Glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide in the United States; however, concern is escalating about increasing residues of glyphosate and its metabolite aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA) in soil. There is a lack of scientific literature examining the response of cover crops to soil residues of glyphosate or AMPA. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the impact of glyphosate or AMPA residues in silty clay loam soil on emergence, growth, and biomass of cover crops, including cereal rye, crimson clover, field pea, hairy vetch, and winter wheat, as well as their germination in a 0.07% (0.7 g L–1) solution of AMPA or glyphosate. Greenhouse studies were conducted at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln to determine the dose response of broadleaf and grass cover crops to soil-applied glyphosate or AMPA. The results indicated that soil treated with glyphosate or AMPA up to 105 mg ae kg–1 of soil had no effect on the emergence, growth, above-ground biomass, and root biomass of any of the cover crop species tested. To evaluate the impact of AMPA or glyphosate on the seed germination of cover crop species, seeds were soaked in Petri plates filled with a 0.7 g L–1 solution of AMPA or glyphosate. There was no effect of AMPA on seed germination of any of the cover crop species tested. Seed germination of crimson clover and field pea in a 0.7 g L–1 solution of glyphosate was comparable to the nontreated control; however, the germination of cereal rye, hairy vetch, and winter wheat was reduced by 48%, 75%, and 66%, respectively, compared to the nontreated control. The results suggested that glyphosate or AMPA up to 105 mg ae kg–1 in silt clay loam soil is unlikely to cause any negative effect on the evaluated cover crop species.

Bioassays using binary mixtures that included a cover crop with known allelopathic potential and a weed species were employed to determine the importance of allelopathy compared to resource competition as interference mechanisms. Responses of weed species germinated with cover crops in a petri dish were measured. Interference between weed and cover crop seedlings was determined in a greenhouse experiment using the additive design, which included partitions to reduce above- and below-ground competition and used capillary mat subirrigation to control moisture and fertilizer availability. Germinating sorghum reduced radicle length of weeds, whereas germinating rye tended to increase weed radicle length. Methods limited above-ground competition, so likely interference mechanisms were below-ground competition and allelopathy. Germination with a cover crop had little effect on germination and shoot length of weeds. Increased density of rye but not of sorghum reduced growth of barnyardgrass seedlings. Reduced number of barnyardgrass leaves in the presence of rye was likely due to allelopathy. Suppression of barnyardgrass dry weight attributed to allelopathic interference by rye was successfully separated and compared to the combined effects of competition and allelopathy.

Fall-planted cover crops offer many benefits including weed suppressive residues in spring sown crops when controlled and left on the soil surface. However, vegetable growers have been slow to adopt direct-seeding (no-till) into cover crop residues. Field studies were conducted in 2009 and 2010 near Paterson, WA and Urbana, IL to evaluate mortality of rye and common vetch (WA) hairy vetch (IL) cover crops, weed density and biomass, and snap bean growth and yield following four cover crop control methods utilizing a roller–crimper. Rye had higher mortality than common and hairy vetch by roller-crimping, and carfentrazone applied after roller crimping only slightly increased vetch mortality. Heavy residues of rye and escaped vetch were difficult to plant into, often resulting in lower snap bean populations. Rye and hairy vetch residues suppressed final weed biomass, while common vetch reduced weed biomass 1 of 2 years. Escaped plants of both vetch species became a weed. Snap bean yields were inconsistent and often lower following cover crops compared with a fallow treatment. Being able to completely control cover crops and to plant, manage escaped weeds and mechanically harvest in the presence of heavy residues are challenges that deter vegetable growers from readily adopting these systems.