Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T01:10:52.948Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Organic weed control in white lupin (Lupinus albus L.)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 January 2011

A. Folgart ,
A. J. Price ,
E. van Santen  and
G. R. Wehtje
A. Folgart
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Soils, 201 Funchess Hall, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849, USA.
A. J. Price*
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, National Soil Dynamics Laboratory, 411 S. Donahue Drive, Auburn, AL 36932, USA.
E. van Santen
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Soils, 201 Funchess Hall, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849, USA.
G. R. Wehtje
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Soils, 201 Funchess Hall, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849, USA.
*
*Corresponding author: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Legumes such as white lupin (Lupinus albus L.) provide a valuable nitrogen source in organic agriculture. With organic farming hectarage increasing and white lupin interest increasing in the southeastern USA due to newly released winter hardy cultivars, non-chemical weed control practices in lupin are needed. A two-year experiment was established at two locations in Alabama. Five weed control practices were evaluated: one pre-emergence (PRE)-applied herbicide (S-metolachlor), two mechanical (hand hoed) and two cultural (living mulch utilizing two black oat cultivars) weed control treatments. Fourteen weed species were encountered. S-metolachlor provided above 80% control of most weed species present in this experiment. The cultivation treatments and black oat companion crops also provided good weed control of many of the weeds encountered. Crop injury of all treatments was low on a 0 to 10 scale with 0 representing no injury: <2.0, <1.3 and <1.2 by S-metolachlor, the cultivation treatments and the black oat companion crops, respectively. Grain yield of cultivars ABL 1082, AU Alpha and AU Homer were 1540, 1130, 850 kg ha−1, respectively, when treated with the conventional treatment, S-metolachlor. Grain yield in the organic treatments was equivalent. The cultivation treatments and black oat companions were successful alternative weed control practices in white lupin production.

Keywords

companion cropcultivationmechanical weed control
Type
Research Papers
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 26 , Issue 3 , September 2011 , pp. 193 - 199
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

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.)

References

1Clark, M.S., Horwath, W.R., Shennan, C., Scow, K.M., Lantni, W.T., and Ferris, H. 1999. Nitrogen, weeds and water as yield-limiting factors in conventional, low-input, and organic tomato systems. Agriculture, Ecosystem and Environment 73:257–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2Cornell Cooperative Extension Publication. 2009. Integrated Crop and Pest Management Guidelines for Commercial Vegetable Production 2009. Available at Web site http://www.nysaes.Cornell.edu/recommends/11frameset.html (verified June 30, 2010).Google Scholar
3Dierauer, H., Böhler, D., Kranzler, A., and Zollitsch, W. 2004. Merkblatt Lupinen 2004. Ausgabe Österreich © BIO ERNTE AUSTRIA & FiBL.Google Scholar
4Payne, W.A., Chen, C., and Ball, D.A. 2004. Alternative crops agronomic potential of alternative crops agronomic potential of narrow-leafed and white lupins in the Inland Pacific Northwest. Agronomy Journal 96:1501–1508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5van Santen, E. and Reeves, D.W. 2003. Tillage and rotation effects on lupin in double-cropping systems in the southeastern USA. In van Santen, E. and Hill, G.D. (eds). Wild and Cultivated Lupins from the Tropics to the Poles. Proceedings of the 10th International Lupin Conference, Laugarvatn, Iceland, 19–24 June 2002. International Lupin Association, Canterbury, New Zealand.Google Scholar
6Noffsinger, S.L. and van Santen, E. 2005. Evaluation of Lupinus albus L. Germplasm for the Southeastern USA . Crop Science 45:1941–1950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7Putnam, D.H., Oplinger, E.S., Hardman, L.L., and Doll, J.D. 2007. Lupine, Alternative Field Crops Manual. University of Wisconsin-Extension, Cooperative Extension. University of Minnesota: Center for Alternative Plant and Animal Products and the Minnesota Extension Service. Available at Web site http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/afcm/lupine.html (verified June 30, 2010).Google Scholar
8Poetsch, J. 2006. Pflanzenbauliche Untersuchungen zum ökologischen Anbau von Körnerleguminosen an sommertrockenen Standorten Südwestdeutschlands. Institut für Pflanzenbau und Grünland der Universität Hohenheim, Salzgitter. Available at Web site http://opus.ub.uni-hohenheim.de/volltexte/2007/193/2,4-DB (verified June 30, 2010).Google Scholar
9Crop Protection Referenc. 2007. Greenbook's Crop Protection Reference. 23rd ed.Vance Publishing Corporation, Lenexa, KS.Google Scholar
10Mitich, L.W., Cassman, K.G., Larson, K.J., and Smith, N.L. 1987. Evaluation of preemergence herbicides for control of winter annual weeds in “Minnesota Ultra” lupins. Research Progress Report, p. 222–223.Google Scholar
11Noffsinger, S.L. 1998. Physiology and management of winter-type white lupin (Lupinus albus L.). PhD Dissertation, Auburn University, Auburn, AL.Google Scholar
12Noffsinger, S.L., Huyghe, C., and van Santen, E. 2000. Analysis of grain-yield components and inflorescence levels in winter-type white lupin. Agronomy Journal 92:1195–1202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13Anderson, W.P. 1996. Weed Science: Principles and Applications, 3rd ed.West Publishing Company, St. Paul, MN.Google Scholar
14Sandhu, P.S., Dhingra, K.K., Bhandari, S.C. and Gupta, R.P. 1991. Effect of hand-hoeing and application of herbicides on nodulation, nodule activity and grain yield of Lens culinaris Med. Plant and Soil 135:293–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15Bowman, G., Shirley, C. and Cramer, C. 1998. Managing Cover Crops Profitably, 2nd ed. Sustainable Agriculture Network Handbook Series Book. 3. Sustainable Agriculture Network, National Agricultural Library, Beltsville, MD.Google Scholar
16Price, A.J., Stoll, M.E., Bergtold, J.S., Arriaga, F.J., Balkcom, K.S., Kornecki, T.S., and Raper, R.L. 2008. Effect of cover crop extracts on cotton and radish radicle elongation. Communications in Biometry and Crop Science 3:60–66. Available at Web site http://agrobiol.sggw.waw.pl/~cbcs/pobierz.php?plik=CBCS_3_1_6 (verified June 30, 2010).Google Scholar
17CTAHR—College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources. University of Hawai'i. Sustainable Agriculture in Hawai'i. 2002. Green Manures: non-legumes. Black oat (Avena strigosa). Available at Web site http://www.ctahr.hawaii.edu/sustainag/Database.asp (verified June 30, 2010).Google Scholar
18Murphy, T.R. Preemergence Control of Winter Weeds. University of Georgia. Available at Web site http://commodities.caes.uga.edu/turfgrass/georgiaturf/WeedMngt/weedcontrol/turfwin.PDF (verified June 30, 2010).Google Scholar
19Taylor-Lovell, S., Wax, L.M., and Nelson, R. 2001. Phytotoxic response and yield of soybean (Glycine max) varieties treated with sulfentrazone or flumioxazin. Weed Technology 15:95–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20Knott, C.M. 1996. Tolerance of autumn-sown determinate lupins (Lupinus albus) to herbicides. Test of agrochemicals and cultivars 17. Annals of Applied Biology 128 (Supplement): 52–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar