Hostname: page-component-6bb9c88b65-g7ldn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-07-23T15:44:08.070Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Vegetable crop emergence and weed control following amendment with different Brassicaceae seed meals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 August 2007

A.R. Rice ,
J.L. Johnson-Maynard ,
D.C. Thill  and
M.J. Morra
A.R. Rice
Affiliation:
Division of Soil and Land Resources, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844-2339, USA.
J.L. Johnson-Maynard*
Affiliation:
Division of Soil and Land Resources, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844-2339, USA.
D.C. Thill
Affiliation:
Plant Science Division, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844-2339, USA.
M.J. Morra
Affiliation:
Division of Soil and Land Resources, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844-2339, USA.
*
*Corresponding author: jmaynard@uidaho.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Brassicaceae seed meals produced through the oil extraction process release biologically active glucosinolate secondary products and may be useful as a part of biological weed control systems. Before meal can be used most efficiently, recommendations for suitable planting dates that maximize weed control but reduce crop injury must be determined. Our objectives were to determine the impact of 1 and 3% (w/w) meal applications of Brassica napus L. (canola), Brassica juncea L. (oriental mustard) and Sinapis alba L. (yellow mustard) on crop emergence and weed biomass in a growth chamber and field study. Results from the growth chamber experiment indicated that lettuce emergence was reduced by at least 75% when planted into 3% S. alba-amended soil earlier than 5 weeks after meal application. After 5 weeks, emergence was not different among treatments. Crop emergence was not reduced by any meal treatment as compared to the no-meal treatment in year 1 of the field study. In year 2, crop emergence in each 1.2-m row was inhibited by all meal treatments and ranged from 16 plants in the 3% B. juncea treatment to 81 plants in the no-meal treatment. The difference between emergence results in year 1 and year 2 is likely due to differing climatic conditions early in the season prior to irrigation, and the method of irrigation used. Redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.) biomass was 72–93% lower in 1% B. juncea and 3% treatments relative to the no-meal control in the first weed harvest of year 1. These same treatments had 87–99% less common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album L.) biomass. By the second weed harvest, redroot pigweed biomass in meal treatments (0.02–1.6 g m−2) was not different from that in the no-meal treatment (0.97 g m−2). Redroot pigweed biomass in 3% B. juncea plots was reduced by 74% relative to the no-meal treatment in the first harvest of year 2. This treatment also reduced common chickweed [Stellaria media (L.) Vill.] biomass by 99% relative to the 1% meal treatments. While pigweed biomass was reduced by 3% B. juncea in the early part of the season, by the second harvest this same treatment had the greatest pigweed biomass. Despite significant variability between years, 3% B. juncea did provide early season weed control in both years. Repeated meal applications, however, may be necessary to control late season weeds. Inhibition of crop emergence appears to be highly dependent on the amount and distribution of water and needs to be further studied in field settings.

