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: anirudhthakur@pau.edu

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