Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T02:30:27.083Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Living mulch for weed management in organic vegetable cropping systems under Mediterranean and North European conditions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 February 2016

Corrado Ciaccia ,
Hanne Lakkenborg Kristensen ,
Gabriele Campanelli ,
Yue Xie ,
Elena Testani ,
Fabrizio Leteo  and
Stefano Canali
Corrado Ciaccia*
Affiliation:
Consiglio per la ricerca in agricoltura e l'analisi dell'economia agraria, Centro per lo studio delle relazioni tra pianta e suolo (CREA-RPS), Via della Navicella, 2-00184 Roma (RM), Italy.
Hanne Lakkenborg Kristensen
Affiliation:
Department of Food Science, Aarhus University, Kirstinebjergvej 10, DK-5792 Aarslev, Denmark.
Gabriele Campanelli
Affiliation:
Consiglio per la ricerca in agricoltura e l'analisi dell'economia agraria, Unità di ricerca per l'orticoltura (CREA-ORA), Via Salaria, 1-63030 Monsampolo del Tronto (AP), Italy.
Yue Xie
Affiliation:
Department of Food Science, Aarhus University, Kirstinebjergvej 10, DK-5792 Aarslev, Denmark.
Elena Testani
Affiliation:
Consiglio per la ricerca in agricoltura e l'analisi dell'economia agraria, Centro per lo studio delle relazioni tra pianta e suolo (CREA-RPS), Via della Navicella, 2-00184 Roma (RM), Italy.
Fabrizio Leteo
Affiliation:
Department of Food Science, Aarhus University, Kirstinebjergvej 10, DK-5792 Aarslev, Denmark.
Stefano Canali
Affiliation:
Consiglio per la ricerca in agricoltura e l'analisi dell'economia agraria, Centro per lo studio delle relazioni tra pianta e suolo (CREA-RPS), Via della Navicella, 2-00184 Roma (RM), Italy.
*
*Corresponding author: corrado.ciaccia@entecra.it
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of growing in-season agro-ecological service crops as living mulch (LM) with vegetable crops, exploiting their potential to suppress weeds by filling the ecological niches otherwise occupied by weeds. Two field experiments were carried out in Denmark and Italy to compare different LM introduction strategies in organic vegetable cropping systems. In Denmark, leek (Allium porrum L.) was grown with dyers woad (Isatis tinctoria L.) LM strips, while cauliflower (Brassica oleracea L. var. botrytis) was intercropped with a broad sowed burr medic (Medicago polimorpha L., var. anglona) in Italy. Two LM times of sowing relative to cash crop transplanting––an early sowing (es LM) and a late sowing (ls LM)––were compared with a control with no LM (no LM). The effects of LM treatment on crop competitiveness, LM smother effect and weed populations were evaluated by direct measurement, visual estimation and competitive index methods. Comparison among hybrid and open pollinated cultivar responses to LM introduction was also performed. Results showed a significant higher cash crop biomass in ls LM than in es LM, with comparable yield to the weeded controls, except for es LM in Italy. Moreover, in the Danish experiment, the LM and weed biomasses were up to 5 times lower in the es LM and ls LM treatments than the weed biomass alone in no LM treatment. Reduction in weed biomass and abundance was observed also in ls LM in the Italian trial. Similarly, the competitive balance (Cb), which quantifies the ability of the cash crop to compete with neighbours, was higher in the es LM (+0.29) and ls LM (+0.72) compared with unweeded no LM control (−0.86) in Denmark. In the Italian experiment, the cauliflower showed more competitive ability against neighbours in ls LM (+0.53) and was a weak competitor in es LM (−1.51). The cash crop had higher competitive ability against LM (Cbc-lm) when sowing was more delayed in both experiments, while, in the Italian trial, the LM was more competitive against weeds (Cblm-w) in ls LM (+1.54) than in es LM (−0.41). The slight differences observed for biomass and competitive ability between the tested cultivars, highlighted similar suitability of both hybrid and open-pollinated cultivars to grow with LM. Our findings suggest the viability of the introduced LM in managing weeds and avoiding a smother effect on the crop, with particular effectiveness with delayed LM sowing.

Keywords

cover cropindices of competitionagro-ecological service croporganic farmingcrop-weed competition
Type
Themed Content: Living Mulch
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 32 , Special Issue 3: Living Mulch , June 2017 , pp. 248 - 262
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adamczewska-Sowińska, K. and Kolota, E. 2010. Yielding and nutritive value of field cultivated eggplant with the use of living mulch and synthetic mulches. Acta Scientiarum Polonorum, Hortorum Cultus 9(3):191–199.Google Scholar
Ahti, T., Hämet-Ahti, L., and Jalas, J. 1968. Vegetation zones and their sections in northwestern Europe. Annales Botanici Fennici 5:169–211.Google Scholar
Araki, H. and Tamura, H. 2008. Weed control and field management with barley living mulch in asparagus production. Acta Horticulturae 776:51–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bárberi, P. 2002. Weed management in organic agriculture: Are we addressing the right issues? Weed Research 42:177–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Båth, B., Kristensen, H.L., and Thorup-Kristensen, K. 2008. Root pruning reduces root competition and increases crop growth in a living mulch cropping system. Journal of Plant Interactions 3(3):211–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackshaw, R.E., Anderson, R.L., and Lemerle, D. 2007. Cultural weed management. In Upadhyaya, M.K. and Blackshaw, R.E. (eds). Non-chemical Weed Management. CABI, Wallingford, p. 35–47.Google Scholar
Brainard, D.C. and Bellinder, R.R. 2004. Weed suppression in a broccoli-winter rye intercropping system. Weed Science 52:281–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brainard, D.C., Bellinder, R.R., and Miller, A.J. 2004. Cultivation and interseeding for weed control in transplanted cabbage. Weed Technology 18:704–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braun-Blanquet, J. 1932. Plant sociology: The study of plant communities’ (authorized English translation of ‘Pflanzensociologie: Grundzuge der Vegetationskunde.’ 3te aufl. Springer-Verlag, Wein. translated, revised, and edited by Fuller GD, Conard HS). McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canali, S., Diacono, M., Campanelli, G., and Montemurro, F. 2015. Organic No-Till with Roller Crimpers: Agro-ecosystem Services and Applications in Organic Mediterranean Vegetable Productions. Sustainable Agriculture Research 4(3):70–79. doi: 10.5539/. Available at Web site http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/sar/article/view/50107 (verified 10 October 2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chase, C.A. and Mbuya, O.S. 2008. Greater interference from living mulches than weeds in organic broccoli production. Weed Technology 22(2):280–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ciaccia, C., Montemurro, F., Campanelli, G., Diacono, M., Fiore, A., and Canali, S. 2015. Legume cover crop management and organic amendments application: Effects on organic zucchini performance and weed competition. Scientiae Horticulturae 185:48–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Haan, R.L., Sheaffer, C.C., and Barnes, D.K. 1997. Effect of annual medic smother plants on weed control and yield in corn. Agronomy Journal 89:813–821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Wit, C.T. 1960. On competition. Verslagen van Landouwkundige Onderzoekingen, 66:1–82.Google Scholar
De Wit, C.T. and Goudriaan, J. 1974. Simulation of ecological processes. Simulation monographs. Pudoc (ed.). Wageningen, 159 p.Google Scholar
den Hollander, N.G., Bastiaans, L., and Kropff, M.J. 2007a. Clover as a cover crop for weed suppression in an intercropping design I. Characteristics of several clover species. European Journal of Agronomy 26:92–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
den Hollander, N.G., Bastiaans, L., and Kropff, M.J. 2007b. Clover as a cover crop for weed suppression in an intercropping design II. Competitive ability of several clover species. European Journal of Agronomy 26:104–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaba, S., Fried, G., Kazakou, E., Chauvel, B., and Navas, M.L. 2014. Agroecological weed control using a functional approach: A review of cropping systems diversity. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 34:103–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galloway, B.A. and Weston, L.A. 1996. Influence of cover crop and herbicide treatment on weed control and yield in no-till sweet corn (Zea mays L.) and pumpkin (Cucurbita maxima Duch.). Weed Technology 10:341–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gomez, K.A. and Gomez, A. 1984. Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research. 2nd ed. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.Google Scholar
