Crop Rotation and Intercropping Strategies for Weed Management

1993 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 92-122 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matt Liebman ◽  
Elizabeth Dyck
Keyword(s):  
Crop Rotation ◽  
Weed Management

Influence of Weed Management Practices and Crop Rotation on Glyphosate-Resistant Horseweed (Conyza canadensis) Population Dynamics and Crop Yield-Years III and IV

Weed Science ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 57 (4) ◽  
pp. 417-426 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vince M. Davis ◽  
Kevin D. Gibson ◽  
Thomas T. Bauman ◽  
Stephen C. Weller ◽  
William G. Johnson
Keyword(s):  
Population Dynamics ◽  
Crop Rotation ◽  
Crop Yield ◽  
Cover Crops ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Management Practices ◽  
Plant Density ◽  
Crop Yields ◽  
Management Systems ◽  
No Till

Horseweed is an increasingly common and problematic weed in no-till soybean production in the eastern cornbelt due to the frequent occurrence of biotypes resistant to glyphosate. The objective of this study was to determine the influence of crop rotation, winter wheat cover crops (WWCC), residual non-glyphosate herbicides, and preplant application timing on the population dynamics of glyphosate-resistant (GR) horseweed and crop yield. A field study was conducted from 2003 to 2007 in a no-till field located at a site that contained a moderate infestation of GR horseweed (approximately 1 plant m−2). The experiment was a split-plot design with crop rotation (soybean–corn or soybean–soybean) as main plots and management systems as subplots. Management systems were evaluated by quantifying in-field horseweed plant density, seedbank density, and crop yield. Horseweed densities were collected at the time of postemergence applications, 1 mo after postemergence (MAP) applications, and at the time of crop harvest or 4 MAP. Viable seedbank densities were also evaluated from soil samples collected in the fall following seed rain. Soybean–corn crop rotation reduced in-field and seedbank horseweed densities vs. continuous soybean in the third and fourth yr of this experiment. Preplant herbicides applied in the spring were more effective at reducing horseweed plant densities than when applied in the previous fall. Spring-applied, residual herbicide systems were the most effective at reducing season-long in-field horseweed densities and protecting crop yields since the growth habit of horseweed in this region is primarily as a summer annual. Management systems also influenced the GR and glyphosate-susceptible (GS) biotype population structure after 4 yr of management. The most dramatic shift was from the initial GR : GS ratio of 3 : 1 to a ratio of 1 : 6 after 4 yr of residual preplant herbicide use followed by non-glyphosate postemergence herbicides.

Managing Purple Nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus) Populations Utilizing Herbicide Strategies and Crop Rotation Sequences

1999 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 494-503 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leon S. Warren ◽  
Harold D. Coble
Keyword(s):  
Crop Rotation ◽  
Combination Treatment ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Field Experiments ◽  
Soil Depth ◽  
Cyperus Rotundus ◽  
Yield Reduction ◽  
Purple Nutsedge ◽  
Als Inhibitor ◽  
Inhibitor Combination

Field experiments were conducted in North Carolina from 1994 through 1998 to evaluate the effects of five weed management strategies and four corn (Zeamays)–peanut (Arachis hypogaea) rotation sequences on purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus) population development. Effects of these weed management programs on cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) and peanut production in following years were also investigated. Herbicide programs included a nontreated control, a carbamothioate preplant incorporated (PPI) combination treatment utilizing vernolate in peanut and butylate in corn, an early postemergence (EPOST) acetolactate synthase (ALS) inhibitor combination treatment utilizing imazapic in peanut and halosulfuron in corn, and EPOST treatments of imazapic and imazethapyr in both peanut and imidazolinone-resistant corn. Crop rotation sequences for the 3 yr included continuous corn (CCC), corn–peanut–corn (CPC), peanut–corn–peanut (PCP), and continuous peanut (PPP). The imazapic and ALS inhibitor combination treatments both provided excellent shoot and tuber control. After 3 yr, imazapic and the ALS inhibitor combination treatment reduced shoot and tuber population densities to less than 10% of the nontreated control. Imazethapyr provided variable but better control than the carbamothioate treatment with tuber densities (measured from 0 to 15 cm soil depth) and shoot densities increasing from 733 to 2,901 tubers/m3of soil and 16 to 43 shoots/m2, respectively, after 3 yr. Tuber densities increased in the nontreated control from 626 to 9,145 tubers/m3of soil and from 962 to 5,466 tubers/m3of soil in the carbamothioate treatment during this same period. Also, shoot densities increased in the nontreated control from 22 to 159 shoots/m2and from 8 to 92 shoots/m2in the carbamothioate treatment. There was a 31% peanut yield reduction from 1994 to 1996 when peanut was continuously planted or rotated to corn for only 1 yr. Herbicide carryover effects were not observed in cotton during 1997.

