Influence of crop rotation, tillage, and management inputs on weed seed production

Kegode, George O.; Forcella, Frank; Clay, Sharon A.

doi:10.1017/s0043174500091591

Cited by 61 publications

(50 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, for a given crop rotation, whether zero tillage results in higher weeds relative to tilled systems is not clear and probably depends on other factors. Some studies show NT works synergistically with rotations to further reduce weed densities compared to tilled systems (Kegode et al, 1999;Anderson, 2005;Murphy et al, 2006). Other studies show medium-disturbance tillage enhances control of certain weeds compared to NT + Res (Schreiber, 1992;Blackshaw, 1994;Cardina et al, 2002;Legere et al, 2011).…”

Section: Tillage Practice Interactions With Crop Rotationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Yields notwithstanding, in all rotation-tillage interaction studies the treatment with the highest weed densities was a monoculture grown in NT + Res (Schreiber, 1992;Blackshaw, 1994;Anderson et al, 1998;Kegode et al, 1999;Blackshaw et al, 2001;Cardina et al, 2002;Sosnoskie et al, 2006). Utilizing crop rotation in NT + Res systems is crucial for weed control.…”

Section: Tillage Practice Interactions With Crop Rotationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Weed dynamics and conservation agriculture principles: A review

Nichols

Verhulst

Cox

et al. 2015

Field Crops Research

352

299

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tConservation agriculture (CA) is based on minimum soil disturbance, permanent soil cover, and crop rotation; it is promoted as a sustainable alternative to systems involving conventional tillage. Adoption of CA changes weed dynamics and communities and therefore necessitates adjusting weed control methods. The objectives of this review are to summarize literature concerning CA principles and their interactive effects on weed life cycles and community composition, briefly review CA-appropriate cultural practices for additional weed control, and identify areas where further research is needed. No-till systems accumulate seeds near the soil surface where they are more likely to germinate but are also exposed to greater mortality risks through weather variability and predation. Assuming no seed input into the system, germinable seedbanks under no-till decrease more rapidly than under conventional tillage. Reducing tillage may shift weed communities from annual dicots to grassy annuals and perennials. Surface residues lower average soil temperatures and may delay emergence of both crops and weeds. Germination and growth of small-seeded annuals will suffer from restricted light availability, physical growth barriers and potential allelopathic effects from surface residue. Crop rotation affects weeds via allelopathy and altered timing of both crop management and resource demands. Rotations should incorporate crops sown in varied seasons (e.g., autumn and spring), annuals and perennials, different herbicides, and/or various crop families. Literature indicates implementing no-till without crop rotation can result in severe weed problems; greater rotational crop diversity results in easier weed management. Additional cultural practices for CA include: (i) selecting highly competitive varieties; (ii) altering planting dates; (iii) preventing weed seed recruitment; (iv) adjusting planting arrangement, densities, and fertilizer placement; and (v) microbial bio-controls. Further research is needed concerning: (i) the interactive effects of tillage and surface residue on weeds; (ii) the use of models and/or meta-analyses to predict weed responses, and to identify intervention points in CA; and (iii) the weed-suppressive potential of longer (4+ years) rotations.

show abstract

Section: Tillage Practice Interactions With Crop Rotationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Tillage Practice Interactions With Crop Rotationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Weed dynamics and conservation agriculture principles: A review

Nichols

Verhulst

Cox

et al. 2015

Field Crops Research

352

299

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…2005). Increasing cropping system diversity has been advocated as a potential means of decreasing the need for intensive chemical inputs for weed control (Liebman & Gallandt 1997; Kegode, Forcella & Clay 1999; Liebman & Staver 2001; Westerman et al . 2005).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assembly of weed communities along a crop diversity gradient

Smith¹,

Gross

2007

Journal of Applied Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary 1.Increasing cropping system diversity is one strategy for reducing reliance on external chemical inputs in agriculture and may have important implications for agro-ecosystem functions related to the regulation of weed populations and community assembly. However, the impacts of cropping system diversity on weed communities have not been evaluated formally in a study comparable with those performed in experimental grasslands, where much of the evidence regarding diversity-ecosystem function has been reported. We performed a field experiment in Michigan, USA, in which we manipulated the number of crop species grown in rotation and as winter cover crops over a 3-year period and in the absence of fertilizer and pesticides, to determine the impact of crop diversity on the abundance, composition and structure of the weed community. 2. Crop diversity treatments consisted of three row-crops, corn Zea mays L., soybean Glycine max (L.) Merr. and winter wheat Triticum aestivum L., grown in continuous monoculture and in 2-and 3-year annual rotations with and without cover crops (zero, one or two legume/small grain species). Weed communities were measured each year at peak biomass, with soil resources and light availability being measured over the course of the growing season in the final year of the study. 3. The effects on weed communities of the crop diversity treatments were dependent on rotation phase. In winter wheat, weed abundance and diversity (species richness, H ′ and D ) were lowest in the two highest crop diversity treatments. Across all phases of the rotation, weed community structure was affected more by crop identity than crop diversity per se . 4. In general, the effects of crop diversity on weed communities were mainly the result of the presence of cover crops, which had strong effects on soil resource and light levels, particularly in winter wheat. 5. Synthesis and applications . Increasing crop diversity in the absence of external chemical inputs can result in changes in soil resource availability without a concomitant increase in the abundance of weeds or a shift to weed communities that are more difficult to manage.

show abstract

“…The beneficial effects of crop rotation on weed populations and crop yields are well documented in the scientific literature [12][13][14][15] . In the study by Nazarko et al 6 , one of the most commonly cited strategies to prepare for PFP was crop rotation with forages.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Agronomic performance of Pesticide Free Production under two crop rotations

Schoofs

Entz

Acker

et al. 2005

Renew. Agric. Food Syst.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pesticide Free Production (PFP) is a pesticide reduction system that removes in-crop pesticide use on a yearly basis. A longterm study was established in 2000 to investigate the effect of crop rotation and frequency of inclusion on the success of PFP, as well as the effect of PFP on subsequent crops in the rotation. The crop rotations being compared were linola-oat-canola-wheat and linola-oat-alfalfa-alfalfa. PFP occurred either once in the rotation (oat) or twice (linola-oat). Weed density and yield were measured in the crops that followed PFP. Oat was a more successful PFP crop than linola because it was better able to compete with weeds. Furthermore, PFP oat had a higher weed density when it followed PFP linola, but this did not influence PFP oat yield. Under the conditions of this study, PFP linola was more successful in the annual crop rotation. Inclusion of alfalfa hay crops in the crop rotation was not effective in lowering weed pressure and, in fact, may have contributed to an increase in weed density. It is concluded that weed species present influenced the effectiveness of alfalfa in facilitating PFP, because major weeds in the study are not effectively controlled by alfalfa. PFP did not have a negative effect on following crops in the rotation (i.e. canola-wheat or alfalfa), regardless of whether one or two consecutive years of PFP occurred in the rotation. No additional herbicide was necessary for weed control in the crops that followed PFP; however, alfalfa hay was weedier for the first year following PFP. This study indicates that PFP is a viable way to reduce herbicide use in a cropping system and that attention needs to be paid to PFP crop selection and crop rotation, particularly when the PFP crop is less competitive with weeds.

show abstract

Influence of crop rotation, tillage, and management inputs on weed seed production

Cited by 61 publications

References 27 publications

Weed dynamics and conservation agriculture principles: A review

Weed dynamics and conservation agriculture principles: A review

Assembly of weed communities along a crop diversity gradient

Agronomic performance of Pesticide Free Production under two crop rotations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About