tagetes patula as a companion plant in … · economic benefits of companion plants ... rue (ruta...
TRANSCRIPT
TAGETES PATULA AS A COMPANION PLANT IN EAST TENNESSEE PHASEOLUS
VULGARIS CULTIVATION
A Report of a Senior Study
by
Hannah Elizabeth Cummings
Major: Biology
Maryville College
Fall, 2015
Date approved____________, by_________________________
Faculty Supervisor
Date approved____________, by_________________________
Division Chair
iii
ABSTRACT
Phaseolus vulgaris, common green beans, are prolific throughout East Tennessee but
experience damage as a result of Epilachna varivestis herbivory. A solution to the problem of
destruction of crops may be found in companion plants known to naturally repel insect pests.
This study examined if marigolds (Tagetes patula) could have an allelopathic effect on E.
varivestis. Three different varieties of P. vulgaris, Kentucky Wonder, Blue Lake, and Black
Valentine, were planted without companion plants (controls) or with T. patula to observe
whether beans planted with marigolds would be more resistant to E. varivestis than those
without. Two endpoints were quantified: bean number and leaf damage. The Blue Lake
variety showed a response to being companion planted with T. patula and demonstrated a
significantly greater harvest (p=.01) than the control group. Leaf area damaged by pests in
both Black Valentine and Blue Lake varieties of bean plants was not influenced by the
companion plants. Due to the lack of difference in leaf damage, it is proposed that T. patula
did not offer aromatic pest-repellant properties against E. varivestis but instead offered
microbial benefits against harmful fungi and root-knot nematodes damaging the roots. Thus,
Tagetes patula is a viable option to increase yields of Phaseolus vulgaris in East Tennessee,
but the beneficial mechanism of action is unknown.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER I .............................................................................................................................. 1!
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1!
General Uses for Companion Plants ................................................................................. 1!
Economic Benefits of Companion Plants ......................................................................... 6!
Ecological Benefits of Companion Plants ........................................................................ 7!
The Evolution of Companion Plants ................................................................................. 8!
Tagetes patula, French Marigolds .................................................................................... 9!
Phaseolus vulgaris, Green Bean ...................................................................................... 10!
Epilachna varivestis or the Mexican bean beetle ........................................................... 10!
Purpose of Study ............................................................................................................. 12!
CHAPTER II ........................................................................................................................... 13!
MATERIALS AND METHODS ........................................................................................ 13!
Experimental Crops and Origins ..................................................................................... 13!
Experiment Plot Locations and Layout ........................................................................... 14!
Soil Testing and Preparation ........................................................................................... 16!
v
Plant and Seed Purchases and Planting ........................................................................... 17!
Leaf Damage Analysis and Bean Harvest Data Collection ............................................ 17!
Statistical Analysis .......................................................................................................... 21!
CHAPTER III ......................................................................................................................... 22!
RESULTS ........................................................................................................................... 22!
Soil Analysis and Bean Harvest ...................................................................................... 22!
Leaf Damage ................................................................................................................... 25!
CHAPTER IV ......................................................................................................................... 27!
DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................................... 27!
Bean Harvest ................................................................................................................... 27!
Leaf Damage ................................................................................................................... 28!
Allelopathic Influence ..................................................................................................... 29!
Summary ......................................................................................................................... 30!
REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 34!
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1 Mexican bean beetle adult and larvae 11
2 Garden plot layout at Maryville College 15
3 Garden plot layout at Blackberry Farm 16
4 Ideal bean harvest length 20
5 Average bean harvest 25
6 Average percent leaf damage of bean plants 26
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1 Beneficial companion plant and crop combinations 4
2 Average soil results 23
3 Green bean and marigold sprout dates 23
4 Green bean harvest totals 24
viii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank Dr. Drew Crain for the countless hours he spent assisting me in
my research and reviewing my thesis document as well as his patience and encouragement. I
would also like to thank John Coykendall and Michael Washburn of Blackberry Farm for
mentoring me throughout the entire season of my data collection process. I would like to
thank Blackberry Farm for hosting one of my study’s plot sites. Lastly, I would like to thank
my uncle Joseph D. Gorman whose generosity has allowed me the opportunity to pursue a
higher education.
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
General Uses for Companion Plants
Companion plantings--the planting of two or more species of plants in the same
garden or crop system to improve the growth or productivity of one or more of the species--
have been utilized by farmers for thousands of years (Beyfuss et al. 1994). They can provide
a pest-repellent (repellent plant), beneficial-insect-attractant (banker plant), or predator-
attractant (insectary plant) function (Parolin et al. 2012). Ancient civilizations noticed how
crops interacted with each other and often devised ways of increasing crop yields. For
instance, native American peoples planted corn, squash, and beans together as companion
crops to improve the growth of each plant (Beyfuss et al. 1994). Greek and Roman farmers
noticed that cabbages, laurels, and radishes were detrimental to grapevines (Flowerdew
2012). Oaks were considered detrimental to olives, walnut trees sterilized the ground, and
lupins were noticed for their weed suppressing ability (Flowerdew 2012). In the first century
A.D., Pliny the Elder promoted planting chickpeas with cabbages and planting turnips with
2
vetches to keep away caterpillars (Flowerdew 2012). Indeed, agricultural practices utilizing
companion plants is perhaps as old as human history.
The reason that modern civilizations often do not use companion plants on a large
scale is due to the ease and efficiency of monocultures. Monoculture allows large amounts of
one type of crop to be grown at once, and for the use of specialized machinery which makes
harvesting more efficient and less costly. However, one drawback to monoculture is that it
allows disease and specialized insect pests to spread rapidly through the species of crop
grown thereby decimating it. Planting multiple types of crops within the same crop system
has been shown to limit the spread of disease and pests thereby lessening the need for
pesticides and making a more sustainable farming system (Balmer et al. 2014). It is argued
that inter-planted crops or secondary plants are less appealing to insect pests and may even
be more difficult for pests to find (George et al. 2013, Parker et al. 2013). In contrast to
monoculture, diverse landscapes of plants increase biodiversity and provide havens for insect
predators and parasitoids of the pests that plague crops (Parker et al. 2013).
