Weeds Management In Organic Farming Through Conservation Agriculture Practices

Despite weeds are a serious threat to promotion of organic farming, relatively less attention is given to research on weed management. This article explores a scope of integration of conservation agriculture for weed control and soil protection under organic farming. Limitation in the use of agro-chemicals under OF promotes intensive tillage for weed control. Mostly, tillage leads to depletion of organic matter and proneness to erosion in inclined geography. Adoption of conservation agriculture reduces the intensity of soil manipulation thereby creates an unfavourable condition for weed seed germination, reduces the organic matter depletions and soil erosions. Residues on the surface invite weed and pest predators thereby reduced the weed and pest infestations in organic field. Appropriate crop rotations and cover crops management suppress weeds populations with smothering and allopathic effects. Thus, CA integration under OF could be an option for weed, pest and soil management which leads to sustainable organic plant production. The Journal of Agriculture and Environment Vol:13, Jun.2012, Page 60-66 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3126/aej.v13i0.7589

Download Full-text

Sustainable Weed Management for Conservation Agriculture: Options for Smallholder Farmers

Agriculture ◽

10.3390/agriculture8080118 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 8 (8) ◽

pp. 118 ◽

Cited By ~ 12

Author(s):

Brian Sims ◽

Sandra Corsi ◽

Gualbert Gbehounou ◽

Josef Kienzle ◽

Makiko Taguchi ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Weed Control ◽

Cover Crops ◽

Weed Management ◽

Agricultural Production ◽

Crop Production ◽

Smallholder Farmers ◽

Conservation Agriculture ◽

Soil Tillage ◽

Integrated Weed Management ◽

Resource Base

Land degradation and soil fertility deterioration are two of the main causes of agricultural production stagnation and decline in many parts of the world. The model of crop production based on mechanical soil tillage and exposed soils is typically accompanied by negative effects on the natural resource base of the farming environment, which can be so serious that they jeopardize agricultural productive potential in the future. This form of agriculture is destructive to soil health and accelerates the loss of soil by increasing its mineralization and erosion rates. Conservation agriculture, a system avoiding or minimizing soil mechanical disturbance (no-tillage) combined with soil cover and crop diversification, is considered a sustainable agro-ecological approach to resource-conserving agricultural production. A major objective of tillage is supposed to be weed control, and it does not require very specific knowledge because soil inversion controls (at least temporarily) most weeds mechanically (i.e., by way of burying them). However, repeated ploughing only changes the weed population, but does not control weeds in the long term. The same applies to the mechanical uprooting of weeds. While in the short term some tillage operations can control weeds on farms, tillage systems can increase and propagate weeds off-farm. The absence of tillage, under conservation agriculture, requires other measures of weed control. One of the ways in which this is realized is through herbicide application. However, environmental concerns, herbicide resistance and access to appropriate agro-chemicals on the part of resource-poor farmers, highlight the need for alternative weed control strategies that are effective and accessible for smallholders adopting conservation agriculture. Farmers in semi-arid regions contend with the additional challenge of low biomass production and, often, competition with livestock enterprises, which limit the potential weed-suppressing benefits of mulch and living cover crops. This paper reviews the applicability and efficacy of various mechanical, biological and integrated weed management strategies for the effective and sustainable management of weeds in smallholder conservation agriculture systems, including the role of appropriate equipment and prerequisites for smallholders within a sustainable intensification scenario.

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

Non-Chemical Weed Management in Vegetables by Using Cover Crops: A Review

Agronomy ◽

10.3390/agronomy10020257 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 10 (2) ◽

pp. 257 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Husrev Mennan ◽

Khawar Jabran ◽

Bernard H. Zandstra ◽

Firat Pala

Keyword(s):

