Interseeding a Cover Crop as a Weed Management Tool is More Compatible with Soybean than with Maize in Organic Farming Systems

Uchino, Hiroshi; Iwama, Kazuto; Jitsuyama, Yutaka; Yudate, Toshiko; Nakamura, Satoshi; Gopal, J.

doi:10.1626/pps.18.187

Cited by 10 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Use of the cover crop as residue or living mulch in main crop is often practiced through sequential cropping or an intercropping system, respectively. It should be noted that an intercropped cover crop could potentially compete with the main crop for limited resources, leading to impacts on main crop yield vs. when cover crop residue is used (Teasdale, 1996;Uchino et al, 2015). However, Teasdale (1996) suggested that a cover crop intercropped as a living plant with the main crop could inhibit germination and emergence of weeds better than a terminated cover crop in the sequential system.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Aside the common use of cover crop residues for weed suppression after termination, living cover crops are also used for weed suppression in main crops, as living mulch (Teasdale, 1996;Abdin et al, 2000;Uchino et al, 2015). Use of the cover crop as residue or living mulch in main crop is often practiced through sequential cropping or an intercropping system, respectively.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, Teasdale (1996) suggested that a cover crop intercropped as a living plant with the main crop could inhibit germination and emergence of weeds better than a terminated cover crop in the sequential system. It should be noted that an intercropped cover crop could potentially compete with the main crop for limited resources, leading to impacts on main crop yield vs. when cover crop residue is used (Teasdale, 1996;Uchino et al, 2015). For this reason, several strategies have been suggested for reducing competitive effects, such as shifting the relative sowing date of intercropped species or providing supplemental inputs to compensate for limited resources (Campiglia et al, 2014).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Impact of Cover Crop Management on Level of Weed Suppression: A Meta‐Analysis

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We conducted a previous systematic and meta‐analysis review that showed differences in results from studies that evaluated the effectiveness of cover crops for weed suppression in cropping systems; these differences were largely due to management approaches used in growing the cover crop and main crop. The current meta‐analysis provides a quantitative review on how cover crop and main crop management practices influence the impact of cover crops on weed suppression. The meta‐analysis used observations from 53 studies published from 1990 to 2018. Cover crop biomass was inversely related to the amount of weed biomass (r2 = 0.67) and weed density (r2 = 0.64). In general, the meta‐analysis shows that cover crops provided a range of weed suppression depending on management decisions such as choice of cover crop species, cover crop sowing season (fall or spring), sowing dates within seasons, seeding rate, termination date, delay in main crop planting date after cover crop termination, tillage system under which the cover crop was produced, and integrating the cover crop with other weed control inputs. For example, grass cover crop species provided greater weed suppression than broadleaf species. Fall‐sown cover crops provided greater weed suppression (weighted mean of response ratio [R*] = 0.19) than spring‐sown cover crops (R* = 0.48) by the summer. Weed suppression increased by increasing seeding rate of cover crops from 1× (R* = 0.50) to 2× (R* = 0.27) or 3× (R* = 0.10). In addition, cover crops provided greater weed suppression in reduced tillage systems (R* = 0.19) than no tillage (R* = 0.29). The differential weed suppression provided by these management approaches suggests that a cover crop management approach should be rightly selected for weed suppression benefits.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Impact of Cover Crop Management on Level of Weed Suppression: A Meta‐Analysis

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, a cover crop inter-seeded 3 wk after main crop emergence resulted in 59 and 75% weed biomass reduction in soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] (Uchino et al, 2015) and corn (Zea mays L.) (Abdin et al, 2000), respectively. Cover crops reduced early season weed densities by 60 to 90% with no effect on crop yield when terminated 1 to 2 wk before planting of main crops (Teasdale, 1993;De Haan et al, 2016).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Cover Crop for Early Season Weed Suppression in Crops: Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

W eeds occurring during early crop growth need to be removed because these are known to be most competitive with crops (Knezevic et al., 2002; Norsworthy and Oliviera, 2004; Tursun et al., 2016; Osipitan et al., 2016). Uncontrolled weeds at this early growth stage could cause irreversible and substantial crop yield losses (Knezevic et al., 2002, Adigun et al., 2014). If weeds are controlled at this time, crops can get a head start, achieve canopy closure, and compete effectively with later emerging weeds (Rajcan and Swanton, 2001). Typical early season weed control options include pre-plant, pre-emergence, and early post emergence herbicide applications in no-till cropping systems or mechanical cultivation in tilled systems. Herbicides provide an easy and cost-effective way of controlling weeds in crops and result in increased crop vigor and yield. Conversely, they are also a potential threat to the environment (e.g., pesticides residues in surface and/or groundwater) and in some areas, the development of resistant weed biotypes has reduced the utility of herbicides. In tillage-based cropping systems, mechanical operations such as plowing, harrowing, disking, and cultivating are used. Tillage for weed control has been utilized for a long time (Abdin et al., 2000) as it reduces weed density. At the same time, weed seeds receive a brief exposure to sunlight, due to soil inversion after tillage that can trigger their germination. There are still concerns about the negative impact of tillage on soil health and topsoil erosion (Loaiza Puerta et al., 2018). Cover crops have been documented to improve soil quality and minimize environmental degradation while providing a level of weed suppression in crops

show abstract

“…Current control of S. frugiperda populations relies mainly on spraying chemical insecticides, which have been overused in recent years, resulting in insect resistance (Yu et al, 2003), environmental contamination (Starner and Goh, 2012) and affecting the human health (Loewenherz et al, 1997). Due to those factors, organic cultivation has been increased, replacing the use of chemical insecticides by alternative methods of pest control (Uchino et al, 2015). A promising alternative to control fall armyworm is the use of plants secondary metabolites (Tavares et al, 2009;Alves et al, 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Toxic effects of Ricinus communis non-protein trypsin inhibitor on Spodoptera frugiperda (J. E. Smith) (Lepidoptera:Noctuidae)

Carvalho¹,

Santos²,

Alves³

et al. 2015

Afr. J. Biotechnol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the study reported herein, we aimed to isolate a trypsin inhibitor from Ricinus communis leaves through chromatographic and spectrometric techniques and evaluate its toxic effects on the development of Spodoptera frugiperda larvae. Plant extracts were submitted to fractionation in adsorption column. The fraction 10, which showed the highest inhibitory activity, were incorporated into an artificial diet at the concentrations of 0, 0.06, 0.12, 0.25 and 0.5%, and offered to S. frugiperda larvae. Fresh weight of larvae, food consumed and weight of eliminated faeces were registered. Based on these parameters the following nutritional index were calculated: Relative Consumption Rate (RCR), Relative Metabolic Rate (RMR), Relative Growth Rate (RGR), Approximated Digestibility (AD), Efficiency of Ingested Food Conversion (EIC), Efficiency of Digested Food Conversion (EDC) and the Metabolic Cost (100 -EDC). The inhibitor at 0.5% concentration was deleterious to S. frugiperda, extending the larval stage in 11 days, with higher RCR and ECD, and lower RGR, ECI and ECD. Therefore, the trypsin inhibitor from leaves of R. communis affected the S. frugiperda larval development, being promising in studies of alternative and sustainable control methods for lepidopteran pest species.

show abstract

Interseeding a Cover Crop as a Weed Management Tool is More Compatible with Soybean than with Maize in Organic Farming Systems

Cited by 10 publications

References 40 publications

Impact of Cover Crop Management on Level of Weed Suppression: A Meta‐Analysis

Impact of Cover Crop Management on Level of Weed Suppression: A Meta‐Analysis

Cover Crop for Early Season Weed Suppression in Crops: Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

Toxic effects of Ricinus communis non-protein trypsin inhibitor on Spodoptera frugiperda (J. E. Smith) (Lepidoptera:Noctuidae)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About