Scientia Horticulturae 130 (2011) 491–497

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Scientia Horticulturae
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/scihorti

Weed control and yield response of soil solarization with different plastic films in
lettuce
Vincenzo Candido a , Trifone D’Addabbo b,∗ , Vito Miccolis a , Donato Castronuovo a
a
Dipartimento di Scienze dei Sistemi Colturali, Forestali e dell’Ambiente – Università della Basilicata, Via dell’Ateneo Lucano, 10, 85100, Potenza, Italy
b
Istituto per la Protezione delle Piante – CNR, Via G. Amendola 122/D, Bari, Italy

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Phase out of most chemicals available for weed management renewed the interest in soil solarization
Received 14 October 2010 as a technically effective and environmentally safe practice for lettuce weed control in hot summer
Received in revised form 8 July 2011 areas. Properties of solarizing films and lettuce crop system may considerably affect weed control
Accepted 1 August 2011
and yield response of soil solarization. Different solarizing films, including low-density polyethylene,
ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer, low-density polyethylene–ethylene-vinyl acetate coextruded and a
Keywords:
biodegradable corn starch-based film, were evaluated in 2003 and 2004 for weed control and lettuce
Soil solarization
yield response under field and greenhouse conditions in Southern Italy. Soil solarization strongly reduced
Plastic materials
Lettuce
weed density and biomass in both greenhouse and in the field, with no significant differences among the
Weeds tested plastic films. Most annual weeds were completely controlled by soil solarization, except amaranth,
Yield Amaranthus spp., in soil solarized with biodegradable film in the field. Emergence of mediterranean sweet-
clover, Melilotus sulcatus, was stimulated by soil solarization in greenhouse. In the field, Cyprus vetch,
Lathyrus ochrus, was found in solarized plots though absent in untreated soil. Perennial weeds were not
affected by soil solarization, except a strong control of canadian thistle, Cirsium arvense, in the field.
Lettuce yield resulted significantly higher in solarized soil than in control plots, with no significant dif-
ferences among the solarizing materials. All tested materials proved to be technically effective for soil
solarization in lettuce, though low resistance and short durability of biodegradable film may suggest its
application mainly to soil solarization in greenhouse or in organic systems.
© 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Weed control is a major constraint in lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.
var. longifolia L.), as expensive, time-consuming and causing severe
yield losses when failing to ensure an adequate weed manage-
ment (Kristiansen et al., 2008). Mainly earlier crop stages need to
be kept weed-free, as very sensitive to weed competition due to
shallow root system of lettuce seedlings (Isık et al., 2009). Weed
management in conventional lettuce crops is normally based on an
effective combination of chemicals and cultivation practices, such
as mechanical tillage, hoeing and hand-weeding (Fennimore and
Richard, 1999). Presence of intra-row weeds not targeted by usual
cultivation practices, and limited number of herbicides still avail-
able after the European Union (EU) revision of agrochemicals, make
more difficult weed management in lettuce, mainly in the organic
crop systems (Van Der Weide et al., 2008).
Soil solarization (SOL) is a technique in which moist soil cov-
ered by a plastic film is heated by solar radiation for several weeks.
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +39 080 5929233; fax: +39 080 5929230.
E-mail address: t.daddabbo@ba.ipp.cnr.it (T. D’Addabbo).
Thermal levels raised by SOL are lethal or injurious to a wide range
of soil pests and diseases, including many species of phytopara-
sitic nematodes and fungal pathogens (D’Addabbo et al., 2010). An
increased crop growth and yield response was also reported as a
collateral effect of SOL, not only due to the control of weeds and
soil pathogens, but also to a heat-induced release of soil nutrients
(Stapleton and DeVay, 1995). SOL technology originated during
the 1970s and was largely investigated during the following years
(Katan, 1981). Commercial implementation of this practice has
been reappraising in recent years due to stricter regulations for
agricultural pesticides and withdrawal of most chemicals available
on the market (Ghorbani et al., 2008).
SOL treatment, either alone or in combination with other tech-
niques, was found to be very effective also for the control of weeds,
including species unsusceptible to selective herbicides (Elmore,
1991). Effectiveness of soil solarization on weeds is species-
dependent, as time and temperature requirements for thermal
death may vary considerably among weed species (Linke, 1994).
SOL may play a relevant role for a sustainable weed manage-
ment in lettuce, as the preventive reduction of weed density caused
by SOL may limit chemical treatments and expensive cultural prac-
tices during lettuce crop (Riemens et al., 2007). A number of studies

0304-4238/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.scienta.2011.08.002
492 V. Candido et al. / Scientia Horticulturae 130 (2011) 491–497
positively documented weed control and yield response of SOL
treatment in lettuce throughout the past two decades (Al-Masoom
et al., 1993; Patricio et al., 2006).
Solarizing plastic films are a key factor for an effective weed
control by SOL, as their mechanical and spectroradiometric prop-
erties may consistently affect the thermal levels raised into the
soil and the extent of weed damage (Heissner et al., 2005). Among
the large variety of plastic materials tested for SOL throughout the
years, low-density polyethylene (LDPE) and ethylene-vinyl acetate
(EVA) were generally reported for the best solarizing properties
(D’Addabbo et al., 2010). Biodegradable materials, as gradually
degraded by soil microorganisms, were also investigated as an
answer to difficult and costly disposal of conventional plastic
wastes (Zheng et al., 2005).
Previous comparative studies mainly focused on thickness and
transparency of different solarizing plastics. Thin and transparent
films were generally found more suitable to SOL, due to the higher
soil temperatures raised into the soil and the resulting larger effect
on pathogens and weeds (McGovern and McSorley, 1997). Gill et al.
(2009) recently compared durability and weed suppressiveness of
different commercial plastic films, reporting a long durability and
an excellent weed control and for coextruded LDPE–EVA plastics.
Agroeconomic effectiveness of SOL with transparent vs black LDPE
was comparatively investigated by Hasing et al. (2004) in field let-
tuce. No comparative data, instead are available on the effect of
different solarizing plastics on weed control and lettuce yield either
in greenhouse or in field lettuce systems.
The present study was aimed to compare different conventional
and biodegradable commercial solarizing plastics for their effec-
tiveness in controlling weeds and increasing lettuce yield in both
greenhouse and field conditions throughout two consecutive crops.
2. Materials and methods
Both experiment in greenhouse and in the field were undertaken
at Metaponto (40◦ 20 N; 16◦ 48 E), Southern Italy. The greenhouse
was a metal–plastic (0.2 mm thick LDPE) structure, subdivided
into four, 46 m long and 7.2 m wide, spans, with a 3 m3 m−2 vol-
ume/surface index. The field was located immediately next to the
greenhouse. Soil was alkaline (pH 8.4) and sandy–loamy textured
(82.7% sand, 8.9% silt and 8.4% clay) at both sites.
Soil of both greenhouse and the field was 40 cm-depth
ploughed, uniformly rotavated and divided into 1-m spaced 30 m2
(10 m × 3 m) plots, and then irrigated to field capacity through a
drip irrigation system (dripper lines 0.5 m apart, emitters spaced
0.20 m from each other, 2–3 l h−1 water flow rate). Plots were then
covered from 16 July to 16 September 2003 with four different
commercial solarizing plastic materials, EVA (0.03 mm thick), LDPE
(0.05 mm thick), a 0.025 mm-thick coextruded formulation of LDPE
and EVA (COEX) and a 0.04 mm-thick corn starch-based lactescent
biodegradable film (BDF). SOL treatment with each material was
replicated three times among the plots, in a complete randomized
block design. Nonsolarized soil was used as a control.
Soil temperature was monitored at 2, 10, 20, 30 and 50 cm depth
in both solarized and nonsolarized plots by PT-100 probes and using
a CR-10X data-logger (Campbell Scientific, Inc., USA) to record data
at 30-min intervals throughout all the solarization period. Number
of hours of temperature permanence above 40 ◦ C was also recorded
and assumed as a thermal threshold for SOL effects on weeds at each
depth.
At the end of SOL treatment, plastic sheets were removed and
weeds were hand picked from the whole plot surface avoiding
any soil disturbance. Soil was left uncovered and dry until the
first lettuce transplant. No further weeds emerged during this time
interval, due to the absence of rain and irrigations.
Three to four-leaved seedlings of lettuce cv Bacio were trans-
planted, spaced 30 cm on rows 50 cm apart (6.7 plants m−2 ), on
29 October 2003 and on 19 March 2004 at both experimental
sites. Irrigation and fertilizer were applied at rates typical for
local commercial lettuce (110 kg ha−1 N, 100 kg ha−1 P2 O5 and
50 kg ha−1 K2 O) during each crop, through drip irrigation. Nitro-
gen fertilizer was a liquid formulation with a total 30% N content
in 1:2:1 ratio of nitric, ammoniacal and ureic form.
First and second crop were harvested from 12 to 20 February and
from 14 to 21 May 2004 in greenhouse, and from 13 to 17 February
and on 21 May 2004 in the field, respectively. At each harvest, total
and marketable yield was recorded in a 3 m2 central sampling area
of each plot. Density and biomass (shoots and roots) dry weight of
weeds present in the same sampling area were recorded the day
after the end of SOL treatments (17 September 2003) and at the
end of each harvest. Weed biomass was completely removed from
the plots after recording data, reducing soil disturbance as much as
possible.
All data were subjected to one-way analysis of variance
(ANOVA) with the MSTAT-C software (version 2.0; Crop and
Soil Department, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI),
after Ln (x + 1) transforming weed data for homogenization of
error variances. Treatment means were separated based on the
Student–Newman–Keuls test at P ≤ 0.05.
3. Results
COEX, EVA and LDPE films adhered to soil surface until the end
of SOL treatment in both field and greenhouse, whereas BDF start
degrading at fifteen days after application in greenhouse and was
completely torn after the same period in the field.
At 10 cm depth, the longest permanence of soil temperatures
at the ranges of 40–45 ◦ C, 46–50 ◦ C and 51–55 ◦ C was recorded in
the plots solarized with COEX, succeeded by EVA, LDPE and BDF,
in the order, in both greenhouse and the field (Fig. 1). At 20 cm
depth in greenhouse, EVA resulted in the longest permanence at
40–45 ◦ C, whereas the longest permanence at the other tempera-
ture ranges was recorded in the plots solarized with COEX. Only
COEX resulted in a 2 h permanence at 46 ◦ C at the same depth in
the field. At 30 cm depth in greenhouse, temperatures above 45 ◦ C
were recorded only in the soil solarized with EVA, COEX and LDPE,
whereas BDF resulted in the longest permanence at 40–45 ◦ C. At
30 cm depth in the field, temperatures above 40 ◦ C were recorded
only in the plots covered with COEX and EVA.
At the end of SOL in the field, BDF-solarized plots resulted
in a weed biomass significantly heavier than soil solarized with
the other materials (Table 1). Total weed density and biomass
did not significantly differ among the different SOL treatments
in greenhouse. A large density and biomass of green bristlegrass,
Setaria viridis, and common purslane (Portulaca oleracea) and a
lower density of redroot amaranth, Amaranthus retroflexus, and
bindweed, Convolvulus spp., were found in nonsolarized soil in the
field (Table 1). These weeds were completely absent in soil solarized
with COEX, EVA and LDPE, whereas biomass of common purslane
was not significantly different from the untreated control in BDF-
solarized plots.
Mostly common purslane and purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotun-
dus), were present in nonsolarized soil at the end of SOL treatment
in greenhouse. Density and biomass of common purslane were nil
in soil solarized with all plastic films, whereas presence of purple
nutsedge in SOL-treated plots did not significantly differ from the
nonsolarized control. Total weed density and biomass weight in
solarized soil were always significantly higher in greenhouse than
in the field, except the larger weed biomass in BDF-solarized plots
in the field.
 V. Candido et al. / Scientia Horticulturae 130 (2011) 491–497 493

