We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Seed retention, and ultimately seed shatter, are extremely important for the efficacy of harvest weed seed control (HWSC) and are likely influenced by various agroecological and environmental factors. Field studies investigated seed-shattering phenology of 22 weed species across three soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.]-producing regions in the United States. We further evaluated the potential drivers of seed shatter in terms of weather conditions, growing degree days, and plant biomass. Based on the results, weather conditions had no consistent impact on weed seed shatter. However, there was a positive correlation between individual weed plant biomass and delayed weed seed–shattering rates during harvest. This work demonstrates that HWSC can potentially reduce weed seedbank inputs of plants that have escaped early-season management practices and retained seed through harvest. However, smaller individuals of plants within the same population that shatter seed before harvest pose a risk of escaping early-season management and HWSC.
Potential effectiveness of harvest weed seed control (HWSC) systems depends upon seed shatter of the target weed species at crop maturity, enabling its collection and processing at crop harvest. However, seed retention likely is influenced by agroecological and environmental factors. In 2016 and 2017, we assessed seed-shatter phenology in 13 economically important broadleaf weed species in soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] from crop physiological maturity to 4 wk after physiological maturity at multiple sites spread across 14 states in the southern, northern, and mid-Atlantic United States. Greater proportions of seeds were retained by weeds in southern latitudes and shatter rate increased at northern latitudes. Amaranthus spp. seed shatter was low (0% to 2%), whereas shatter varied widely in common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia L.) (2% to 90%) over the weeks following soybean physiological maturity. Overall, the broadleaf species studied shattered less than 10% of their seeds by soybean harvest. Our results suggest that some of the broadleaf species with greater seed retention rates in the weeks following soybean physiological maturity may be good candidates for HWSC.
Seed shatter is an important weediness trait on which the efficacy of harvest weed seed control (HWSC) depends. The level of seed shatter in a species is likely influenced by agroecological and environmental factors. In 2016 and 2017, we assessed seed shatter of eight economically important grass weed species in soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] from crop physiological maturity to 4 wk after maturity at multiple sites spread across 11 states in the southern, northern, and mid-Atlantic United States. From soybean maturity to 4 wk after maturity, cumulative percent seed shatter was lowest in the southern U.S. regions and increased moving north through the states. At soybean maturity, the percent of seed shatter ranged from 1% to 70%. That range had shifted to 5% to 100% (mean: 42%) by 25 d after soybean maturity. There were considerable differences in seed-shatter onset and rate of progression between sites and years in some species that could impact their susceptibility to HWSC. Our results suggest that many summer annual grass species are likely not ideal candidates for HWSC, although HWSC could substantially reduce their seed output during certain years.
Intensified cover-cropping practices are increasingly viewed as a herbicide-resistance management tool but clear distinction between reactive and proactive resistance management performance targets is needed. We evaluated two proactive performance targets for integrating cover-cropping tactics, including (1) facilitation of reduced herbicide inputs and (2) reduced herbicide selection pressure. We conducted corn (Zea mays L.) and soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] field experiments in Pennsylvania and Delaware using synthetic weed seedbanks of horseweed [Conyza canadensis (L.) Cronquist] and smooth pigweed (Amaranthus hybridus L.) to assess winter and summer annual population dynamics, respectively. The effect of alternative cover crops was evaluated across a range of herbicide inputs. Cover crop biomass production ranged from 2,000 to 8,500 kg ha−1 in corn and 3,000 to 5,500 kg ha−1 in soybean. Experimental results demonstrated that herbicide-based tactics were the primary drivers of total weed biomass production, with cover-cropping tactics providing an additive weed-suppression benefit. Substitution of cover crops for PRE or POST herbicide programs did not reduce total weed control levels or cash crop yields but did result in lower net returns due to higher input costs. Cover-cropping tactics significantly reduced C. canadensis populations in three of four cover crop treatments and decreased the number of large rosettes (>7.6-cm diameter) at the time of preplant herbicide exposure. Substitution of cover crops for PRE herbicides resulted in increased selection pressure on POST herbicides, but reduced the number of large individuals (>10 cm) at POST applications. Collectively, our findings suggest that cover crops can reduce the intensity of selection pressure on POST herbicides, but the magnitude of the effect varies based on weed life-history traits. Additional work is needed to describe proactive resistance management concepts and performance targets for integrating cover crops so producers can apply these concepts in site-specific, within-field management practices.