scholarly journals Rice Crop Rotation: A Solution for Weed Management

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ananda Scherner ◽  
Fábio Schreiber ◽  
André Andres ◽  
Germani Concenço ◽  
Matheus Bastos Martins ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Crop Rotation ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Rice Crop

Influence of Weed Management Practices and Crop Rotation on Glyphosate-Resistant Horseweed Population Dynamics and Crop Yield

Weed Science ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 55 (5) ◽  
pp. 508-516 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vince M. Davis ◽  
Kevin D. Gibson ◽  
Thomas T. Bauman ◽  
Stephen C. Weller ◽  
William G. Johnson
Keyword(s):  
Population Dynamics ◽  
Crop Rotation ◽  
Crop Yield ◽  
Cover Crops ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Management Practices ◽  
Plant Density ◽  
Management Systems ◽  
Integrated Weed Management ◽  
Rapid Decline

Horseweed is an increasingly problematic weed in soybean because of the frequent occurrence of glyphosate-resistant (GR) biotypes. The objective of this study was to determine the influence of crop rotation, winter wheat cover crops (WWCC), residual nonglyphosate herbicides, and preplant herbicide application timing on the population dynamics of GR horseweed and crop yield. A field study was conducted at a site with a moderate infestation of GR horseweed (approximately 1 plant m−2) with crop rotation (soybean–corn or soybean–soybean) as main plots and management systems as subplots. Management systems were evaluated by quantifying horseweed plant density, seedbank density, and crop yield. Crop rotation did not influence in-field horseweed or seedbank densities at any data census timing. Preplant herbicides applied in the spring were more effective at reducing horseweed plant densities than when applied in the previous fall. Spring-applied, residual herbicide systems were the most effective at reducing season long horseweed densities and protecting crop yield because horseweed in this region behaves primarily as a summer annual weed. Horseweed seedbank densities declined rapidly in the soil by an average of 76% for all systems over the first 10 mo before new seed rain. Despite rapid decline in total seedbank density, seed for GR biotypes remained in the seedbank for at least 2 yr. Therefore, to reduce the presence of GR horseweed biotypes in a local no-till weed flora, integrated weed management (IWM) systems should be developed to reduce total horseweed populations based on the knowledge that seed for GR biotypes are as persistent in the seed bank as glyphosate-sensitive (GS) biotypes.

Modeling With Limited Data: The Influence of Crop Rotation and Management on Weed Communities and Crop Yield Loss

Weed Science ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 57 (2) ◽  
pp. 175-186 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen R. Canner ◽  
L. J. Wiles ◽  
Robert H. Erskine ◽  
Gregory S. McMaster ◽  
Gale H. Dunn ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Crop Rotation ◽  
Crop Yield ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Yield Loss ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Crop Rotations ◽  
Alternative Crop ◽  
Weed Communities ◽  
Multiple Species ◽  
Crop Yield Loss