Fig. 1. Permanence (h) above 40 ◦ C of soil temperature at 2, 10, 20 and 30 cm depth in soil nonsolarized (–) or solarized with corn starch-based lactescent biodegradable
laminate (BDF), coextruded low-density polyethylene/ethylene-vinyl acetate (COEX), ethylene-vinyl acetate (EVA) and low-density polyethylene (LDPE) plastic films during
soil solarization in the field and in greenhouse.

At the end of the first crop in greenhouse, mainly mediterranean
sweetclover (Melilotus sulcatus), shepherd’s purse (Capsella bursa-
pastoris), canadian horseweed (Conyza canadensis), bindweed,
fumitory (Fumaria sp.), henbit deadnettle (Lamium amplexicaule),
common sowthistle (Sonchus oleraceus), speedwell (Veronica sp.)
and garden vetch (Vicia sativa) were found in nonsolarized soil
(Table 2). Density and biomass weight of almost all these weeds
were significantly lower in solarized soil than in control plots,
except biomass weight in plots solarized with BDF. Density of
mediterranean sweetclover, adversely, was significantly higher in
solarized plots than in the untreated soil, though its biomass was
significantly heavier only in LDPE and EVA-solarized soil. Total
weed biomass was significantly lower in the plots treated with
COEX or EVA than in nonsolarized control, but not different or even
494 V. Candido et al. / Scientia Horticulturae 130 (2011) 491–497

Table 1
Number of plants (n m−2 ) and dry weight (g m−2 ) of weeds in soil untreated or solarized with different plastic films at the end of soil solarization (SOL) in the field and in
greenhouse.

Weeds Parameter SOL treatmentsa F valuesb

BDF COEX EVA LDPE Untreated

Field
Amaranthus retroflexus (n m−2 ) 0 bc 0b 0b 0b 2.7 a 7.8**
(g m−2 ) 0b 0b 0b 0b 21.7 a 8.7**
Convolvulus spp. (n m−2 ) 4.3 a 0b 0b 0b 2.7 a 3.9*
(g m−2 ) 12.4 a 0b 0b 0b 7.2 a 4.2*
Portulaca oleracea (n m−2 ) 3.3b 0b 0b 0b 23.7 a 19.3**
(g m−2 ) 72.1a 0b 0b 0b 97.5 a 4.6*
Setaria viridis (n m−2 ) 0b 0b 0b 0b 16 a 9.7**
(g m−2 ) 0b 0b 0b 0b 132.3 a 10.6**
Total (n m−2 ) 7.7 b 0b 0b 0b 45 a 11.1**
(g m−2 ) 84.5 b 0c 0c 0c 258.7 a 8.9**
Greenhouse
Cyperus rotundus (n m−2 ) 25.3 a 27.7 a 26 a 24.3 a 37.3 a 1.2ns
(g m−2 ) 21.5 a 10 a 26 a 21.6 a 33.1a 0.8ns
Portulaca oleracea (n m−2 ) 0b 0b 0b 0b 36.3 a 10.2**
(g m−2 ) 0b 0b 0b 0b 234.7 a 15.3**
Total (n m−2 ) 25.3 b 27.7 b 26 b 24.3 b 73.6 a 6.1*
(g m−2 ) 21.5 b 10 b 26 b 21.6 b 267.8 a 21.3**
Total weeds in the field vs in greenhouse
t testd (n m−2 ) * * * * *
(g m−2 ) * – – – –
a
BDF = corn starch-based lactescent biodegradable laminate, COEX = coextruded low-density polyethylene/ethylene-vinyl acetate, EVA = ethylene-vinyl acetate,
LDPE = low-density polyethylene.
b
** = significant at P ≤ 0.01, * = significant at P ≤ 0.05, ns = not significant.
c
Means followed by the same letters on the same row are not significantly different (P ≤ 0.05) according to Student–Newman–Keuls test.
d
Student’s t test: * = significant at P = 0.05; – = not significant.

significantly heavier in soil solarized with LDPE and BDF, respec-
tively.
After the harvest of the first crop in the field, corn poppy
(Papaver rhoeas), speedwell, henbit deadnettle, garden vetch and
common sowthistle were largely present in nonsolarized soil. Den-
sity and biomass weight of these weeds resulted significantly lower
in solarized soil, except density of garden vetch, with no signifi-
cant difference among the solarizing films (Table 2). Cyprus vetch
(Lathyrus ochrus) was not detected in untreated soil but was homo-
geneously spread in solarized plots.
Total weed density and biomass were still significantly lower in
solarized soil than in the untreated plots also after the harvest of

Table 2
Number of plants (n m−2 ) and dry weight (g m−2 ) of weeds in soil untreated or solarized with different plastic films after the harvest of the first lettuce crop in the field and
in greenhouse.

Weeds Parameter SOL treatmentsa F valuesb

BDF COEX EVA LDPE Untreated

Field
Lamium amplexicaule (n m−2 ) 1.7 bc 0.3 b 0.3 b 0.3 b 18 a 12.7**
(g m−2 ) 7.0 b 2b 3.0 b 7.0 b 54 a 15.5**
Lathyrus ochrus (n m−2 ) 1.7 a 0.7a 1.3 a 1a 0b 6.0*
(g m−2 ) 3.7 a 2.7 a 3.2 a 2.3 a 0b 4.1*
Papaver rhoeas (n m−2 ) 0.3 b 2.7 b 0.3 b 1b 30 a 28.2**
(g m−2 ) 61 b 78 b 5b 27 b 553 a 26.6**
Sonchus oleraceus (n m−2 ) 0b 0b 0.7 b 0b 3.3 a 15.3**
(g m−2 ) 0b 0b 0.5 a 0b 0.8 a 9.2**
Veronica spp. (n m−2 ) 1.1 b 0b 0b 3.2 b 41.3 a 83.9**
(g m−2 ) 11 c 0c 0c 49 b 87 a 230.1**
Vicia sativa (n m−2 ) 2.3 b 2.7 b 1.3 b 2.7 b 8a 9.9**
(g m−2 ) 6a 7.5 a 5a 8.8 a 7.6 a 7.4**
Totald (n m−2 ) 7b 10 b 5b 8b 101 a 32.0**
(g m−2 ) 89 b 91 b 18 c 94 b 702 a 32.1**
Greenhouse
Melilotus sulcatus (n m−2 ) 4.7 b 3.7 b 4.0 b 8.7 a 0.3 c 5.0*
(g m−2 ) 2.8 c 2.9 c 6.4 b 11.0 a 1.5 c 10.9**
Other speciese (n m−2 ) 1.7 b 0.7 c 0.3 c 0.3 c 3.0 a 3.9*
(g m−2 ) 16.4 a 0.5 b 0.3 b 0.4 b 12.5 a 4.3*
Total (n m−2 ) 6.3 ab 4.3 b 4.3 b 9.0 a 3.3 b 4.0*
(g m−2 ) 19.1 a 3.5 c 6.7 c 11.5 b 14 b 4.6*
a
BDF = corn starch-based lactescent biodegradable laminate, COEX = coextruded low-density polyethylene/ethylene-vinyl acetate, EVA = ethylene-vinyl acetate,
LDPE = low-density polyethylene.
b
** = significant at P ≤ 0.01, * = significant at P ≤ 0.05.
c
Means followed by the same letters on the same row are not significantly (P < 0.05) different according to Student–Newman–Keuls’ test.
d
Fumaria sp. is included too.
e
Lamium amplexicaule, Fumaria sp., Conyza canadensis L., Sonchus oleraceus L., Convolvulus sp., Veronica sp., Vicia sativa and Capsella bursa-pastoris (L.) Medik are included
too.
 V. Candido et al. / Scientia Horticulturae 130 (2011) 491–497 495

Table 3
Number of plants (n m−2 ) and biomass dry weight (g m−2 ) of weeds in soil untreated or solarized with different plastic films after the harvest of the second lettuce crop in
the field and in greenhouse.