Organic grain producers are interested in interseeding cover crops into corn (Zea mays L.) in regions that have a narrow growing season window for post-harvest establishment of cover crops. A field experiment was replicated across 2 years on three commercial organic farms in Pennsylvania to compare the effects of drill- and broadcast-interseeding to standard grower practices, which included post-harvest seeding cereal rye (Secale cereale L.) at the more southern location and winter fallow at the more northern locations. Drill- and broadcast-interseeding treatments occurred just after last cultivation and used a cover crop mixture of annual ryegrass [Lolium perenne L. ssp. multiflorum (Lam.) Husnot] + orchardgrass (Dactylis glomerata L.) + forage radish (Raphanus sativus L. ssp. longipinnatus). Higher mean fall cover crop biomass and forage radish abundance (% of total) was observed in drill-interseeding treatments compared with broadcast-interseeding. However, corn grain yield and weed suppression and N retention in late-fall and spring were similar among interseeding treatments, which suggests that broadcast-interseeding at last cultivation has the potential to produce similar production and conservation benefits at lower labor and equipment costs in organic systems. Post-harvest seeding cereal rye resulted in greater spring biomass production and N retention compared with interseeded cover crops at the southern location, whereas variable interseeding establishment success and dominance of winter-killed forage radish produced conditions that increased the likelihood of N loss at more northern locations. Additional research is needed to contrast conservation benefits and management tradeoffs between interseeding and post-harvest establishment methods.
Organic grain producers are interested in reducing tillage to conserve soil and decrease labor and fuel costs. We examined agronomic and economic tradeoffs associated with alternative strategies for reducing tillage frequency and intensity in a cover crop–soybean (Glycine max L. Merr.) sequence within a corn (Zea mays L.)–soybean–spelt (Triticum spelta L.) organic cropping system experiment in Pennsylvania. Tillage-based soybean production preceded by a cover crop mixture of annual ryegrass (Lolium perenne L. ssp. multiflorum), orchardgrass (Dactylis glomerata L.) and forage radish (Raphanus sativus L.) interseeded into corn grain (Z. mays L.) was compared with reduced-tillage soybean production preceded by roller-crimped cereal rye (Secale cereale L.) that was sown after corn silage. Total aboveground weed biomass did not differ between soybean production strategies. Each strategy, however, was characterized by high inter-annual variability in weed abundance. Tillage-based soybean production marginally increased grain yield by 0.28 Mg ha−1 compared with reduced-tillage soybean. A path model of soybean yield indicated that soybean stand establishment and weed biomass were primary drivers of yield, but soybean production strategy had a measurable effect on yields due to factors other than within-season weed–crop competition. Cumulative tillage frequency and intensity were quantified for each cover crop—sequence using the Soil Tillage Intensity Rating (STIR) index. The reduced-tillage soybean sequence resulted in 50% less soil disturbance compared to tillage-based soybean sequence across study years. Finally, enterprise budget comparisons showed that the reduced-tillage soybean sequence resulted in lower input costs than the tillage-based soybean sequence but was approximately $114 ha−1 less profitable because of lower average yields.
Proactive integrated weed management (IWM) is critically needed in no-till production to reduce the intensity of selection pressure for herbicide-resistant weeds. Reducing the density of emerged weed populations and the number of larger individuals within the population at the time of herbicide application are two practical management objectives when integrating cover crops as a complementary tactic in herbicide-based production systems. We examined the following demographic questions related to the effects of alternative cover-cropping tactics following small grain harvest on preplant, burndown management of horseweed (Erigeron canadensis L.) in no-till commodity-grain production: (1) Do cover crops differentially affect E. canadensis density and size inequality at the time of herbicide exposure? (2) Which cover crop response traits are drivers of E. canadensis suppression at time of herbicide exposure? Interannual variation in growing conditions (study year) and intra-annual variation in soil fertility (low vs. high nitrogen) were the primary drivers of cover crop response traits and significantly affected E. canadensis density at the time of herbicide exposure. In comparison to the fallow control, cover crop treatments reduced E. canadensis density 52% to 86% at the time of a preplant, burndown application. Cereal rye (Secale cereale L.) alone or in combination with forage radish (Raphanus sativus L.) provided the most consistent E. canadensis suppression. Fall and spring cover crop biomass production was negatively correlated with E. canadensis density at the preplant burndown application timing. Our results also show that winter-hardy cover crops reduce the size inequality of E. canadensis populations at the time of herbicide exposure by reducing the number of large individuals within the population. Finally, we advocate for advancement in our understanding of complementarity between cover crop– and herbicide-based management tactics in no-till systems to facilitate development of proactive, herbicide-resistant management strategies.
