1998 · Canadian Journal of Plant Science

Long-term evaluation of cover crop and strip-tillage on tomato yield, foliar diseases and nematode populations

Alan W. McKeown; R. F. Cerkauskas; John W. Potter; et al.

13
claims
27
verbatim quotes
15
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

A 6-yr (1987–1992) experiment, continuous on the same site, evaluated potential problems for yield, nematodes and diseases with tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) grown in a strip-till system. Treatments consisted of conventional tillage (CT) and strip tillage (ST), rye (Secale cereale L.), wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) and perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.) cover crops and a 2-yr rye-tomato rotation. Results of the first 5 yr indicated a decrease in tomato yield over time for both tillage treatments and cover crops. However, yield rebounded overall for treatments in 1992 with the highest yield in the rye-tomato rotation. We suspect this was a result of high populations of root-knot nematodes which collapsed over the winter of 1991/1992. Tomato yields were lower following wheat and perennial ryegrass than rye. In only 1 yr out of 6, strip-tillage reduced yield compared with conventional tillage. Bacterial speck/spot symptoms on foliage, although minor, were significantly greater in ST than in CT plots during the last 3 yr. No major trends in incidence and severity of bacterial and fungal diseases and of disorders of fruit were evident during the 5-yr period and neither fruit yield nor quality were significantly affected by these factors. Root-knot nematodes (Meloidogyne hapla Chitwood) were numerically less in the rye-tomato rotation than in other treatments; both root-knot and root lesion nematodes (Pratylenchus penetrans [Cobb]) tended to be less numerous under CT than under ST. Strip-tillage is feasible for machine harvest processing tomatoes. However, we are concerned about the tendency of tomatoes grown under reduced tillage to have lower yields than those grown under conventional tillage. More work is required on the interactions of cultivars, cover crops and nematodes in soil conservation systems. Key words: Tomato, bacterial speck/spot, foliar diseases, root-knot nematodes, root lesion nematodes, tillage

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 13

Associationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Tomato yield decreased over time for both tillage treatments and cover crops in the first five years.

Treatment
tillage treatments and cover cropse0
Outcome
tomato yielde0
Direction
decreasee0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“strip-tillage on tomato yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 39–68 · show in text ↑
e0

“Results of the first 5 yr indicated a decrease in tomato yield over time for both tillage treatments and cover crops”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 414–530 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The rye-tomato rotation gave the highest tomato yield in 1992, when yields rebounded.

Treatment
rye-tomato rotatione1
Outcome
yielde1
Direction
higheste1
Qualifier
in 1992e1

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“strip-tillage on tomato yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 39–68 · show in text ↑
e1

“yield rebounded overall for treatments in 1992 with the highest yield in the rye-tomato rotation”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 541–637 · show in text ↑
Mechanismhypothesisoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors suspect that the 1992 tomato yield rebound resulted from high root-knot nematode populations that collapsed over the winter.

Interactor
root-knot nematodesMeloidogynee2pest
Outcome
yield reboundede1
Qualifier
high populations of root-knot nematodese2

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Meloidogyne
Meloidogyne · Interactor · picture of the genus (one of its species)Photo by William Wergin and Richard Sayre. Colorized by Stephen Ausmus. U.S. Department of Agriculture · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“strip-tillage on tomato yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 39–68 · show in text ↑
e1

“yield rebounded overall for treatments in 1992 with the highest yield in the rye-tomato rotation”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 541–637 · show in text ↑
e2

“We suspect this was a result of high populations of root-knot nematodes which collapsed over the winter of 1991/1992”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 639–755 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Tomato yields were lower after wheat and perennial ryegrass cover crops than after rye.

Treatment
wheat and perennial ryegrasse3
Outcome
yieldse3
Direction
lowere3
Comparator
ryee3

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“strip-tillage on tomato yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 39–68 · show in text ↑
e3

“Tomato yields were lower following wheat and perennial ryegrass than rye”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 757–829 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

In only one of six years strip tillage reduced tomato yield compared with conventional tillage.

Treatment
strip-tillagee4
Outcome
yielde4
Direction
reducede4
Qualifier
In only 1 yr out of 6e4
Comparator
conventional tillagee4

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“strip-tillage on tomato yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 39–68 · show in text ↑
e4

“In only 1 yr out of 6, strip-tillage reduced yield compared with conventional tillage”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 831–916 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Bacterial speck/spot symptoms on tomato foliage, although minor, were significantly greater under strip tillage than under conventional tillage during the last three years.

