Propelled abrasive grit applications for weed management in transitional corn grain production

AbstractWeed control is challenging to farmers who are transitioning from production systems that use synthetic herbicides to organic systems. A 2-year field study examined air-propelled corncob grit abrasion for in-row weed control efficacy and effect on corn yield. Grit was applied based on corn vegetative developmental stages with one (V1, V3 or V5), two (V1 + V3, V1 + V5, or V3 + V5), or three (V1 + V3 + V5) applications. Flame-weeding or cultivation was used after the V5 application for between-row weed control. Grit applications decreased in-row weed densities by about 60% (α = 0.05) and biomass up to 95% (α = 0.001). Between-row treatments provided similar control, and reduced weed biomass by 55% in 2013 (α = 0.01) and 86% (α = 0.001) in 2014. In-row grit treatments increased corn yield up to 44%, and yield was more influenced by in-row weeds than between row weeds. These results indicate that abrasive corncob grit for in-row weed control, supplemented with cultivation or flaming, can reduce weed biomass substantially and help maintain corn yield. However, timing and frequency of grit application need further refinement based on weed growth as influenced by climate, as treatments at similar corn growth stages did not consistently provide adequate weed control between years.

Download Full-text

Weed management options in transgenic stacked and non transgenic maize (Zea mays) hybrids-A review

Agricultural Reviews ◽

10.18805/ag.r-1671 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 38 (04) ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

K. Sivagamy ◽

C. Chinnusamy ◽

P. Parasuraman

Keyword(s):

Weed Control ◽

Weed Management ◽

Crop Growth ◽

Control Programme ◽

Growth And Yield ◽

Growth Stages ◽

Management Options ◽

Maize Crop ◽

Weed Growth ◽

Vigorous Growth

Weeds are generally hardy species having fast growth, deep root system and capable of competing very efficiently with cultivated crops for the available resources and adversely affect the crop growth and yield. Weed management systems that rely on post emergence control assume that crops can tolerate competition for certain periods of time without suffering yield losses. Initial slow growth particularly at early crop growth stages and wider plant spacing of maize crop encourages fast and vigorous growth of weeds. It is of paramount importance that, competition from weeds must be minimized to achieve optimum yield. Among the different weed control methods, chemical method bears many advantages in suppressing weed growth and to get healthy and vigorous crop stand. Non-selective herbicide molecules with a variety of mode of action were discovered, developed and marketed for successful weed control programme.

Download Full-text

An Evaluation of Two Novel Cultivation Tools

Weed Technology ◽

10.1614/wt-d-11-00024.1 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 26 (2) ◽

pp. 316-325 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Glenn J. Evans ◽

Robin R. Bellinder ◽

Russell R. Hahn

Keyword(s):

Weed Control ◽

Weed Management ◽

Environmental Data ◽

Yield Response ◽

Growth Stages ◽

Operational Parameters ◽

Crop Response ◽

Weed Growth ◽

Operational Variables ◽

Organic Weed Management

Cultivation is a critical component of organic weed management and has relevance in conventional farming. Limitations with current cultivation tools include high costs, limited efficacy, and marginal applicability across a range of crops, soil types, soil moisture conditions, and weed growth stages. The objectives of this research were to compare the weed control potential of two novel tools, a block cultivator and a stirrup cultivator, with that of a conventional S-tine cultivator, and to evaluate crop response when each tool was used in pepper and broccoli. Block and stirrup cultivators were mounted on a toolbar with an S-tine sweep. In 2008, the tripart cultivator was tested in 20 independently replicated noncrop field events. Weed survival and reemergence data were collected from the cultivated area of each of the three tools. Environmental data were also collected. A multivariable model was created to assess the importance of cultivator design and environmental and operational variables on postcultivation weed survival. Additional trials in 2009 evaluated the yield response of pepper and broccoli to interrow cultivations with each tool. Cultivator design significantly influenced postcultivation weed survival (P < 0.0001). When weed survival was viewed collectively across all 20 cultivations, both novel cultivators significantly increased control. Relative to the S-tine sweep, the stirrup cultivator reduced weed survival by about one-third and the block cultivator reduced weed survival by greater than two-thirds. Of the 11 individually assessed environmental and operational parameters, 7 had significant implications for weed control with the sweep; 5 impacted control with the stirrup cultivator, and only 1 (surface weed cover at the time of cultivation) influenced control with the block cultivator. Crop response to each cultivator was identical. The block cultivator, because of its increased effectiveness and operational flexibility, has the potential to improve interrow mechanical weed management.