Cover crop–based, organic rotational no-till (CCORNT) corn and soybean systems have been developed in the mid-Atlantic region to build soil health, increase management flexibility, and reduce labor. In this system, a roller-crimped cover crop mulch provides within-season weed suppression in no-till corn and soybean. A cropping system experiment was conducted in Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Delaware to test the cumulative effects of a multitactic weed management approach in a 3-yr hairy vetch/triticale–corn–cereal rye–soybean–winter wheat CCORNT rotation. Treatments included delayed planting dates (early, intermediate, late) and supplemental weed control using high-residue (HR) cultivation in no-till corn and soybean phases. In the no-till corn phase, HR cultivation decreased weed biomass relative to the uncultivated control by 58%, 23%, and 62% in Delaware, Maryland, and Pennsylvania, respectively. In the no-till soybean phase, HR cultivation decreased weed biomass relative to the uncultivated treatment planted in narrow rows (19 to 38 cm) by 20%, 41%, and 78% in Delaware, Maryland, and Pennsylvania, respectively. Common ragweed was more dominant in soybean (39% of total biomass) compared with corn (10% of total biomass), whereas giant foxtail and smooth pigweed were more dominant in corn, comprising 46% and 22% of total biomass, respectively. Common ragweed became less abundant as corn and soybean planting dates were delayed, whereas giant foxtail and smooth pigweed increased as a percentage of total biomass as planting dates were delayed. At the Pennsylvania location, inconsistent termination of cover crops with the roller-crimper resulted in volunteer cover crops in other phases of the rotation. Our results indicate that HR cultivation is necessary to achieve adequate weed control in CCORNT systems. Integration of winter grain or perennial forages into CCORNT systems will also be an important management tactic for truncating weed seedbank population increases.
In the mid-Atlantic region, there is increasing interest in the use of intercropping strategies to establish cover crops in corn cropping systems. However, intercropping may be limited by potential injury to cover crops from residual herbicide programs. Field experiments were conducted from 2013 to 2015 at Pennsylvania, Maryland, and New York locations (n=8) to evaluate the effect of common residual corn herbicides on interseeded red clover and annual ryegrass. Cover crop establishment and response to herbicide treatments varied across sites and years. S-metolachlor, pyroxasulfone, pendimethalin, and dimethenamid-P reduced annual ryegrass biomass relative to the nontreated check, whereas annual ryegrass biomass in acetochlor treatments was no different compared with the nontreated check. The rank order of observed annual ryegrass biomass reduction among chloroacetamide herbicides was S-metolachlor>pyroxasulfone>dimethenamid-P>acetochlor. Annual ryegrass biomass was not reduced by any of the broadleaf control herbicides. Mesotrione reduced red clover biomass 80% compared to the nontreated check. No differences in red clover biomass were observed between saflufenacil, rimsulfuron and atrazine treatments compared to the nontreated check. Red clover was not reduced by any of the grass control herbicides. This research suggests that annual ryegrass and red clover can be successfully interseeded in silt loam soils of Pennsylvania following use of several shorter-lived residual corn herbicides, but further research is needed in areas with soil types other than silt loam or outside of the mid-Atlantic cropping region.
