Abstract
Field experiments were conducted in 2000 and 2001 in Meridian, Calif. to evaluate the effects of cover crop mixtures and reduced tillage on yield, soil nitrogen (N), weed growth, and soil moisture content in organic processing tomato ( Lycopersicum esculentum ) production. The trial was set up as a randomized complete-block design with eight treatments consisting of a 2 × 3 (cover crop × tillage) factorial design, a fallow control (F) and a single strip-till (ST) treatment. Cover crop mixtures were either legumes (L), common vetch ( Vicia sativa ), field pea ( Pisum sativum ) and bell bean ( Vicia faba ), or those legumes with grasses (GL), annual ryegrass/triticale ( Lolium multiflorum /x Triticosecale ) in 2000; cereal rye ( Secale cereale )/triticale in 2001. Tillage treatments included an incorporation of the cover crop at planting (IP), a delayed incorporation (DI) (17 to 19 days after planting), and no-till (NT). Due to regrowth of the annual ryegrass in 2000, tomato fruit yields in 2000 were reduced by 50% to 97% within all GL treatments. However, regrowth of the cover crop was not a problem in 2001 and yields were not different among treatments. Total percent weed cover was 1.6 to 12.5 times higher in NT than IP treatments in 2000 and 2.4 to 7.4 times higher in 2001 as weed pressure was mainly affected by tillage practices and less by cover crop type. In 2000, available soil N was 1.7 to 9.4 times higher in L than GL treatments and was significantly influenced by tillage, but there were no treatment effects in 2001 due to a 60% reduction in weed pressure and minimal or no cover crop regrowth. Soil moisture content did not differ between treatments in either year. These results demonstrate the importance of appropriate selection and termination of cover crops for their successful adoption in organic conservation tillage systems.
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 9
Claim · model-written summary
Grass-legume cover crop treatments reduced tomato yield by 50% to 97% in 2000 due to ryegrass regrowth.
- Taxon
- tomato
Solanum lycopersicume0 - Treatment
- GL treatmentse0
- Outcome
- tomato fruit yieldse0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 50% to 97%e0
- Qualifier
- regrowth of the annual ryegrass in 2000e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Due to regrowth of the annual ryegrass in 2000, tomato fruit yields in 2000 were reduced by 50% to 97% within all GL treatments.”
Claim · model-written summary
Tomato yields did not differ among treatments in 2001.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- treatmentse0
- Outcome
- yieldse0
- Direction
- not differente0
- Qualifier
- 2001e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“However, regrowth of the cover crop was not a problem in 2001 and yields were not different among treatments.”
t0“Tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
Weed cover was 1.6 to 12.5 times higher under no-till than incorporation in 2000.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- NTe0
- Outcome
- Total percent weed covere0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 1.6 to 12.5 timese0
- Qualifier
- 2000e0
- Comparator
- IP treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Total percent weed cover was 1.6 to 12.5 times higher in NT than IP treatments in 2000 and 2.4 to 7.4 times higher in 2001”
t0“Tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
Weed cover was 2.4 to 7.4 times higher under no-till than incorporation in 2001.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- NTe0
- Outcome
- Total percent weed covere0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 2.4 to 7.4 timese0
- Qualifier
- 2001e0
- Comparator
- IP treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Total percent weed cover was 1.6 to 12.5 times higher in NT than IP treatments in 2000 and 2.4 to 7.4 times higher in 2001”
t0“Tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
Available soil N was 1.7 to 9.4 times higher under legume than grass-legume treatments in 2000.
- Treatment
- Le0
- Outcome
- available soil Ne0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 1.7 to 9.4 timese0
- Comparator
- GL treatmentse0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“In 2000, available soil N was 1.7 to 9.4 times higher in L than GL treatments and was significantly influenced by tillage”
Claim · model-written summary
Tillage significantly influenced available soil N in 2000.
Not reportedTaxonComparatorDirection
Verbatim
e0“In 2000, available soil N was 1.7 to 9.4 times higher in L than GL treatments and was significantly influenced by tillage”
Claim · model-written summary
Treatments did not affect available soil N in 2001.
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“there were no treatment effects in 2001 due to a 60% reduction in weed pressure and minimal or no cover crop regrowth.”
e1“available soil N was 1.7 to 9.4 times higher in L than GL treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil moisture did not differ among treatments in either year.
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“Soil moisture content did not differ between treatments in either year.”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend appropriate cover crop selection and termination for organic conservation tillage.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Outcome
- appropriate selection and termination of cover cropse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“These results demonstrate the importance of appropriate selection and termination of cover crops for their successful adoption in organic conservation tillage systems.”
t0“Tomato”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · weed · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
7 papers more in this group
See all 11 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.