This article was downloaded by: [University of South Florida]On: 21 October 2014, At: 12:32Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Biological Agriculture & Horticulture:An International Journal for SustainableProduction SystemsPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tbah20
Mulching and herbicides in peach: Weedbiomass, fruit yield, size, and qualityAnirudh Thakur a , Harminder Singh a , S. K. Jawandha a &Tarundeep Kaur ba Department of Fruit Scienceb Department of Agronomy , Punjab Agricultural University ,Ludhiana , 141 004 , IndiaPublished online: 06 Dec 2012.
To cite this article: Anirudh Thakur , Harminder Singh , S. K. Jawandha & Tarundeep Kaur (2012)Mulching and herbicides in peach: Weed biomass, fruit yield, size, and quality, Biological Agriculture& Horticulture: An International Journal for Sustainable Production Systems, 28:4, 280-290, DOI:10.1080/01448765.2012.745687
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01448765.2012.745687
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uth
Flor
ida]
at 1
2:32
21
Oct
ober
201
4
Mulching and herbicides in peach: Weed biomass, fruit yield,size, and quality
Anirudh Thakura*, Harminder Singha, S.K. Jawandhaa and Tarundeep Kaurb
aDepartment of Fruit Science; bDepartment of Agronomy, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana141 004, India
An experiment was conducted to study the effect of mulches and herbicides on weedpopulation, fruit yield, and quality in peach cv. ‘Earli Grande.’ Covering soil with blackpolythene mulch (100mm) resulted in 100% control of weeds at six weeks after treatment(WAT) during both the years of study. However, guinea grass, which had emerged out ofthe black polythene mulch, reduced the weed control efficiencies (WCE) to 96.3 and98.5% in 2009 and 2010, respectively, at 12 WAT. Application of straw mulch (8 cm,15.5 t ha21) resulted in higher weed control efficiencies at 6 WAT during 2009 and 2010(98.4 and 98.2%, respectively). At 12 WAT, this decreased to 90.7 and 93.1% in 2009and 2010, respectively, due to the emergence of bermuda grass and guinea grass from themulch. The weed control efficiencies with treatments having diuron as pre-emergenceherbicide did not differ significantly from black polythene at 6 WAT. Atrazine andpendimethalin were the next most efficient and did not differ significantly from eachother. At 12 WAT, diuron followed by fb glyphosate resulted in higher WCE, and it didnot differ significantly from atrazine fb glyphosate. In both years, highest fruit yield (69.3and 67.9 kg tree21, respectively) was recorded with straw mulch (8 cm). Straw mulch(8 cm) also resulted in a 20 and 19% increase in fruit weight (81.9 and 81.4 g during 2009and 2010, respectively) over manual weeding. Straw mulch (8 cm) did not differsignificantly from straw mulch (6 cm), black polythene mulch, and diuron treatments forfruit yield during both years. Conclusively, plastic and straw mulches can be used as aneffective chemical-free alternative to manual or chemical weed control in peach.
Keywords: herbicides; mulching; peach; weed control efficiency; yield; SSC
Introduction
Peach [Prunus persica (L.) Batsch] is an important fruit crop cultivated on 1.54 million ha
with an annual production of 20.27 million tonnes in the world (FAOSTAT 2010). Weed
infestation is a big challenge to peach culture in the subtropics. Weed interference has been
reported to affect tree growth, yield, and fruit quality in peach (Majek et al. 1993; Parker and
Meyer 1996). However, the magnitude of the effect on fruit yield and size depends on the
weed species (Tworkoski and Glenn 2001). With peach variety Contender, MacRae et al.
(2007) obtained highest fruit size and yield with a 12-week weed-free period after full bloom
compared with shorter periods. Further, MacRae et al. (2007) postulated that for most peach
cultivars, maintaining a weed-free condition through stage I, stage II (pit hardening), and
into the start of final swell (stage III) would result in highest fruit yield, number, and size.
The majority of the low-chill stone fruits, including peach, have poor sugar levels with
soluble solids concentration (SSC) of 9–108 Brix due to the short fruit developmental
ISSN 0144-8765 print/ISSN 2165-0616 online
q 2012 Taylor & Francis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01448765.2012.745687
http://www.tandfonline.com
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Biological Agriculture & Horticulture
Vol. 28, No. 4, December 2012, 280–290
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uth
Flor
ida]
at 1
2:32
21
Oct
ober
201
4
period (George et al. 2005). In peach, high ripe soluble solids content is the most important
factor for consumer acceptance, regardless of ripe acidity (Crisosto et al. 2003). A minimum
of 10% SSC for yellow-fleshed peaches in California (Kader 1995) and for low acid peaches
in France (Hilaire 2003) has been proposed as a quality standard. Apart from the genetics of
the variety, cultural practices also have a great influence on the peach fruit quality (Byrne
2002; Nissen et al. 2005).
Cultivation or herbicides are most commonly used for the management of weeds in
peach orchards. Weed control by cultivation with discs and cultivators is temporary
and not cost effective. Further, cultivation with discs and cultivators cannot manage the
weeds under the trees in between the tree rows; hence, manual weeding is performed
or herbicides are used. High labour costs in developed nations make manual weeding
uneconomic. Conventional agricultural practices rely on synthetic herbicides for
managing weeds, and these compounds account for more than half of the volume of all
agricultural pesticides applied in the developed world (Dayan et al. 2011). The increased
pressure to reduce herbicide applications and new interests in organic farming underline
the importance of alternative approaches for orchard weed suppression (Goh et al. 2001).