Pest damage in modern crops is a complex topic that includes more issues than the
practice of monoculture. The ecology and biology of crop plants often differ from wild
populations. For instance, specialist and generalist herbivores and their parasitoids develop
poorly on wild populations of cabbage as compared to domesticated species, and levels of
glucosinolates are higher in plants from wild populations (Gols et al. 2008). It has been
proposed that programs using domesticated varieties of plants have possibly disrupted plant
defense strategies (Evans 1993). The issue of widespread insect herbivory of crops is
perhaps furthered by farmers’ practice of planting the most palatable, domesticated varieties
3
of plants in large quantities unimpeded by other crops or plants. Utilizing wild varieties of
crops along with the added benefit of a naturally pest-repellant companion plant in the effort
to reduce insect herbivory of crops warrants future studies. Current companion plant research
is surprisingly sparse, but the outcomes of several combinations of companion plants and
crops have been studied (Table 1). The studies presented mostly showed that the presence of
a companion plant either increased parasitoid density, decreased insect pest density, or
minimized herbivory of the host plant.
4
Table 1. Beneficial companion plant and crop combinations.
Host Plant Companion Plant Effect Reference
Coffee Plant (Coffea arabica)
Inga subnuda subsp.
Luschnathiana
Provided alternate food-source for and
minimized damage of Leucoptera
coffeella and Hypothenemus
hampei
Rezende et al. 2014
Cabbage (Brassica oleracea)
Corn Flowers (Centaurea)
Prevented attack by
spiders and ground beetles
Ditner et al. 2013
Bishop's Flower (Ammi
majus)
Minmized attack by Mamestra brassicae
Géneau et al. 2012
Cornflower (Centaurea
cyanus) Buckwheat
(Fagopyrum esculentum) Candytuft
(Iberis amara) Common
Vetch (Vicia sativa)
Clover (Trifolium
subterraneum)
Disrupted female cabbage root flies from landing on host
plant
Morley et al. 2005
Cucumber (Cucumis sativus)
Buckwheat (Fagopyrum esculentum)
Minimized attack by cucumber
beetles
Platt et al. 1999, 2005 Squash
(Cucurbita)
5
Common Grape Vine
(Vitis vinifera)
Buckwheat (Fagopyrum esculentum)
Trapped various insect pests found in
vineyards
Scarratt et al. 2008
Tomato (Solanum
lycopersicum: variety
Dimerosa)
French Marigold (Tagetes patula)
Minimized attack by root-knot nematodes
Tringovska et al. 2015
Basil (Ocimum basilicum)
Lettuce (Lactuca sativa)
White Mustard (Sinapsis alba)
Potato (Solanum
tuberosum)
Wild Tomatoes (Lycopersicon
hirsutum)
Drew Colorado Potato Beetles away from host
plant
Thiery et al. 1987
Sweet Corn (Zea mays
subsp. mays)
Pineland Threeseed Mercury
(Acalypha ostryifolia)
Attracted predator
Coleomegilla maculata
resulting in oviposition resulting in increased
predator density
Seagraves et al. 2009
Tomato (Solanum
lycopersicum)
Rose (Rosa)
Rue (Ruta graveolens) Failed attempt
to discourage the Japanese beetle from finding and
attacking rose bushes
Held et al. 2003
Zonal Geranium
(Pelargonium x hortorum)
Garlic Chives (Allium
scheonparum)
Table 1 (continued). Beneficial companion plant and crop combinations.
6
Broccoli (Brassica
oleracea var. Italica)
Buckwheat (Fagopyrum esculentum)
Used to attract the parasitoid
Diadegma semiclausum to
increase parasitism rates
of Plutella xylostella
(diamondback moth) in
broccoli fields
Lavandero et al. 2004
Economic Benefits of Companion Plants
Utilizing companion plants has the potential to provide large economic gain for
organic gardeners. Flowering plants with suitable habitat and nectar available for parasitoids
increases the likelihood of predation of herbivorous insect pests. The predation of insect pests
potentially decreases the damage to valuable crops. The benefits of companion planting are
not easily recognized in monoculture. Often, pesticides are used in their place.
Unfortunately, the use of pesticides does not always benefit the crops or the farmer.
In East Africa and North America alike, where pesticides are often used to increase yields, an
increasingly common problem is pest populations that are becoming adapted to pesticides
(Muli et al. 2014; Parker et al. 2013). Pesticide resistance can evolve from an insect pest
population being exposed to pesticides or pesticide combinations over multiple seasons or
years, thereby allowing the survivors from the population to reproduce. Thus, over numerous
generations, insect populations become less susceptible to pesticide effects (Sumerford et al.
2013). When pest populations become resistant to pesticides the crops are no longer
protected at a large expense monetarily. More importantly, pesticide use often has the side
Table 1 (continued). Beneficial companion plant and crop combinations.
7
effect of killing important pollinators such as honeybees. Pollination services provided
globally by insect pollinators exceed $200 billion (Muli et al. 2014). Therefore, the use of
pesticides is not only an issue of economics but of ecological importance, and alternatives to
contemporary pesticide use in agriculture is warranted (Horrigan 2002).
Ecological Benefits of Companion Plants
Health implications and potential for decreased biodiversity are issues that are linked
to pesticide use. Vulnerable species, species whose populations are in decline, and humans
all have the potential to be negatively impacted by pesticides. This is most clearly illustrated
in important pollinators such as bee populations.
Bee populations are in decline in North America and East Africa, and pesticides are
proving to be a major contributor to their declining numbers (Muli et al. 2014). The
pesticides used are decreasing numbers in bee populations which limits pollination thereby
further decreasing yields (Muli et al. 2014). Further problems include pesticide run-off often
reaching streams and rivers where it impacts wildlife in aquatic communities (Parolin et al.