Weed Control ◽

Cover Crops ◽

Weed Management ◽

Water Conservation ◽

Crop Residues ◽

Production Systems ◽

Organic Production ◽

Substantial Part ◽

Vegetable Production ◽

Negative Effects

Vegetables are a substantial part of our lives and possess great commercial and nutritional value. Weeds not only decrease vegetable yield but also reduce their quality. Non-chemical weed control is important both for the organic production of vegetables and achieving ecologically sustainable weed management. Estimates have shown that the yield of vegetables may be decreased by 45%–95% in the case of weed–vegetable competition. Non-chemical weed control in vegetables is desired for several reasons. For example, there are greater chances of contamination of vegetables by herbicide residue compared to cereals or pulse crops. Non-chemical weed control in vegetables is also needed due to environmental pollution, the evolution of herbicide resistance in weeds and a strong desire for organic vegetable cultivation. Although there are several ways to control weeds without the use of herbicides, cover crops are an attractive choice because these have a number of additional benefits (such as soil and water conservation) along with the provision of satisfactory and sustainable weed control. Several cover crops are available that may provide excellent weed control in vegetable production systems. Cover crops such as rye, vetch, or Brassicaceae plants can suppress weeds in rotations, including vegetables crops such as tomato, cabbage, or pumpkin. Growers should also consider the negative effects of using cover crops for weed control, such as the negative allelopathic effects of some cover crop residues on the main vegetable crop.

Download Full-text

Economic Returns in Plasticulture Tomato Production from Crucifer Cover Crops as a Methyl Bromide Alternative for Weed Management

HortTechnology ◽

10.21273/horttech.20.4.764 ◽

2010 ◽

Vol 20 (4) ◽

pp. 764-771 ◽

Cited By ~ 7

Author(s):

Sanjeev K. Bangarwa ◽

Jason K. Norsworthy ◽

Ronald L. Rainey ◽

Edward E. Gbur

Keyword(s):

Weed Control ◽

Cover Crops ◽

Methyl Bromide ◽

Weed Management ◽

Cover Crop ◽

Untreated Control ◽

Tomato Production ◽

Net Returns ◽

Hand Weeding ◽

Oriental Mustard

The phase-out of methyl bromide required an effective and economically viable alternative for weed management in polyethylene-mulched tomato (Solanum lycopersicum). A field experiment was conducted to compare economics of tomato production associated with crucifer (Brassicaceae) cover crops under low-density polyethylene mulch (LDPE) and virtually impermeable film (VIF) mulch with a standard treatment of methyl bromide:chloropicrin (67:33) at 350 lb/acre. Three crucifer cover crops, ‘Seventop’ turnip (Brassica rapa), ‘Pacific Gold’ oriental mustard (Brassica juncea), and Caliente [a blend of brown mustard (B. juncea) and white mustard (Sinapis alba)], were evaluated in combination with hand-weeding. Because of marginal weed control from crucifer cover crops, hand-weeding cost in all cover crop plots, regardless of mulch type, increased from $380.54/acre to $489.10/acre over that in methyl bromide plots. However, total weed management costs in the untreated control and cover crops with LDPE treatments were $17.82/acre to $111.33/acre lower than methyl bromide. Because of mulch expenses, VIF mulch increased the total weed management cost by $328.16/acre over LDPE mulch in the untreated control and cover crop treatments. Because of equivalent marketable yield, gross returns ($21,040.43/acre) were identical in all treatments. Preplant fumigation with methyl bromide provided $6260.90/acre of net returns in tomato production. The untreated control, ‘Seventop’ turnip, ‘Pacific Gold’ oriental mustard, and Caliente mustard under LDPE treatment were $54/acre, $54/acre, $98/acre, and $147/acre more profitable, respectively, than methyl bromide. However, in all other treatments under VIF, net returns relative to methyl bromide were reduced from $181/acre to $274/acre. Therefore, regardless of soil amendment with crucifer cover crops, hand-weeding can serve as an economically viable alternative to methyl bromide for weed control in LDPE-mulched tomato production, depending on the nature and level of pest infestation, labor availability, and wages.