Nonsynthetic herbicides offer a potentially useful addition to the suite of weed management tools available to organic growers, but limited information is available to guide the optimal use of these products. The objectives of this research were to (1) evaluate the efficacy of clove oil– and vinegar-based herbicides on weeds across multiple states, and (2) assess the potential role of temperature, relative humidity (RH), and cloud cover in explaining inter-state variations in results. From 2006 to 2008, a total of 20 field trials were conducted in seven states using an identical protocol. Seeds of brown mustard were sown and herbicides applied to both mustard and emerged weeds when mustard reached the three- to four-leaf stage. Treatments included clove oil at 2.5, 5, 7.5, and 10% v/v concentrations at 54 L ha−1, and vinegar at 5, 10, 15, and 20% v/v concentrations at 107 L ha−1. Results varied widely across trials. In general, concentrations of at least 7.5% for clove oil and 15% for vinegar were needed for adequate control of mustard. Both products were more effective at suppressing mustard than Amaranthus spp. or common lambsquarters. Poor control was observed for annual grasses. No significant effects of cloud cover on the efficacy of either product were detected. In contrast, RH was positively correlated with control of brown mustard by both clove oil and vinegar with improved control at higher RH. Temperature had no detectable effect on the efficacy of clove oil, but higher temperatures improved control of brown mustard by vinegar.
Increasing crop density is a cultural weed management practice that can compliment the use of cover crops for weed suppression. In this research, we created a range of cover crop biomass and soybean densities to assess their weed-suppressive ability alone and in combination. The experiment was conducted in 2008 and 2009 in Maryland and Pennsylvania using five levels of cereal rye residue, representing 0, 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, and 2.0 times the ambient level, and five soybean densities ranging from 0 to 74 seeds m−2. Weed biomass decreased with increasing rye residue and weeds were completely suppressed at levels above 1,500 g m−2. Weed biomass also decreased with increasing soybean density in 2 of 4 site–years. We evaluated weed suppression by fitting an exponential decay model of weed biomass as a function of rye biomass and a hyperbolic model of weed biomass as a function of soybean density at each of the five tactic levels. We multiplied these individual tactic models and included an interaction term to test for tactic interactions. In two of the four site-years, the combination of these tactics produced a synergistic interaction that resulted in greater weed suppression than would be predicted by the efficacy of each tactic alone. Our results indicate that increasing soybean planting rate can compensate for lower cereal rye biomass levels when these tactics are combined.
A field experiment was conducted in 2009–2010 at Pennsylvania and Maryland locations, and repeated it in 2010–2011 to test the effectiveness of POST-applied herbicides at fall and spring timings on seeded hairy vetch in winter wheat. A total of 16 herbicide treatment combinations was tested that included synthetic auxins, acetolactate synthase (ALS) inhibitors, and a protoporphyrinogen oxidase inhibitor. Spring applications tended to be more effective than fall applications. Among synthetic auxins, clopyralid (105 g ae ha−1) and treatments containing dicamba (140 g ae ha−1) were effective at both timings, resulting in greater than 90% hairy vetch control at wheat harvest. Pyroxsulam and prosulfuron applied at 18 g ai ha−1 provided the most effective hairy vetch control (> 90%) at both application timings among ALS inhibitors. Spring applications of several herbicides provided moderate (> 80%) to high (> 90%) levels of hairy vetch control, including: 2,4-D amine (140 g ae ha−1), mesosulfuron-methyl (15 g ai ha−1), tribenuron-methyl (13 g ai ha−1), and thifensulfuron/tribenuron-methyl treatments (16 and 32 g ai ha−1). Winter wheat injury was evaluated, but symptoms were negligible for most treatments. Winter wheat yields declined with increasing hairy vetch biomass. Fall herbicides may be prioritized to reduce hairy vetch competition during the fall and early spring growing season. Our research has established that several synthetic auxin and ALS-inhibiting herbicides, applied POST in fall or spring, can be safely used in winter wheat to control hairy vetch in an integrated weed management program.
