Weed Control in Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) Through Mulch Types in Kakamega County, Kenya
International Journal of Applied Agricultural Sciences
Volume 5, Issue 5, September 2019, Pages: 109-113
Received: Aug. 12, 2019; Accepted: Aug. 30, 2019; Published: Sep. 16, 2019
Views 80      Downloads 25
Authors
Anthony Simiyu Mabele, Department of Biological Sciences, School of Natural Sciences (SONAS), Masinde Muliro University of Science and Technology (MMUST), Kakamega, Kenya
Millicent Florence Owuor Ndong’a, Department of Biological Sciences, School of Natural Sciences (SONAS), Masinde Muliro University of Science and Technology (MMUST), Kakamega, Kenya
Article Tools
Follow on us
Abstract
Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) is the third most important vegetable crop after potato (Solanum tuberosum) and onion (Allium cepa). Its production heavily involves the use of synthetic pesticides with detrimental impact on humans, insect pollinators, water sources, soil fertility and environment. This study uses different mulch types to mitigate this problem. Mulching is an agricultural technique that protects the roots of plants from heat and cold by use of inorganic and organic mulch types to cover the soil surface around plants. Tomato production in Kakamega County is below 2%. Weeds are ranked high among the yield reducing factors. This study consists of four mulch treatments of white polyethylene (0.18mm thick), maize stalks (18.0cm thick), grass clippings (18.0cm thick), guava leaves (18.0cm thick) and no mulch as control with three popularly grown tomato varieties. The mulch treatments were arranged as factorial in a completely randomized block design replicated three times in the experimental plots, at Masinde Muliro University of Science and Technology (0°171N, 34°451E). Tomato variety sub-treatments were completely randomized in the plots to minimize non–experimental bias during sampling weeds incidence. The field project was conducted during the short rains and long rains season of 2016-2017. Data obtained was subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA) using SAS software, version 9.3 (SAS Institute lnc.) at p<0.05 confidence level. Least Significance Difference (LSD) was used to separate the means. Mean weed density was significantly highest in control plots (94.51%) and least in mulched plots (11.41%). The tomato plant growth parameters (leaf length, leaf width, stem height and stem width) were significantly higher in mulched than control plots. Mulches provide clean field sanitation, inhibits weed seed germination, promotes plant growth with high crop yields and reduces synthetic pesticides and herbicides application.
Keywords
Mulching, Solanum Lycopersicum, Weeds
To cite this article
Anthony Simiyu Mabele, Millicent Florence Owuor Ndong’a, Weed Control in Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) Through Mulch Types in Kakamega County, Kenya, International Journal of Applied Agricultural Sciences. Vol. 5, No. 5, 2019, pp. 109-113. doi: 10.11648/j.ijaas.20190505.12
Copyright
Copyright © 2019 Authors retain the copyright of this article.
This article is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
References
[1]
Pickett, J. A., Hamilton, M. L., Hooper, A. M., Khan, Z. R. & Midega, C. A. O. 2010. Companion cropping to manage parasitic plants. Ann. Rev. Phytopathology. 48: 161-177.
[2]
Abbasi, A. M., Khan, M. A., Ahmed, M., Zafar, M. & Sultana, S. 2010. Ethanopharmacological application of medicinal plants to cure skin diseases and in folk cosmetics among the tribal communities of North-West Frontier Province of Pakistan. Journal of Ethanopharmacology. 128 (2): 322-335.
[3]
Khan, Z. R., Midega, C. A. O., Amudevi, D. M., Hassandi, A., Pickett, V. A. 2008 b. On- farm evaluation of the ‘‘Push-pull’’ technology to the control of Stemborers, (Busseola fusca and Sesemia calamistis) and Striga weed on maize in Western Kenya. Field Crops Res. 10: 224-233.
[4]
Food and Agricultural organization. 2012. Statistical Database. Retrieved from http://www.faostat.org
[5]
Sigei, K. G., Ngeno, K. H., Kibe, M. A, Mwangi, M. & Mutai, C. M. 2014. Challenges and Strategies to improve Tomato Competitiveness along the tomato Value Chain in Kenya. International Journal of Business and Management. 9 (9): 1833-3850.
[6]
Shashidar, K. R., Bhakar, R. N., Priyadharshins, P. & Chandrakumar, H. L. 2009. Effect of different organic mulches on pH, organic carbon content and microbial status of soil and its influence on leave yield of M-5 Mulberry (Morus indica L.) under rainfed condition. Current Biotica. 2: 404-412.
[7]
George, S., Jatoi, S. A. & Siddiqui, S. U. 2013. Genotypic differences against PEG simulated drought stress in tomato. Pak. J. Bot. 45 (5): 1551-1556.
[8]
Bhardwaj, R. L. 2013. Effect of mulching on crop production under rainfed conditions. Agri. Reviews. 34 (3): 188-197.
[9]
Pershant, B., Vinod, K. W., Mudesir, I., Amit., J., Kiven, K., Refiq, A. and Manish, B. 2015. Sustainable fruit production by soil moisture conservation with different mulches: A review. African journal of Agricultural Research. 10 (52): 4718-4729.
[10]
Singh, A. K., Singh, S., Rao, W. A., Bagle, B. G., More, T. A. 2010. Efficiency of organic mulches on soil properties, earthworm population, growth and yield of Aonia cv. NA7 in semi-arid ecosystem. Ind. J. Hort. 67: 124-128.
[11]
Musyoki, R., Omari, F. & Mwangi, T. 2005. Evaluation of Elite tomato varieties in the Semi-arid regions of Eastern Kenya. KARI Publication.
[12]
Awiti, A, Walsh, M., Shepherd, K., & Kinyamario, J. 2007. Soil condition classification using infrared spectroscopy. A proposition for assessment of soil condition along a tropical forest–cropland. Cronosequence Geoderma. 143: 73-84.
[13]
Hundal, I. S., Sandhu, K. S., Doljeet, S. & Sandhu, M. S. 2000. Effect of different types of mulching and herbicidal treatments on nutrient uptake in tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum). Haryana Journal of Horticulture Science. 29: 242-244.
[14]
SAS Institute. 2004. SAS/STAT 9.3: Users Guide. SAS Publishers.
[15]
Morant, A. V., Jorgensen, K., Paquette, S. M., Sanchez-Perez, R., Mollar, B. L., & Bak, S. 2008. Beta-Glucosidases as detonators of plant chemical defence. Phytochem. 69: 1795-1813.
[16]
Sanches, N. R., Cortez, D. A. G., Schiavini, M. S., Nakamura, C. V., & Dias-Filho, B. P. 2005. An evaluation of antibacterial activities of Psidium guajava (L.). Braz. Arch. Bio. Tech. 48: 429-436.
[17]
Terry, P. J., Mathews, G. A. & Boonman, J. G. 2006. A guide to weed control in East African crops. Kenya Literature Bureau. ISBN 9966-44-677-X.
ADDRESS
Science Publishing Group
1 Rockefeller Plaza,
10th and 11th Floors,
New York, NY 10020
U.S.A.
Tel: (001)347-983-5186