Further, repeated use of the same combination of herbicides can result in a shift in weed
population and development of resistance. Rotation of herbicides with a different mode of
action avoids the problem of weed resistance and improves weed control.
In recent years, with the spread of organic and environmentally responsible farming
systems, non-chemical weed control methods are becoming more popular. Of all non-
chemical methods of weed control, mulching is very effective and has the other benefits
of conservation of soil moisture, increased soil organic matter, and improvement of soil
structure and nutrient status (Downer 2009). Plastic mulches reduce weed growth and
improve yield and quality of crops (Liu et al. 2011). Organic waste material such as
cereal straw, weeds, aquatic weeds, manure, compost, bark, and composted municipal
waste have effectively been used as mulch material to control weeds. Organic mulching
can only be feasible if locally or on-site available material is used as mulch, considering
the transportation costs of bulky organic material (Ames et al. 2004). Abouziena et al.
(2008) observed improvement in mandarin yield following the use of black polythene,
grass, and straw mulch. Similarly, higher yields have been reported in apple with various
organic mulches (Neilsen et al. 2003). While studying the effect of different weed
control methods in Delicious apple, Joolka et al. (2008) obtained largest fruit size,
highest SSC, and lowest acidity with black polythene mulch which was closely followed
by atrazine (4 kg ha21) along with grass mulch, the next best was obtained in those
categories. Mohanty et al. (2002) reported no significant effect of mulching on SSC of
mandarin fruits, but minimum acidity was recorded with black polythene and highest
with the unweeded treatment.
Wheat and rice are the major staples of the world. India is also dominated by wheat-rice
cultivation; hence, wheat or rice straw is easily available. Therefore, it was hypothesised that
herbicides and mulching will reduce the weed population and affect fruit yield and quality of
peach. The present investigations were initiated to compare the effect of herbicides, straw,
and synthetic mulches on weed control efficiency, yield, and quality of peach.
Materials and methods
The experiment was conducted on 12-year-old uniform plants of peach [Prunus persica (L.)
Batsch] cultivar Earli Grande grafted on peach rootstock Sharbati planted at a spacing of
6 £ 6 m on sandy loam soil in the Peach Orchard of Punjab Agricultural University,
Mulching and herbicides with peach 281
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uth
Flor
ida]
at 1
2:32
21
Oct
ober
201
4
Ludhiana (Lat 308 910 N, Long 758 800 E), India, during 2009 and 2010. Uniform
fertilization, irrigation, pruning, and thinning practices were given to all the trees as per the
recommendation of Punjab Agricultural University. There were 10 weed management
treatments including three pre-emergence (pendimethalin, atrazine, and diuron) and two
post-emergence (glyphosate and paraquat) herbicides. The herbicide treatments were
pendimethalin 0.75 kg a.i. ha21 followed by fb glyphosate (1.5 kg a.i. ha21), pendimethalin
0.75 kg a.i. ha21 fb paraquat (0.75 kg a.i. ha21), atrazine (1.0 kg a.i. ha21) fb glyphosate
(1.5 kg a.i. ha21), atrazine (1.0 kg a a.i. ha21) fb paraquat (0.75 kg a.i. ha21), black
polythene mulch (100mm), white polythene mulch (100mm), rice straw 6 cm thick
(10.5 t ha21), rice straw 8 cm thick (15.5 t ha21), diuron 4.0 kg a.i. ha21 fb glyphosate
(1.5 kg a.i. ha21), diuron 4.0 kg a.i. ha21 fb paraquat (1.0 kg a.i. ha21), weedy control, and
cultivation at three-week intervals. The mulches and the pre-emergence herbicides
were applied to the plots at fruit set at the end of February. After six weeks, the pre-
emergence herbicide-treated plots were sprayed with the post-emergence herbicides as
per the treatments.
There were three replicates per treatment, and two trees planted at 6 £ 6 m covering an
area of 72 m2 formed one replication. Weed dry matter was sampled from three 0.5m2
quadrats in each plot 6 and 12 weeks after initiation of experiment, that is, application of
pre-emergence herbicides and mulches. The weed control efficiency was calculated by
using the following formula:
Dry matter of weeds in control 2 Dry matter of weeds in treatment
Dry matter of weed in control£ 100
Guinea grass (Urochloa maxima (Jacq.) R. Webster, bermuda grass (Cyanodon
dactylon (L.) Pers.], purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus L.), goose grass [Eleusine indica
(L) Gaertn.], benghal dayflower (Commelina benghalensis L.), common lambsquarters
(Chenopodium album L.), and parthenium (Parthenium hysterophorus L.) were the
important weeds at the experimental site in the peach orchard during the investigations.
All weed samples were dried in an oven at 808C for 48 h at 6 and 12 weeks after treatment
(WAT) for dry matter determination, and the data regarding the weed biomass was
recorded. The gravimetric soil water content at 15–20 cm depth was determined before
applying irrigation, which was scheduled as per the soil water content in the manual
weeding treatment. The data were averaged and expressed as the percentage of soil water
content. At harvest (8 WAT), a sample of 50 fruits was harvested from each replicate and
fruits were analysed for the physico-chemical characteristics. The data were analysed
with the statistical software MSTATC (Michigan State University, East Lansing, USA).