Download Full-text

Potential of Rye (Secale cereale) for Weed Management in Transplant Tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum)

Weed Science ◽

10.1017/s0043174500094406 ◽

1996 ◽

Vol 44 (3) ◽

pp. 596-602 ◽

Cited By ~ 19

Author(s):

Reid J. Smeda ◽

Stephen C. Weller

Keyword(s):

Weed Control ◽

Cover Crops ◽

Weed Management ◽

Production Systems ◽

Weed Suppression ◽

Management Technique ◽

Bare Ground ◽

Tomato Production ◽

Tomato Yield ◽

Weed Growth

Weed control in tomato production systems is difficult because few are registered. The use of rye for weed control and its influence on transplant tomato yields was investigated during 1986 and 1987 at two locations in IN to determine if cover crops can provide an alternative weed management technique. ‘Wheeler’ rye was sown in the fall of 1985 and 1986, and mowed or desiccated with glyphosate at various times before planting ‘IND 812'tomatoes. At the time of glyphosate application, rye residues reduced the growth of overwintering weeds by 93% or more compared to bare ground (no cover crop) areas. The time of desiccating rye prior to planting tomatoes affected the extent of weed suppression by rye residues. In 1986, rye treated 4 wk before planting (WBP) tomatoes provided up to 89% suppression of weed growth at 2 wk after planting (WAP) tomatoes, but no measurable weed suppression 5 WAP tomatoes. Rye treated 2 WBP tomatoes provided up to 97% weed suppression up to 5 WAP tomatoes. In 1987, weed suppression varied between locations and differed from 1986. At Lafayette, rye treated 2 and 1 WBP tomatoes provided greater than 81% suppression of weed growth up to 8 WAP tomatoes. Rye mowed and the residues placed into a plot at a known density also reduced weed growth (60%) 8 WAP tomatoes. At Vincennes, however, rye treated 2 and 1 WBP in 1987 did not reduce weed growth later than 4 WAP tomatoes compared to the unweeded, bare ground treatment. The mowed rye residues at Vincennes suppressed weed growth (96%) up to 8 WAP tomatoes. Tomato yield was correlated to weed suppression. In 1986, tomato yield in the rye treated 2 WBP tomatoes was comparable to yield in the bare ground, weeded controls. However, tomato yield in rye plots treated 4 WBP tomatoes was similar to yield in the bare ground, unweeded control. In 1987, tomato yields in all rye plots (mowed, treated 2 and 1 WBP tomatoes) were similar to tomato yields in the bare ground, weeded control at Lafayette. At Vincennes, only the mowed rye treatment yielded comparably to the bare ground, weeded control. In general, rye plots that were weeded yielded similar to or up to 28% more than a bare ground, weeded control. Tomato yields were not reduced by rye residues. Tomato yields in rye residues that provided effective suppression of weed growth (greater than 80%) for a minimum of 4 to 5 WAP tomatoes were comparable to bare ground, weeded controls.

Download Full-text

Effects of Flame Weeding on Organic Garlic Production

HortTechnology ◽

10.21273/horttech04081-18 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 28 (4) ◽

pp. 502-508 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Lara Abou Chehade ◽

Marco Fontanelli ◽

Luisa Martelloni ◽

Christian Frasconi ◽

Michele Raffaelli ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Weed Control ◽

Weed Management ◽

Crop Production ◽

Control Program ◽

Growth Stages ◽

Liquefied Petroleum Gas ◽

Additional Tool ◽

Hand Weeding ◽

Physical Weed Control ◽

Flame Weeding

A lack of efficient machines and strategies for cropping practices are still problems on small farms and in difficult landscapes, especially in organic crop production. The aim of this study was to develop a new weed control strategy for a typical organic garlic (Allium sativum) grown in Liguria, Italy. Flaming was proposed as an additional tool for the physical weed control program. A field experiment was conducted to test the effects of different flaming doses and timing on weed control and garlic production. The treatments consisted of a broadcast flaming at 16, 22, 37, and 112 kg·ha−1 of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) at three different crop growth stages—emergence (BBCH 9), three to four leaves (BBCH 13) and six to seven leaves (BBCH 16)—once (at each growth stage separately), twice (at BBCH 9 and BBCH 13, BBCH 9 and BBCH 16, and BBCH 13 and BBCH 16 stages) or three times (all stages combined). Treatments were compared with a weedy control and hand weeding. One flaming treatment was effective in controlling weeds during the growing season. Frequent flaming treatments did not further reduce the weed biomass measured at harvest. A higher production than the weedy control, in terms of the number of marketable bulbs and yield, was obtained for all the flaming interventions carried out at more than 16-kg·ha−1 LPG dose. Garlic flamed once at BBCH 13 at any LPG dose or three times at more than 16 kg·ha−1 led to a comparable number of bulbs as hand weeding. Three flamings at an LPG dose of 22 kg·ha−1 also gave a statistically similar yield to hand weeding. In general, garlic was shown to tolerate up to three flaming treatments without a decline in the production. The decline in yield compared with hand weeding could be offset by the economical savings of the mechanization process and by integrating flaming with other mechanical tools used for weed management.

