Search Results
You are looking at 1 - 2 of 2 items for :
- Author or Editor: Jim Stapleton x
- HortScience x
Three systems for fresh-market tomato production (transplanting into reflective mulch, transplanting into a cover crop that had been chopped and killed, and standard transplanting into fallow beds) were evaluated in two field experiments in California's San Joaquin Valley in 1999. The first study was a spring tomato planting (April) and summer (July) harvest in which a mixture of rye, triticale, and vetch was used as the cover crop mulch. The second trial consisted of a summer tomato planting (July) and fall (September) harvst in which a sorghum/sudan hybrid was used as the mulch. In both experiments, tomato plants growing over the reflective mulches accumulated significantly more biomass than did plants growing in the other production systems. These larger, more-robust plants growing over reflective mulch also produced significantly higher yield. In the summer planting, there was almost no tomato biomass accumulation in the cover crop plots due to the fact that the sorghum-sudan hybrid we chose as the cover crop turned out to be allelopathic to tomatoes when shredded and used as a mulch.
Two field comparisons of conservation tillage tomato production alternatives following wheat were conducted in California's Central Valley. Both studies compared: 1) standard tillage; 2) bed disk or permanent bed minimum tillage; and 3) strip-tillage following winter wheat crops that were harvested the previous June. Processing tomatoes were produced at the site in Davis, Calif., and fresh market tomatoes were grown in Parlier, Calif. At both sites, establishing tomatoes using a commercial transplanter or a modified conservation tillage transplanter achieved adequate stands even in the minimally-tilled strip-till system. Timing of the strip till operation, however, is critical so that large chuncks of dry soil are not brought up and so that these do not create very rough bed surfaces that may cause harvest problems, particularly for processing tomatoes. Machine harvesting the crop at the Davis site did not seem to create any mechanical difficulties or generate additional trash going into the harvest trailer. This may have been due to the fact that by harvest time, the majority of the surface residue from the previous wheat crop had already been broken down or at least sufficiently worked into the soil to pose minimal mechanical harvester impedance or contamination. Tomato yields for the reduced till systems equalled yields of the standard till systems at both sites.