Theory and models of crop yield loss from weed competition have led to decision models to help growers choose cost-effective weed management. These models are available for multiple-species weed communities in a single season of several crops. Growers also rely on crop rotation for weed control, yet theory and models of weed population dynamics have not led to similar tools for planning of crop rotations for cost-effective weed management. Obstacles have been the complexity of modeling the dynamics of multiple populations of weed species compared to a single species and lack of data. We developed a method to use limited, readily observed data to simulate population dynamics and crop yield loss of multiple-species weed communities in response to crop rotation, tillage system, and specific weed management tactics. Our method is based on the general theory of density dependence of plant productivity and extensive use of rectangular hyperbolic equations for describing crop yield loss as a function of weed density. Only two density-independent parameters are required for each species to represent differences in seed bank mortality, emergence, and maximum seed production. One equation is used to model crop yield loss and density-dependent weed seed production as a function of crop and weed density, relative time of weed and crop emergence, and differences among species in competitive ability. The model has been parameterized for six crops and 15 weeds, and limited evaluation indicates predictions are accurate enough to highlight potential weed problems and solutions when comparing alternative crop rotations for a field. The model has been incorporated into a decision support tool for whole-farm management so growers in the Central Great Plains of the United States can compare alternative crop rotations and how their choice influences farm income, herbicide use, and control of weeds in their fields.

The Effect of Rotation and In-Crop Weed Management on the Germinable Weed Seedbank after 10 Years

Weed Science ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 59 (4) ◽  
pp. 553-561 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert H. Gulden ◽  
Derek W. Lewis ◽  
Jane C. Froese ◽  
Rene C. Van Acker ◽  
Gary B. Martens ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Crop Rotation ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Management Practices ◽  
Production Systems ◽  
Yield Response ◽  
Environmental Damage ◽  
Long Term Effects ◽  
Community Size ◽  
Herbicide Resistant ◽  
Alternate Control

Agricultural production systems that reduce the use of in-crop herbicides could greatly reduce risks of environmental damage and the development of herbicide-resistant weeds. Few studies have investigated the long-term effects of in-crop herbicide omissions on weed seedbank community size and structure. A crop-rotation study was sampled 10 yr after a strictly annual rotation and an annual/perennial rotation were exposed to different in-crop herbicide omission treatments. In-crop herbicides were applied either in all annual crops (control), omitted from oats only, or omitted from both flax and oats. Seedbank densities were greatest when in-crop herbicides were omitted from flax and oats, and this treatment also reduced crop yield. Shannon-Wiener diversity differed among crops in the annual crop rotation and among herbicide omission treatments in the perennial rotation. Herbicide omissions changed the weed-community structure in flax and in wheat and canola crops in the annual rotation enough to warrant alternate control methods in some treatments. The magnitude of the effects on the seedbank parameters depended largely on the competitive ability of the crop in which herbicides were omitted. No yield response to omitting herbicides in oats indicated that standard weed management practices have reduced weed populations below yield-loss thresholds.

Control of Glyphosate-Resistant Giant Ragweed in Winter Wheat

2015 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 868-873 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kris J. Mahoney ◽  
Kristen E. McNaughton ◽  
Peter H. Sikkema
Keyword(s):  
Population Density ◽  
Winter Wheat ◽  
Crop Rotation ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Aboveground Biomass ◽  
Field Experiments ◽  
Control Population ◽  
Integrated Weed Management ◽  
Giant Ragweed ◽  
Herbicide Treatments

Four field experiments were conducted over a 2-yr period (2012 and 2013) in winter wheat to evaluate POST herbicides for the control of glyphosate-resistant (GR) giant ragweed. POST herbicides were evaluated for winter wheat injury and GR giant ragweed control, population density, and aboveground biomass. The herbicides used in this study provided 54 to 90% and 51 to 97% control of GR giant ragweed at 4 and 8 wk after treatment (WAT), respectively. At 8 WAT, auxinic herbicide treatments or herbicide tank mix/premix treatments that contained auxinics provided 78 to 97% control of GR giant ragweed. Reductions in GR giant ragweed population density and aboveground biomass were 62 to 100% and 83 to 100%, respectively, and generally reflected the level of control. The results of this research indicate that Ontario, Canada, corn and soybean growers should continue to incorporate winter wheat into their crop rotation as one component of an integrated weed management (IWM) strategy for the control of GR giant ragweed.

scholarly journals Combined effect of crop rotation and carabid beetles on weed dynamics in arable fields

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Reto Schmucki ◽  
David A. Bohan ◽  
Michael J.O. Pocock
Keyword(s):  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Weed Control ◽  
Crop Rotation ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Agricultural Landscapes ◽  
Predation Pressure ◽  
Carabid Beetles ◽  
Arable Fields ◽  
Seed Eating ◽  
Weed Dynamics