Download Full-text

Benefits of Cover Crops for Soil Health

EDIS ◽

10.32473/edis-ag277-2007 ◽

2007 ◽

Vol 2007 (20) ◽

Author(s):

Yoana C. Newman ◽

David L. Wright ◽

Cheryl Mackowiak ◽

J.M.S. Scholberg ◽

C. M. Cherr

Keyword(s):

Organic Matter ◽

Soil Organic Matter ◽

Weed Control ◽

Cover Crops ◽

Agricultural Production ◽

Cover Crop ◽

Soil Health ◽

Nutrient Release ◽

Fact Sheet ◽

Residue Incorporation

SS-AGR-272, a 4-page fact sheet by Y.C. Newman, D.W. Wright, C. Mackowiak, J.M.S. Scholberg and C.M. Cherr, discusses the benefits of cover crops in agricultural production, the benefits of soil organic matter; how to match cover crop nutrient release with future crop demand; timing and depth of residue incorporation; and erosion, pest and weed control. Includes references. Published by the UF Department of Agronomy, November 2007. SS AGR 272/AG277: Benefits of Cover Crops for Soil Health (ufl.edu)

Download Full-text

Weed Control in Strawberry Provided by Shank- and Drip-applied Methyl Bromide Alternative Fumigants

HortScience ◽

10.21273/hortsci.38.1.55 ◽

2003 ◽

Vol 38 (1) ◽

pp. 55-61 ◽

Cited By ~ 33

Author(s):

S.A. Fennimore ◽

M.J. Haar ◽

H.A. Ajwa

Keyword(s):

Weed Control ◽

Methyl Bromide ◽

Weed Management ◽

Drip Irrigation ◽

Irrigation System ◽

Drip Irrigation System ◽

Weed Seed ◽

Metam Sodium ◽

Polygonum Aviculare ◽

Potential Alternative

The loss of methyl bromide (MB) as a soil fumigant has created the need for new weed management systems for crops such as strawberry (Fragaria ×ananassa Duchesne). Potential alternative chemicals to replace methyl bromide fumigation include 1,3-D, chloropicrin (CP), and metam sodium. Application of emulsified formulations of these fumigants through the drip irrigation system is being tested as an alternative to the standard shank injection method of fumigant application in strawberry production. The goal of this research was to evaluate the weed control efficacy of alternative fumigants applied through the drip irrigation system and by shank injection. The fumigant 1,3-D in a mixture with CP was drip-applied as InLine (60% 1,3-D plus 32% CP) at 236 and 393 L·ha-1 or shank injected as Telone C35 (62% 1,3-D plus 35% CP) at 374 L·ha-1. Chloropicrin (CP EC, 95%) was drip-applied singly at 130 and 200 L·ha-1 or shank injected (CP, 99%) at 317 kg·ha-1. Vapam HL (metam sodium 42%) was drip-applied singly at 420 and 700 L·ha-1. InLine was drip-applied at 236 and 393 L·ha-1, and then 6 d later followed by (fb) drip-applied Vapam HL at 420 and 700 L·ha-1, respectively. CP EC was drip-applied simultaneously with Vapam HL at 130 plus 420 L·ha-1 and as a sequential application at 200 fb 420 L·ha-1, respectively. Results were compared to the commercial standard, MB : CP mixture (67:33) shank-applied at 425 kg·ha-1 and the untreated control. Chloropicrin EC at 200 L·ha-1 and InLine at 236 to 393 L·ha-1 each applied singly controlled weeds as well as MB : CP at 425 kg·ha-1. Application of these fumigants through the drip irrigation systems provided equal or better weed control than equivalent rates applied by shank injection. InLine and CP EC efficacy on little mallow (Malva parviflora L.) or prostrate knotweed (Polygonum aviculare L.) seed buried at the center of the bed did not differ from MB : CP. However, the percentage of weed seed survival at the edge of the bed was often higher in the drip-applied treatments than in the shank-applied treatments, possibly due to the close proximity of the shank-injected fumigant to the edge of the bed. Vapam HL was generally less effective than MB : CP on the native weed population or on weed seed. The use of Vapam HL in combination with InLine or CP EC did not provide additional weed control benefit. Chemical names used: 1,3-dichloropropene (1,3-D); sodium N-methyldithiocarbamate (metam sodium); methyl bromide; trichloro-nitromethane (chloropicrin).

