Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-6mz5d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-15T02:36:44.803Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Effect of fall-planted cover crops on weed suppression, grain sorghum yield, and profitability in the semiarid Central Great Plains

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 December 2024

Sachin Dhanda
Affiliation:
Graduate Research Assistant, Kansas State University, Agricultural Research Center, Hays, KS, USA
Vipan Kumar*
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Cornell University, School of Integrative Plant Science, Soil and Crop Sciences Section, Ithaca, NY, USA
J. Anita Dille
Affiliation:
Professor, Kansas State University, Department of Agronomy, Manhattan, KS, USA
Augustine Obour
Affiliation:
Professor, Kansas State University, Agricultural Research Center, Hays, KS, USA
Elizabeth A. Yeager
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Kansas State University, Department of Agricultural Economics, Manhattan, KS, USA
Johnathan Holman
Affiliation:
Professor, Kansas State University, Southwest Research and Extension Center, Garden City, KS, USA
*
Corresponding author: Vipan Kumar; Email: vk364@cornell.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Integrating cover crops (CCs) in dryland crop rotations could help in controlling herbicide-resistant weeds. Field experiments were conducted at Kansas State University Agricultural Research Center near Hays, KS, from 2020 to 2023 to determine the effect of fall-planted CCs on weed suppression in grain sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench], crop yield, and net returns in no-till dryland winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)–grain sorghum–fallow (W-S-F) rotation. The field site had a natural seedbank of glyphosate-resistant (GR) kochia [Bassia scoparia (L.) A. J. Scott] and Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri S. Watson). A CC mixture [winter triticale (×Triticosecale Wittm. ex A. Camus [Secale × Triticum])–winter peas (Pisum sativum L.)–canola (Brassica napus L.)–radish (Raphanus sativus L.)] was planted after wheat harvest and terminated at triticale heading stage before sorghum planting. Treatments included nontreated control, chemical fallow, CC terminated with glyphosate (GLY), and CC terminated with GLY+ acetochlor/atrazine (ACR/ATZ). Across 3 yr, CC terminated with GLY+ACR/ATZ reduced total weed density by 34% to 81% and total weed biomass by 45% to 73% compared with chemical fallow during the sorghum growing season. Average grain sorghum yield was 786 to 1,432 kg ha−1 and did not differ between chemical fallow and CC terminated with GLY+ACR/ATZ. However, net returns were lower with both CC treatments (−US$275 to US$66) in all 3 yr compared with chemical fallow (−US$111 to US$120). These results suggest that fallow replacement with fall-planted CCs in the W-S-F rotation can help suppress GR B. scoparia and A. palmeri in the subsequent grain sorghum. However, the cost of integrating CCs exceeded the benefits of improved weed control, and lower net returns were recorded in all 3 yr compared with chemical fallow.

Information

Type
Research Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Weed Science Society of America
Figure 0

Figure 1. Total monthly precipitation (mm) and average monthly air temperature (C) from 2020 to 2023 growing seasons at Kansas State University Agricultural Research Center near Hays, KS.

Figure 1

Table 1. Total weed density and mean relative abundance of weed species observed in the cover crop (CC) treatments at 0 to 120 d after CC termination (DATe) in 2021 at Kansas State University Agricultural Research Center near Hays, KSa.

Figure 2

Table 2. Total weed dry biomass in the cover crop (CC) treatments at 0, 30, 60, 90, and 120 d after CC termination during 2021 to 2023 growing seasons at Kansas State University Agricultural Research Center near Hays, KS.

Figure 3

Table 3. Total weed density and mean relative abundance of weed species observed in the cover crop (CC) treatments at 0 to 120 d after CC termination (DATe) in 2022 at Kansas State University Agricultural Research Center near Hays, KS.a

Figure 4

Table 4. Total weed density and mean relative abundance of weed species observed in the cover crop (CC) treatments at 0 to 120 d after CC termination (DATe) in 2023 at Kansas State University Agricultural Research Center near Hays, KS.a

Figure 5

Figure 2. Fall-planted cover crop effect on volumetric water content at grain sorghum planting in 2021 (A) and 2023 (B) growing seasons at Kansas State University Agricultural Research Center near Hays, KS. Error bars represent standard error of the mean.

Figure 6

Figure 3. Fall-planted cover crop (CC) effect on grain sorghum yield over three growing seasons at Kansas State University Agricultural Research Center near Hays, KS. CC + GLY, cover crop terminated with glyphosate only; CC + GLY + ACR/ATZ, cover crop terminated with glyphosate plus a premix of acetochlor/atrazine. Bars followed by the same letter within the year are not significantly different according to Fisher’s protected LSD test at P < 0.05. Error bars represent standard error of the mean.

Figure 7

Table 5. Economic analyses of grain sorghum after fall-planted cover crop in 2021 growing season at Kansas State University Agricultural Research Center near Hays, KS

Figure 8

Table 6. Economic analyses of grain sorghum after fall-planted cover crop in 2022 growing season at Kansas State University Agricultural Research Center near Hays, KS

Figure 9

Table 7. Economic analyses of grain sorghum after fall-planted cover crop in 2023 growing season at Kansas State University Agricultural Research Center near Hays, KS

Figure 10

Table 8. Net returns to possible grain sorghum yield (700 to 7,400 kg ha−1) and prices (US$0.09 kg−1 to US$0.24 kg−1) in the Central Great Plains region