Commenced in January 2007
Frequency: Monthly
Edition: International
Paper Count: 30569
Phelipanche ramosa (L. - Pomel) Control in Field Tomato Crop

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


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.

Keywords: Control Methods, tomato crop, Phelipanche ramosa

Digital Object Identifier (DOI):

Procedia APA BibTeX Chicago EndNote Harvard JSON MLA RIS XML ISO 690 PDF Downloads 2065


[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.