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

Bioeconomic Modeling to Simulate Weed Control Strategies for Continuous Corn (Zea mays)

Weed Science ◽

10.1017/s004317450006820x ◽

1986 ◽

Vol 34 (6) ◽

pp. 972-979 ◽

Cited By ~ 61

Author(s):

Robert P. King ◽

Donald W. Lybecker ◽

Edward E. Schweizer ◽

Robert L. Zimdahl

Keyword(s):

Zea Mays ◽

Weed Control ◽

Weed Management ◽

Management Strategy ◽

Performance Indicator ◽

Management Strategies ◽

Weed Seed ◽

Net Return ◽

Net Returns ◽

Continuous Corn

Grass and broadleaf weed densities and seed numbers, weed control practices, and grain yields were included in a bioeconomic model that evaluates alternative weed management strategies for continuous corn (Zea maysL.). Weed seed numbers in soil and herbicide carry-over provided intertemporal links. Four weed management strategies – two fixed, one mixed, and one flexible – were evaluated with annualized net returns as the performance indicator. The flexible strategy (weed control based on observed conditions) had the largest annualized net return for high and low initial weed seed numbers. The fixed weed management strategy (weed control predetermined) of an annual application of only a preemergence herbicide ranked second in terms of annualized net returns for high weed seed numbers. The mixed weed management strategy of alternative year applications of preemergence herbicide and “as needed” applications of postemergence herbicide ranked second for low initial weed seed numbers. The fixed weed management strategy of alternate year application of preemergence herbicide only generated the lowest annualized net return, regardless of initial weed seed numbers.

Download Full-text

Cover Crops

Sustainable Entrepreneurship and Investments in the Green Economy - Advances in Business Strategy and Competitive Advantage ◽

10.4018/978-1-5225-2075-7.ch009 ◽

2017 ◽

pp. 257-281 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Vladan Ugrenović ◽

Vladimir Filipović

Keyword(s):

Organic Matter ◽

Organic Farming ◽

Soil Quality ◽

Cover Crops ◽

Farming Systems ◽

Crop Rotations ◽

Multiple Role ◽

Pests And Diseases ◽

Organic Farming Systems

The use of cover crops is widespread practice in organic farming systems. Cover crops can be defined as crops that are usually not grown commercially, and can have a multiple role in crop rotations. The benefit of cover crops has been known since long. Legumes are used as biological fixer of nitrogen for the next crop, and are established during periods when the soil is without major crops in order to reduce erosion. In recent years, the role of cover crops has been extended to the biocontrol of weeds, pests and diseases, as well as to the overall improvement of soil quality by increasing organic matter, encouraging the circulation of nutrients and reducing soil compaction. At the same time, their use tends to reduce costs and even create new sources of income on the farm.

Download Full-text

Weed Seed Banks in Established Strawberry Fields

HortScience ◽

10.21273/hortsci.33.3.459f ◽

1998 ◽

Vol 33 (3) ◽

pp. 459f-460

Author(s):

Faye Propsom ◽

Emily Hoover

Keyword(s):

Organic Matter ◽

Weed Control ◽

Seed Bank ◽

Cultural Practices ◽

Seed Banks ◽

Soil Samples ◽

Soil Types ◽

Twin Cities ◽

Weed Seed ◽

Metro Area

Weed control in strawberries, either in a new planting or one that is established, is a major source of problems for growers in Minnesota. To control weeds, growers need to know which weeds are a problem, which weeds are deleterious, and which weeds have the potential to become a problem. Weeds present, soil type, and weed seed bank information are needed in order to predict potential weed problems. With different weed control practices applied between and within the rows, we assumed weed seed bank populations would vary. In addition, we were interested in seeing if the seed banks differed between soil types and individual farmer's cultural practices. Soil samples were collected from 13 commercial strawberry fields located around the Twin Cities metro area. In 1996, samples were taken after renovation and before mulch was applied. In 1997, they were taken after mulch was removed and prior to renovation. The soil samples for each date, treatment, and farm were dried, and organic matter was separated from inorganic. The weed seeds were removed from the remaining organic matter, identified and counted. Soil types and cultural practices were used to compare the differences among the farms.

Download Full-text