Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T19:22:20.379Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Short- and full-season soybean in stale seedbeds versus rolled-crimped winter rye mulch

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 January 2013

Frank Forcella
Frank Forcella*
Affiliation:
North Central Soil Conservation Research Laboratory, USDA-ARS, 803 Iowa Avenue, Morris, MN, USA.
*
* Corresponding author:[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Stale seedbeds are used by organic growers to reduce weed populations prior to crop planting. Rye mulches, derived from mechanically killed (rolled and crimped) winter rye cover crops, can serve the same purpose for spring-planted organic crops. Both methods can also be employed by conventional growers who face looming problems with herbicide resistant weeds. The objective of this research was to compare these methods over 2 years in central Minnesota in terms of weed seedling emergence, populations, biomass and manual-weeding times, as well as stands and yields of short-season and full-season soybean varieties planted late, in mid June. Rye mulch greatly lowered both pre- and post-planting weed populations of common annual weeds, which substantially affected necessity for augmented weed control. For instance, the need for within-crop manual-weeding was low for soybean planted into rye mulch (0–6 h ha−1), but ranged from 15 to 66 h ha−1 of labor for soybean planted in stale seedbeds and augmented by inter-row cultivation. However, rye mulch lowered soybean yield potential by 800–1000 kg ha−1 compared with stale seedbeds in 1 of 2 years. With organic feed-grade soybean seed valued at $1 kg−1, conventional soybean seed at $0.5 kg−1, and labor for manual-weeding at $10 h−1, the use of rye mulch compared with stale seedbeds augmented by manual-weeding are equally rational choices for organic growers in central Minnesota (assuming labor is available for hand-weeding), but rye mulches probably would be a wise financial option for conventional growers compared with hand-weeding. Lastly, full-season soybean had higher yields than short-season soybean and probably represents a prudent selection in central Minnesota, regardless of the late planting date requirements for both the rye mulch and stale seedbed systems.

Keywords

cover cropfalse seedbedhand-weedinglate plantingorganicweed control
Type
Research Papers
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 29 , Issue 1 , March 2014 , pp. 92 - 99
Creative Commons
This is a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States.
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013

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

1 Powles, S.B. and Yu, Q. 2010. Evolution in action: plants resistant to herbicides. Annual Review of Plant Biology 61:317–347.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2 Moynihan, M. 2010. Status of Organic Agriculture in Minnesota. Minnesota Department of Agriculture, St. Paul, MN, p. 55. Available at Web site http://www.mda.state.mn.us/∼/media/Files/news/govrelations/organicstatusreport.ashx (verified October 17, 2012).Google Scholar
3 Walz, E. 2004. Fourth National Organic Farmers' Survey. Organic Farming Research Foundation, Santa Cruz, CA, p. 106. Available at Web site http://www.agmrc.org/media/cms/organicsurveyresults_6F6C9F2840CF6.pdf (verified October 17, 2012).Google Scholar
4 Bond, W. and Grundy, A.C. 2001. Non-chemical weed management in organic farming systems. Weed Research 41:383–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5 Melander, B., Rasmussen, I.A., and Barberi, P. 2005. Integrating physical and cultural methods of weed control – examples from European research. Weed Science 53:369–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6 Johnson, W.C. and Mullinix, B.G. 1998. Stale seedbed weed control in cucumber. Weed Science 46:698–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7 Coulter, J.A., Sheaffer, C.C., Haar, M.J., Wyse, D.L., and Orf, J.F. 2011. Soybean cultivar response to planting date and seeding rate under organic management. Agronomy Journal 103:1223–1229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8 Forcella, F., Eradat-Oskoui, K., and Wagner, S.W. 1992. Application of weed seedbank ecology to low-input crop management. Ecological Applications 3:74–83.Google Scholar
9 Douds, D.D, Nagahashi, G., and Shenk, J.E. 2012. Frequent cultivation prior to planting to prevent weed competition results in an opportunity for the use of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus inoculum. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 27:251–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10 Reicosky, D.C., Kemper, W.D., Langdale, G.W., Douglas, C.L., and Rasmussen, P.E. 1995. Soil organic matter changes resulting from tillage and biomass production. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 50:253–261.Google Scholar
11 Brennan, E.B. and Boyd, N.S. 2012. Winter cover crop seeding rate and variety effects during eight years of organic vegetables: I. Cover crop biomass production. Agronomy Journal 104:684–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12 Bernstein, E.R., Posner, J.L., Stoltenberg, D.E., and Hedtcke, J.L. 2011. Organically managed no-tillage rye–soybean systems: agronomic, economic, and environmental assessment. Agronomy Journal 103:1169–1179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13 Davis, A. 2010. Cover-crop roller-crimper contributes to weed management in no-till soybean. Weed Science 58:300–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14 Kornecki, T.S., Price, A.J., and Raper, R.L. 2006. Performance of different roller designs in terminating rye cover crop and reducing vibration. Applied Engineering in Agriculture 22:633–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15 Nord, E.A., Curran, W.S., Mortensen, D.A., Mirsky, S.B., and Jones, B.P. 2011. Integrating multiple tactics for managing weeds in high residue no-till soybean. Agronomy Journal 103:1542–1551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16 Price, A.J., Reeves, D.W., and Patterson, M.G. 2006. Evaluation of three winter cereals for weed control in conservation-tillage non-transgenic soybean. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 21:159–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17 Smith, A.N., Reberg-Horton, S.C., Place, G.T., Meijer, A.D., Arellano, C., and Mueller, J.P. 2011. Rolled rye mulch for weed suppression in organic no-tillage systems. Weed Science 59:224–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18 Mischler, R.A., Curran, W.S., Duiker, S.W., and Hyde, J.A. 2010. Use of a rolled-rye cover crop for weed suppression in no-till soybeans. Weed Technology 24:353–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19 Anonymous. 2008. Statistix 9 User's Manual. Analytical Software, Tallahassee, FL. p. 454.Google Scholar
20 Mirsky, S., Curran, W.S., Mortensen, D., Ryan, M., and Shumway, D. 2009. Control of cereal rye with a roller-crimper as influenced by cover crop phenology. Agronomy Journal 101:1589–1596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21 Martinkova, Z., Honek, A., and Lukas, J. 2011. Viability of Taraxacum officinale seeds after anthesis. Weed Research 51:508–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22 Delate, K. 2002. Using an agroecological approach to farming systems research. HortTechnology 12:345–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23 Anonymous. 2008. Pesticide risk reduction for soybean production. Final Research Report E2008-36. Organic Agriculture Centre of Canada. Available at Web site http://www.organicagcentre.ca/Docs/TechnicalBulletins08/TechnicalBulletin36web_risk.pdf (verified October 17, 2012).Google Scholar
24 Evans, G.J., Bellinder, R.R., and Hahn, R.R. 2011. Integration of vinegar for in-row weed control in transplanted bell pepper and broccoli. Weed Technology 25:259–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25 Gianessi, L. and Reigner, N. 2006. Barriers to widespread conversion from chemical pest control to non-chemical methods in U.S. agriculture. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on the Future of Agriculture, Sacramento, California. Available at Web site http://www.engg.ksu.edu/chsr/events/ag/200608/. (verified October 17, 2012).Google Scholar