Hostname: page-component-f554764f5-rj9fg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-10T15:41:50.164Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Progress towards no-till organic weed control in western Canada

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 January 2012

Steven J. Shirtliffe  and
Eric N. Johnson
Steven J. Shirtliffe*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK S7N 5A8, Canada.
Eric N. Johnson
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Box 10, Scott, SK S0K 4A0, Canada.
*
*Corresponding author: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Organic farmers in western Canada rely on tillage to control weeds and incorporate crop residues that could plug mechanical weed-control implements. However, tillage significantly increases the risk of soil erosion. For farmers seeking to reduce or eliminate tillage, potential alternatives include mowing or using a roller crimper for terminating green manure crops (cover crops) or using a minimum tillage (min-till) rotary hoe for mechanically controlling weeds. Although many researchers have studied organic crop production in western Canada, few have studied no-till organic production practices. Two studies were recently conducted in Saskatchewan to determine the efficacy of the following alternatives to tillage: mowing and roller crimping for weed control, and min-till rotary hoeing weed control in field pea (Pisum sativum L.). The first study compared mowing and roller crimping with tillage when terminating faba bean (Vicia faba L.) and field pea green manure crops. Early termination of annual green manure crops with roller crimping or mowing resulted in less weed regrowth compared with tillage. When compared with faba bean, field pea produced greater crop biomass, suppressed weeds better and had less regrowth. Wheat yields following pea were not affected by the method of termination. Thus, this first study indicated that roller crimping and mowing are viable alternatives to tillage to terminate field pea green manure crops. The second study evaluated the tolerance and efficacy of a min-till rotary harrow in no-till field pea production. The min-till rotary hoe was able to operate in no-till cereal residues and multiple passes did not affect the level of residue cover. Field pea exhibited excellent tolerance to the min-till rotary hoe. Good weed control occurred with multiple rotary hoe passes, and pea seed yield was 87% of the yield obtained in the herbicide-treated check. Therefore, this second study demonstrated that min-till rotary hoeing effectively controls many small seeded annual weeds in the presence of crop residue and thus can reduce the need for tillage in organic-cropping systems.

Keywords

blade rollercover cropsknife rollermechanical weed controlminimum tillagerotary hoeorganic weed controlroller crimperzero-tillage
Type
Research Papers
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 27 , Issue 1: Special Issue: Conservation Tillage Strategies in Organic Management Systems , March 2012 , pp. 60 - 67
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

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

1Johnson, E.N., Thomas, A.G., Leeson, J.Y., Shirtliffe, S.J., and Brandt, S.A. 2011. Mechanical weed control in pulse and cereal crops: Is there a fit in large-scale western Canadian agriculture? In Cloutier, D.C. and Leblanc, M.L. (eds). Physical Weed Control: Progress and Challenges. Topics in Canadian Weed Science, Volume 6. Canadian Weed Science Society–Société Canadienne de Malherbologie, Pinawa, Manitoba. p. 45–58.Google Scholar
2Macey, A. 2010. Certified Organic Production in Canada 2009. Canadian Organic Growers, Ottawa, ON. p. 9.Google Scholar
3Brandt, S.A., Zentner, R.P., Olfert, O.O., Thomas, A.G., and Malhi, S.S. 2010. Input level and crop diversity strategies to enhance sustainability of crop production and soil quality in the Northern Great Plains of North America. In Malhi, S.S., Gan, Y., Schoenau, J.J., Lemke, R.L., and Liebig, M.A. (eds). Recent Trends in Soil Science and Agronomy Research in the Northern Plains of North America. Research Signpost, Trivandrum, India. p. 179–200. ISBN: 978-81-308-0422-4.Google Scholar
4Knight, J.D., Johnson, E.N., Malhi, S.S., Shirtliffe, S., and Blackshaw, R.E. 2010. Nutrient management and weed dynamic challenges in organic farming systems in the Northern Great Plains of North America. In Malhi, S.S., Gan, Y., Schoenau, J.J., Lemke, R.L. and Liebig, M.A. (eds). Recent Trends in Soil Science and Agronomy Research in the Northern Plains of North America. Research Signpost, Trivandrum, India. p. 201–244. ISBN: 978-81-308-0422-4.Google Scholar
5Vaisman, I., Entz, M.H., Flaten, D.N., and Gulden, R.H. 2011. Blade roller–green manure interactions on nitrogen dynamics, weeds, and organic wheat. Agronomy Journal 103:879–889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6Ashford, D.L. and Reeves, D.W. 2003. Use of a mechanical roller-crimper as an alternative kill method for cover crops. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 18:37–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7Davis, A.S. 2010. Cover-crop roller–crimper contributes to weed management in no-till soybean. Weed Science 58:300–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8Johnson, E.N. and Holm, F.A. 2010. Pre-emergence mechanical weed control in field pea (Pisum sativum L.). Canadian Journal of Plant Science 90:133–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9Kirkland, K.J. 1994. Frequency of post-emergence harrowing effects wild oat control and spring wheat yield. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 75:163–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10Leblanc, M.L. and Cloutier, D.C. 2011. Mechanical weed control in cereal crops in Eastern Canada. In Cloutier, D.C. and Leblanc, M.L. (eds). Physical Weed Control: Progress and Challenges. Topics in Canadian Weed Science, Volume 6. Canadian Weed Science Society–Société Canadienne de Malherbologie, Pinawa, Manitoba. p. 35–42.Google Scholar
11Rodale Institute 2010. No-till revolution. Available at Web site http://www.rodaleinstitute.org/notill_revolution (verified May 4, 2011).Google Scholar
12Meier, U., Bleiholder, H., Buhr, L., Feller, C., Hack, H., Heß, M., Lancashire, P.D., Schnock, U., Stauß, R., van den Boom, T., Weber, E., and Zwerger, P. 2009. The BBCH system to coding the phenological growth stages of plants—history and publications. Journal für Kulturpflanzen 61:41–52.Google Scholar
13Oomah, B.D., Luc, G., Leprelle, C., Drover, J.C.G., Harrison, J.E., and Olson, M. 2011. Phenolics, phytic acid, and phytase in Canadian-grown low-tannin faba bean (Vicia faba L.) genotypes. Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry 59:3763–3771.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14Spies, J.M., Warkentin, T.D., and Shirtliffe, S.J. 2011. Variation in field pea (Pisum sativum) cultivars for basal branching and weed competition. Weed Science 59:218–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration 2003. Managing crop residues on the Prairies. Available at Web site (http://www.rural-gc.agr.ca/pfra/land/residue_e.htm (verified April 10, 2011).Google Scholar
16Johnston, A.M., Clayton, G.W., Lafond, G.P., Harker, K.N., Hogg, T.J., Johnson, E.N., May, W.E., and McConnell, J.T. 2002. Field pea seeding management. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 82:639–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar