Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-npwhs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-30T18:45:49.519Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Systems Comparison of Contrasting Organic Weed Management Strategies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 August 2017

Bryan Brown  and
Eric R. Gallandt
Bryan Brown*
Affiliation:
Graduate Student and Professor, School of Food and Agriculture, University of Maine, Orono, ME 04469
Eric R. Gallandt
Affiliation:
Graduate Student and Professor, School of Food and Agriculture, University of Maine, Orono, ME 04469
*
*Corresponding author’s E-mail: bryan.brown@maine.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Weed management strategies differ in their ability to control weeds, and often have unique agroecological implications. To provide growers with an improved sense of trade-offs between weed control and ecological effects, we implemented several prominent organic weed management strategies in yellow onion in 2014 and 2015. Strategies included cultivation of weed seedlings during the early, weed-sensitive “critical period” of the crop; frequent cultivation events to ensure “zero seed rain”; and weed suppression with polyethylene or natural mulches. As expected, end-of-season weed biomass and weed seed production were greatest in the critical period system and nearly zero for the zero seed rain system. Weeds were also well controlled in natural mulch systems. Average onion yield per treatment was 50.7 Mg ha−1. In 2014, the critical period system and the polyethylene mulch systems demonstrated yield loss, likely due to weed competition and excessive soil temperature, respectively. Onion soluble solids content was also diminished in these systems in 2014, but bulb firmness was greatest in unmulched systems. Carabid beetles, earthworms, soil compaction, soil nitrate, and microbial biomass were affected by weed management strategy, with natural-mulched systems generally performing most favorably. However, these effects were not substantial enough to affect yield of a subsequent sweet corn crop grown in weed-free conditions. In contrast, sweet corn managed with only early-season cultivations demonstrated yield loss (P=0.004) in plots where the critical period treatment was implemented the prior year, indicating that weed competition resulting from abundant weed seed production in that system was the most influential legacy effect of the weed management strategies.

Keywords

Onion, Allium cepa L.corn, Zea mays L.Critical periodmulchorganic managementsystems comparisonweed managementzero seed rain.

Information

Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 66 , Issue 1 , January 2018 , pp. 109 - 120
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

Associate Editor for this paper: Martin M. Williams II, USDA–ARS.