AbstractWeed management is a resource-intensive practice in arable agriculture, with direct and long-term impacts on both productivity and biodiversity (e.g. plant, pollinators and farmland wildlife). In conventional systems, weed control relies on crop management and herbicide inputs, but for more sustainable production systems, use of herbicides needs to be reduced. This requires a good understanding of the processes that regulate arable weed dynamics in arable fields.We adopted a systems framework to understand and model interacting components that drive the weed dynamics in 168 arable fields. Within this framework, we built a structural equation model (SEM) to quantify the direct and indirect effects of crop rotation (i.e. crops in the previous three years and the current year) and carabid beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) on weed density, seed abundance and accumulation in the seedbank. We included results from a mechanistic approach to infer interactions between seed-feeding carabid beetles and seeds to estimate predation pressure in each field.Our results show that weeds in arable fields are regulated by crop type, sowing season, and activity density of carabid beetles. We found a direct effect of crop rotation, including both past and current field management practice, on weed abundance in the field and its seedbank. There was also an indirect effect of crops on weed seed accumulation in the seedbank via the effect of seed-eating carabid beetles. The efficiency of weed control by carabid beetles depended on the cumulative predation pressure, which indicates the importance of functional diversity as well as abundance.Farmers and agronomists can capitalise on the ecosystem services provided by carabid beetles by adapting agronomic practices and crop rotation to maintain a rich fauna of seed-eating carabids in fields and potentially across the agricultural landscapes. When integrated with rotational management practices, this ecosystem services can improve the efficiency of weed management and contribute to the sustainability of cropping systems.

scholarly journals Management of Herbicide-Resistant Corn Poppy (Papaver rhoeas) under Different Tillage Systems Does Not Change the Frequency of Resistant Plants

Weed Science ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 66 (6) ◽  
pp. 764-772 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joel Torra ◽  
Aritz Royo-Esnal ◽  
Jordi Rey-Caballero ◽  
Jordi Recasens ◽  
Marisa Salas
Keyword(s):  
Crop Rotation ◽  
Weed Management ◽  
Initial Density ◽  
Integrated Weed Management ◽  
Tillage Systems ◽  
Papaver Rhoeas ◽  
Herbicide Resistant ◽  
No Till ◽  
Direct Drilling ◽  
Als Inhibitor

AbstractCorn poppy (Papaver rhoeasL.) is the most widespread broadleaf weed species infesting winter cereals in Europe. Biotypes that are resistant to both 2,4-D and tribenuron-methyl, an acetolactate synthase (ALS) inhibitor, have evolved in recent decades, thus narrowing the options for effective chemical control. Though the effectiveness of several integrated weed management (IWM) strategies have been confirmed, none of these strategies have been tested to manage multiple herbicide–resistantP. rhoeasunder no-till planting. With the expansion of no-till systems, it is important to prove the effectiveness of such strategies. In this study, a field experiment over three consecutive seasons was conducted to evaluate and compare the effects of different weed management strategies, under either direct drilling (i.e., no-till) or intensive tillage, on a multiple herbicide–resistantP. rhoeaspopulation. Moreover, evaluations were carried out as to whether the proportions of ALS inhibitor–resistant individuals were affected by the tillage systems for each IWM strategy at the end of the 3-yr period. The IWM strategies tested in this research included crop rotation, delayed sowing, and different herbicide programs such as PRE plus POST or POST. All IWM strategies greatly reduced the initial density ofP. rhoeaseach season (≥ 95%) under either direct drilling or intensive tillage. After 3 yr, the IWM strategies were very effective in both tillage systems, though the effects were stronger under direct drilling (~95%) compared with intensive tillage (~86%). At the end of the study, the proportion of ALS inhibitor–resistant plants was not different between the IWM strategies in both tillage systems (94% on average). Therefore, crop rotation (with sunflower [Helianthus annuusL.]), delayed sowing, or a variation in the herbicide application timing are effective under direct drilling to manage herbicide-resistantP. rhoeas. Adoption of IWM strategies is necessary to mitigate the evolution of resistance in both conventional and no-till systems.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document