The analysis of variance (ANOVA) was done and the treatment means were compared by
the Duncan Multiple Range Test at a 5% level of significance.
Results and discussion
Black polythene mulch resulted in 100% weed control efficiency at six weeks after
treatment (WAT) during both years. The black polythene mulch and treatments having
diuron as a pre-emergence herbicide (T9 and T10) did not differ significantly for weed
control efficiency (WCE) in either year (Table 1). However, at 12 WAT, guinea grass
emerged out of the black polythene mulch and the weed control efficiencies were reduced
to 96.3 and 98.6% in 2009 and 2010, respectively. The high efficacy of black polythene
mulch may be due to non-penetration of photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) as
282 A. Thakur et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uth
Flor
ida]
at 1
2:32
21
Oct
ober
201
4
explained by Mohanty et al. (2002). Also, no significant difference was recorded between
black polythene mulch and straw mulch (8 cm) for WCE at 6 WAT in year 2009. Although
straw mulch (8 cm) resulted in high weed control efficiency at 6 WAT (98.4 and 98.2%),
this decreased to 90.7 and 93.1% at 12 WAT in 2009 and 2010, respectively, due to the
emergence of bermuda grass and guinea grass from the mulch (Table 3 and 4). White
polythene mulch and straw mulch (6 cm) also resulted in high WCE (.90%) at 6 WAT,
but the WCE was lower at 12 WAT due to the emergence of guinea grass, bermuda grass,
and goose grass in 2009, and guinea grass, bermuda grass, and benghal dayflower in 2010
(Table 2 and 3). The higher efficacy of 8 cm over 6 cm thick straw mulch in controlling
weeds may be due to a lesser penetration of PAR for a longer time due to a higher
thickness of mulch. Thakur et al. (2012) and Mohanty et al. (2002) earlier reported that
sufficient depths of organic mulches are effective in controlling weeds. Abouziena et al.
(2008) found that covering the soil with two or three layers of cattail mulch and straw (6 to
12 cm) was more effective in controlling weeds than a single layer of straw mulch (3 cm).
It was observed that that after three to four weeks, the organic mulches started to
decompose close to the soil. This might have made the lesser depth of straw mulch less
effective than the higher depth in controlling weeds. Therefore, area-specific depth of
organic mulch should be standardized, considering the organic material, climate, and
cultural practices. White polythene mulch was also less effective as the weeds grew under
it due to penetration of PAR.
Among the herbicides, diuron fb glyphosate with the highest WCE (98.3%) did not
differ significantly from atrazine fb glyphosate at 12 WAT in year 2009. This was
followed by pendimethalin fb glyphosate (96.0%), which did not differ significantly from
pendimethalin fb paraquat or atrazine fb paraquat. Glyphosate appeared to be a better post-
emergence herbicide than paraquat in terms of better WCE when used after diuron (T9 and
T10) and atrazine (T3 and T4). However, there was no significant difference between the
two post-emergence herbicides when used after pendimethalin. Diuron fb glyphosate
and atrazine fb glyphosate resulted in 100% WCE at 12 WAT in 2010, and it did not
Table 1. Effect of mulching and herbicides on weed control efficiency in peach.
Weed control efficiency (%)
6 WAT 12 WAT
Treatment 2009 2010 2009 2010
T1 Pendimethalin fb glyphosate 92.7 c 89.2 e 96.0 b 97.9 aT2 Pendimethalin fb paraquat 93.6 c 89.5 de 95.4 b 94.7 aT3 Atrazine fb glyphosate 94.1 cb 89.7 de 97.6 a 100.0 aT4 Atrazine fb paraquat 93.4 c 90.8 cd 95.0 b 97.3 aT5 Black polythene 100.0 a 100.0 a 96.3 b 98.6 aT6 White polythene 95.6 b 92.00 c 83.8 e 78.4 aT7 Rice straw (6 cm) 96.1 b 91.1 c 65.2 g 77.6 aT8 Rice straw (8 cm) 98.4 a 98.2 b 90.7 d 93.1 aT9 Diuron fb glyphosate 98.8 a 99.0 ab 98.4 a 100.0 aT10 Diuron fb paraquat 98.5 a 98.9 ab 91.8 c 96.5 aT11 Weedy control 0.0 e 0.0 g 0.0 h 0.0 bT12 Manual weeding 84.4 d 83.8 f 80.2 f 83.3 a
Note: Means within a column followed by the same letter do not differ significantly (p # 0.05).
Mulching and herbicides with peach 283
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uth
Flor
ida]
at 1
2:32
21
Oct
ober
201
4
Tab
le2
.E
ffec
to
fm
ulc
hin
gan
dh
erb
icid
eso
nw
eed
bio
mas
sat
6W
AT
inp
each
.
Tre
atm
ent
Wee
db
iom
ass
(gm
22)
Gra
sses
Bro
adle
afw
eed
s
Ber
mu
da
gra
ssG
oo
seg
rass
Nu
tsed
ge
Gu
inea
gra
ssB
eng
hal
day
flo
wer
Par
then
ium
Co
mm
on
lam
bsq
uar
ters
20
09
20
10
20
09
20
10
20
09
20
10
20
09
20
10
20
09
20
10
20
09
20
10
20
09
20
10
T1
Pen
dim
eth
alin
fbg
lyp
ho
sate
2.9
d6
.2d
0.0
c0
.00
.0c
0.0
c2
1.9
c1
1.6
d1
4.6
b1
9.9
b0
.0b
0.0
b0
.0b
0.0
b
T2
Pen
dim
eth
alin
fbp
araq
uat
3.9
d5
.9d
0.0
c0
.00
.0c
0.0
c1
8.8
cd1
8.4
c1
1.7
c1
2.3
c0
.0b
0.0
b0
.0b
0.0
b
T3
Atr
azin
efb
gly
ph
osa
te1
2.7
c1
8.2
b0
.0c
0.0
0.0
c0
.0c
9.0
ef9
.4d
e9
.2d
8.2
cde
0.0
c0
.0b
0.0
b0
.0b
T4
Atr
azin
efb
par
aqu
at1
4.1
bc
20
.7b
0.0
c0
.00
.0c
0.0
c7
.6f
0.0
f1
2.8
c1
1.3
cd0
.0c
0.0
b0
.0b
0.0
bT
5B
lack
po
lyth
ene
0.0
d0
.0e
0.0
c0
.00
.0c
0.0
c0
.0g
0.0
f0
.0f
0.0
g0
.0b
0.0
b0
.0b
0.0
bT
6W
hit
ep
oly
then
e1
0.7
c9
.4cd
0.0
c0
.00
.0c
0.0
c1
3.2
de
18
.6c
0.0
f0
.0g
0.0
b0
.0b
0.0
b0
.0b
T7
Ric
est
raw
(6cm
)1
6.1
bc
11
.5c
2.2
bc
0.0
0.0
c0
.0c
2.5
fg1
1.6
d0
.0f
7.6
def
0.0
b0
.0b
0.0
b0
.0b
T8
Ric
est
raw
(8cm
)0
.0d
0.0
e0
.0c
0.0
0.0
c0
.0c
8.4
ef6
.3e
0.0
f0
.0g
0.0
b0
.0b
0.0
b0
.0b
T9
Diu
ron
fbg
lyp
ho
sate
0.0
d0
.0e
0.0
c0
.00
.0c
0.0
c0
.0g
0.0
f6
.3e
3.5
fg0
.0b
0.0
b0
.0b
0.0
bT
10
Diu
ron
fbp
araq
uat
0.0
d0
.0e
0.0
c0
.00
.0c
0.0
c0
.0g
0.0
f9
.4d
3.9
efg
0.0
b0
.0b
0.0
b0
.0b
T1
1W
eed
yco
ntr
ol
10
7.1
a9
9.0
a2
4.6
a0
.01
03
.6a
64
.3a
14
2.4
a8
5.1
a7
0.7
a4
6.8
a7
7.3
a3
6.1
a1
2.2
a1
7.5
aT
12
Man
ual
wee
din
g1
9.0
b2
2.0
b4
.8b
0.0
20
.37
b8
.0b
39
.6b
26
.6b
0.0
f0
.0g
0.0
b0
.0b
0.0
b0
.0b
No
te:
Mea
ns
wit
hin
aco
lum
nfo
llo
wed
by
the
sam
ele
tter
do
no
td
iffe
rsi
gn
ifica
ntl
y(p#
0.0
5).
284 A. Thakur et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uth
Flor
ida]
at 1
2:32
21
Oct
ober
201
4
Tab
le3
.E
ffec
to
fm
ulc
hin
gan
dh
erb
icid
eso
nw
eed
bio
mas
sat
12
WA
Tin
pea
ch.
Tre
atm
ent
Wee
db
iom
ass
(gm
22)
Gra
sses
Bro
adle
afw
eed
s
Ber
mu
da
gra
ssG
oo
seg
rass
Nu
tsed
ge
Gu
inea
gra
ssB
eng
hal
day
flo
wer
Par
then
ium
Co
mm
on
lam
bsq
uar
ters
20
09
20
10
20
09
20
10
20
09
20
10
20
09
20
10
20
09
20
10
20
09
20
10
20
09
20
10
T1
Pen
dim
eth
alin
fbg
lyp
ho
sate
0.7
f0
.0f
0.0
e0
.0c
0.0
e0
.0f
0.0
f0
.0g
20
.8b
19
.7d
0.0
b0
.0b
0.0
b0
.0b
T2
Pen
dim
eth
alin
fbp
araq
uat
1.4
f0
.0f
0.0
e0
.0c
0.0
e2
8.7
c0
.0f
0.0
g2
3.7
b2
0.1
d0
.0b
0.0
b0
.0b
0.0
b
T3
Atr
azin
efb
gly
ph
osa
te0
.0f
0.0
f0
.0e
0.0
c0
.0e
0.0
f0
.0f
0.0
g0
.0e
0.0
e0
.0b
0.0
b0
.0b
0.0
bT
4A
traz
ine
fbp
araq
uat
11
.6e
9.8
e0
.0e
0.0
c1
1.8
d1
5.0
e0
.0f
0.0
g0
.0e
0.0
e0
.0b
0.0
b0
.0b
0.0
bT
5B
lack
po
lyth
ene
0.0
e0
.0f
0.0
e0
.0c
0.0
e0
.0f
19
.5e
13
.5f
0.0
c0
.0e
0.0
b0
.0b
0.0
b0
.0b
T6
Wh
ite
po
lyth
ene
24
.3d
38
.9c
37
.5c
0.0
c0
.0e
0.0
f7
0.1
c9
8.1
c0
.0c
62
.5b
0.0
b0
.0b
0.0
b0
.0b
T7
Ric
est
raw
(6cm
)8
8.9
b5
8.1
b6
1.3
b0
.0c
0.0
e0
.0f
14
5.9
b1
06
.1b
0.0
c4
2.3
c0
.0b
0.0
b0
.0b
0.0
bT
8R
ice
stra
w(8
cm)
24
.4d
24
.9d
0.0
e0
.0c
0.0
e0
.0f
41
.6d
38
.6d
0.0
c0
.0e
0.0
b0
.0b
0.0
b0
.0b
T9
Diu
ron
fbg
lyp
ho
sate
0.0
e0
.0f
0.0
e0
.0c
0.0
e0
.0f
0.0
f0
.0g
0.0
c0
.0e
0.0
b0
.0b
0.0
b0
.0b
T1
0D
iuro
nfb
par
aqu
at3
2.3
d1
0.2
e0
.0e
0.0
c2
8.9
c2
2.3
d0
.0f
0.0
g0
.0c
0.0
e0
.0b
0.0
b0
.0b
0.0
bT
11
Wee
dy
con
tro
l1
15
.7a
19
4.4
a6
7.3
a8
6.0
a1
64
.7a
17
7.7
a1
85
.8a
17
9.0
a9
3.3
a9
8.5
a9
2.2
a8
8.2
a1
72
.5a
98
.8a
T1
2M
anu
alw
eed
ing
62
.2c
54
.0b
22
.9d
21
.4b
55
.0b
50
.6b
17
.1e
27
.9e
0.0
c0
.0e
0.0
b0
.0b
0.0
b0
.0b
No
te:
Mea
ns
wit
hin
aco
lum
nfo
llo
wed
by
the
sam
ele
tter
do
no
td
iffe
rsi
gn
ifica
ntl
y(p#
0.0
5).
Mulching and herbicides with peach 285
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uth
Flor
ida]
at 1
2:32
21
Oct
ober
201
4
differ significantly from all the herbicide treatments, black polythene mulch, and straw
mulch (8 cm).
The data presented in Tables 2 and 3 show that all the treatments significantly reduced
the weed biomass (g m22) of all the weed species during both years. Black polythene
mulch, straw mulch (8 cm), and diuron treatments (T9 and T10) resulted in complete
control of bermuda grass, goose grass, nutsedge, parthenium, and common lambsquarters
at 6 WAT in both years (Table 2). Further, black polythene mulch and diuron (T9 and T10)
also resulted in complete management of guinea grass in both years, but with straw
mulch (8 cm), 8.4 g m22 and 6.3 g m22, guinea grass was observed in 2009 and 2010,
respectively, at 6 WAT. Non-penetration of PAR under the black polythene, as discussed
earlier, may be effective in the complete control of weeds at 6 WAT. Straw mulch (8 cm)
also resulted in excellent control of all the weeds except guinea grass, although, at a depth
of 6 cm, straw reduced the weed biomass of all the weeds but was not as effective as the
higher depth (8 cm) for some weeds, perhaps due to the higher penetration of PAR.
Pendimethalin (T1 and T2) and atrazine (T3 and T4) reduced the weed biomass of
bermuda grass compared with the weedy control at 6 WAT during both years but could not
eradicate the weed. Richard (1998) has demonstrated that atrazine (2240 g ai ha21) was
not at all effective while pendimethalin (2240 g ai ha21) was less effective in controlling
bermuda grass. Pendimethalin (T1 and T2) and diuron treatments (T9 and T10) also failed
to completely control benghal day flower, which was completely controlled by black
polythene mulch and straw mulch (8 cm) at 6 WAT. Webster et al. (2006) also reported the
poor efficacy of diuron against tropical spiderwort (benghal dayflower). They found that
diuron at 1.68 kg ha21 provided marginal control (73%) of tropical spiderwort at 6 WAT and
the weed control percentage reduced further (36%) at lower diuron rates (1.12 kg ha21).
Atrazine (T3 and T4) also showed poor control of benghal dayflower at 6 WAT.
At concentrations lower than 3.0 kg a.i. ha21, Chikoye et al. (2005) found poor control of
guinea grass and benghal dayflower with Primextraw goldTM (atrazine þ S-metolachlor,
1.28:1). The dry weight of guinea grass per square meter was reduced by all the treatments
at 6 WAT, yet black polythene and diuron treatments (T9 and T10) resulted in complete
control.
At 12 WAT, pedimethalin fb glyphosate, pedimethalin fb paraquat, atrazine fb
glyphosate, black polythene, and diuron fb glyphosate resulted in excellent control of
bermuda grass in both years (Table 3). Straw mulch (6 cm) was less effective in managing
bermuda grass at 12 WAT, whereas straw mulch (8 cm) reduced the dry matter of bermuda
grass to 24.4 and 24.9 g m22 in 2009 and 2010, respectively. All the treatments resulted in
complete control of goose grass at 12 WAT, except white polythene and straw mulch
(6 cm), in which 37.5 and 61.3 g m22 dry weight of goose grass was observed, compared
with 22.9 g m22 with manual weeding. Greater penetration of PAR through white
polythene may be responsible for its poor weed control efficacy compared with other
mulches. All the treatments controlled purple nutsedge very well until 12 WAT in year
2009. During 2010, only mulches, both plastic and straw, and herbicide treatments having
glyphosate as post-emergence treatment, could control purple nutsedge completely until
12 WAT. Guinea grass emerged out of all the mulches at 12 WAT. Although the straw and
white plastic mulches reduced the dry weight of guinea grass at 12 WAT compared with
the weedy control, they were less effective than manual weeding in which guinea
weed biomass of 17.1 and 27.9 g m22 was recorded in 2009 and 2010, respectively. Guinea
grass also penetrated out of the black polythene mulch with a weed biomass of 19.5 and
13.5 g m22 in 2009 and 2010, respectively, but the results were better than manual
weeding. Abouziena et al. (2008) observed that torpedo grass (Panicum repens L.)
286 A. Thakur et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uth
Flor
ida]
at 1
2:32
21
Oct
ober
201
4
emerged out of organic and black polythene (100mm) mulches over a period of time.
Pedimethalin fb glyphosate or paraquat treatments (T1 and T2) significantly reduced
the biomass of benghal day flower, compared with the weedy control at 12 WAT, but they
were less effective than manual weeding. Poor control of benghal day flower with
glyphosate compared with manual weeding at 12 WAT, that is, 6 WAT after glyphosate,
may be attributed to newly emerged plants. Singh and Singh (2003) earlier reported the
variation in the efficacy of glyphosate. In 2010, 62.5 and 42.3 g m22 dry weight of benghal
day flower was observed with white polythene and straw mulch (6 cm), respectively,
at 12 WAT, whereas the rest of the treatments, apart from pendimethalin, completely
controlled it. All the herbicide and mulching treatments completely controlled parthenium
and common lambsquarters at 6 and 12 WAT.
The data presented in Table 4 show that in both years, high fruit yield (69.3 and
67.9 kg tree21 in 2009 and 2010, respectively) was recorded with straw mulch (8 cm), and
this did not differ significantly from the other mulching treatments. The high yields with
mulching treatments may be due to an increase in fruit weight following mulching (Table
4). Reduction in soil moisture loss with mulching (Figure 1), as reported by Szewczuk and
Gudarowska (2004) and Zhang et al. (2010), may be responsible for improvement in fruit
weight, size, and yield. Joolka et al. (2008) also found higher crop yield with grass mulch,
whereas black polythene mulch produced larger fruits. In the present study, straw mulch
(8 cm) resulted in a 20 and 19% increase in fruit weight (81.9 g and 81.4 g during 2009 and
2010, respectively) over manual weeding. The fruit weight in straw mulch (8 cm) did not
differ significantly from straw mulch (6 cm), black polythene mulch and both diuron
treatments (T9 and T10) during both years. In 2010, the fruit weight (78.6 g) with straw
mulches (6 cm) closely followed it. Straw mulch (8 cm) also resulted in high fruit
length (6.2 cm and 6.00 cm in 2009 and 2010, respectively) and fruit diameter (5.2 cm).
The improvement in fruit size in peach might be due to more availability of water and
nutrients and higher cell division, as explained by MacRae et al. (2007). The effect of
mulches in increasing soil moisture (Figure 1) by reducing evaporative loss and reduction
of weed growth, as explained by Faber et al. (2001), may have a role in the improvement of
fruit size and weight. Straw mulch (8 cm) led to an 8% increase in SSC content over
manual weeding in both years. All the mulching treatments significantly improved SSC
levels in the fruits and they were at par with each other. The diuron treatments (T9 and
T10) did not differ significantly from mulching for SSC in 2009, but all the mulching
treatments resulted in higher SSC than did the herbicide treatments, except diuron fb
glyphosate in year 2010. Reduction in the loss of soil moisture (Figure 1) might also be
responsible for higher SSC content with mulching treatments. Reduction in the maximum
soil temperature with organic mulches during summer, as found by Zhang et al. (2010),
may also be responsible for the favourable effects of straw mulch on fruit yield, size, and
SSC content. The weed control treatments did not affect fruit acidity significantly.
The lack of significant difference among the mulching and some herbicide treatments
for fruit yield, size, and SSC content may be due to efficient weed management, with
variable rates, from these treatments, compared with the weedy control and manual
weeding during the critical period, that is, until the start of the final swell, stage III at
6 WAT, as the fruit picking was started at 8 WAT. MacRae et al. (2007) have postulated
that in peach, highest fruit yield and size can be obtained by maintaining a weed-free
condition through the stage I, stage II (pit hardening), and into the final swell (stage III).
The mulching treatments managed the weeds until 6 WAT or near harvest; hence, no
significant difference was observed between these treatments for fruit yield, size, and SSC,
content although they improved it.
Mulching and herbicides with peach 287
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uth
Flor
ida]
at 1
2:32
21
Oct
ober
201
4
Tab
le4
.E
ffec
to
fm
ulc
hin
gan
dh
erb
icid
eso
nfr
uit
yie
ldan
dq
ual
ity
inp
each
.