References

Literature Cited

Abu-Awwad, AM (1999) Irrigation water management for efficient water use in mulched onion. J Agron Crop Sci 183:1–7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Akaike, H (1974) A new look at the statistical model identification. Trans Auto Control 19:716–723 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amaral, DSSL, Venzon, M, dos Santos, HH, Sujii, ER, Schmidt, JM, Harwood, JD (2016) Non-crop plant communities conserve spider populations in chili pepper agroecosystems. Biol Control 103:69–77 Google Scholar
Anderson, J M, Ingram, JSI (1989) Tropical Soil Biology and Fertility: A Handbook of Methods. Wallingford, UK: CAB International. Pp 101–102 Google Scholar
Anisuzzaman, M, Ashrafuzzaman, M, Ismail, MR, Uddin, MK, Rahim, MA (2009) Planting time and mulching effect on onion development and seed production. Afr J Biotechnol 8:412–416 Google Scholar
Bengough, AG, Young, IM (1993) Root elongation of seedling peas through layered soil of different penetration resistances. Plant Soil 149:129–139 Google Scholar
Birthisel, SK, Gallandt, ER, Jabbour, R (2014) Habitat effects on second-order predation of the seed predator Harpalus rufipes and implications for weed seedbank management. Biol Control 70:65–72 Google Scholar
Birthisel, SK, Gallandt, ER, Jabbour, R, Drummond, FA (2015) Habitat and time are more important predictors of weed seed predation than space in a Maine USA mixed vegetable agroecosystem. Weed Sci 63:916–927 Google Scholar
Box, GEP, Cox, DR (1964) An analysis of transformations. J R Stat Soc Series B 26:211–252 Google Scholar
Brewster, JL (2008) Onions and Other Vegetable Alliums. 2nd edn. Wallingford, UK: CAB International. Pp 173–176 Google Scholar
Browning, GM, Norton, RA, Collins, EV, Wilson, HA (1944) Tillage practices in relation to soil and water conservation and crop yields in Iowa. Soil Sci Soc Am Proc 9:241–247 Google Scholar
Crowder, DW, Jabbour, R (2014) Relationships between biodiversity and biological control in agroecosystems: current status and future challenges. Biol Control 75:8–17 Google Scholar
DeDecker, JJ, Masiunas, JB, Davis, AS, Flint, CG (2014) Weed management practice selection among Midwest U.S. organic growers. Weed Sci 62:520–531 Google Scholar
Duiker, SW (2002) Diagnosing Soil Compaction Using a Penetrometer (Soil Compaction Tester). Agronomy Facts 63. PennState Cooperative Extension. 4 pGoogle Scholar
Edwards, CA, Lofty, JR (1977) Biology of Earthworms. 2nd edn. London, UK and New York, NY: Chapman & Hall and Wiley. Pp 118–119 Google Scholar
Forcella, F (2003) Debiting the seedbank: priorities and predictions. Asp Appl Biol 69:151–162 Google Scholar
Gallandt, ER (2014) Weed management in organic farming. Pages 63–86 in Chauhan BS, Mahajan G, eds. Recent Advances in Weed Management. New York: Springer Google Scholar
Gallandt, ER, Molloy, T, Lynch, RP, Drummond, FA (2005) Effect of cover-cropping system on invertebrate seed predation. Weed Sci 53:69–76 Google Scholar
Govaerts, B, Fuentes, M, Mezzalama, M, Nicol, JM, Deckers, J, Etchevers, JD, Figueroa-Sandoval, B, Sayre, KD (2007) Infiltration, soil moisture, root rot and nematode populations after 12 years of different tillage, residue and crop rotation managements. Soil Tillage Res 94:209–219 Google Scholar
Grundy, AC, Mead, A, Burston, S (1999) Modelling the effect of cultivation on seed movement with application to the prediction of weed seedling emergence. J Appl Ecol 36:663–678 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, DE, Hankin, L, Stephens, GR (1982) Mulches: Their Effect on Fruit Set, Timing and Yields of Vegetables. New Haven, CT: Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 805. 8 pGoogle Scholar
Hopp, H, Hopkins, HT (1946) Earthworms as a factor in the formation of water-stable soil aggregates. J Soil Water Conserv 1:11–13 Google Scholar
Hummel, JW, Ahmad, IS, Newman, SC, Sudduth, KA, Drummond, ST (2004) Simultaneous soil moisture and cone index measurement. Trans Am Soc Agric Eng 47:607–618 Google Scholar
Islam, KR, Weil, RR (2000) Soil quality indicator properties in mid-Atlantic soils as influenced by conservation management. J Soil Water Conserv 55:69–78 Google Scholar
Jabbour, R, Gallandt, ER, Zwickle, S, Wilson, RS, Doohan, D (2014a) Organic farmer knowledge and perceptions are associated with on-farm weed seedbank densities in northern New England. Weed Sci 62:338–349 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jabbour, R, Zwickle, S, Gallandt, ER, Mcphee, KE, Wilson, RS, Doohan, D (2014b) Mental models of organic weed management: comparison of New England US farmer and expert models. Renew Agr Food Syst 29:319–333 Google Scholar
Knezevic, SZ, Evans, SP, Blankenship, EE, Van Acker, RC, Lindquist, JL (2002) Critical period for weed control: the concept and data analysis. Weed Sci 50:773–786 Google Scholar
Kruskal, WH, Wallis, WA (1952) Use of ranks in one-criterion variance analysis. J Am Stat Assoc 47(260):583–621 Google Scholar