2014). Human exposure to pesticides is a further danger that could be lessened or eliminated
if pest-repellent plants were used instead. Annually, 25 million agricultural workers in
developing countries are exposed to organophosphorous pesticides (Jeyaratnam 1990). Farm
workers responsible for spraying pesticides in developing countries often use ineffective
practices that lead to significant exposure to these agents (Kishi et al. 1995). In addition,
farmers exhibited more pesticide poisoning symptoms during periods when pesticides were
being used on crops (Kishi et al. 1995). The United Nations reported that 2 million people
worldwide experience pesticide-related illness and 10 thousand people die a pesticide-related
8
death annually (Quijano 1993). The effects of pesticide poisoning range from symptoms as
mild as eye irritation or as severe as cancer and reproductive disorders (Yassi et al. 2004).
Furthermore, only 20% of the world’s agrochemicals are used in the world’s developing
countries, but those countries suffer nearly 99% of deaths related to pesticide poisoning
(Jeyaratnam and Chia 1994). Some of the most hazardous pesticides to use--such as
organophosphorus pesticides--are unfortunately among the most effective pesticides
available yet cause nearly 73% of pesticide related poisonings in humans (Dewan and Sayed
1998).
The harmful effects of pesticide use are a large scale issue that could be remedied by
incorporating companion plants into crop systems. Crop systems not only provide food and
income but could potentially provide habitat to useful organisms such as pollinators when
utilized properly. Flowering plants are a category of companion plants that show particular
promise in agriculture.
Planting flowering plants as trap plants alongside crops is useful because the nectar
from the flowers provides an alternate food source for parasitoids such as wasps. Plants with
extrafloral nectaries may be even more suitable for crop protection than flowering plants
because they excrete higher rates of nectar and produce nectar over more extended periods
than floral nectaries (Wackers 2005; Pacini and Nepi 2007).
The Evolution of Companion Plants
Insects and plants have a mutualistic relationship: the insect (such as a pollinator)
provides pollination services to the plant while the flower of the plant provides a valuable
food source. This mutualistic relationship is an example of coevolution. Coevolution in
9
plants is a type of extreme mutualism that resulted in many species of insects and plants
evolving together (Cain et al. 2011). This mutual reliance by some species of plants is so
important that they can only be pollinated by the highly specialized insects that coevolved
with them (Cain et al. 2011). Furthermore, certain species of parasitoids specialize in
parasitizing a limited number of herbivorous insect hosts in a symbiotic relationship resulting
from coevolution (Bilodeau et al. 2013).
Similarly, companion plants have a mutualistic relationship with their host plant.
Clover, for instance, provides a mutualistic relationship with broccoli when the two grow
near each other. Lepidopteran herbivory is reduced when broccoli is grown in close
proximity to clover (Hooks et al. 2004). Humans have long observed that such plant-plant
mutualistic relationships are likely to increase crop yields. Examples include the
aforementioned planting of corn, beans, and squash by Native Americans. Much of the
information farmers’ use today regarding companion plant-crop pairings involves popular
gardening books, the advice of other farmers, or their own instincts (Parker et al. 2013).
One popular contemporary companion plant is Marigolds of the family Asteraceae.
Marigolds are an example of a plant that use allelopathic properties to defend itself
(Balicevic et al. 2014). Allelopathy in plants is the beneficial or harmful influence of one
organism on the other through allelochemicals (Rice 1984; Reigosa et al. 2006).
Tagetes patula, French Marigolds
Marigold (Calendula officinalis L.) of the Asteraceae family is a biennial or annual
plant that produces yellow or orange flowers (Paradikovic et al. 2013, Erhatic et al. 2014).
Marigolds show allelopathic properties against other plants by secreting 3-O-monoglucoside
10
through the roots of the plant (Ruszkowski et al. 2004). Marigolds are used for cosmetic,
pharmaceutical, medical, and ornamental purposes (Siljes et al. 1992; Cromack and Smith
1998). French, African, and Mexican marigold varieties originated in Central America
(Flowerdew 2012). In addition to farmers’ beliefs that marigolds protect against Mexican
bean beetles, French marigolds have been shown to minimize attack by root-knot nematodes
(Tringovska et al. 2015).
Phaseolus vulgaris, Green Bean
Phaseolus vulgaris, or the common bean--specifically the green bean which is known
by names such as snap beans and string beans--in its wild form most likely originated in
South America (Duke 1983). Green beans are now cultivated in temperate and tropical
regions worldwide and developed into both bush and twining forms (Duke 1983). Bush
varieties grow in clumps about 1 meter tall and twining varieties grow about 4 meters tall
with the support of a trellis (Duke 1983). Pods of P. vulgaris green bean variety are harvested
while still green and immature and are a nutritious, relatively low-cost food rich in vitamin C
(Duke 1983). The insect pest commonly known as the Mexican bean beetle (Epilachna
varivestis) is prolific throughout the Southeastern United States and perhaps the biggest
inhibitor of P. vulgaris productivity wreaking devastation on bean crops in Eastern
Tennessee (Howard 1924).
Epilachna varivestis or the Mexican bean beetle
Epilachna varivestis, or the Mexican bean beetle, is in the family Coccinellidae in the
order Coleoptera (see Figure 1). It is an herbivorous insect pest indigenous to Southern
Mexico whose habitat ranges from Southern Canada on the North American continent to
11
Guatemala on the South American continent (Sanchez-Arroyo 1997). The beetle was first
identified in the Southeastern United States in 1920 at the Alabama Experiment Station from
Blocton and Birmingham, Alabama and had been identified in the Southwestern United
States nearly 71 years previously (Howard 1924).
Figure 1. The Mexican bean beetle (Epilachna varivestis) shown in its adult (A) and larval
(B) stage.