Weeds Parameter SOL treatmentsa F valuesb

BDF COEX EVA LDPE Untreated

Field
Amaranthus deflexus (n m−2 ) 1.7 ac 0b 0b 0.7 b 0b 10.9**
(g m−2 ) 2.9 b 0c 0c 6.2 a 0c 3.9*
Amaranthus retroflexus (n m−2 ) 9a 0.3 b 2.7 b 0.3 b 2b 11.9**
(g m−2 ) 17.2 a 1.0 c 6.6 b 0.6 c 4.6 b 8.3**
Cirsium arvense (n m−2 ) 0b 1.7 b 0b 1.3 b 18 a 31.6**
(g m−2 ) 0b 6b 0b 3.0 b 103 a 109.2**
Sonchus oleraceus (n m−2 ) 0b 0b 0b 1.0 b 4.7 a 12.9**
(g m−2 ) 0b 0b 0b 2.5 b 50 a 93.1**
Totald (n m−2 ) 11.3 b 2.7 c 4.3 c 4c 25.3 a 21.7**
(g m−2 ) 21 b 8b 9b 15 b 163 a 51.6**
Greenhouse
Melilotus sulcatus (n m−2 ) 1b 0.7 b 2.7 a 3a 0c 3.9*
(g m−2 ) 0.6 b 0.6 b 1.8 a 2.1 a 0c 4.2*
Portulaca oleracea (n m−2 ) 0.3 b 0.7 b 0b 0.3 b 14.7 a 14.1**
(g m−2 ) 0.2 b 2.7 b 0b 1.5 b 60 a 3.9*
Setaria viridis (n m−2 ) 0b 2.7 b 0.7 b 0.3 b 42.7 a 95.1**
(g m−2 ) 0b 8b 2.2 b 9.3 b 77.8 a 29.5**
Solanum nigrum (n m−2 ) 0b 0b 0.2 b 0b 1.3 a 20.2**
(g m−2 ) 0b 0b 0.7 b 0b 4.7 a 4.7*
Totale (n m−2 ) 6.3 b 4.3 b 3.6 b 4b 61.3 a 215.7**
(g m−2 ) 6b 13 b 5b 13 b 165 a 8.5**
a
BDF = corn starch-based lactescent biodegradable laminate, COEX = coextruded low-density polyethylene/ethylene-vinyl acetate, EVA = ethylene-vinyl acetate,
LDPE = low-density polyethylene.
b
** = significant at P ≤ 0.01, * = significant at P ≤ 0.05.
c
Means followed by the same letters on the same row are not significantly different (P ≤ 0.05) according to Student–Newman–Keuls’ test.
d
Solanum nigrum L., Convolvulus spp., Chenopodium album L. and Papaver rhoeas are included too
e
Amaranthus retroflexus, Cyperus rotundus L. and Sonchus oleraceus are included too.

the second crop in both greenhouse and in the field (Table 3). In of SOL for weed control in lettuce was stated by Al-Masoom et al.
greenhouse, green bristlegrass, common purslane and black night- (1993) since the early 1990s and furtherly corroborated by more
shade (Solanum nigrum) were largely present in the nonsolarized recent studies of Hasing et al. (2004) and Patricio et al. (2006). Long-
plots, but their density and biomass were significantly lower or time effect of SOL on weeds documented by previous experiments
even nil in solarized soil. Mediterranean sweetclover was spread in (Candido et al., 2008) was also confirmed by the two-crop extended
all solarized plots, mainly in EVA and LDPE-solarized soil, but was control of most weeds found in the present work. Various mecha-
not detected in nonsolarized control. In the field, canadian this- nisms were hypothesized for the SOL effect on weeds, such as some
tle (Cirsium arvense) and common sowthistle were largely present
in nonsolarized soil and almost completely absent in the previ-
ously solarized plots. Presence of amaranth was, adversely, very
low or nil in the untreated soil and significantly increased in the
BDF-solarized plots.
Average weed biomass after the harvest of two lettuce crops was
always significantly higher in greenhouse than in the field, except
in plots solarized with EVA film (Fig. 2). No significant difference
between greenhouse and the field, adversely, was detected in total
weed density.
Mean crop length was not affected by SOL treatments in the field,
but significantly shorter in solarized soil than in untreated plots in
greenhouse (Table 4).
Lettuce heads discarded at the harvest of each crop were nil
or very few (1–3%) and randomly distributed among the plots at
both experimental sites. Only marketable yield, therefore, was dis-
played in Table 4, as total and marketable yield data overlapped
almost completely. Average marketable yield from the two crops
was always found significantly higher in solarized soil than in
untreated control in both greenhouse and in the field. No signif-
icant yield differences were found among the plots solarized with
the different films.

