8 pages, via Online journal, The use of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) grafting is gaining traction across the United States, but small-scale growers face the challenge of creating optimum postgrafting healing conditions. The practice of blocking light for a period of 2 to 4 days while maintaining high humidity is commonly recommended for healing grafted tomato transplants; however, research is exploring alternatives to this practice. The present study investigated a low-input healing method for grafted tomato transplants with a specific focus on light and the use of propagation heat mats to regulate substrate and healing chamber air temperatures during the 7-day healing process. We hypothesized that 4 days of light exclusion and the use of propagation heat mats would improve grafted tomato transplant survival and growth. ‘Cherokee Purple’ was used as the scion and ‘RST-04-106-T’ was used as the rootstock. The whole plot factor was heat [propagation mats set at 80 °F (heat) or no propagation mat (no heat)] and the subplot factor was light exclusion (0, 4, or 6 days of dark). The highest survival rate among treatments was 97% in 0 days of dark with no heat treatment; survival decreased to 84% in 4 and 6 days of dark with no heat treatments. The plant survival rate was 96% with 0 days of dark and heat treatment; however, the survival rates were 63% and 45% for the 4- and 6-day dark treatments, respectively. The scion stem diameter was largest for transplants grown in 0 days of dark, but there was no difference in stem diameter due to heat treatments. There were no differences among scion or rootstock biomasses due to heat or light treatments. These results demonstrate that propagation mats set at 80 °F to regulate the substrate temperature were detrimental to grafted transplant survival under extended periods of light exclusion. However, this finding creates the basis to explore lower levels of substrate temperature modification. Our work also indicates that light exclusion may not be necessary for healing grafted tomato plants regardless of root-zone temperature treatments. Future work should examine the interactions of various substrate and air temperatures under full light conditions and their effects on grafted tomato transplant survival and growth. This work contributes to the ongoing research of how to optimize low-input healing methods that may be readily adopted by small-scale tomato growers.
7 pages, via Online journal, Hair fescue (Festuca filiformis) is a tuft-forming perennial grass that reduces yields in lowbush blueberry (Vaccinium angustifolium) fields. Nonbearing year foramsulfuron applications suppress hair fescue, but there is interest in increasing suppression through foramsulfuron use in conjunction with fall-applied herbicides. The objective of this research was to determine the main and interactive effects of fall-bearing year herbicide applications and spring-nonbearing year foramsulfuron applications on hair fescue. The experiment was a 5 × 2 factorial arrangement of fall-bearing year herbicide (none, terbacil, pronamide, glufosinate, dichlobenil) and spring-nonbearing year foramsulfuron application (0, 35 g·ha−1) arranged in a randomized complete block design at lowbush blueberry fields in Portapique and Stewiacke, Nova Scotia, Canada. Spring-nonbearing year foramsulfuron applications did not reduce total tuft density or consistently reduce flowering tuft density, flowering tuft inflorescence number, or flowering tuft seed production. Fall-bearing year pronamide applications reduced hair fescue density for the 2-year production cycle, although additional bearing year density reductions occurred when pronamide was followed by spring-nonbearing year foramsulfuron applications at Stewiacke. Fall-bearing year dichlobenil applications reduced total and flowering tuft density at each site, although reductions in flowering tuft inflorescence number and seed production were most consistent when followed by spring-nonbearing year foramsulfuron applications at Stewiacke. Suppression extended into the bearing year at each site, and dichlobenil should be examined further for hair fescue control. Fall-bearing year glufosinate applications reduced hair fescue total tuft density at each site and flowering tuft density and flowering tuft seed production at Stewiacke. Fall-bearing year glufosinate applications followed by spring-nonbearing year foramsulfuron applications also reduced nonbearing year flowering tuft inflorescence number and bearing year hair fescue seedling density at Stewiacke, indicating that this treatment may reduce hair fescue seedling recruitment at some sites. Fall-bearing year terbacil applications did not suppress hair fescue and are not recommended for hair fescue management in lowbush blueberry.