Treatment
STe5
Outcome
Bacterial speck/spot symptoms on foliagee5
Direction
greatere5
Qualifier
although minore5
Comparator
CTe5

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“strip-tillage on tomato yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 39–68 · show in text ↑
e5

“Bacterial speck/spot symptoms on foliage, although minor, were significantly greater in ST than in CT plots during the last 3 yr”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 918–1046 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

No major trends in incidence and severity of bacterial and fungal diseases and of fruit disorders were evident over the five-year period.

Outcome
incidence and severity of bacterial and fungal diseases and of disorders of fruite6
Qualifier
No major trendse6

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“strip-tillage on tomato yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 39–68 · show in text ↑
e6

“No major trends in incidence and severity of bacterial and fungal diseases and of disorders of fruit were evident during the 5-yr period”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1048–1184 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Neither fruit yield nor fruit quality was significantly affected by the factors studied.

Outcome
fruit yield nor qualitye7
Qualifier
significantly affected by these factorse7

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“strip-tillage on tomato yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 39–68 · show in text ↑
e7

“neither fruit yield nor quality were significantly affected by these factors”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1189–1265 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Root-knot nematodes were numerically lower in the rye-tomato rotation than in the other treatments.

Treatment
rye-tomato rotatione1
Interactor
Meloidogyne haplaMeloidogyne haplae1pest
Outcome
Root-knot nematodese1
Direction
numerically lesse1
Comparator
other treatmentse1

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Meloidogyne hapla
Meloidogyne hapla · Interactor · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryWalter Peraza Padilla, National University of Costa Rica, Bugwood.org · CC BY 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“strip-tillage on tomato yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 39–68 · show in text ↑
e1

“Root-knot nematodes (Meloidogyne hapla Chitwood) were numerically less in the rye-tomato rotation than in other treatments”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1267–1389 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Root-knot nematodes tended to be less numerous under conventional tillage than under strip tillage.

Treatment
CTe1
Interactor
Meloidogyne haplaMeloidogyne haplae0pest
Outcome
root-knot nematodese0
Direction
less numerouse1
Comparator
STe1

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Meloidogyne hapla
Meloidogyne hapla · Interactor · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryWalter Peraza Padilla, National University of Costa Rica, Bugwood.org · CC BY 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“strip-tillage on tomato yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 39–68 · show in text ↑
e1

“both root-knot and root lesion nematodes (Pratylenchus penetrans [Cobb]) tended to be less numerous under CT than under ST”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1391–1513 · show in text ↑
e0

“Root-knot nematodes (Meloidogyne hapla Chitwood) were numerically less in the rye-tomato rotation than in other treatments”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1267–1389 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Root lesion nematodes tended to be less numerous under conventional tillage than under strip tillage.

Treatment
CTe1
Interactor
Pratylenchus penetransPratylenchus penetranse1pest
Outcome
root lesion nematodese1
Direction
less numerouse1
Comparator
STe1

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Pratylenchus penetrans
Pratylenchus penetrans · InteractorUSDA ARS · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“strip-tillage on tomato yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 39–68 · show in text ↑
e1

“both root-knot and root lesion nematodes (Pratylenchus penetrans [Cobb]) tended to be less numerous under CT than under ST”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1391–1513 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

Strip tillage is feasible for machine harvest of processing tomatoes.

Taxon
processing tomatoese0
Outcome
feasible for machine harveste0

Verbatim

e0

“Strip-tillage is feasible for machine harvest processing tomatoes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1515–1580 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectauthor interpretationoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Tomatoes grown under reduced tillage tend to have lower yields than those under conventional tillage.

Treatment
reduced tillagee0
Outcome
yieldse0
Direction
lowere0
Comparator
conventional tillagee0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“strip-tillage on tomato yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 39–68 · show in text ↑
e0

“we are concerned about the tendency of tomatoes grown under reduced tillage to have lower yields than those grown under conventional tillage”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1591–1731 · show in text ↑

Lolium perenne · yield · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results

3 papers: 1 positive, 2 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. negative
See all 3 papers →

Triticum aestivum · yield · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results

11 papers: 6 positive, 5 negative or no effect

4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

7 papers more in this group

See all 11 papers →

tillage · disease · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results

8 papers: 5 positive, 3 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

4 papers more in this group

See all 8 papers →

rotation · yield · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results

14 papers: 12 positive, 2 negative or no effect

11 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. positive

10 papers more in this group

See all 14 papers →

tillage · yield · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results

56 papers: 40 positive, 16 negative or no effect

15 papers in the same direction as this paper · 40 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

52 papers more in this group

See all 56 papers →

rotation · Meloidogyne hapla · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Results agree

2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
See all 2 papers →

tillage · Pratylenchus penetrans · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Results agree

2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
See all 2 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.