4. Discussion
A strong reduction of weed pressure was provided by the tested
SOL treatments in both greenhouse and in the field. Effectiveness
Fig. 2. Average weed biomass in soil nonsolarized (NOSOL) or solarized with
corn starch-based lactescent biodegradable laminate (BDF), coextruded low-density
polyethylene/ethylene-vinyl acetate (COEX), ethylene-vinyl acetate (EVA) and low-
density polyethylene (LDPE) plastic films, at the end of lettuce crops in the field and
in greenhouse. * = significantly different at P < 0.05 according to Student’s t test.
496 V. Candido et al. / Scientia Horticulturae 130 (2011) 491–497
Table 4
Average crop length and marketable yield of two lettuce crops in soil untreated or solarized with corn starch-based lactescent biodegradable laminate (BDF), coextruded
low-density polyethylene/ethylene-vinyl acetate (COEX), ethylene-vinyl acetate (EVA) or low-density polyethylene (LDPE) plastic films in the field and in greenhouse.
Treatmentsa Crop length (days)
Greenhouse Field
b
BDF 82.8 b 92.0 a
COEX 82.0 b 91.0 a
EVA 82.3 b 92.0 a
LDPE 83.2 b 91.8 a
Untreated 86.2 a 92.0 a
F valuesd 9.1** 1.5ns
a
BDF = corn starch-based lactescent biodegradable laminate, COEX = coextruded low-density polyethylene/ethylene-vinyl acetate, EVA = ethylene-vinyl acetate,
LDPE = low-density polyethylene.
b
Means followed by the same letters on the same columns are not significantly (P ≤ 0.05) different according to Student–Newman–Keuls test.
c
Student’s t test: * = significant at ˛ ≤ 0.05; ns = not significant.
d
** = significant at P ≤ 0.01, ns = not significant.
changes in cell metabolism and ultrastructure, the microbial para-
sitism on the weed seeds weakened by sublethal temperatures, the
weed foliar scorching under the plastic film or the interruption of
weed seed dormancy by raising temperatures (Elmore, 1991; Singla
et al., 1997).
Low or nil density of most annual weeds after SOL treatments
at both sites, mainly speedwell, henbit deadnettle, corn poppy and
common sowthistle in greenhouse and green bristlegrass and black
nightshade in field, agreed with the almost complete control of
most annual weeds by SOL stated by previous studies (Stapleton
et al., 2005). High SOL-sensitivity of common purslane also agreed
with previous studies (Patricio et al., 2006), but contrasted to
the classification of Restuccia et al. (1994). All tested SOL treat-
ments also confirmed the widely stated SOL-sensitivity of amaranth
species (Elmore, 1991). An increased density and biomass of ama-
ranths was found only in the plots solarized with the BDF film, may
be due to the weaker thermal effect of this material and to the
suppression of amaranth in nonsolarized soil caused by the strong
competition of canadian thistle. Leguminous weeds, such as gar-
den vetch, Cyprus vetch and mediterranean sweetclover, were not
affected or even stimulated by SOL treatments, as previously stated
also by Linke (1994). Rapid leguminous seed germination following
a heat-induced partial degradation of their hard and impermeable
coat was suggested to explain the low or nil susceptibility of legu-
minous weeds to SOL (Elmore, 1991).
Perennial weeds were normally reported as more heat-resistant
than annual weeds and poorly affected by SOL, probably due to sur-
vival of vegetative structures at a soil depth not reached by thermal
effect of SOL (Elmore, 1991). This general statement was in contrast
to the strong control of canadian thistle by SOL in the field, but
agreed with the large presence of purple nutsedge in greenhouse.
Nutsedges were generally found very hard to control through SOL
(Stapleton et al., 2005), though Gill et al. (2009) recently reported
an improved control of purple nutsedge by SOL with plastic films
resistant to piercing of emerging nutsedge plants, as more durable
and thermal effective.
Lettuce yield increase following SOL treatments in both field and
greenhouse corroborates previous findings on this crop (Gamliel
and Stapleton, 1993). An increased plant growth and yield response
were generally reported as a side effect of SOL also in the absence of
soil pathogens and other pests (Katan, 1981). Larger availability of
heat-solubilized soil nutrients, changes in plant physiology and/or
side control of minor pathogens were hypothesized as potential
mechanisms for yield response of SOL (Gamliel and Stapleton,
1993; Grünzweig et al., 1999; Chen et al., 1991). As suggested by
other workers (Patricio et al., 2006), the shorter crop length in
greenhouse solarized plots may be also recognized as a further
aspect of growth response of SOL.
Yield (T ha−1 )
tc Greenhouse Field tc
* 43.2 a 47.7 a *