Download Full-text

Growth Stage of Alopecurus myosuroides Huds. Determines the Efficacy of Pinoxaden

Plants ◽

10.3390/plants10040732 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 10 (4) ◽

pp. 732

Author(s):

Ana Pintar ◽

Zlatko Svečnjak ◽

Valentina Šoštarčić ◽

Josip Lakić ◽

Klara Barić ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Weed Control ◽

Growth Stage ◽

Recommended Dose ◽

Growth Stages ◽

Herbicide Application ◽

Weed Biomass ◽

Alopecurus Myosuroides ◽

Winter Cereals ◽

Weed Growth ◽

Biomass Reduction

Alopecurus myosuroides Huds. is an important pinoxaden-resistant grass weed in many countries of Europe. Recently, the low efficacy of pinoxaden was reported in winter cereals in Croatia, but a preliminary dose–response trial showed no herbicide resistance for the investigated weed population. Therefore, a two-year experiment was conducted under greenhouse conditions to determine the efficacy of various pinoxaden doses (20, 40 and 80 g a.i. ha−1) on weed visual injuries and biomass reduction after herbicide application at different growth stages. As expected, the maximum weed biomass reduction (97.3%) was achieved by applying the highest dose (80 g a.i. ha−1) at the earliest growth stage (ZCK 12–14). A pinoxaden dose of 20 g a.i. ha−1 resulted in satisfactory weed biomass reduction (88.9%) only when applied at ZCK 12–14. The recommended dose (40 g a.i. ha−1) also provided sufficient weed control up to the growth stage ZCK 21–25. Slightly delayed (ZCK 31–32) application of the recommended dose brought about a low weed biomass reduction (60.1%). Double than the recommended dose also failed to provide satisfactory weed control at the advanced weed growth stages (ZCK 31–32 and ZCK 37–39). Thus, reported low efficacy of pinoxaden is most likely because of delayed herbicide application when A. myosuroides is overgrown.

Download Full-text

Developing a multispecies weed competition model for high-yielding cotton

Weed Technology ◽

10.1017/wet.2020.97 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 1-8

Author(s):

Graham W. Charles ◽

Brian M. Sindel ◽

Annette L. Cowie ◽

Oliver G. G. Knox

Keyword(s):

Weed Control ◽

Weed Management ◽

Production Systems ◽

Integrated Approach ◽

Field Studies ◽

Integrated Weed Management ◽

Cotton Lint ◽

Weed Biomass ◽

Models Comparison ◽

Using Data

Abstract Glyphosate-tolerant and glyphosate-resistant weeds are becoming increasingly problematic in cotton fields in Australia, necessitating a return from a glyphosate dominated system to a more integrated approach to weed management. The development of an integrated weed management system can be facilitated by identifying the critical period for weed control (CPWC), a model that enables cotton growers to optimize the timing of their weed control inputs. Using data from field studies conducted from 2003 to 2015, CPWC models using extended functions, including weed biomass in the relationships, were developed for the mimic weeds, common sunflower and Japanese millet, in high-yielding, fully irrigated cotton. A multispecies CPWC model was developed after combining these data sets with data for mungbean in irrigated cotton, using weed height and weed biomass as descriptors in the models. Comparison of observed and predicted relative cotton-lint yields from the multispecies CPWC model demonstrated that the model reasonably described the competition from these three very different mimic weeds, opening the possibility for cotton growers to use a multispecies CPWC model in their production systems.

Download Full-text

Integrative Approaches for Weed Management in Organic Citrus Orchards

HortScience ◽

10.21273/hortsci.41.4.998a ◽

2006 ◽

Vol 41 (4) ◽

pp. 998A-998

Author(s):

Jose Linares ◽

Johannes Scholberg ◽

Carlene Chase ◽

Robert McSorley ◽

James Fergusson

Keyword(s):

Weed Control ◽

Cover Crops ◽

Weed Management ◽

Pigeon Pea ◽

Weed Suppression ◽

Velvet Bean ◽

Weed Biomass ◽

Crimson Clover ◽

Weed Growth ◽

Sunn Hemp

Lack of effective weed control may hamper organic citrus establishment. Cover crop/weed biomass (CCW) indices were used to assess the effectiveness of annual and perennial cover crops (CC) in reducing weed growth. The CCW values for perennial peanut (PP) were 0.06, 0.14, 0.4, and 0.5 during 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005, respectively (very poor to poor weed control). Initial PP growth was slow and repeated mowing was required, but, over time, PP became more effective in controlling weeds. Weed biomass with sunn hemp was 0.3 Mg/ha in 2002 (CCW = 25, outstanding weed control) compared to 1.4 Mg/ha with use of cowpea (CCW = 1) in 2004. In 2004, the dry weights (Mg/ha) for different summer CC were: hairy indigo = 7.6, pigeon pea = 7.6, sunn hemp = 5.3, cowpea = 5.1, alyce clover = 2.9, velvet bean = 1.3, and lablab bean = 0.8. Corresponding 2005 values were: 9.5, 3.7, 12.6, 1.0, 1.9, and 1.4. Respective CCWI values were: 7, 4, 2, 16, 28, 0.6, and 0.3 (2004) vs. 17, 2, 64, 80, 0.5, 2, and 14. In 2004, winter CC production (Mg/ha) was radish (R) = 3.2, crimson clover (CR) = 1.7, oats (O) + lupine = 1.6, and rye (WR)/vetch (V) mix = 1.1. Results for 2005 were: CR + R + WR = 8.0, WR = 6.0; CR + WR = 5.3, CR = 5.0, CR + O + WR = 5.0, R = 4.3, and O = 3.6 Mg/ha. Corresponding values for CCW-indices were 15, 2, 1, and 3 (2004) and 100, 25, 76, 35, 62, 11, and 16 (2005). Although OMRI-approved herbicides showed up to 84% weed injury for selected species, none of these products provided long-term weed control. Combination of repeated tillage, use of compact/reseeding CC mixes in tree rows, more vigorous annual CC and/or perennial PP in row middle and repeated use of organic herbicides near sprinklers and tree trunks are thus required to ensure effective weed suppression in organic citrus.

Download Full-text

Spring-planted cover crops for weed control in soybean

Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems ◽

10.1017/s1742170521000107 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 1-8

Author(s):

Katja Koehler-Cole ◽

Christopher A. Proctor ◽

Roger W. Elmore ◽

David A. Wedin

Keyword(s):

Weed Control ◽

Biomass Production ◽

Cover Crops ◽

Weed Management ◽

Block Design ◽

Weed Suppression ◽

Crop Species ◽

Cold Temperatures ◽

Weed Biomass ◽

Small Grains

Abstract Replacing tillage with cover crops (CC) for weed management in corn (Zea mays L.)-soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] systems with mechanical weed control has many soil health benefits but in the western Corn Belt, CC establishment after harvest is hampered by cold temperatures, limited labor and few compatible CC species. Spring-planted CC may be an alternative, but information is lacking on suitable CC species. Our objective was to evaluate four spring-planted CC with respect to biomass production and weed suppression, concurrent with CC growth and post-termination. Cover crop species tested were oat (Avena sativa L.), barley (Hordeum vulgare L.), brown mustard [Brassica juncea (L.) Czern.] and yellow mustard (Brassica hirta Moench). They were compared to no-CC treatments that were either tilled pre- and post-planting of soybean (no-CC tilled) or not tilled at all (no-CC weedy). CC were planted in late March to early April, terminated 52–59 days later using an undercutter, and soybean was planted within a week. The experiment had a randomized complete block design with four replications and was repeated for 3 years. Mustards and small grains produced similar amounts of biomass (1.54 Mg ha−1) but mustard biomass production was more consistent (0.85–2.72 Mg ha−1) than that of the small grains (0.35–3.81 Mg ha−1). Relative to the no-CC weedy treatment, mustards suppressed concurrent weed biomass in two out of 3 years, by 31–97%, and small grains suppressed concurrent weed biomass in only 1 year, by 98%. Six weeks after soybean planting, small grains suppressed weed biomass in one out of 3 years, by 79% relative to the no-CC weedy treatment, but mustards did not provide significant weed suppression. The no-CC tilled treatment suppressed weeds each year relative to the no-CC weedy treatment, on average 87%. The ineffective weed control by CC reduced soybean biomass by about 50% six weeks after planting. While spring-planted CC have the potential for pre-plant weed control, they do not provide adequate early season weed suppression for soybean.