Fru
ity
ield
(kg
tree
21)
Fru
itw
eig
ht
(g)
Fru
itle
ng
th(c
m)
Fru
itd
iam
eter
(cm
)S
SC
(%)
Aci
dit
y(%
)
Tre
atm
ent
20
09
20
10
20
09
20
10
20
09
20
10
20
09
20
10
20
09
20
10
20
09
20
10
T1
Pen
dim
eth
alin
fbg
lyp
ho
sate
62
.2b
c5
9.1
bc
75
.0b
73
.0cd
5.9
ab5
.9ab
4.8
bcd
4.8
c1
0.8
bcd
10
.6c
0.7
a0
.7a
T2
Pen
dim
eth
alin
fbp
araq
uat
61
.0b
c5
8.7
bc
74
.3b
72
.1d
e5
.9ab
5.8
ab4
.8b
cd4
.8c
10
.7b
cd1
0.5
c0
.7a
0.7
aT
3A
traz
ine
fbg
lyp
ho
sate
62
.3b
c5
9.4
abc
76
.4ab
74
.8cd
5.9
ab5
.8ab
c4
.9b
c4
.8c
11
.0ab
c1
0.7
c0
.7a
0.7
aT
4A
traz
ine
fbp
araq
uat
62
.9b
c5
9.7
abc
75
.7b
69
.8f
5.9
ab5
.8ab
c4
.8b
c4
.8c
10
.9ab
c1
0.7
c0
.7a
0.7
aT
5B
lack
po
lyth
ene
67
.4ab
62
.4ab
c7
8.1
ab7
5.5
c6
.0ab
5.9
a5
.0b
c4
.9b
c1
1.6
a1
1.5
a0
.7a
0.7
aT
6W
hit
ep
oly
then
e6
4.5
ab6
2.0
abc
74
.7b
73
.2cd
5.9
ab5
.8ab
c4
.9b
c4
.9b
c1
1.5
abc
11
.3ab
0.7
a0
.7a
T7
Ric
est
raw
(6cm
)6
6.1
ab6
5.6
ab8
0.2
ab7
8.6
b5
.9ab
5.9
ab5
.1ab
5.0
b1
1.7
a1
1.3
a0
.7a
0.7
aT
8R
ice
stra
w(8
cm)
69
.3a
67
.9a
81
.9a
81
.4a
6.2
a6
.0a
5.2
a5
.2a
11
.5ab
11
.5a
0.7
a0
.7a
T9
Diu
ron
fbg
lyp
ho
sate
63
.8b
c6
0.6
bc
76
.2ab
73
.7cd
5.9
ab5
.8ab
c4
.9b
c4
.9b
c1
1.0
abc
10
.8b
c0
.7a
0.7
aT
10
Diu
ron
fbp
araq
uat
62
.2b
c6
0.6
bc
76
.1ab
75
.7c
5.8
ab5
.7b
c4
.9b
c4
.9b
c1
1.0
abc
10
.7c
0.7
a0
.7a
T1
1W
eed
yco
ntr
ol
55
.8c
53
.7c
65
.2c
64
.7g
5.4
c5
.3d
4.6
d4
.6d
10
.4d
10
.3c
0.7
a0
.7a
T1
2M
anu
alw
eed
ing
59
.2b
c5
4.0
c6
7.9
c6
8.2
f5
.7b
c5
.7b
c4
.8cd
4.6
d1
0.8
bcd
10
.6c
0.7
a0
.7a
No
te:
SS
C¼
solu
ble
soli
ds
con
cen
trat
ion
.M
ean
sw
ith
ina
colu
mn
foll
ow
edb
yth
esa
me
lett
erd
on
ot
dif
fer
sig
nifi
can
tly
(p#
0.0
5).
288 A. Thakur et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uth
Flor
ida]
at 1
2:32
21
Oct
ober
201
4
In conclusion, black polythene and straw mulches resulted in high weed control
efficiencies along with good fruit size, yield, and quality. Hence, plastic and straw mulches
can be used as an effective chemical-free alternative to manual or herbicidal weed control
in peach.
References
Abouziena HF, Hafez OM, El-Metwally IM, Sharma SD, Singh M. 2008. Comparison of weedsuppression and mandarin fruit yield and quality obtained with organic mulches, syntheticmulches, cultivation, and glyphosate. HortSci. 43:795–799.
Ames GK, Kuepper G, Baier A. 2004. Tree fruits: Organic production overview. Horticulture systemsguide [Internet]. [cited 2012 May 12]. Available from: http://www.attra.org/attra-pub/fruitover.html
Byrne DH. 2002. Peach breeding trends: A worldwide perspective. Acta Hortic. 592:49–59.Chikoye D, Udensi UE, Lum AF. 2005. Evaluation of a new formulation of atrazine and metolachlor
mixture for weed control in maize in Nigeria. Crop Protect. 24:1016–1020.Crisosto CH, Crisosto G, Bowerman E. 2003. Understanding consumer acceptance of peach,
nectarine and plum cultivars. Acta Hortic. 604:115–119.Dayan FE, Howell J, Marais JP, Ferreira D, Koivunen M. 2011. Manuka oil, a natural herbicide with
preemergence activity. Weed Sci. 59:464–469.Downer J. 2009. Mulch effects on trees. In: Biotechnology in California Agriculture. California
Plant and Soil Conference; 2009 Feb 4; Fresno (California): California Chapter of the AmericanSociety of Agronomy. p. 31–33.