The Mexican bean beetle reached eastern Tennessee by 1921 (Howard 1924), and
today is the most injurious pest of P. vulgaris (Hale [date unknown]). Female E. varivestis
feed on young bean plants for 1 to 2 weeks then lay 500 to 600 eggs in groups of 40 to 75
eggs at a time on the underside of the bean plants’ leaves. After the larvae hatch, they feed
voraciously on the leaves of the plant for 2 to 5 weeks (Sanchez-Arroyo 1997). Bean plants
such as P. vulgaris and Phaseolus lunatus are the preferred hosts among Mexican bean
beetles with both adults and larvae feeding upon flowers, leaves, and bean pods of plants
(Sanchez-Arroyo 1997). The leaves of the plant, however, usually receive the most damage.
B
Photo Credit: Drew Crain
A
12
E. varivestis has at least 17 species of known predators each of which feed on either Mexican
bean beetle eggs, larvae, or pupae. The two parasitoids that demonstrate the ability to control
large populations of Mexican bean beetles are Paradexodes epilachnae and Pediobius
foveolatus which are tachinid fly and eulophid wasp species, respectively (Sanchez-Arroyo
1997). The relationship between the Mexican bean beetle and the green bean illustrate the
detrimental economic effects that result when a specialized insect pest voraciously feeds
upon a crop.
Purpose of Study
The purpose of this study is to determine whether aromatic, pest-repellant companion
plants such as French marigolds will produce a measurable benefit by repelling pests and
increasing productivity of bush bean P. vulgaris plants in East Tennessee gardens. It is
hypothesized that French marigolds will produce a measurable increase on bush bean
productivity. The goal of this study is to provide valuable data to assist East Tennessee
farmers in their efforts to grow bush bean crops in a sustainable way that would minimize
damage from the insect pest Mexican bean beetles while eliminating or reducing the need for
additional pesticides.
13
CHAPTER II
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Experimental Crops and Origins
Three different varieties of Phaseolus vulgaris, or green beans, were studied in the
field with French marigolds Tagetes patula: Kentucky Wonder, Blue Lake, and Black
Valentine. The Black Valentine beans were used to monitor the success of a heirloom variety
compared to the commercial varieties Kentucky Wonder and Blue Lake in resisting damage
by the Mexican Bean Beetle (Epilachna varivestis). Half of all varieties were companion-
planted with French marigolds to observe whether beans planted with marigolds would be
more resistant to Mexican Bean Beetles than those without.
The Kentucky Wonder variety was purchased from the Knoxville Seed Company in
Knoxville, Tn., whereas the Blue Lake variety was purchased from the AgCentral Farmers
Co-Op in Maryville, Tennessee. The Black Valentine beans came from the personal seed
collection of heirloom seed collector John Coykendall of Knoxville, Tennessee. The Black
Valentine beans used in this experiment were obtained by Coykendall in St. Landry Parish,
Louisiana from a local farmer in 1994.
14
Experiment Plot Locations and Layout
Two locations were used as experimental garden plots. Maryville College in
Maryville, Tn. (35°45'4.95"N, 83°57'39.32"W) hosted a rectangular garden plot subdivided
into 14 subplots (see Figure 2). Three subplots were used for each variety of green bean used
in the study, and an additional subplot was used which contained two different varieties. In
East Tennessee, prevailing winds blow north-west, and thus the experimental marigolds were
placed on the southeast side of the garden in order to minimize contamination between
experimental and control subplots. Blackberry Farm in Walland, Tn. ( 35°41'39.32"N,
83°51'53.85"W) was the site of a second experimental plot consisting of a row 10 meters
long surrounded by a variety of other vegetables in the farm’s vegetable garden (Figure 3).
15
Figure 2. The layout of Black Valentine and Blue Lake plant groups as well as the
dimensions of the plot and location of non-experimental plants on the Maryville College
campus in Maryville, Tennessee. Orange rings indicate that experimental beans were
surrounded by marigolds.
16
Figure 3. The overall layout of Black Valentine and Kentucky Wonder plant groups at
Blackberry Farm in Walland, Tennessee.
Soil Testing and Preparation
Four soil samples from Maryville College and 2 soil samples from Blackberry Farm
were collected during April 3 and April 1 respectively. The samples were collected from the
4 corners of the plot at Maryville College and at two locations approximately 6 meters apart.
Soil samples were collected using a steel soil sample probe to a depth of 15.24 cm, dried on
disposable aluminum cake pans, and were sent to the Soil, Plant and Pest Center in Nashville,
17
Tennessee for testing. The garden plots at Maryville College and Blackberry Farm were tilled
using a tiller attachment on a tractor. No compost or additives were used in either soil plot.
Plant and Seed Purchases and Planting
To mimic conditions in a typical domestic vegetable garden, a variety of vegetable
plants were planted in close proximity to both experimental and control plots. On May 5,
non-experimental garden plants were purchased from Home Depot (Maryville, TN). Bonnie
Plants varieties of tomatoes, cucumbers, cantaloupe, squash, and basal were planted on May
5, 2015. Both experimental and control plants were equidistant from these vegetables (see
Figure 2).
On May 22, Kentucky Wonder and Black Valentine bush beans were planted at the
Blackberry Farm plot. On May 27, Black Valentine and Blue Lake bush beans were planted
in the Maryville College plot. For both plots, the same planting method was used: a shallow
trench of approximately 13 centimeters was made using a hoe, 4 bean seeds were dropped
into the trench approximately 120 centimeters apart, the seeds were thoroughly soaked with
water, and the seeds were lightly covered with approximately 8 centimeters of dry soil.
French marigolds from Bell Horticultural Company used at the Maryville College
plot were purchased from Home Depot, Maryville, TN., whereas the French marigolds used
at the Blackberry Farm plot were an heirloom variety obtained by John Coykendall from a
stock begun at Blackberry Farm in 1994.
Leaf Damage Analysis and Bean Harvest Data Collection
Two endpoints were quantified: leaf damage and bean number. Leaf damage was
assessed by collecting leaves from each bean group according to its plot location and whether
18
it had or had not been companion-planted with French marigolds. To avoid bias when
choosing representative leaves to sample, only leaves on the North side were selected. Three
total representative leaves were collected from each bean group: a leaf from the lowest
growth level of the plant, a leaf from the growth level between the topmost and bottommost
growth level, and a leaf from the topmost growth level of the plant. The representative leaves
from each plant were collected at different levels to include leaves at varying stages of
development and leaf damage. The amount of damage to the leaves was analyzed using
ImageJ software obtained from the National Institute of Health.
Leaf analysis using ImageJ followed the following protocol: leaves were laid flat on a
sheet of white paper with a ruler marked in centimeters. A picture of each representative leaf
for each plant group—the leaf from the middle tier—was uploaded into ImageJ. To set the
scale of the image, the line tool was used to draw a line between 1 cm on the ruler to set the
scale of the image (approximately 184 pixels per centimeter in most pictures). The image
was then cropped to show only the leaf in the image using the rectangular selection tool and
the crop function under “image”. The image was converted to 8-bit and the threshold was
adjusted so that the leaf was black in contrast to the white background. The rectangle tool
was used to crop the image to a 2.54 x 2.54 cm square from the center of the leaf. The area of
the leaf and percent damaged was found using the “analyze particles” tool.
The number of beans harvested was recorded by picking all beans longer than 5.0 cm
on the set picking date (Figure 4). During the data collection period of the first harvest, beans
were picked and organized into 4 separate, general groups: Black Valentine without
marigolds, Black Valentine with marigolds, Blue Lake with marigolds, and Blue Lake
19
without marigolds. The first harvest of beans was harvested at Maryville College and at
Blackberry Farm on July 24 and August 3, respectively. For this harvest, the number of
beans on individual plants was not documented; only total number was gathered. A second
harvest of beans occurred only at Maryville College on August 9, and there was no second
harvest at Blackberry Farm. For this second harvest, the number of green beans on individual
plants was documented.
20
Figure 4. An example of a green bean over 5 cm long that is an ideal maturity for canning.
The beans shown are from the Blue Lake variety at the Maryville College campus in
Maryville, Tennessee.
Photo Credit: Drew Crain
21
Statistical Analysis
Bean harvest data collected were analyzed using an unpaired t-test in Microsoft Excel
to analyze like varieties of beans planted with marigolds and without marigolds. Similarly,
the results obtained from the leaf damage data were analyzed using t-tests to compare like
varieties planted with and without marigolds against each other.
22
CHAPTER III
RESULTS
Soil Analysis and Bean Harvest
All soil samples were shown to have adequate levels of primary and secondary
nutrients (Table 2). The Blackberry Farm plot samples varied greatly in pH, phosphorous,
and calcium. All Maryville College samples had high levels of all primary nutrients but had a
higher pH than the optimal range of 6.1-6.5. Individual sampling site soil sample results are
listed in Appendix A.
The sprout dates of green bean plants and the bloom dates of marigold plants
occurred in May and June (Table 3). The total number of beans collected at Maryville
College and Blackberry Farm for Harvests 1 and 2 showed that Black Valentine with
marigolds initially produced the greatest harvest (Table 4). For Harvest 2, the Blue Lake
variety showed a response to being companion planted with marigolds and demonstrated a
significantly greater harvest (p=.01) than the control group (Figure 5). Black Valentine
harvest totals were significantly less than Blue Lake harvest totals (p-value = 0.000000064).
23
Table 2. The average soil test results of each garden plot at Maryville College in Maryville,
Tennessee and Blackberry Farm in Walland, Tennessee.
Plot Site Water pH Phosphorous Potassium Calcium Magnesium Blackberry
Farm 6.2 34 171 1403 181
Maryville College 7.3 95 340 3400 433
Table 3. The sprout dates of green beans and marigolds at Blackberry Farm in Walland
Tennessee and Maryville College in Maryville, Tennessee.
Plot Site Date Planted
First Recorded
Sprout Date
Marigold Planting
Dates
Marigold Bloom Dates
Maryville College 27-May-15 2-Jun-15 5-Jun-15 12-Jun-15
Blackberry Farm 22-May-15 26-May-15 6-Jun-15 22-Jul-15
24
Table 4. Green Bean Harvest Totals during July and August 2015 at Maryville College in Maryville, Tennessee and Blackberry
Farm in Walland, Tennessee.
Beans w/ Marigolds Beans w/o Marigolds Beans w/ Marigolds Beans w/o Marigolds
Blue Lake Beans 640 643 X XBlack Valentine Beans 1127 674 162 112Kentucky Wonder X X 29 8
Blue Lake Beans 869 628 X XBlack Valentine Beans 298 355 X XKentucky Wonder X X X X
Harvest 1
Maryville College Blackberry Farm
Harvest 2
25
Figure 5. The mean number of beans harvested (+ 1 SE) from Maryville College in
Maryville, Tennessee for Harvest 2. * indicates significant difference at p<0.01.
Leaf Damage
Although bean harvest was significantly increased in the presence of marigolds in the
commercial variety, leaf area damaged by pests in both varieties of bean plants was not
influenced by the companion plants (Figure 6). Blue Lake plant leaf data suggested more
damage on average when planted with marigolds than without marigolds, but this was not
significantly different (p-value = 0.052) in leaf area damaged when companion planted with
marigolds. Likewise, Black Valentine bean plants did not show a significant difference in
leaf area damage (p-value=0.64) when planted with marigolds. Therefore, although the
heirloom variety showed little difference, the commercial variety showed a trend toward
increased leaf damage when planted with marigolds.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Black.Valentines.w/Marigolds
Black.Valentine.Control
Blue.Lake.w/Marigolds
Blue.Lake.Control
Numbe
r.of.B
eans.Harvested *
26
Figure 6. The average leaf area percent damage of the middle leaves in the center square
inch (+ 1 SE) of all bean plants planted with and without marigolds from Maryville College
in Maryville, Tennessee.
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
Black.Valentine.w/Marigold
Black.Valentine.Control
Blue.Lake.w/Marigold
Blue.Lake.Control.
Leaf.Area.Da
maged
.(%)
27
CHAPTER IV
DISCUSSION
It was hypothesized that green beans would produce more beans per plant when
planted with the aromatic pest-repellant French marigold. The results support this hypothesis
only in the commercial variety of green bean; the heirloom variety did not show a significant
response to companion planting. Leaf damage was not influenced by the companion plants.
Due to the lack of difference in leaf damage, it is proposed that the marigolds did not offer
aromatic pest-repellant properties against Mexican bean beetles but instead offered microbial
benefits against harmful fungi and root-knot nematodes affecting the roots.
Bean Harvest
Total bean harvest was greatest in the commercial variety. Although the heirloom
variety at Maryville College companion planted with marigolds initially had a much higher
yield, producing nearly twice as many beans as the commercial variety with marigolds or the
heirloom variety without marigolds, by the second harvest, the heirloom variety with
marigolds had a yield that was nearly a quarter of its initial production. The commercial
variety showed much more stable numbers of beans produced from the first and second
harvest. Although the heirloom variety initially showed an explosive response to being
28
companion planted with marigolds, the commercial variety ultimately showed a significant
response to the marigolds and produced more beans overall.
Leaf Damage
Neither the heirloom nor commercial variety showed significantly reduced leaf
damage when planted without marigolds. Blue Lake bean leaves with marigolds showed a
greater amount of damage compared to those that were not companion planted. Indeed, there
was a trend toward significantly greater leaf damage in commercial beans planted with
marigolds. The same plants that produced the greater harvest of beans also had the most
amount of leaf damage when comparing the commercial variety with and without marigolds.
Mexican bean beetles were even observed sitting on the leaves of the marigolds although not
consuming them (personal observation). The marigolds seem to have no effect on the amount
of leaf damage. This suggest that there was no observable aromatic allelopathic pest-repellant
effect produced by the marigolds for the benefit of the bean plants.
The method used to calculate percent of leaf area damaged was not a technique
available in the current available literature, and this study is perhaps one of the first to use
ImageJ analysis as a means to quantify leaf damage. This method of analysis holds promise
for future studies examining leaf damage because it is a free program widely available
through the National Institute of Health and is a powerful image analysis due to ability to
measure the area of even complex objects such as leaves.
29
Allelopathic Influence
Marigolds contain a variety of allelopathic compounds that produce bactericidal,
insecticidal, and fungicidal effects (Mares et al., 2004), but the exact mechanism of
marigold’s beneficial influence on particular crops is unknown. It is proposed that the
marigolds positively affected the number of beans in a way independent of inhibiting leaf
damage. Legumes when companion planted with marigolds have experienced decreased root
damage and a higher crop yield than the control in previous studies (Adekunle 2011). Indeed,
marigolds increase harvest yields of root vegetables like potatoes and carrots when inter-
planted with the crops (Korthals et al., 2013). The presence of T. patula can initiate a
decrease in Pratylenchus penetrans populations by 90% with effects lasting up to 2 crop
cycles (Pudasaini et al., 2006). Marigold’s deep roots provide better nematode suppression
than chemical nematicides (Pudasaini et al., 2006). When nematodes penetrate the roots of
marigolds coming into contact with thiophenes, the reactive oxygen ultimately kills the
nematodes (Gommers et al., 1980). Marigolds have deep, extensive root systems that reach
farther than chemical nematicides. (Pudasaini et al., 2006). Although neither of the
experimental sites in the present study had soil examined for high concentrations of
nematodes or fungus, these properties of the French marigolds may have been beneficial
enough to explain the significantly greater harvest in Blue Lake bush beans during the
experiment. Future studies should examine the impact of planting green beans and marigolds
on soil bacterial, fungal, and nematode diversity.
30
Summary
The average number of green beans harvested was higher in both varieties when
companion planted with marigolds, and the Blue Lake bush bean variety showed the greatest
response to companion planting. When planted with marigolds, the Blue Lake variety
produced the most beans overall. According to the results shown, companion planting with
French marigolds could have a measurable effect on the amount harvested for crops such as
green beans. Because the plants did not show a significant difference in leaf damage between
control and varieties planted with marigolds, it is proposed that the marigolds benefited the
plants in some other way. If the marigolds did not provide significantly greater protection
from P. vulgaris’s main pest the Mexican bean beetle, then perhaps it benefited the plants by
reducing harmful fungus in the soil or root-knot nematodes.
T. patula seems to be a viable option to increase yields of P. vulgaris although
perhaps not for the reason originally hypothesized. The heirloom Black Valentine variety did
not show a significantly greater bean harvest when companion planted with T. patula, but the
commercial Blue Lake variety did. Neither variety showed a significant decrease in leaf
damage when companion-planted bean plants were compared against non-companion-
planted plants, but the commercial variety with marigolds showed a trend toward
significantly greater damage than the non-marigold plants—directly contradicting the
hypothesis that plants planted with marigolds would have less damage than those without
marigolds. Therefore, the increase in bean harvest yields can perhaps be explained by a direct
benefit to the roots and surrounding soil of bean plants. Future studies should examine leaf
damage and bean harvest analyzed as well as soil and root samples to observe whether the
31
plants companion planted with marigolds are benefitting from antimicrobial or nematicidal
effects.
APPENDIX
33
.. Water&pH& Phosphorous& Potassium& Calcium& Magnesium&
BBF1. 6.9. 57. 196. 2255. 253.BBF2. 5.4. 10. 146. 551. 108.MC1. 7.2. 162. 336. 3721. 439.MC2. 7.2. 45. 369. 3026. 443.MC3. 7.4. 40. 338. 3277. 443.MC4. 7.3. 131. 315. 3574. 407.
34
REFERENCES
Adedipe F, Park Y. 2010. Visual and olfactory preference of Harmonia axyridis
(Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) adults to various companion plants. Journal Of Asia-
Pacific Entomology. 13:319-323. doi:10.1016/j.aspen.2010.07.004
Adekunle OK. 2011. Amendment of soil with African marigold and sunn hemp for
management of Meloidogyne incognita in selected legumes. Crop Protection. 30:
1392-1395.