Download Full-text

Integrating Economics in the Critical Period for Weed Control Concept in Corn

Weed Science ◽

10.1614/ws-d-13-00184.1 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 62 (4) ◽

pp. 608-618 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Martina Keller ◽

Geoffroy Gantoli ◽

Jens Möhring ◽

Christoph Gutjahr ◽

Roland Gerhards ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Weed Control ◽

Critical Period ◽

Logistic Models ◽

Crop Growth ◽

Growth Stages ◽

Corn Yield ◽

Leaf Stage ◽

Weed Interference ◽

Free Interval ◽

Crop Growth Stages

The effect of weed interference on corn yield and the critical period for weed control (CPWC) were determined in Germany and Benin. Treatments with weed control starting at different crop growth stages and continuously kept weed-free until harvest represented the “weed-infested interval.” Treatments that were kept weed-free from sowing until different crop growth stages represented the “weed-free interval.” Michaelis–Menten, Gompertz, logistic and log–logistic models were employed to model the weed interference on yield. Cross-validation revealed that the log–logistic model fitted the weed-infested interval data equally well as the logistic and slightly better than the Gompertz model fitted the weed-free interval. For Benin, economic calculations considered yield revenue and cost increase due to mechanical weeding operations. Weeding once at the ten-leaf stage of corn resulted already profitable in three out of four cases. One additional weeding operation may optimize and assure profit. Economic calculations for Germany determined a CPWC starting earlier than the four-leaf stage, challenging the decade-long propagated CPWC for corn. Differences between Germany and Benin are probably due to the higher yields and high costs in Germany. This study provides a straightforward method to implement economic data in the determination of the CPWC for chemical and nonchemical weed control strategies.

Download Full-text

Can hemp hurd or paper mulch and biochar application improve weed management in matted-row strawberry production systems?

Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems ◽

10.1017/s1742170521000533 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 1-11

Author(s):

Greta G. Gramig ◽

Samantha K. Hogstad ◽

Patrick M. Carr

Keyword(s):

Weed Management ◽

Production Systems ◽

Weed Suppression ◽

Plastic Mulch ◽

Yield Data ◽

Weed Biomass ◽

Soil Temperatures ◽

The Impact ◽

Hemp Hurd ◽

Amended Soil

Abstract During 2015 and 2016, studies were conducted at Absaraka and Dickinson, North Dakota to evaluate the impacts of hemp (applied at 1156 m3 ha−1) and commercial paper mulch, as well as soil-applied biochar (applied at 11.25 m3 ha−1), on weed suppression and strawberry growth during the establishment year, and on weed suppression and strawberry yield during the production year, in a matted row production (MRP) system. During 2015, biochar influenced dry weed biomass only within the hemp mulch, with slightly more weed biomass associated with biochar application compared to zero biochar (3.1 vs 0.4 g m−2), suggesting that biochar may have increased weed germination and/or emergence from beneath hemp mulch. Biochar application also slightly increased soil pH, from 6.9 in non-amended soil to 7.0 in amended soil. Strawberry runner number during 2015 was greater in association with hemp or paper mulch compared to zero mulch (4.5 and 4.9 vs 2.4 runners plant −1, respectively). This result mirrored a similar differential in per berry mass across sites (7.6 and 7.4 vs 6.2 g berry −1 for hemp mulch, paper mulch and zero mulch, respectively). These results may be related to hemp and paper mulch reducing maximum soil temperatures during summer 2015. During the establishment year, both hemp and paper mulch suppressed weeds well compared to zero mulch, although at Absaraka hemp mulch provided slightly better weed suppression than paper mulch. During the production year, both mulches continued to suppress weeds compared to zero mulch at Dickinson. However, at Absaraka, only hemp mulch provided weed suppression compared to zero mulch, possibly because of faster paper degradation caused by greater numbers of large precipitation events and greater relative humidity at Absaraka compared to Dickinson. Weeds were removed from plots during 2015 to allow separation of weed suppression from other possible mulch impacts; therefore, yield data do not reveal striking differences among mulch treatments. Because previous research has demonstrated the impact of weed management during the establishment of strawberries in a matted row system, we concluded that hemp mulch may provide more durable weed suppression compared to paper mulch, which would increase strawberry yield protection in an MRP system. Material cost may be an issue for implementing hemp mulch, as hemp hurd cost was 25 times paper mulch at the application rates used in this study. However, hemp mulch could still be a beneficial option, especially for organic strawberry growers desiring a renewable and environmentally sound replacement for plastic mulch who are able to find affordable local sources of this material.

Download Full-text