Faber BA, Downer AJ, Menge JA. 2001. Differential effects of mulch on citrus and avocado. ActaHort. 557:303–308.
FAOSTAT. 2010. Statistical database of the food and agricultural organization of the United Nations[Internet]. [cited 2012 May 12]. Available from: http://www.faostat.fao.org
George AP, Nissen RJ, Topp B, Bruun D. 2005. Producing super-sweet peaches and nectarines undersub-tropical climates. In: George AP, Boonprakob U, editors. Production technologies for low-chill temperate fruits. ACIAR Technical Reports No. 61. Canberra (Australia): AustralianCentre of International Agricultural Research. p. 13–17.
Goh KM, Pearson DR, Daly MJ. 2001. Effects of apple orchard production systems on some importantsoil physical, chemical and biological quality parameters. Biol. Agric. Hortic. 18:269–292.
Hilaire C. 2003. The peach industry in France: State of art, research and development. In: Marra F,Sottile F, editors. Proceedings of the First Mediterranean Peach Symposium. 2003 Sep 10;Agrigento (Italy): University of Palermo. p. 27–34.
Figure 1. Effect of mulching and herbicides on soil moisture content (%). The vertical barsrepresent Standard Error (SE); Least significant difference (LSD).
Mulching and herbicides with peach 289
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uth
Flor
ida]
at 1
2:32
21
Oct
ober
201
4
Joolka NK, Chand R, Sharma S. 2008. Impact of water conservation techniques and herbicidaltreatments on yield and quality of Delicious apple under water stress conditions. Indian J Hortic.65:12–15.
Kader AA. 1995. Fruit maturity, ripening and quality relationships. Perishables HandlingNewsletter. 80:2.
Liu CA, Liu Y, Yi G, Liao M, Wu Y, Wei F, Zhu S. 2011. Effects of film mulching on aromacomponents of pineapple fruits. J Agric Sci. 3:196–201.
MacRae AW, Mitchem WE, Monks DW, Parker ML, Galloway RK. 2007. Tree growth, fruit size,and yield response of mature peach to weed-free intervals. Weed Technol. 21:102–105.
Majek BA, Neary PE, Polk DF. 1993. Smooth pigweed interference in newly planted peach trees.J Product Agric. 6:244–246.
Mohanty S, Sonkar RK, Marathe RA. 2002. Effect of mulching on Nagpur mandarin cultivation indrought prone region of Central India. Indian J Soil Conserv. 30:286–289.
Neilsen GH, Hogue EJ, Forge T, Neilsen D. 2003. Mulches and biosolids affect vigor, yield and leafnutrition of fertigated high density apple. HortSci. 38:41–45.
Nissen RJ, George AP, Lloyd A, Waite G. 2005. Innovative fruit production systems for peach andnectarine in Australia and Southeast Asia. Producing super-sweet peaches and nectarines undersub-tropical climates. Production technologies for low-chill temperate fruits. In: George AP,Boonprakob U, editors. Production technologies for low-chill temperate fruits. ACIARTechnical Reports No. 61. Canberra (Australian Capital Territory): Australian Centre ofInternational Agricultural Research. p. 23–32.
Parker ML, Meyer JR. 1996. Peach tree vegetative and root growth respond to orchard floormanagement. HortSci. 31:330–333.
Richard EP Jr. 1998. Control of perennated bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon) and Johnson grass(Sorghum halepense) in sugarcane (Saccharum spp. hybrids). Weed Technol. 12:128–133.
Singh M, Singh S. 2003. Response of some important citrus weeds to two formulations of glyphosateapplied at the three growth stages. In: McKim F, editor. Proceedings of the Brighton CropProtection Conference International Congress—Crop Science and Technology. 2003 Nov 12;Alton (Hampshire): British Crop Production Council, Publications. p. 1053–1058.
Szewczuk A, Gudarowska E. 2006. Performance of young peach trees planted in ridges and mulchedin tree rows. J Fruit Ornam Plant Res. 14:135–141.
Thakur A, Navjot, Dalal RPS. Forthcoming 2012. Effect of mulching, herbicides and hand hoeing onseedling growth and weed population in Indian jujube (Zizyphus mauritiana L.) nursery. IndianJ Weed Sci. 44.
Tworkoski TJ, Glenn DM. 2001. Yield, shoot and root growth, and physiological responses ofmature peach trees to grass competition. HortSci. 36:1214–1218.
Webster TM, Burton MG, Culpepper AS, Flanders JT, Grey TL, York AC. 2006. Tropicalspiderwort (Commelina benghalensis L.) control and emergence patterns in preemergenceherbicide systems. J Cotton Sci. 10:68–75.
Zhang Y, Xie YS, Hao M, She XY. 2010. Effects of different patterns surface mulching on soilproperties and fruit trees growth and yield in an apple orchard. Yingyong Shengtai Xuebao.21:279–286.
290 A. Thakur et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uth
Flor
ida]
at 1
2:32
21
Oct
ober
201
4