IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2015) 6-2

Research article
erd

Utilization of Coconut Fronds for Weed and Insect Pest
Management in Tomato Production
MARINA A. LABONITE*
Bohol Island State University-Bilar Campus, Bohol, Philippines
Email: mtalabonite@yahoo.com.ph

SANDRA MCDOUGALL
Australian Center for International Agricultural Research, Australia

GORDON ROGERS
Australian Center for International Agricultural Research, Australia

JOSE G. LABONITE
Bohol Island State University-Bilar Campus, Bohol, Philippines

DENNIS B. JOMOC
Bohol Island State University-Bilar Campus, Bohol, Philippines

MERIGINE C. OTARA
Bohol Island State University-Bilar Campus, Bohol, Philippines
Received 15 February 2015

Accepted 7 April 2015(*Corresponding Author)

Abstract The study assessed the effectiveness of coconut frond or cocofrond mulch inmanaging weed and insect pest population in tomato crops. Specifically, it aimed todetermine if cocofrond mulch can reduce weed infestation in tomato; to evaluate its
influence in minimizing insect pest population affecting the crop; and to find out the yield
performance of tomato mulched with cocofronds. Randomized Complete Block Design
with four treatments and four replicates was employed in a 139.50 m2 experimental lot
using the Diamante Max variety. The woven and unwoven cocofronds, polyethylene plastic
mulches, and control plots with hand weeding were compared. Weed and insect pest
species, its population counts, and yield data were taken and analyzed statistically throughanalysis of variance and Tukey’s HSD Test. The findings revealed that either woven or
unwoven coconut frond used as bed mulch was as effective as black plastic mulch insuppressing the dominant broadleaf, the Button weed (Borreria laevis) but had no effect on
the populations of the other 17 minor weed species observed. Bed mulch reduced thenumbers and damage caused by the 12-spotted ladybird beetle (Epilachna philipinensisremota) larvae but had no effect on its adult population nor on the damage caused by otherpests like the green looper (Chrysodeixis chalcites) and fruitworm (Helicoverpa armigera)
larvae. Neither coconut frond nor black plastic bed mulch had any significant effect on
tomato crop’s yield. These findings are ample basis for a wider exploration on the potential
use of coconut fronds as a low-cost weed and pest management techniques for organic
vegetable production.
Keywords coconut frond, weed management, insect pest management, mulch,broadleaf weed

INTRODUCTION
In the Philippines context, tomato ranks second in the top horticultural crops being produced by a
production industry, which dominated by small scale farmers. Although it is grown widely, theaverage yield in the Philippines is relatively low with 9.79 mt posted in 2005 (PCAARRD, 2007).
Ⓒ ISERD

23

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2015) 6-2

Low production in small scale farming is due to high incidence of diseases, insect pests, and highlogistics costs. Other farmers encounter problems on nutrient deficiency diseases, insect pest
infestation, and weed competition. Weeds reduce yields by competing for space, light, water, andnutrients, weakening crop stand, and by reducing harvest efficiency. Weed infestation throughout
the crop life cycle results in about 40 to 60% reduction in potential tomato fruit yield (Adigun,2005). Some weeds increase pest problems by serving as hosts for insects and pathogens. Weeds
are most competitive if they emerge prior to or at planting until about 6 to 8 weeks after crop
emergence (University of California, 2014). Despite the high costs in insect pest, disease and weed
management measures, the problems result to low income due to low yield. Thus, farmers grope fora safe and economically productive technology to counter weed and insect pest problems in tomato
culture, and mulching is believed to be one.
Studies on mulching frequently present straw mulch, plastic mulch and live-mulch cowpea.
This is tested in pepper and shown that cowpea mulch is more effective in suppressing pest
populations of pepper but straw mulch provide a better refuge for the natural enemies (Mochiah etal., 2012). Mulching trials on plant growth, yield, and pest control in organic yellow zucchiniproduction reveal that paper, rye straw, black plastic, and rye straw plus paper greatly reduce weeds
as compared with the bare soil control and are not significantly different in their weed suppression
effect (Hulsey, 2013). Black plastic mulch results in significantly higher total yields as compared toall other treatments and the bare soil control. Black plastic also has significantly greater densities ofsquash bugs and stink bugs as compared to other treatments and the control. None has ever tried
mulching coconut leaves and fronds in tomato or other vegetables but this experiment.
OBJECTIVE
The main purpose of this study was to assess the usefulness and applicability of coconut fronds as
mulch for weed and insect pest management in tomato production. Specifically, the purpose was todetermine the influence of cocofrond mulch on weed population, pest incidence and yield oftomato.
METHODOLOGY
The experiment was conducted at the Bohol Island State University, Zamora, Bilar, Bohol with areddish soil that had 2.27% organic matter content, 3.5 ppm Phosphorus, 10 ppm K, and a pH of
4.88. The area had previously been abundantly occupied by Humidicula grass apart from Paspalum
conjugatum, Euphorbia hirta, Digitaria ciliaris, Dactyloctinium aegyptium, Ehinochloa colona andPanicum repens. A randomized complete block design was used with four treatments and fourreplicates. All cultural practices in tomato production were followed, except on weed and insect
pest management after transplanting. Diamante Max variety of tomato seedlings were transplantedon December 6, 2013. Vermicompost and carbonized rice hull combination at the rate of 5 tons per
hectare was applied as basal fertilizer. The study compared coconut fronds and the commonly
recommended black plastic mulch. Fig. 1 presents the treatments.

T1

T3

T2

T4

Fig. 1 Treatments: T1- control-hand weeding, T2- woven cocofrond mulch,
T3- unwoven cocofrond mulch, T4- plastic mulch

Fig. 1 Treatments: T1- Control-Hand Weeding; T2-Woven Cocofrond Mulch; T3-Unwoven Cocofrond Mulch; T4-Plastic MulchⒸ ISERD

24

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2015) 6-2

Data collected were weed species, population per species at 30 and 60 days fromtransplanting; insect pest population per species taken fortnightly in ten sample plants per treatment
per block; and yield of five harvests per treatment per block computed in tons/ha. Analysis ofvariance and Tukey’s HSD Test were applied.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Influence of Coconut Fronds and Plastic Mulches on Weed Infestation
Table 1 presents the 18 weed species found in the experimental plots where majority werebroadleaf weeds, no grass weeds identified, and only one sedge species the Cyperus kyllingia. All
were dominated by a broadleaf Borreria laevis.
Table 1 Mean population weeds per species per treatment
MorphologicalClassification
Broadleaf
Broadleaf
Broadleaf
Broadleaf
Broadleaf
Broadleaf
Broadleaf
Broadleaf
Broadleaf
Broadleaf
Broadleaf
Broadleaf
Broadleaf
Broadleaf
Broadleaf
Broadleaf
Broadleaf
Sedge

Scientific NameControl
0.8
16.3
16.89.30
6.8
255.0
2
1.8
3.5
1.30
1.5
8.5
0
1.00
3.3

Calpogonium mucunoides
Ageratum conyzoides
Mimosa pudica
Phyllanthus.amarus
Cassia tora
Ipomea triloba
Borreria laevis
Borreria ocymoides
Commelina diffusa
Phyllathus niruri
Desmodium triflorum
Chromolaena odorata
Cleome rutidosperma
Corchorus olitorious
Euphobia hirta
Stachytapheta jamaicensis
Bidens pilosa
Cyperus kyllingia

Mulch / Mean Population*
ParallelWoven
Cocofrond
Cocofrond
1.8
0.8
10.5
8.0
25.8
34.5
1.3
9.3
0.8
0
5.3
7.875.0
119.0
00
0.3
0.3
4.5
1.3
1.8
0.8
00
2.0
6.0
7.3
11.3
0
0.3
1.0
1.00
0.5
0.3
1.5

Plastic Mulch
0.8
20.0
9.5
2.5
1.0
1.5
31.5
0
1.5
2.5
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.5
0000

*means from 3 replicatesMultivariate analysis showed that only the population of Borreria laevis significantly differedamong treatments. Tukey’s HSD Test in Table 2 reveals that all kinds of mulch significantly
reduced the population of B. laevis compared to hand weeding. The test also illustrates that allmulches have similar suppressive effects on the B. laevis. This initial finding encourages furtherstudies to prove its potential in weed management in tomato as well as in other vegetables.
Table 2 Comparison of treatment means of B. laevis using Tukey’s HSD test
Treatment

NT4 - PE plastic mulch
T3 - Parallel cocofrond
T2 - Woven cocofrond
T1 – Control/Hand Weeding

4444Subset*
12

31.50
75.00
119.00
255.00P-value*means in the same subset are not significantly different to each otherⒸ ISERD250.149

1.00

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2015) 6-2

Effects of Coconut Fronds and Plastic Mulches on Insect Pest Incidence
The population of the three insect pest species found the most damaging to the experimental tomato
crops: 12-spotted ladybird beetle, Epilachna philipinensis remota; tomato fruitworm, Helicoverpa
armigera and the green looper, Chrysodeixis chalcites differed in terms of time and the mulch used.
Figure 2 reveals that plastic mulch reduced their population for a number of weeks. This wasfollowed by cocofrond mulches while tomatoes with hand weeding had higher pest population inmost of the time.

Fig. 2 Population of 12-spotted ladybird beetle adults (above left), its larvae (above right);
greenlooper larvae (lower left), and tomato fruitworm larvae (lower right) infesting
tomato crops per time
Analysis on the population of 12-spotted ladybird beetle adults, fruitworm larvae, and green
looper larvae presented in Table 3 shows highly significant difference between time/weeks, while
the beetle larvae had significant result. This implies a similar effectiveness of the mulches on thepest though time element or crop stage had significant effect on the pest irrespective of themulching materials. However, pest population was not significantly affected by the treatments
except for 12-spotted ladybirds beetle larvae which had been significantly affected by the mulches.
Time and treatment interaction was not significantly denoting the independent influence of timeand mulches on the pest population. The same analysis illustrated that Epilachna larvae wasinfluenced by mulch while the adults were not affected. This suggests that there was a difference in
egg lay and survival of the eggs or of the hatching larvae in mulched plots versus the control.
Tukey’s HSD test results on the 12-spotted ladybird beetle larval population presented inTable 4 reveals that plastic mulch had a significantly lower number compared to the rests of themulches. The unwoven and the woven cocofrond mulches had intermediate populations whichwere not significantly different from either the black plastic mulch or the control plots.

Ⓒ ISERD

26

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2015) 6-2

Table 3 Analysis of variance on the insect pest population infesting the tomato crops
Source of Variations
Within-Subjects
Pests

Time
F-Statistic**

Spotted ladybird beetle adults
15.085
Spotted l. beetle larvae
3.988*
Fruitworm larvae
9.181**
Green looper
17.878**
Note: Tested at 95% level of confidence

Between Subjects

Time x Treatment

P value

F-Statistic

0.000
0.043
0.000
0.000

ns

0.966
1.438ns0.304ns
1.070ns

P value

Treatment
F-Statistic

0.494
0.256
0.986
0.406

ns

1.745
4.949*
0.165ns0.389ns

P-Value
0.211
0.018
0.918
0.763

Table 4 Comparison of means on spotted ladybird beetle larval population
using Tukey’s HSD test
Subset* 1

Subset* 2

4 – Plastic Mulch
40.0415
3 – Parallel/Unwoven Cocofrond
40.1545
2– Woven Cocofrond Mulch
40.5810
1– Control/Hand weeding
4P-value
0.114*means in the same subset are not significant to each other at 95% level of confidence

Treatment

0.15450.58100.7605
0.068

The damage counts based on infested leaves by the 12-spotted ladybird beetles and thefruitworm bored tomato fruits are shown in Fig. 3. The figure illustrates that there was lesser
damage on the crops that were mulched with cocofronds, compared to the ones that planted withhand weeding and with plastic mulch.

Fig. 3 Number of Epilachna beetle-infested leaves (left) and the fruitworm-infested
fruits tomato (right)
Table 5 Analysis of variance on the 12-spotted ladybird beetle and fruitworm infestation on
tomato crops
Source of Variations
Within-SubjectTimeTime x Treatment
F-Statistic
P value
F-Statistic
P value
12-spotted l. beetle infestation
2.258ns
0.130
0.385ns
0.873
32.395**0.000
0.307ns
0.968*
Fruitworm infestation
Note: Tested at 95% level of confidence
PestsⒸ ISERD

27

Between-Subjects
Treatment
F-StatisticP-Value
4.540*
0.024
0.254ns
0.857

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2015) 6-2

Analysis of the Epilachna beetle infested leaves in Table 5 indicates no significant interaction
between time and treatments, but main effects between treatments differed significantly. Thismeans that the beetle-infested tomato leaves were significantly reduced with the use of mulchingmaterials. Tukey’s HSD test on infested leaves showed that plants with hand weeding hadsignificantly higher infested leaves compared to mulched plants, particularly to unwoven
cocofronds. Analysis also showed that fruitworm damage was not significantly different among
treatments indicating that mulching had no influence on the number of infested fruits. A significant
difference between times indicated that fruitworm-infested fruits irrespectively increased with cropage applied with mulching materials.
Influence of Coconut Fronds and Plastic Mulch on Yield of Tomato
Yield of tomato with and without mulch did not differ significantly from each other as shown in
Table 6. This implies the lack of influence of the mulch on the crop’s yield. There could have beena treatment difference if the control plots had not been hand weeded.
Table 6 Yield analysis of tomato in tons/ha as influenced by cocofrond mulch
Source of Variation
Sum of Squares
Treatment
0.183
Error
0.675
Total
0.858
Note: Tested at 95% level of confidence

df31215

Mean Square0.061
0.056

F
1.086ns

P-value
0.392

CONCLUSION
Mulching is useful in suppressing the dominant weed, B. laevis in tomato production. The three bedmulches, woven and parallel arranged coconut fronds, and black plastic similarly suppressed thepopulation of B. laevis. The black plastic mulch was highly effective in reducing spotted ladybird
beetle [SLB] (Epilachna sp.) larval population, while both woven and unwoven/parallel arranged
cocofronds had slightly suppressed the pest. The mulches reduced the SLB larval damage ontomato, although in this case the woven cocofronds was highly effective while, the nonwoven/parallel cocofrond mulch and plastic mulch were slightly effective in minimizing thedamage. Despite the effectiveness of the mulches on weeds and insect pest management, they did
not influence crop yield, implying additional tests.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Indebtedness is hereby conveyed to the Australian Center for International Agricultural Research(ACIAR) for the financial support provided, likewise the ACIAR and the Visayas State University
Research Teams for their technical assistance.
REFERENCES
Adigun, J. 2005. Critical period of weed interference in rainfed and irrigated tomatoes in Negerian Savannah.
Agricultura Tropica, 38 (2), 73.
Hulsey, J. 2013. Effects of different mulching methods on organic yellow zucchini production. University ofFlorida. Library System, November 2013.
Mochiah, M.B., Baidoo, P.K. and Acheampong, G. 2012. Agriculture and biology. Journal of North America
ISSN Print: 2151-7517, ISSN Online: 2151-7525, doi:10.5251/abjna.2012.3.6.253.261 ©, ScienceHuβ.
Philippine Council for Aquatic and Agricultural Resources Research and Development (PCAARRD). 2007.
PCAARRD commodities, tomato industry status.
University of California. 2014. UC IPM Pest Management Guidelines: Tomato.UC ANR Publication 3470.
WeedsAgriculture and Natural Resources, University of California, USA.
Ⓒ ISERD28