Productivity, economics, and fruit and soil quality of weed management systems in commercial organic orchards in Washington State, USA

Author(s):  
David Granatstein ◽  
Preston Andrews ◽  
Alan Groff
2019 ◽  
Vol 286 ◽  
pp. 106665 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan M. Wachter ◽  
Kathleen M. Painter ◽  
Lynne A. Carpenter-Boggs ◽  
David R. Huggins ◽  
John P. Reganold

HortScience ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 40 (4) ◽  
pp. 1058A-1058
Author(s):  
Craig Dilley ◽  
Gail Nonnecke

Sustainable strawberry production depends on effective weed and soil management. Alternative weed management strategies are needed because few herbicides are registered for use in matted-row strawberry culture. Soil analyses are often measured in terms of chemical and physical properties alone. Measuring biological indicators of soil quality that are sensitive to changes in the environment can enhance these analyses. The experiment compared the effects of four weed management systems on weed growth, soil quality properties, and strawberry yield, growth, and development. Treatments were killed-cover crop mixture of hairy vetch (Viciavillosa) and cereal rye (Secalecereale); compost + corn gluten meal + straw mulch; conventional herbicide; and methyl bromide soil fumigation. Results indicated that there were no differences in percentage of weed cover or number of strawberry runners between the four weed management treatments in the planting year (July or Aug. 2004). The soil quality parameters, infiltration rate, soil bulk density, earthworm number, and total porosity were similar for all treatments. Plots that received the straw mulch treatment had a soil volumetric water content 20% higher and air-filled porosity that was 26% higher than the average of other treatments. Although treatment plots received similar N, leaf nutrient analysis showed that plants receiving the straw mulch + corn gluten meal treatment had a similar amount of total N when compared to the conventional and methyl bromide treatments, but was 21% higher than the killed-cover crop treatment.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Toni Wäfler ◽  
Rahel Gugerli ◽  
Giulio Nisoli

We all aim for safe processes. However, providing safety is a complex endeavour. What is it that makes a process safe? And what is the contribution of humans? It is very common to consider humans a risk factor prone to errors. Therefore, we implement sophisticated safety management systems (SMS) in order to prevent potential "human failure". These SMS provide an impressive increase of safety. In safety science this approach is labelled "Safety-I", and it starts to be questioned because humans do not show failures only. On the contrary, they often actively contribute to safety, sometimes even by deviating from a procedure. This "Safety-II" perspective considers humans to be a "safety factor" as well because of their ability to adjust behaviour to the given situation. However, adaptability requires scope of action and this is where Safety-I and Safety-II contradict each other. While the former restricts freedom of action, the latter requires room for manoeuvring. Thus, the task of integrating the Safety-II perspective into SMS, which are traditionally Safety-I based, is difficult. This challenge was the main objective of our project. We discovered two methods that contribute to the quality of SMS by integrating Safety-II into SMS without jeopardizing the Safety-I approach.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document