Larentzaki, E, Plate, J, Nault, BA, Shelton, AM (2008) Impact of straw mulch on populations of onion thrips (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) in onion. J Econ Entomol 101:1317–1324 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Larsen, T, Saxena, A, Cramer, CS (2009) Relatedness of bulb firmness to other attributes of New Mexico onion entries. Int J Veg Sci 15:206–217 Google Scholar
McCallum, J, Clarke, A, Pither-Joyce, M, Shaw, M, Butler, R, Brash, D, Scheffer, J, Sims, I, Vanheusden, S, Shigyo, M, Havey, MJ (2006) Genetic mapping of a major gene affecting onion bulb fructan content. Theor Appl Genet 112:958–967 Google Scholar
Menges, RM, Tamez, S (1981) Common sunflower (Helianthus annuus L) interference in onions. Weed Sci 29:641–647 Google Scholar
Nieto, HJ, Brondo, MA, Gonzales, JT (1968) Critical periods of the crop growth cycle for competition from weeds. PANS (C) 14:159–166 Google Scholar
Norris, R (1999) Ecological implications of using thresholds for weed management. J Crop. Prod 2:31–58 Google Scholar
Rasmussen, KJ (1999) Impact of ploughless soil tillage on yield and soil quality: a Scandinavian review. Soil Till Res 53:3–14 Google Scholar
Roberts, HA, Feast, PM (1972) Fate of seeds of some annual weeds in different depths of cultivated and undisturbed soil. Weed Res 12:316–324 Google Scholar
Robertson, GP, Gross, KL, Hamilton, SK, Landis, DA, Schmidt, TM, Snapp, SS, Swinton, SM (2014) Farming for ecosystem services: an ecological approach to production agriculture. BioScience 64:404–415 Google Scholar
Samson, R, Legendre, JB, Christen, R, Fischer-LeSaux, M, Achouak, W, Gardan, L (2005) Transfer of Pectobacterium chrysanthemi (Burkholder et al. 1953) Brenner et al. 1973 and Brenneria paradisiaca to the genus Dickeya gen. nov. as Dickeya chrysanthemi comb. nov. and Dickeya paradisiaca comb. nov. and delineation of four novel species, Dickeya dadantii sp. nov., Dickeya dianthicola sp. nov., Dickeya dieffenbachiae sp. nov. and Dickeya zeae sp. nov. Int J Syst Evol Micr 55:1415–1427 Google Scholar
Schonbeck, MW (1998) Weed suppression and labor costs associated with organic, polyethylene, and paper mulches in small-scale vegetable production. J Sustain Agr 13:13–33 Google Scholar
Schonbeck, MW (2012) Organic Mulching Materials for Weed Management. http://www.extension.org/pages/65025/organic-mulching-materials-for-weed-management#.UscHxWRDvvi. Accessed: March 1, 2014Google Scholar
Schonbeck, MW, Evanylo, GK (1998a) Effects of mulches on soil properties and tomato production I. Soil temperature, soil moisture and marketable yield. J Sustain Agr 13:55–81 Google Scholar
Schonbeck, MW, Evanylo, GK (1998b) Effects of mulches on soil properties and tomato production II. Plant-available nitrogen, organic matter input, and tilth-related properties. J Sustain Agr 13:83–100 Google Scholar
Shock, CC, Jensen, LB, Hobson, JH, Seddigh, M, Shock, BM, Saunders, LD, Stieber, TD (1999) Improving onion yield and market grade by mechanical straw application to irrigation furrows. HortTech 9:251–253 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teasdale, JR, Mohler, CL (1993) Light transmittance, soil temperature, and soil moisture under residue of hairy vetch and rye. Agron J 85:673–680 Google Scholar
Teasdale, JR, Mohler, CL (2000) The quantitative relationship between weed emergence and the physical properties of mulches. Weed Sci 48:385–392 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, CFG, Brown, NJ, Kendall, DA (2006) Carabid movement and vegetation density: implications for interpreting pitfall trap data from split-field trials. Agric Ecosyst Environ 113:51–61 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tindall, JA, Beverly, RB, Radcliffe, DE (1991) Mulch effect on soil properties and tomato growth using micro-irrigation. Agron J 83:1028–1034 Google Scholar
van Toor, RF, Till, CM, James, DE, Teulon, DAJ (2004) Evaluation of UV reflective mulches for protection against thrips (Thrips tabaci) in onion (Allium cepa) crops. NZ Plant Prot 57:209–213 Google Scholar
Waggoner, PE, Miller, PM, DeRoo, HC (1960) Plastic Mulching: Principles and Benefits. New Haven, CT: Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 634. 44 pGoogle Scholar
Ware, GW, McCollum, JP (1975) Onions. Producing Vegetable Crops. 2nd edn. Danville, IL: Interstate Printers & Publishers. Pp 359–377 Google Scholar
Wicks, GA, Johnston, DN, Nuland, DS, Kinbacher, EJ (1973) Competition between annual weeds and sweet Spanish onions. Weed Sci 21:436–439 Google Scholar
Wilcoxon, F (1945) Individual comparisons by ranking methods. Biometrics Bull 1:80–83 Google Scholar
Wilson, RS, Tucker, MA, Hooker, NH, Lejeune, JT, Doohan, D, Tucker, A, Hooker, H (2015) Perceptions and beliefs about weed management: perspectives of Ohio grain and produce farmers. Weed Technol 22:339–350 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Brown and Gallandt supplementary material

Figure S1

Download Brown and Gallandt supplementary material(File)
File 379.5 KB