Keywords

mustard mealcanolabiological weed controllettucebeetsallelopathy

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 22 , Issue 3 , September 2007 , pp. 204 - 212
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 Mallik, A. 2005. Allelopathy: advances, challenges and opportunities. In Harper, J.D.I., An, M., Wu, H., and Kent, J.H. (eds). Proceedings of the 4th World Congress on allelopathy, Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga, NSW, Australia. International Allelopathy Society. Available at Web site http://www.regional.org.au/au/allelopathy/2005 (verified 4 November 2006).Google Scholar
2 Brown, P.D. and Morra, M.J. 1996. Hydrolysis products of glucosinolates in Brassica napus tissues as inhibitors of seed germination. Plant and Soil 181:307–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3 Ju, H.Y., Bible, B.B., and Chong, C. 1983. Influence of ionic thiocyanate on growth of cabbage, bean, and tobacco. Journal of Chemical Ecology 8:1255–1262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4 Haramoto, E.R. and Gallandt, E.R. 2005. Brassica cover cropping: I. Effects on weed and crop establishment. Weed Science 53:695–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5 Vaughan, S.F. and Boydston, R.A. 1997. Volatile allelochemicals released by crucifer green manures. Journal of Chemical Ecology 23:2107–2116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6 Vaughn, S. 1999. Glucosinolates as Natural Pesticides: Agrochemicals. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7 Petersen, J., Belz, R., and Walker, F. 2001. Weed suppression by release of isothiocyanates from turnip–rape mulch. Agronomy Journal 93:37–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8 Bagger, C., Buskov, J.B., Hasselstrom, J.B., Jorgen, B., Rosa, E.A.S., Sorensen, H., and Sorenson, J.C. 1999. Bioactives from Cruciferous crops especially glucosinolate derived products produced in pilot plant scale and used as biocides supplementary to synthetic pesticides. In Proceedings of the 10th International Rapeseed Congress, Canberra, Australia, 26–29 September [CD Rom].Google Scholar
9 Bending, G.D. and Lincoln, S.D. 1999. Characterisation of volatile sulphur-containing compounds produced during decomposition of Brassica juncea tissues in soil. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 31:695–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10 Warton, B., Matthiessen, J.N., and Shackleton, M.A. 2001. Glucosinolate content and isothiocyanate evolution—two measures of the biofumigation potential of plants. Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry 49:5244–5250.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11 Petersen, J., Belz, R., Walker, F., and Hurle, K. 2001. Weed suppression by release of isothiocyanates from turnip–rape mulch. Agronomy Journal 93:37–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12 Borek, V. and Morra, M.J. 2005. Ionic thiocyanate (SCN−) production from 4-hydroxybenzyl glucosinolate contained in Sinapis alba seed meal. Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry 53:8650–8654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13 Vaughan, S.F. and Boydston, R.A. 1995. Phytotoxicity of Brassica spp. volatiles to weed and crop seed germination and growth. In Kupatt, C.C. (ed.). Weed Science Society of America Abstracts, p. 55.Google Scholar
14 Borek, V., Morra, M.J., Brown, P.D., and McCaffrey, J.P. 1995. Transformation of the glucosinolate-derived allelochemicals allyl isothiocyanate and allyl nitrile in soil. Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry 43:1935–1940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15 International Organization of Standardization. 1992. Rapeseed-determination of Glucosinolate Content. Part 1: Method using High-performance Liquid Chromatography, ISO 9167–1:1992(E). International Organization of Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
16 Wathelet, J., Lori, R., Leoni, O., Rollin, P., Quinsac, A., and Palmieri, S. 2004. Guidelines for glucosinolate analysis in green tissues used for biofumigation. Agroindustria 3:257–266.Google Scholar
17 Nelson, D.W. and Sommers, L.E. 1996. Total carbon, organic carbon, and organic matter. In Sparks, D.L. (ed.). Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 3: Chemical Methods. American Society of Agronomy–Crop Science Society of America–Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI. p. 961–1010.Google Scholar
18 Soil Survey Staff. 1981. Soil Survey of Latah County Idaho. USDA-Natural Resource Conservation Service US Govt, Print Off., Washington, DC.Google Scholar
19 Grossman, R.B. and Reinsch, T.G. 2002. Bulk density and linear extensibility. In Dane, J.H. and Topp, G.C. (eds). Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 4. American Society of Agronomy–Crop Science Society of America–Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI. p. 201–225.Google Scholar
20 Sammis, T.W. 1980. Comparison of sprinkler, trickle, subsurface, and furrow irrigation methods for row crops. Agronomy Journal 72:701–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21 Minchinton, I., Sang, J., Burke, D., and Truscott, R.J.W. 1982. Separation of desulphoglucosinolates by reversed-phase high-performance liquid chromatography. Journal of Chromatography 247:141–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22 Beekhuis, H.A. 1975. Technology and industrial applications. In Newman, A.A. (ed.). Chemistry and Biochemistry of Thiocyanic Acid and its Derivatives. Academic Press, London. p. 222–225.Google Scholar
23 Quinsac, A., Ribaillier, D., Elfakir, C., Lafosse, M., and Dreux, M. 1991. A new approach to the study of glucosinolates by isocratic liquid chromatography. Part 1: Rapid determination of desulfated derivatives of rapeseed glucosinolates. Journal of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists 74:932–939.Google Scholar
24 Brown, P.D. and Morra, M.J. 1997. Control of soil borne plant pests using glucosinolate-containing plants. Advances in Agronomy 61:167–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25 Hanley, A.B., Heaney, R.K., and Fenwick, G.R. 1983. Improved isolation of glucobrassicin and other glucosinolates. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 34:869–873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26 Matthiessen, J.N. and Shackleton, M.A. 2000. Advantageous attributes of larval whitefringed weevil, Naupactus leucoloma (Coleoptera:Curculionidae) for bioassaying soil fumigants, and responses to pure and plant-derived isothiocyanates. Bulletin of Entomological Research 90:349–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27 Mazzola, M., Granatstein, D.M., Elfving, D.C., and Mullinix, K. 2001. Suppression of specific apple root pathogens by Brassica napus seed meal amendment regardless of glucosinolate content. Disease Control and Pest Management 91:673–679.Google ScholarPubMed
28 Dasberg, S. and Or, D. 1999. Drip Irrigation. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. p. 162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29 Brown, P.D. and Morra, M.J. 1993. Fate of ionic thiocyanate (SCN−) in soil. Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry 41:978–982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30 Teyker, R.H., Hoelzer, H.D., and Liebl, R.A. 1991. Maize and pigweed response to nitrogen supply and form. Plant and Soil 135:287–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31 Whitson, T.D. (ed.) 1996. Weeds of the West. The Western Society of Weed Science in cooperation with the Western US. Land Grant Universities Cooperative Extension Services, Jackson Hole, WY.Google Scholar
32 Poudel, D.D., Horwath, W.R., and Lanini, W.T. 2002. Comparison of soil N availability and leaching potential, crop yields and weeds in organic, low-input and conventional farming systems in northern California. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 90:125–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
33 Organic Farming Research Foundation (OFRF). 1999. Third Biennial National Organic Farmers' Survey. OFRF, Santa Cruz, CA.Google Scholar