Field studies were conducted at 35 sites throughout the north-central United States in 1998 and 1999 to determine the effect of postemergence glyphosate application timing on weed control and grain yield in glyphosate-resistant corn. Glyphosate was applied at various timings based on the height of the most dominant weed species. Weed control and corn grain yields were considerably more variable when glyphosate was applied only once. The most effective and consistent season-long annual grass and broadleaf weed control occurred when a single glyphosate application was delayed until weeds were 15 cm or taller. Two glyphosate applications provided more consistent weed control when weeds were 10 cm tall or less and higher corn grain yields when weeds were 5 cm tall or less, compared with a single application. Weed control averaged at least 94 and 97% across all sites in 1998 and 1999, respectively, with two glyphosate applications but was occasionally less than 70% because of late emergence of annual grass and Amaranthus spp. or reduced control of Ipomoea spp. With a single application of glyphosate, corn grain yield was most often reduced when the application was delayed until weeds were 23 cm or taller. Averaged across all sites in 1998 and 1999, corn grain yields from a single glyphosate application at the 5-, 10-, 15-, 23-, and 30-cm timings were 93, 94, 93, 91, and 79% of the weed-free control, respectively. There was a significant effect of herbicide treatment on corn grain yield in 23 of the 35 sites when weed reinfestation was prevented with a second glyphosate application. When weed reinfestation was prevented, corn grain yield at the 5-, 10-, and 15-cm application timings was 101, 97, and 93% of the weed-free control, respectively, averaged across all sites. Results of this study suggested that the optimum timing for initial glyphosate application to avoid corn grain yield loss was when weeds were less than 10 cm in height, no more than 23 d after corn planting, and when corn growth was not more advanced than the V4 stage.
Cover crop–based organic rotational no-till soybean production has attracted attention from farmers, researchers, and other agricultural professionals because of the ability of this new system to enhance soil conservation, reduce labor requirements, and decrease diesel fuel use compared to traditional organic production. This system is based on the use of cereal rye cover crops that are mechanically terminated with a roller-crimper to create in situ mulch that suppresses weeds and promotes soybean growth. In this paper, we report experiments that were conducted over the past decade in the eastern region of the United States on cover crop–based organic rotational no-till soybean production, and we outline current management strategies and future research needs. Our research has focused on maximizing cereal rye spring ground cover and biomass because of the crucial role this cover crop plays in weed suppression. Soil fertility and cereal rye sowing and termination timing affect biomass production, and these factors can be manipulated to achieve levels greater than 8,000 kg ha−1, a threshold identified for consistent suppression of annual weeds. Manipulating cereal rye seeding rate and seeding method also influences ground cover and weed suppression. In general, weed suppression is species-specific, with early emerging summer annual weeds (e.g., common ragweed), high weed seed bank densities (e.g. > 10,000 seeds m−2), and perennial weeds (e.g., yellow nutsedge) posing the greatest challenges. Due to the challenges with maximizing cereal rye weed suppression potential, we have also found high-residue cultivation to significantly improve weed control. In addition to cover crop and weed management, we have made progress with planting equipment and planting density for establishing soybean into a thick cover crop residue. Our current and future research will focus on integrated multitactic weed management, cultivar selection, insect pest suppression, and nitrogen management as part of a systems approach to advancing this new production system.
By
John Wattis, Visiting Professor of Old Age Psychiatry, School of Human and Health Sciences, University of Huddersfield,
Steven Curran, Visiting Professor at the School of Human and Health Sciences, University of Huddersfield
Loss occurs throughout life but is often concentrated in old age. However, late life can also be seen as a time of positive personal development when new conflicts are resolved. Development is a dynamic process which may occur whenever an individual faces challenges, including the challenges of loss. Many old people cope with these losses with amazing resilience. Where do narrative and spirituality come into this? Indeed, what are narrative and spirituality in this context?
Narrative in context
The idea of narrative in medical practice and research has ‘come of age’. Listening to people's stories is an essential part of holistic care. Reflecting on this, we remember how the interpersonal aspects of healthcare have always been as important as the technical aspects. We have advised students when taking a history with a ‘difficult’ patient to drop the schema of the medical history and try to simply listen empathetically to the patient telling their story. This is a skill that is often acquired only after years of practice. The standard psychiatric history nevertheless forms a focused schema for efficiently ensuring that all relevant parts of the story are heard, and the old-fashioned psychiatric formulation is still important as a way of ensuring that all relevant aspects of the narrative are considered before a care or management plan is developed.
Narrative has also to be set in the context of the world view and mindset of the individual patient and practitioner. World views have to do with the presuppositions that shape the thinking and activity of members of a culture or society. Wright (1992) states: ‘Wherever we find the ultimate concerns of human beings we find world views’ (p. 122). According to Wright, world views characteristically do four things: they provide stories (or narratives) through which people view reality; these stories help to define and answer the basic questions of human existence; they are associated with a series of cultural symbols; and they provide praxis, a ‘way-of-being-in-the-world’ that derives from the narrative and how it addresses fundamental questions of the culture.