Phelipanche ramosa (L. - Pomel) Control in Field Tomato Crop

The tomato is a very important crop, whose
cultivation in the Mediterranean basin is severely affected by the
phytoparasitic weed Phelipanche ramosa. The semiarid regions of
the world are considered the main areas where this parasitic weed is
established causing heavy infestation as it is able to produce high
numbers of seeds (up to 500,000 per plant), which remain viable for
extended period (more than 20 years). In this paper the results
obtained from eleven treatments in order to control this parasitic
weed including chemical, agronomic, biological and biotechnological
methods compared with the untreated test under two plowing depths
(30 and 50 cm) are reported. The split-plot design with 3 replicates
was adopted. In 2014 a trial was performed in Foggia province
(southern Italy) on processing tomato (cv Docet) grown in the field
infested by Phelipanche ramosa. Tomato seedlings were transplant
on May 5, on a clay-loam soil. During the growing cycle of the
tomato crop, at 56-78 and 92 days after transplantation, the number
of parasitic shoots emerged in each plot was detected. At tomato
harvesting, on August 18, the major quantity-quality yield parameters
were determined (marketable yield, mean weight, dry matter, pH,
soluble solids and color of fruits). All data were subjected to analysis
of variance (ANOVA) and the means were compared by Tukey's test.
Each treatment studied did not provide complete control against
Phelipanche ramosa. However, among the different methods tested,
some of them which Fusarium, gliphosate, radicon biostimulant and
Red Setter tomato cv (improved genotypes obtained by Tilling
technology) under deeper plowing (50 cm depth) proved to mitigate
the virulence of the Phelipanche ramose attacks. It is assumed that
these effects can be improved combining some of these treatments
each other, especially for a gradual and continuing reduction of the
“seed bank” of the parasite in the soil.

• Disciglio G.
• Lops F.
• Carlucci A.
• Gatta G.
• Tarantino A.
• Frabboni L.
• Carriero F.
• Cibelli F.
• Raimondo M. L.
• Tarantino E.

• Control methods
• Phelipanche ramosa
• tomato crop.

[1] K.H. Linke, J. Sauerborn, M.C. Saxena, 1989. Orobanche field guide.
University of Hohenheim, Germany, pp.42.
[2] Daunia Agrinotizie, 2013. Pomodoro un’annata da dimenticare. Mensile
di Confagricoltura Foggia, no. 9, pp. 1-3.
[3] M.C. Zonno, P. Montemurro, M. Vurro, 2000. Orobanche ramosa,
un’infestante parassita in espansione nell’Italia meridionale.
L’Informatore Agrario, no. 4, pp.13-21.
[4] R. Zindahl, 1993. Fundamentals of weed science. Academic Press Inc.,
New York, pp. 499.
[5] K.H., Linke, M.C. Saxena, 1989. Study on viability and longevity of
Orobanche seed under laboratory conditions. In: Progress in Orobanche
research (Eds. Wegmann K., Musselman L.J.), Eberhard-Karls
Universitat, Tubingen, FRG, pp. 110-114.
[6] Habimana S., Murthy K.N.K., Hatti V., Nduwumuremyi A., 2013.
Management of Orobanche in field crops. A review. Scientific Journal
of Crop Science, no 2(11), pp. 144-158.
[7] C. Parker, C.R., Riches, 1993. Parasitic weeds of the world: Biology and
Control. Cab International, Wallingford, UK, pp. 111-164.
[8] D.K. Berner, K.F. Cardwell, B.O. Faturoti, F.O Ikie, Williams O.A.,
1994. Relative roles of wind, crop seeds and cattle in the dispersal of
Striga species. Plant Disease, no.78, pp. 402-406.
[9] H. Eizemberg, N. Tanaami, B. Ovdat, Rubin, and J. Jacobsohn, 1998.
Effect of seasonal conditions host-parasite relationship in Orobanche
crenata and O. aegyptiacal. In K. Wegmann, L.J., pp. 187-193.
[10] S. Hodosy, 1981. Biological control of broomrape. Orobanche ramosa, a
tomato parasite. In: Occurrence and adaptability of Fusarium species to
control broomrape in Hungary. Zoldsegtermesztesi Kutato Intezet
Bulletinje: 1979/80, no. 14, pp. 21-29.
[11] H. Eizemberg, T. Lande, G. Achdari, A. Roichman, J. Hershenhorn,
2006. Effect of Egyptian broomrape (Orobanche Aegyptiaca) seed depth
on the parasitism and its chemical control weed. Weed Sci., no. 55, pp.
152-156.
[12] Y. Goldwasser, Rodenburg J., 2013. Integrated agronomic management
of parasitic weed seed banks. In Parasitic Orobanchacee. Parasitic
mechanisms on control strategies. Daniel M., Joel D.M., Jonatan
Gressel, Lytton J.. Musselman Editors, pp.497.
[13] W.N. Lonsdale, 1993. Losses from the seed bank of Mimosa pigra - soil
microorganisms vs temperature fluctuations. J. Appl. Ecol., no. 30, pp.
654-660.
[14] P.R. Westerman, J.S., Wes, M.J. Van der Kropff, W. Werf, 2003.
Annual losses of weed seeds due to predation in organic cereal fields. J.
Appl. Ecol., no. 40, pp. 824-836.
[15] T.A. Van Mourik, T.J. Stomph , A.J. Murdoch, 2005. Why high seed
densities within buried mesh bags may overestimate depletion rates of
soil seed banks. J. Appl. Ecol., no. 42, pp. 299-305.
[16] T.A. Van Mourik, T.J. Stomph, 2011. Purple witch weed (striga
hermonthica) germination and seed bank depletion under different crops,
fallow, and bare soil. Weed Biol. Manag., no 11, pp. 100-110.
[17] D.M. Joel, 2000. The lon-term approach to parasitic weeds control,
manipulation of specific developmental mechanisms of the parasite.
Crop Prot., no. 19, pp. 753-758.
[18] Y. Goldwasser, Y. Kleifeld, 2004. Recent approaches to Orobanche
management, A Review. Weed Biol. Manag., pp. 439-466.
[19] L. Cavani, C. Ciavatta, 2007. Attività biostimolante negli idrolizzanti
proteici. L’Informatore Agrario, no. 44, pp. 46-52.
[20] Z. Alejandro,S. Barghouthi, B. Cohen, I. Goldwasser, J. Gressel, L.
Hornok, Z. Kerenyi, I. Kleifeld, O. Klein, J. Kroschel, J. Sauerborn, D.
Muller-Stover, H. Thomas, M. Vurro, M.C.H., Zonno, 2001. Recent
advances in the biocontrol of Orobanche (Broomrape) species. Bio-
Control, no. 46, pp. 211-228.
[21] D. Rubiales, M. Fernandenz-Aparicio, 2012. Innovations in parasitic
weeds management in legume crops. Agron. Sustain. Dev., no.32, pp.
433-449.