Balmer O, Géneau CE, Belz E, Weishaupt B, Förderer G, Moos S, Luka H. 2014.
Wildflower companion plants increase pest parasitation and yield in cabbage
fields: Experimental demonstration and call for caution. Biological Control. 7619-27.
Baličević, R., Ravlić, M., Knežević, M., Marić, K., & Mikić, I. (2014). Effect of
Marigold (Calendula officinalis L.) cogerminaton, extracts and residues on weed
speces hoary cress (Cardaria draba (L.) desv.). Herbologia, 14(1):23-31.
Beyfuss R, Pritts M. 1994. Companion planting [Internet]. Ithaca (NY): Cornell
University.<http://www.gardening.cornell.edu/factsheets/ecogardening/complant.htm
l>. Accessed 2015 April 21.
Bilodeau E, Guay JF, Turgeon J, Cloutier C. 2013. Survival to Parasitoids in an Insect
35
Hosting Defensive Symbionts: A Multivariate Approach to Polymorphic Traits
Affecting Host Use by Its Natural Enemy. PLoS ONE, 8(4).
Cain M, Bowman W, Hacker S. 2011. Mutualism and Commensalism. In Ecology
(Second ed.) Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates. p. 309-310.
Crisp T, Clegg E, Cooper R, Anderson D, Baeteke K, Hoffman J, Morrow M, Rodier D,
Schaeffer J, Touat L, Zeeman M, Patel Y 1998. Environmental endocrine disruption:
an effects assessment and analysis. Environ Health Perspect 106:111.
Cromack HTH, Smith JM. 1998: Calendula officinalis - production potential and crop
agronomy in Southern England. Industrial Crops Production 7:223-229
Dewan A, Sayed HN. 1998. Acute poisonings due to agricultural pesticides reported to the
NIOH Poison Information Centre. In: Parikh JR, Gokani VN, Doctor PB, Gandhi DN,
Sayed HN (eds). Proceedings of the WHO workshop on occupational health problems
in agriculture sector. National Institute of Occupational Health, Ahmedabad. p 131.
Ditner N, Balmer O, Beck J, Blick T, Nagel P, Luka H. 2013. Effects of experimentally
planting non-crop flowers into cabbage fields on the abundance and diversity of
predators.Biodiversity & Conservation. 22(4):1049-1061.
Duke, J. A. 1983. Handbook of Energy Crops. unpublished.
<https://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/duke_energy/Phaseolus_vulgaris.html>.
Accessed 2015 April 14.
36
Erhatic R, T Belak S, Dudas M, Vukobratovic T, Peremin Volf D, Horvat. 2014:
Morfoloska svojstva nevena {Calendula officinalis L.) iz konsocijaeije s mrkvom
(Daucus carota L.). In: Proceedings of 49th Croatian and 9th International
Symposium on Agriculture., Dubrovnik, Poljoprivredni fakultet u Osijeku, p. 49-52.
Evans, L. 1993. Crop Evolution, Adaptation and Yield. Cambridge University Press.
Cambridge.<https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=bDN5ksRmazQC&oi=f
nd&pg=PR9&dq=Evans,+L.+1993.+Crop+Evolution,+Adaptation+and+Yield.+Cam
bridge+University+Press.&ots=TXbvJc7v66&sig=_IytjccoKHD63eO-
DyHifQ7TPgc#v=onepage&q&f=false>. Accessed 2015 April 3.
Flowerdew B. 2012. Companion Planting. New York: Skyhorse Publishing.
<https://books.google.com/books?id=LyWr_nVIKNYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Fl
owerdew+B.+2012.+Companion+Planting.+New+York:+Skyhorse+Publishing.&hl=
en&sa=X&ei=22A_VfO5JYb7gwT-
2IHABw&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false>. Accessed 2015 April 3.
Géneau CE, Wäckers FL, Luka H, Daniel C, Balmer O. 2012. Selective flowers to
enhance biological control of cabbage pests by parasitoids. Basic and Applied
Ecology. 13:85-93.
George DR, Collier RH, Whitehouse DM. 2013. Can imitation companion planting
interfere with host selection by Brassica pest insects? Agricultural & Forest
Entomology. 15(1):106-109.
Gommers FJ, Bakker J, Smits L. 1980. Effects of singlet oxygen generated by the
nematicidal compound alpha-terthienyl from Tagetes on the nematode
Aphelenchus avenae. Nematologica 26:369-375
37
Hale FA. [date unknown]. Mexican bean beetle. The University of Tennessee Department
of Agriculture. <https://extension.tennessee.edu/publications/Documents/SP341-
Z.pdf>. Accessed 2015 April 3.
Held DW, Gonsiska P, Potter DA. 2003. Evaluating companion planting and non-host
masking odors for protecting roses from the Japanese beetle (Coleoptera:
Scarabaeidae). Journal Of Economic Entomology. 96(1):81-87.
Hooks CR, Johnson MW. 2004. Using undersown clovers as living mulches: effects on
yields, lepidopterous pest infestations, and spider densities in a Hawaiian broccoli
agroecosystem. International Journal of Pest Management, 50(2):115-120.
Horrigan L, Lawrence RS, Walker P. 2002. How sustainable agriculture can address
the environment and human health harms of industrial agriculture. Environmental
Health Perspectives, 110(5):445.
Howard NF, English LL. 1924. Studies of the Mexican bean beetle in the southeast.
United States Department of Agrigulture.
<https://archive.org/details/studiesofmexican1243howa> . Accessed 2015 April 21.
Jeyaratnam K. 1990. Pesticide poisoning: as a major global health problem. World Health
Stat Q 43:139-144.
Jeyaratnam J, Chia KS. 1994. Occupational Health in National Development, Singapore:
World Scientific.
Kishi M, Hirschlorn N, Djajadisastra M, Satterlee L, Strowman S, Dilts R. 1995.