Hahn, I. and Scheuring, I. 2003. The effect of measurement scales on estimating vegetation cover: A computer-assisted experiment. Community Ecology 4:29–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ilnicki, R.D. and Enache, A.J. 1992. Subterranean clover living mulch: an alternative method of weed control. In Paoletti, M.G. and Pimentel, D. (eds). Biotic Diversity in Agroecosystems. Elsevier Science Publisher B.V., Amsterdam, p. 249–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keddy, P.A., Twolan-Strutt, L., and Wisheu, I., 1994. Competitive effect and response rankings in 20 wetland plants: are they consistent across three environments?. Journal of Ecology 82: 635–643.Google Scholar
Kolota, E. and Adamczewska-Sowińska, K. 2013. Living mulches in vegetable production: Perspectives and limitations (a review). Acta Scientiarum Polonorum, Hortorum Cultus 12(6):127–142.Google Scholar
Lehmann, E.L. and D'Abrera, H.J.M. 1975. Nonparametrics: Statistical Methods Based on Ranks. Holden-Day, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
Lundkvist, A. and Verwijst, T. 2011. Weed biology and weed management in organic farming. In Nokkoul, R. (ed.). Research in Organic Farming. InTech, Chapters published December 16, 2011. doi: 10.5772/2441.Google Scholar
Masiunas, J.B. 1998. Production of vegetables using cover crop and living mulches – A review. Journal of Vegetable Crop Production 4(1):1–31.Google Scholar
Mohammadi, G.R. 2012. Living Mulch as a tool to control weeds in Agroecosystems: A review. In Price, A.J. (ed.). Weed Control. InTech, Chapters published February 29, 2012. doi: 10.5772/35226 Google Scholar
Oerke, E.C. 2006. Crop losses to pests. Journal of Agricultural Science 144(1):31–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paolini, R., Principi, M., Froud-Williams, R.J., Del Puglia, S., and Biancardi, E. 1999. Competition between sugarbeet and Sinapis arvensis and Chenopodium album, as affected by timing of nitrogen fertilization. Weed Research 39:425–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paolini, R., Faustini, F., Saccardo, F., and Crinò, P. 2006. Competitive interactions between chick-pea genotypes and weeds. Weed Research 46:335–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phatak, S.C. 1992. An integrated sustainable vegetable production system. HortScience 27:738–741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pignatti, S. 1976. Geobotanica. In Cappelletti, C. (ed.). Trattato di botanica. UTET, Turin, p. 801–997.Google Scholar
Pignatti, S. 1982. Flora d'Italia. Edagricole, Bologna, 2324 p.Google Scholar
Pouryousef, M., Yousefi, A.R., Oveisi, M., and Asadi, F. 2015. Intercropping of fenugreek as living mulch at different densities for weed suppression in coriander. Crop Protection 69:60–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samarajeewa, K.B.D.P., Horiuchi, T., and Oba, S. 2006. Finger millet (Eleucine corocana L. Gaertn) as cover crop on weed control, growth and yield of soybean under different tillage systems. Soil & Tillage Research 90:93–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snaydon, R.W. 1991. Replacement or additive designs for competition studies? Journal of Applied Ecology 28:930–946.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soil Survey Staff. 1996. Keys to Soil Taxonomy. 7th ed. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Teasdale, J.R. 1998. Cover crops, smother plants, and weed management. In Hatfield, J.L., Buhler, D.D., and Stewart, B.A. (eds). Integrated Weeds and Soil Management. Ann Arbor Press, Chelsea, MI, p. 247–270.Google Scholar
Tursun, N., Bükün, B., Karacan, S.C., Ngouajio, M., and Mennan, H. 2007. Critical period for weed control in leek (Allium porrum L.). HortScience 42(1):106–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1996. Soil survey laboratory methods manual. In R. Burt and Soil Survey Staff (eds). Natural Resource Conservation Service. Soil Survey Inv Rep N 42, vers. 3.0. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Uchino, H., Iwama, K., Jitsuyama, Y., Ichiyama, K., Sugiura, E., and Yudata, T. 2011. Stable characteristics of cover crops for weed suppression in organic farming systems. Plant Production Science 14(1):75–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
UNESCO-FAO. 1963. Etude Écologique de la Zone Méditerranéenne. Carte Bioclimatique de la zone Méditerranéenne [Ecologicazal study of the Mediterranean area: Bioclimatic map of the Mediterranean sea]. Paris-Rome, p. 60.Google Scholar
Weigelt, A. and Jolliffe, P. 2003. Indices of plant competition. Journal of Ecology 9:707–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, R.H., Worsham, A.D., and Blum, U. 1989. Allelopathic potential of legume debris and aqueous extracts. Weed Science 37:674–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wikum, D.A. and Shanholtzer, G. 1978. Application of the Braun-Blanquet cover-abundance scale for vegetation analysis in land development studies. Environmental Management 2:323–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, J.B. 1988. Shoot competition and root competition. Journal of Applied Ecology 25:279–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimdahl, R.L. (ed.) 2007. The effect of weed density. In Weed-Crop Competition: A Review. Blackwell Publishing, Ames, IA, p. 27–108.Google Scholar