Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T01:26:29.980Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed Management in a Legume-Cereal Cover Crop with the Rotary Hoe

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Nathan S. Boyd  and
Eric B. Brennan
Nathan S. Boyd*
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, 1636 East Alisal Street, Salinas, CA 93905
Eric B. Brennan
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, 1636 East Alisal Street, Salinas, CA 93905
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: nboyd@nsac.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Substantial weed growth often occurs in legume-cereal cover-crop mixes commonly grown on organic vegetable farms. A 2-yr study at the USDA-ARS in Salinas, CA, was conducted to test the effect of zero, one, and two passes with a rotary hoe on weed control in a mixed cover crop of 10% rye, 15% common vetch, 15% purple vetch, 25% peas, and 35% bell bean. Rotary hoeing occurred 14–15 days after planting (DAP) in the one-pass treatment, and 14 and 28 DAP in the two-pass treatment. Rotary hoeing did not affect total cover-crop density or biomass in either year, but reduced rye density and biomass in year 2. One pass reduced total weed density by 69% in year 1 and 49% in year 2. A second pass did not affect weed density in year 1 but reduced weed density an additional 33% in year 2. One pass decreased weed biomass in year 1, whereas two passes were required to reduce weed biomass in year 2. Rotary hoeing reduced seed shed by chickweed and shepherd's-purse seeds, the two predominant weed species, by 80 to 95% in both years. Rotary hoe efficacy depended on weather conditions directly before and after cultivation. The decision to repeat rotary hoeing should be based upon field scouting and weather conditions following the initial pass with the rotary hoe.

Keywords

Chickweed, Stellaria media (L.) Vill. #3 STEMEshepherd's purse, Capsella bursa-pastoris (L.) Medic. # CAPBPrye, ‘Merced’ Secale Cereale L.common vetch, Vicia sativa L.purple vetch, Vicia benghalensis L.peas ‘magnus’, Pisum sativum L.bell bean, Vicia faba L.Weed seedorganicSenecio vulgarisLamium amplexicauleSolanum sarrachoidesPoa annuaGDDgrowing degree days
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 20 , Issue 3 , September 2006 , pp. 733 - 737
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

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

Literature Cited

Akemo, M. C., Regnier, E. E., and Bennett, M. A. 2000. Weed suppression in spring-sown rye– (Secale cereale) pea (Pisum sativum) cover crop mixes. Weed Technol. 14:545–549.Google Scholar
Boerboom, C. M. and Young, F. L. 1995. Effect of postplant tillage and crop density on broadleaf weed control in dry pea (Pisum sativum) and lentil (Lens culinaris). Weed Technol. 9:99–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowman, G. 1997. Steel in the Field: A Farmer's Guide to Weed Management Tools. Beltsville, MD: Sustainable Agriculture Network. P. 128.Google Scholar
Brennan, E. B. and Boyd, N. S. 2004. Cover crop variety and seeding rate effects on winter weed dynamics in a central coast organic vegetable system. in Proceedings of the California conference on Biological Control, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
Brennan, E. B. and Smith, R. 2005. Winter cover crop growth and weed suppression on the central coast of California. Weed Technol. In press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buhler, D. D., Gunsolus, J. L., and Ralston, D. F. 1992. Integrated weed management techniques to reduce herbicide inputs in soybean. Agron. J. 84:973–978.Google Scholar
Forcella, F. 2000. Rotary hoeing substitutes for two-thirds rate of soil applied herbicide. Weed Technol. 14:298–303.Google Scholar
Gunsolus, J. L. 1990. Mechanical and cultural weed control in corn and soybeans. Am. J. Altern. Agric. 5:114–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooker, D. C., Vyn, T. J., and Swanton, C. J. 1998. Alternative weed management strategies in conservation tillage systems for white beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L). Can. J. Plant Sci. 78:363–370.Google Scholar
Leblanc, M. L. and Cloutier, D. C. 2001a. Susceptibility of row-planted soybean (Glycine max) to the rotary hoe. J. Sustain. Agric. 18:53–61.Google Scholar
Leblanc, M. L. and Cloutier, D. C. 2001b. Susceptibility of dry edible bean (Phaseolus vulgaris, cranberry bean) to the rotary hoe. Weed Technol. 15:224–228.Google Scholar
Lovely, W. G., Weber, C. R., and Staniforth, D. W. 1958. Effectiveness of the rotary hoe for weed control in soybeans. Agron. J. 50:621–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McVay, K. A., Radcliffe, D. E., and Hargrove, W. L. 1989. Winter legume effects on soil properties and nitrogen fertilizer requirements. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 53:1856–1862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohler, C. L. and Frisch, J. C. 1997. Mechanical weed control in oats with a rotary hoe and tine weeder. Proc. Northeast Weed Sci. Soc. 51:2–6.Google Scholar
Oriade, C. and Forcella, F. 1999. Maximizing efficacy and economics of mechanical weed control in row crops through forecasts of weed emergence. J. Crop Prod. 2:189–205.Google Scholar
Singogo, W., Lamont, W. J. Jr., and Marr, C. W. 1996. Fall-planted cover crops support good yields of muskmelons. Hortscience 31:62–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wyland, L. J., Jackson, L. E., Chaney, W. E., Klonsky, K., Koike, S. T., and Kimple, B. 1996. Winter cover crops in a vegetable cropping system: Impacts on nitrate leaching, soil water, crop yield, pests and management costs. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 59:1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar