2 results
Evaluation of cover crop sensitivity to residual herbicides applied in the previous soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr] crop
- Derek M. Whalen, Mandy D. Bish, Bryan G. Young, Aaron G. Hager, Shawn P. Conley, Daniel B. Reynolds, Lawrence E. Steckel, Jason K. Norsworthy, Kevin W. Bradley
-
- Journal:
- Weed Technology / Volume 33 / Issue 2 / April 2019
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 16 April 2019, pp. 312-320
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
In recent years, the use of cover crops has increased in U.S. crop production systems. An important aspect of successful cover crop establishment is the preceding crop and herbicide program, because some herbicides have the potential to persist in the soil for several months. Few studies have been conducted to evaluate the sensitivity of cover crops to common residual herbicides used in soybean production. The same field experiment was conducted in 2016 in Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Tennessee, and Wisconsin, and repeated in Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Mississippi, and Missouri in 2017 to evaluate the potential of residual soybean herbicides to carryover and reduce cover crop establishment. Herbicides applied during the soybean growing season included acetochlor; acetochlor plus fomesafen; chlorimuron plus thifensulfuron; fomesafen; fomesafen plus S-metolachlor followed by acetochlor; imazethapyr; pyroxasulfone; S-metolachlor; S-metolachlor plus fomesafen; sulfentrazone plus S-metolachlor; sulfentrazone plus S-metolachlor followed by fomesafen plus S-metolachlor; and sulfentrazone plus S-metolachlor followed by fomesafen plus S-metolachlor followed by acetochlor. Across all herbicide treatments, the sensitivity of cover crops to herbicide residues in the fall, from greatest to least, was forage radish = turnip > annual ryegrass = winter oat = triticale > cereal rye = Austrian winter pea = hairy vetch = wheat > crimson clover. Fomesafen (applied 21 and 42 days after planting [(DAP]); chlorimuron plus thifensulfuron and pyroxasulfone applied 42 DAP; sulfentrazone plus S-metolachlor followed by fomesafen plus S-metolachlor; and sulfentrazone plus S-metolachlor followed by fomesafen plus S-metolachlor followed by acetochlor caused the highest visual ground cover reduction to cover crop species at the fall rating. Study results indicate cover crops are most at risk when following herbicide applications in soybean containing certain active ingredients such as fomesafen, but overall there is a fairly low risk of cover crop injury from residual soybean herbicides applied in the previous soybean crop.
Weed Suppression in Cover Crop Monocultures and Mixtures
- Barbara Baraibar, Mitchell C. Hunter, Meagan E. Schipanski, Abbe Hamilton, David A. Mortensen
-
- Journal:
- Weed Science / Volume 66 / Issue 1 / January 2018
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 02 October 2017, pp. 121-133
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
Interest in planting mixtures of cover crop species has grown in recent years as farmers seek to increase the breadth of ecosystem services cover crops provide. As part of a multidisciplinary project, we quantified the degree to which monocultures and mixtures of cover crops suppress weeds during the fall-to-spring cover crop growing period. Weed-suppressive cover crop stands can limit weed seed rain from summer- and winter-annual species, reducing weed population growth and ultimately weed pressure in future cash crop stands. We established monocultures and mixtures of two legumes (medium red clover and Austrian winter pea), two grasses (cereal rye and oats), and two brassicas (forage radish and canola) in a long fall growing window following winter wheat harvest and in a shorter window following silage corn harvest. In fall of the long window, grass cover crops and mixtures were the most weed suppressive, whereas legume cover crops were the least weed suppressive. All mixtures also effectively suppressed weeds. This was likely primarily due to the presence of fast-growing grass species, which were effective even when they were seeded at only 20% of their monoculture rate. In spring, weed biomass was low in all treatments due to winter kill of summer-annual weeds and low germination of winter annuals. In the short window following silage corn, biomass accumulation by cover crops and weeds in the fall was more than an order of magnitude lower than in the longer window. However, there was substantial weed seed production in the spring in all treatments not containing cereal rye (monoculture or mixture). Our results suggest that cover crop mixtures require only low seeding rates of aggressive grass species to provide weed suppression. This creates an opportunity for other species to deliver additional ecosystem services, though careful species selection may be required to maintain mixture diversity and avoid dominance of winter-hardy cover crop grasses in the spring.