Paper · 2016 · HortTechnology

The Potential of Strip Tillage and Rowcovers for Organic Cucurbit Production

Jason M. Lilley; Elsa S. Sánchez

5
claims
12
verbatim quotes
10
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

Plasticulture systems, the use of polyethylene mulch on raised beds with drip irrigation, are commonly used for the production of many cucurbit (Cucurbitaceae) crops. Although the use of plasticulture systems has many benefits, disadvantages include plastic disposal issues and costs and the intensive tillage required for installation. Strip tillage systems have been shown to decrease soil erosion, increase soil moisture retention, and increase soil microbial communities. Spunbonded polyethylene rowcover use has been shown to decrease early season striped cucumber beetle ( Acalymma vittatum ) and spotted cucumber beetle ( Diabrotica undecimpunctata ) populations and the incidence of bacterial wilt ( Erwinia tracheiphila ) while increasing yields. Plasticulture and strip tillage systems were compared with and without rowcovers at The Pennsylvania State University’s Russell E. Larson Research and Education Center in Rock Springs, PA. Two separate organically managed experiments were conducted, one being on ‘Lioness’ summer squash (SS; Cucurbita pepo ), the other on ‘Athena’ muskmelon (MM; Cucumis melo ). Both two-season experiments occurred during the 2013 and 2014 growing seasons. Yields, soil nitrate levels, soil and air temperatures, striped cucumber beetle populations, and incidence of bacterial wilt were measured. Plants grown in the strip tillage system generally had lower yields than in the plasticulture system in both years. Yield reductions observed in the strip tillage system in both years of the muskmelon experiment and in the first year of the summer squash experiment were beyond acceptable levels. The need for specialized tillage equipment, delayed planting, and high weed pressure were all obstacles to the successful use of strip tillage in these experiments. Rowcovers resulted in larger plants; however, yields were comparable to not using rowcovers within the strip tillage and plasticulture systems. There was low incidence of bacterial wilt in both years of the experiments despite observed striped cucumber beetle populations above the set threshold throughout all experiments.

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 5

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Strip tillage generally lowered muskmelon yields relative to plasticulture in both years.

Taxon
muskmelonCucumis meloe2
Treatment
strip tillage systeme0
Outcome
yieldse0
Direction
lowere0
Qualifier
both years of the muskmelon experimente1
Comparator
plasticulture systeme0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Cucumis melo
Cucumis melo · TaxonUSDA photo by Scott Bauer. Image Number K7355-11. · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Plants grown in the strip tillage system generally had lower yields than in the plasticulture system in both years.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1338–1453 · show in text ↑
e1

“both years of the muskmelon experiment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1511–1549 · show in text ↑
e2

“‘Athena’ muskmelon (MM; Cucumis melo )”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1079–1117 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Strip tillage lowered summer squash yield beyond acceptable levels in the first year.

Taxon
summer squashe2
Treatment
strip tillage systeme1
Outcome
Yield reductionse1
Direction
reductionse1
Qualifier
beyond acceptable levelse0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“in the first year of the summer squash experiment were beyond acceptable levels”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1554–1633 · show in text ↑
e1

“Yield reductions observed in the strip tillage system”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1454–1507 · show in text ↑
e2

“‘Lioness’ summer squash (SS; Cucurbita pepo )”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1019–1064 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Rowcovers produced larger plants.

Taxon
Cucurbitt0
Treatment
Rowcoverse0
Outcome
larger plantse0
Direction
largere0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“Rowcovers resulted in larger plants”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1800–1835 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cucurbit Production”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 57–76 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Rowcover and no-rowcover yields were comparable within both tillage systems.

Taxon
Cucurbitt0
Treatment
rowcoverse0
Outcome
yieldse0
Direction
comparablee0
Comparator
not using rowcoverse0

Verbatim

e0

“yields were comparable to not using rowcovers within the strip tillage and plasticulture systems”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1846–1942 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cucurbit Production”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 57–76 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Bacterial wilt incidence was low in both years despite striped cucumber beetle populations above threshold.

Taxon
Cucurbitt0
Interactor
bacterial wilte0pathogen
Outcome
low incidence of bacterial wilte0
Qualifier
striped cucumber beetle populations above the set thresholde0

Verbatim

e0

“There was low incidence of bacterial wilt in both years of the experiments despite observed striped cucumber beetle populations above the set threshold throughout all experiments.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1944–2123 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cucurbit Production”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 57–76 · show in text ↑

tillage · yield · Cucumis melo (muskmelon)Positive and negative results

6 papers: 3 positive, 3 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. positive
  3. positive

2 papers more in this group

See all 6 papers →

tillage · yield · Cucurbita (pumpkins)Positive and negative results

14 papers: 8 positive, 6 negative or no effect

5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 8 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. positive
  3. positive

10 papers more in this group

See all 14 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.