* 44.6 a 45.6 a ns
* 44.3 a 46.9 a ns
* 44.5 a 46.9 a ns
* 33.6 b 38.5 b *
21.1** 31.6**
Solarizing materials tested in this study showed a satisfac-
tory durability and weather tolerance, except BDF film in the
field. Life-span of BDF was reported as normally shorter than one
month, due to deterioration by both UV radiation and micro-
bial decomposition (Russo et al., 2005). LDPE and coextruded
LDPE–EVA commercial solarizing films were recently documented
for a higher resistance and a longer durability compared with con-
ventional white plastic and a virtually impermeable film (Gill et al.,
2009).
In the present work, COEX and EVA provided also the best ther-
mal performances in solarized plots. Gutkowski and Terranova
(1991) reported temperatures in soil solarized with EVA films as
generally higher than in soil solarized with LDPE, though mechan-
ical and spectroradiometric properties of LDPE were also stated as
highly suitable to soil solar heating (Espí et al., 2006).
The tested plastic films did not consistently differ in their
effects on weeds and lettuce yield, though BDF poorly controlled
or even stimulated some annual weeds, as A. retroflexus and com-
mon purslane. SOL with a LDPE film was reported for an effective
control of weeds and also root-knot nematodes and an increased
melon yield in a greenhouse located at the same area of the present
work (Candido et al., 2008). An excellent control of weeds, includ-
ing Cyperus spp., was recently documented also for a commercial
COEX formulation (Polydak® ), due to its high resistance and long
durability (Gill et al., 2009). High thermal efficiency of COEX and
EVA may suggest their use for shorter SOL treatments in inten-
sive vegetable systems, as strict crop succession does not allow too
long SOL periods. The effect of SOL with EVA, mainly in green-
house, was reported as extended also to soil fungal pathogens
(Cascone et al., 2000). Biodegradable films were generally stated
as effectively applicable in greenhouse and organic systems but
not suitable to SOL in the field, due to the above cited lower ther-
mal efficiency and quicker degradation (Castronuovo et al., 2005).
Cost evaluation should also be considered as a main factor for the
choice of solarizing materials (Hasing et al., 2004). BDF, COEX and
EVA plastics are about 100, 50 and 30% more expensive, respec-
tively.
Absence of pesticide residues is a prerequisite for the quality of a
leafy crop as lettuce. Results of this research indicated that SOL may
successfully replace the few chemicals still available for weed man-
agement in both intensive and conventional lettuce crops. Choice
of solarizing film well suited to the crop system may consistently
affect both technical effectiveness and economic convenience of a
SOL treatment. LDPE film may be the best choice for conventional
lettuce crop, as similarly effective but consistently cheaper than
other materials, whereas biodegradable plastics may be more prop-
erly applied to organic crops, as needing an environmentally safer
disposal of plastic residues.
 V. Candido et al. / Scientia Horticulturae 130 (2011) 491–497
Acknowledgements
The authors equally shared the work. Thanks to Mr. Cosimo
Marano and Mr. Paolo Putignano for technical assistance at exper-
imental sites.
References
Al-Masoom, A.A., Saghir, A.R., Itani, S., 1993. Soil solarization for weed management
in the UAE. Weed Technol. 2, 507–510.
Candido, V., D’Addabbo, T., Basile, M., Castronuovo, D., Miccolis, V., 2008. Greenhouse
soil solarization: effect on weeds, nematodes and yield of tomato and melon.
Agron. Sust. Dev. 28, 221–230, doi:10.1051/agro:2007053.
Cascone, G., D’Emilio, A., Polizzi, G., Grillo, R., 2000. Effectiveness of greenhouse
soil solarization with different plastic mulches in controlling corky root and
root-knot on tomato plants. Acta Hortic. (ISHS) 532, 145–150.
Castronuovo, D., Candido, V., Margiotta, S., Manera, C., Miccolis, V., Basile, M.,
D’Addabbo, T., 2005. Potential of a corn starch-based biodegradable plastic film
for soil solarization. Acta Hortic. (ISHS) 698, 201–206.
Chen, Y., Gamliel, A., Stapleton, J.J., Aviad, T., 1991. Chemical, physical and microbial
changes related to plant growth in disinfested soils. In: Katan, J., DeVay, J.E.
(Eds.), Soil Solarization. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 103–129.
D’Addabbo, T., Miccolis, V., Basile, M., Candido, V., 2010. Soil solarization and sus-
tainable agriculture: a review. In: Lichtfouse, E. (Ed.), Sustainable Agriculture
Reviews 3 – Sociology, Organic Farming, Climate Change and Soil Science.
Springer, London, UK, pp. 217–274, doi:10.1007/978-90-481-3333-8.
