A Comparison of Four Processing Tomato Production Systems Differing in Cover Crop and Chemical Inputs

Abstract

<jats:p>Four tomato production systems were compared at Columbus and Fremont, Ohio: 1) a conventional system; 2) an integrated system [a fall-planted cover-crop mixture of hairy vetch (<jats:italic>Vicia villosa</jats:italic> Roth.), rye (<jats:italic>Secale cereale</jats:italic> L.), crimson clover (<jats:italic>Trifolium incarnatum</jats:italic> L.), and barley (<jats:italic>Hordeum vulgare</jats:italic> L.) killed before tomato planting and left as mulch, and reduced chemical inputs]; 3) an organic system (with cover-crop mixture and no synthetic chemical inputs); and (4) a no-input system (with cover-crop mixture and no additional management or inputs). Nitrogen in the cover-crop mixture above-ground biomass was 220 kg·ha<jats:sup>-1</jats:sup> in Columbus and 360 kg·ha<jats:sup>-1</jats:sup> in Fremont. Mulch systems (with cover-crop mixture on the bed surface) had higher soil moisture levels and reduced soil maximum temperatures relative to the conventional system. Overall, the cover-crop mulch suppressed weeds as well as herbicide plots, and no additional weed control was needed during the season. There were no differences in the frequency of scouted insect pests or diseases among the treatments. The number of tomato fruit and flower clusters for the conventional system was higher early in the season. In Fremont, the plants in the conventional system had accumulated more dry matter 5 weeks after transplanting. Yield of red fruit was similar for all systems at Columbus, but the conventional system yielded higher than the other three systems in Fremont. In Columbus, there were no differences in economic return above variable costs among systems. In Fremont, the conventional systems had the highest return above variable costs.</jats:p>

Physiological responses of processing tomato in organic and conventional Mediterranean cropping systems

“…Although there are several studies on the productivity and quality of horticultural crops in organic and conventional systems (Bettiol et al, 2004;Creamer et al, 1996;De Ponti et al, 2012;Herencia et al, 2011;Murphy et al, 2007;Pieper and Barrett, 2009;Seufert et al, 2012), to the authors knowledge there are only few papers published about physiological investigations of processing tomato in the organic management systems. Although representing a single environment, the experimental data were obtained in a panel of six modern cultivars, from 2 years of replicated field trials, in a specialized tomato-growing area of Mediterranean basin.…”

“…Dry matter production is an important parameter to compare crops in different cultivation systems or different treatments. Creamer et al (1996) reported that conventional systems produce more dry matter than organic systems. Moreover, Bettiol et al (2004), De Ponti et al (2012, Murphy et al (2007) and Seufert et al (2012) reported that organic crop yield is lower than conventional.…”

Advances and Trends in Organic Fruit and Vegetable Farming Research

“…For example, ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum) has a high C:N ratio, which may lead to N immobilization and consequently N competition with the fruit or vegetable crops. On the other hand, cover crops constitute a sustainable soil-building technique that reduces soil erosion, rebuilds soil texture and water retention, aids in loosening the soil, reduces the potential for NO 3 -N leaching losses and C losses, suppresses weeds, nematodes, and diseases (Wilson et al 1982;Peoples et al 1995;Creamer et al 1996;Ranells and Wagger 1997;Drinkwater et al 1998;Delate et al 2003;Jackson et al 2004;Brennan and Boyd 2012;Delate et al 2012;Brennan et al 2013). Indeed, the combination of rye (Secale cereale) and hairy vetch (Vicia villosa) in a no-tillage tomato system was found to provide the most weed suppression (Delate et al 2012).…”

“…As a compromise, it has also been shown that long-term strip tillage made a more hospitable environment for earthworm growth and reproduction in comparison with conventional full-width tillage (Overstreet et al 2010). From a productivity perspective, similar yields in no-tillage and tilled vegetable crops were reported when cover-crop regrowth did not occur and adequate irrigation was provided (Teasdale and Abdul-Baki 1995;Abdul-Baki et al 1996;Creamer et al 1996;Mills et al 2002;Madden et al 2004). For example, a no-tillage roller/crimper system using rye-hairy vetch or wheat-winter pea covers for an irrigated organic tomato crop was found to provide results for plant growth, number of fruits, and yield similar to those achieved in a tilled system (Delate et al 2012).…”

Biomass Production and Carbon/Nitrogen Ratio Influence Ecosystem Services from Cover Crop Mixtures

“…Cover crops are annual species grown for a short time period, while the natural systems in which the diversity productivity relationship has been studied include perennial species and consider productivity over several years (Tilman et al, 2006; Marquard et al, 2009). While cover crop bicultures (Ranells and Wagger, 1997; Lawson et al, 2013; Hayden et al, 2014; Alonso‐Ayuso et al, 2014) and higher order polycultures (Creamer et al, 1997, 2001; Teasdale and Abdul‐Baki, 1998; Madden et al, 2004) have been the subject of previous research, explicit tests for increased biomass production by mixtures (cover crop systems containing three or more species) relative to component monocultures are limited. The only examples of which we are aware (Wortman et al, 2012; Smith et al, 2014) concluded that spring‐sown cover crop mixtures are more productive than monocultures because they exhibited overyielding.…”