Relationship of pesticide spraying to signs and symptoms in Indonesian farmers.
Scand J Work Environ Health 21:124-133.
38
Korthals GW, Thoden TC, Van den Berg W, Visser JHM. 2013. Long-term effects of
eight soil health treatments to control plant-parasitic nematodes on Verticillium
dahlia in agro-ecosystems. Applied Soil Ecology. 76:112-123.
Lavandero B, Wratten S, Hagler J, Jermis M. 2004. The need for effective marking and
tracking techniques, for monitoring the movement of predator and parasitoid
arthropods. International Journal of Pest Management. 50(3):147-151.
Letourneau DK, Armbrecht I, Salguero Rivera B, Montoya Lerma J, Jimenez Carmona E,
Constanza Daza M, Escobar S, Galindo V, Gutierrez C, Duque Lopez S, Lopez Mejia
J, Acosta Rangel AM, Herrera Rangel J, Rivera L, Arturo Saavedra C, Marina Torres
A, Reyes Trujillo A. 2011. Does plant diversity benefit agroecosystems? A synthetic
review. Ecol. Appl. 21:9–21.
Mares D, Tosi B, Poli F, Anderotti E, Romagnoli C. 2004. Antifungal activity of Tagetes
patula extracts on some phytopathogenic fungi: ultra-structural evidence on
Pythium ultimum. Microbiol. Res. 159: 295-304.
Morley KH. 2005. Companion planting – behaviour of the cabbage root fly on host plants
and non-host plants. Entomologia Experimentalis Et Applicata. 117(1):15-25
Muli E, Patch H, Frazier M, Frazier J, Torto B, Baumgarten T, Grozinger C. 2014.
Evaluation of the Distribution and Impacts of Parasites, Pathogens, and Pesticides
on Honey Bee (Apis mellifera) Populations in East Africa. Plos ONE, 9(4):1-11.
39
Pacini E, Nepi M. 2007. Nectar production and presentation. In: Nicolson SW, Nepi M,
Pacini E. (Eds.). Nectaries and Nectar. Springer, Dordrecht. p. 167–214.
Paradikovic NT. Vinkovic R, Balicevic M, Tkalec M, Ravlio A, Kovanovic. 2013:
Utjecaj razmaka sadnje i vremena berbe na broj, masu i promjer cvjetova nevena
{Calendula officinalis L.). Poljoprivreda 19(2):23-28
Parker JE, Snyder WE, Hamilton GC, Rodrguez-Saona C. 2013. Companion planting and
insect pest control. Agricultural and Biological Sciences <
http://www.intechopen.com/books/weed-and-pest-control-conventional-and-new-
challenges/companion-planting-and-insect-pest-control>. Accessed 2015 April 21.
Parolin P, Bresch C, Poncet C, Desneux N. 2012. Functional characteristics of secondary
plants for increased pest management. International Journal Of Pest Management.
58(4):369-377.
Platt J, Caldwell J, Kok, L. 1999. Effect of buckwheat as a flowering border on
populations of cucumber beetles and their natural enemies in cucumber and
squash. Crop Protection. 18:305-313.
Pudasaini MP, Viaene N, Moens M. 2006. Effect of marigold (Tagetes patula) on
population dynamics of Pratylenchus penetrans in a field. Nematology 8:477-
484.
Quijano R, Panganiban L, Cortes-Maramba N. 1993. Time to blow the whistle; dangers
of toxic chemicals. World Health 46(5):26–27.
40
Reigosa Roger MJ, Pedrol N, González L. 2006. Allelopathy : A Physiological Process
with Ecological Implications. Dordrecht: Springer.
Rezende M, Venzon M, Perez A, Cardoso I, Arne J. 2014. Extrafloral nectaries of
associated trees can enhance natural pest control. Agriculture, Ecosystems And
Environment.<http://0search.ebscohost.com.library.acaweb.org/login.aspx?direct=tru
e&db=edselp&AN=S0167880914001054&site=eds-live>. Accessed 2014 April 14.
Rice EL.1984. Allelopathy. 2nd ed. Academic Press, New York.
Sanchez-Arroyo H. 1997. Mexican Bean Beetle.
<http://entnemdept.ufl.edu/creatures/veg/bean/mexican_bean_beetle.htm>. Accessed
2015 April 21.
Scarratt S, Wratten S, Shishehbor P. 2008. Measuring parasitoid movement from floral
resources in a vineyard. Biological Control. 46:107-113.
Seagraves MP, Yeargan KV. 2009. Importance of predation by Coleomegilla maculata
larvae in the natural control of the corn earworm in sweet corn. Biocontrol
Science & Technology, 19(10): 1067-1079
Siljes ID, Grozdanic L, Grgesina. 1992: Poznavanje, uzgoj i prerada Ijekovitog bilja.
Skolska knjiga, Zagreb.
Sumerford DV, Head GP, Shelton A, Greenplate J, Moar W. 2013. Field-evolved
resistance: assessing the problem and ways to move forward. Journal of Economic
Entomology, 106(4), 1525-1534.
41
Tringovska I, Yankova V, Markova D, Mihov M. 2015. Effect of companion plants on
tomato greenhouse production. Scientia Horticulturae.
<http://0search.ebscohost.com.library.acaweb.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edselp
&AN=S030442381500076X&site=eds-live>. Accessed 2015 April 3.
Thiery D, Visser JH. 1987. Misleading the Colorado potato beetle with an odor blend.
Journal Of Chemical Ecology. 13(5): 1139-1146. doi:10.1007/BF01020544
Wäckers, FL. 2005. Suitability of (extra-) floral nectar, pollen, and honeydew as insect
food sources. In: Wäckers FL, van Rijn PCJ, Bruin J. (Eds.). Plant-provided Food for
Carnivorous Insects: A Protective Mutualism and Its Applications. Cambridge
University Press. p. 17–74.
Yassi A, Kjellstrom T, De Kok T, Gudotti T. 2001. Basic environmental health. World
Health Organization p. 441.