Elmore, C.L., 1991. Weed control by solarization. In: Katan, J., DeVay, J.E. (Eds.), Soil
Solarization. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 61–72.
McGovern, R.J., McSorley, R., 1997. Physical methods of soil sterilization for dis-
ease management including soil solarization. In: Rechcigl, N.A., Rechcigl, J.A.
(Eds.), Environmentally Safe Approaches to Crop Disease Control. CRC Press,
Boca Raton, FL, pp. 283–313.
Espí, E., Salmerón, A., Fontecha, A., García, Y., Real, A.I., 2006. Plastic
films for agricultural applications. J. Plast. Film Sheet 22, 85–102,
doi:10.1177/8756087906064220.
Fennimore, S.A., Richard, S.J., 1999. The evaluation of carfentrazone in salinas valley
lettuce. Proc. Calif. Weed Sci. Soc. 51, 17–19.
Gamliel, A., Stapleton, J.J., 1993. Effect of chicken compost or ammonium phosphate
and solarization on pathogen control, rhizosphere microorganisms, and lettuce
growth. Plant Dis. 77, 886–891.
Ghorbani, R., Wilcockson, S., Koocheki, A., Leifert, C., 2008. Soil management for
sustainable crop disease control: a review. Environ. Chem. Lett. 6, 149–162,
doi:10.1007/s10311-008-0147-0.
Gill, H.K., McSorley, R., Treadwell, D.D., 2009. Comparative performance of differ-
ent plastic films for soil solarization and weed suppression. Hortic. Technol. 19,
769–774.
497
Grünzweig, J.M., Katan, J., Ben-Tal, Y., Rabinowitch, H.D., 1999. The role of mineral
nutrients in the increased growth response of tomato plants in solarized soil.
Plant Soil 206, 21–27, doi:10.1023/A:1004321118896.
Gutkowski, D., Terranova, S., 1991. Physical aspects of soil solarization. In: DeVay,
J.E., Stapleton, J.J., Elmore, C.L. (Eds.), Soil Solarization – Proceedings of the First
Conference on Soil Solarization, vol. 109. FAO Plant Production and Protection
Paper, Amman, Jordan, pp. 48–61.
Hasing, J.E., Motsenbocker, C.E., Monlezun, C.J., 2004. Agroeconomic effect of soil
solarization on fall-planted lettuce (Lactuca sativa). Sci. Hortic. 101, 223–233,
doi:10.1016/j.scienta.2003.11.001.
Heissner, A., Schmidt, S., von Elsner, B., 2005. Comparison of plastic films with dif-
ferent optical properties for soil covering in horticulture: test under simulated
environmental conditions. J. Sci. Food Agric. 85, 539–548, doi:10.1002/jsfa.1862.
Isık, D., Kaya, E., Ngouajio, M., Mennan, H., 2009. Summer cover crops for weed man-
agement and yield improvement in organic lettuce (Lactuca sativa) production.
Phytoparasitica 37, 193–203.
Katan, J., 1981. Solar heating (solarization) of soil for control of soilborne pests. Annu.
Rev. Phytopathol. 19, 211–236.
Kristiansen, P., Sindel, B.M., Jessop, R.S., 2008. Weed management in organic echi-
nacea (Echinacea purpurea) and lettuce (Lactuca sativa) production. Renew. Agric.
Food Syst. 23, 120–135.
Linke, K.H., 1994. Effects of soil solarization on arable weeds under Mediterranean
conditions: control, lack of response or stimulation. Crop Prot. 13, 115–120,
doi:10.1016/S0261-2194(99)00083-6.
Patricio, F.R.A., Sinigaglia, C., Barros, B.C., Freitas, S.S., Tessarioli Neto, J., Cantarella,
H., Ghini, R., 2006. Solarization and fungicides for the control of drop, bottom rot
and weeds in lettuce. Crop Prot. 25, 31–38, doi:10.1016/j.cropro.2005.03.002.
Restuccia, G., Marchese, M., Mauromicale, G., 1994. Solarizzazione e lotta contro le
infestanti. Riv. Agron. 28, 21–30.
Riemens, M.M., Van Der Weide, R.Y., Bleeker, P.O., Lotz, L.A.P., 2007. Effect of stale
seedbed preparations and subsequent weed control in lettuce (cv. Iceboll) on
weed densities. Weed Res. 47, 149–156.
Russo, G., Candura, A., Scarascia-Mugnozza, G., 2005. Soil solarization with
biodegradable plastic film: two years of experimental tests. Acta Hortic. (ISHS)
691, 717–724.
Singla, S.L., Pareek, A., Grover, A., 1997. High temperature. In: Prasad, M.N.V. (Ed.),
Plant Ecophysiology. J. Wiley, New York, USA, pp. 101–127.
Stapleton, J.J., DeVay, J.E., 1995. Soil solarization: a natural mechanism of integrated
pest management. In: Reuveni, R. (Ed.), Novel Approaches to Integrated Pest
Management. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 309–350.
Stapleton, J.J., Molinar, R.H., Lynn-Patterson, K., McFeeters, S.K., Shrestha, A., 2005.
Soil solarization provides weed control for limited-resource and organic growers
in warmer climates. Calif. Agric. 59, 84–89.
Van Der Weide, R.Y., Bleeker, P.O., Achten, V.T.J.M., Lotz, L.A.P., Fogelberg, F.,
Melander, B., 2008. Innovation in mechanical weed control in crop rows. Weed
Res. 48, 215–224.
Zheng, Y., Yanful, E.K., Bassi, A.S., 2005. A review of plastic waste biodegradation.
Crit. Rev. Biotechnol. 25, 243–250, doi:10.1080/07388550500346359.