Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-hfldf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-11T16:30:43.564Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Stale Seedbed Techniques for Organic Vegetable Production

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Nathan S. Boyd*
Affiliation:
U.S. Department of Agriculture–Agricultural Research Service, Salinas, CA 93906
Eric B. Brennan
Affiliation:
U.S. Department of Agriculture–Agricultural Research Service, Salinas, CA 93906
Steve A. Fennimore
Affiliation:
University of California Cooperative Extension, Salinas, CA 93906
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: nboyd@nsac.ca.

Abstract

Weed control in organic vegetable production systems is challenging and accounts for a large portion of production costs. Six methods to prepare a stale seedbed were compared on certified and transitional organic land in Salinas, CA, in 2004. Weed control operations occurred on raised beds 2 to 3 d before planting baby spinach or a simulated vegetable planting. A flamer and an herbicide application of 10% v/v of a clove oil mixture (45% v/v clove oil) at 280 L/ha (iteration 1) or 15% v/v of a clove oil mixture (45% clove oil) at 467 L/ha (iterations 2 and 3) were used to control weeds without disturbing the soil. Top knives on a sled, a rolling cultivator, and a rotary hoe were used to control weeds while tilling the bed top. A bed shaper–rototiller combination was also used, which tilled the entire bed. Broadleaf weed control was 36% with clove oil, 63% with the rotary hoe, and significantly higher (87 to 100% control) with the remaining treatments in iteration 1. Broadleaf weed control was consistently lower (72 to 86% control) with the flamer than all other treatments (95 to 100% control) in iterations 2 and 3. The difference between sites can probably be attributed to differences in weed size. The flamer and the clove oil herbicide had the lowest number of weeds emerging with the crop following stale seedbed formation. The most expensive technique was clove oil at $1,372/ha. The estimated cost of forming the stale seedbed with the remaining weed management tools ranged from $10 to $43/ha.

Type
Research
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

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.)

References

Literature Cited

Ascard, J. 1994. Dose–response models for flame weeding in relation to plant size and density. Weed Res. 34:377385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ascard, J. 1995. Effects of flame weeding on weed species at different developmental stages. Weed Res. 35:397411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buhler, D. D., Gunsolus, J. L., and Ralston, D. F. 1992. Integrated weed management techniques to reduce herbicide inputs in soybean. Agron. J. 84:973978.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D. and Mester, T. C. 1991. Effect of tillage systems on the emergence depth of giant (Setaria faberi) and green foxtail (Setearia viridis). Weed Sci. 39:200203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caldwell, B. and Mohler, C. L. 2001. Stale seedbed practices for vegetable production. Hort. Sci. 36:703705.Google Scholar
Cousens, R. and Moss, S. R. 1990. A model of the effects of cultivation on the vertical distribution of weed seeds within the soil. Weed Res. 30:6170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
du Croix Sissons, M. J., Van Acker, R. C., Derksen, D. A., and Thomas, A. G. 2000. Depth of seedling recruitment of five weed species measured in situ in conventional and zero-tillage fields. Weed Sci. 48:327332.Google Scholar
Elliott, J. A. and Efetha, A. A. 1999. Influence of tillage and cropping system on soil organic matter, structure and infiltration in a rolling landscape. Can J. Soil Sci. 79:457463.Google Scholar
Gunsolus, J. L. 1990. Mechanical and cultural weed control in corn and soybeans. Am. J. Altern. Agric. 5:114119.Google Scholar
Johnson, W. C. III and Mullinix, B. G. Jr. 1995. Weed management in peanut using stale seedbed techniques. Weed Sci. 43:293297.Google Scholar
Johnson, W. C. III and Mullinix, B. G. Jr. 1998. Stale seedbed weed control in cucumber. Weed Sci. 46:698702.Google Scholar
Johnson, W. C. III and Mullinix, B. G. Jr. 2000. Evaluation of tillage implements for stale seedbed tillage in peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Technol. 14:519523.Google Scholar
Lovely, W. G., Weber, C. R., and Staniforth, D. W. 1958. Effectiveness of the rotary hoe for weed control in soybeans. Agron. J. 50:621625.Google Scholar
Mohler, C. L. and Galford, A. E. 1997. Weed seedling emergence and seed survival: separating the effects of seed position and soil modification by tillage. Weed Res. 37:147155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[NASS] National Agricultural Statistics Service 2005. Vegetable 2004 Summary. U.S. Department of Agriculture Web page: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/fruit/pvg-bban/. Accessed: July 1, 2005.Google Scholar
Oriade, C. and Forcella, F. 1999. Maximizing efficacy and economics of mechanical weed control in row crops through forecasts of weed emergence. J. Crop Prod. 2:189205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pagliai, M., Vignozzi, N., and Pellegrini, S. 2004. Soil structure and the effect of management practices. Soil Tillage Res. 79:131143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinheiro, E. F. M., Pereira, M. G., and Anjos, L. H. C. 2004. Aggregate distribution and soil organic matter under different tillage systems for vegetable crops in a Red Latosol from Brazil. Soil Tillage Res. 77:7984.Google Scholar
Shem-Tov, S. and Fennimore, S. A. 2003. Seasonal changes in annual bluegrass (Poa annua) germinability and emergence. Weed Sci. 51:690695.Google Scholar
Tourte, L., Smith, R. F., Klonsky, K. M., and De Moura, R. L. 2004. Sample costs to produce organic leaf lettuce. Central coast region, Monterey and Santa Cruz counties. Davis, CA University of California Cooperative extension publication LT-CC-04-O. 118.Google Scholar
Yenish, J. P., Fry, T. A., Durgan, B. R., and Wyse, D. L. 1996. Tillage effects on seed distribution and common milkweed (Asclepias syriaca) establishment. Weed Sci. 44:815820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar