Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T15:56:24.389Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cover-Crop Roller–Crimper Contributes to Weed Management in No-Till Soybean

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Adam S. Davis
Adam S. Davis*
Affiliation:
United States Department of Agriculture–Agricultural Research Service, Global Change and Photosynthesis Research Unit, 1102 South Goodwin Avenue, Urbana, IL 61801
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Termination of cover crops prior to no-till planting of soybean is typically accomplished with burndown herbicides. Recent advances in cover-crop roller–crimper design offer the possibility of reliable physical termination of cover crops without tillage. A field study within a no-till soybean production system was conducted in Urbana, IL, from 2004 through 2007 to quantify the effects of cover crop (cereal rye, hairy vetch, or bare soil control), termination method (chemical burndown or roller–crimper), and postemergence glyphosate application rate (0, 1.1, or 2.2 kg ae ha−1) on soybean yield components, weed–crop interference, and soil environmental variables. Biomass of weeds surviving management within a soybean crop following either a vetch or rye cover crop was reduced by 26 and 56%, respectively, in the rolled system compared to the burndown system. Soybean yield loss due to weed interference was unaffected by cover-crop termination method in soybean following a rye cover crop, but was higher in the rolled than burndown treatment in both hairy vetch and bare soil treatments. In soybean following a rye cover crop, regardless of termination method, yield loss to weed interference was unaffected by glyphosate rate, whereas in soybean following a vetch cover crop or bare soil, yield loss decreased with glyphosate rate. Variation in soybean yield among cover crops and cover-crop termination treatments was due largely to differences in soybean establishment, rather than differences in the soil environment. Use of a roller–crimper to terminate a cover crop preceding no-till soybean has the potential to achieve similar yields to those obtained in a chemically terminated cover crop while reducing residual weed biomass.

Keywords

Common waterhemp, Amaranthus rudis Sauer, AMARUgiant foxtail, Setaria faberi Herrm., SETFAhairy vetch, Vicia villosa Roth.cereal rye, Secale cereale L. ‘FS Hi-Rye 500’soybean, Glycine max (L). MerrCover-crop terminationGlycine max establishmentweed suppressionSecale cerealeVicia villosaorganiclow external input
Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 58 , Issue 3 , September 2010 , pp. 300 - 309
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

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

Literature Cited

Ashford, D. L. and Reeves, D. W. 2003. Use of a mechanical roller–crimper as an alternative kill method for cover crops. Am. J. Altern. Agric. 18:37–45.Google Scholar
[AOSA] Association of Official Seed Analysts 2000. Tetrazolium testing handbook. Contribution No. 29 to the Handbook on Seed Testing. Ithaca, NY: AOSA. 302.Google Scholar
Bensch, C. N., Horak, M. J., and Peterson, D. 2003. Interference of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus), Palmer amaranth (A. palmeri), and common waterhemp (A. rudis) in soybean. Weed Sci. 51:37–43.Google Scholar
Cavigelli, M. A., Teasdale, J. R., and Conklin, A. E. 2008. Long-term agronomic performance of organic and conventional field crops in the mid-Atlantic region. Agron. J. 100:785–794.Google Scholar
Conklin, A. E., Erich, M. S., Liebman, M., Lambert, D., Gallandt, E. R., and Halteman, W. A. 2002. Effects of red clover (Trifolium pratense) green manure and compost soil amendments on wild mustard (Brassica kaber) growth and incidence of disease. Plant Soil. 238:245–256.Google Scholar
Crawley, M. J. 2007. The R Book. West Sussex, England: John Wiley and Sons. 942.Google Scholar
Creamer, N. G., Bennett, M. A., Stinner, B. R., Cardina, J., and Regnier, E. E. 1996. Mechanisms of weed suppression in cover crop-based production systems. Hortscience. 31:410–413.Google Scholar
Creamer, N. G. and Dabney, S. M. 2002. Killing cover crops mechanically: review of recent literature and assessment of new research results. Am. J. Alt. Agric. 17:32–40.Google Scholar
Dabney, S. M., Buehring, M. W., and Reginelli, D. B. 1991. Mechanical control of legume cover crops. Pages 146–147. in Hargrove, W. L. ed. Cover Crops for Clean Water. Ankeny, IA: Soil and Water Conservation Society.Google Scholar
Dabney, S. M., Schreiber, J. D., Rothrock, C. S., and Johnson, J. R. 1996. Cover crops affect sorghum seedling growth. Agron. J. 88:961–970.Google Scholar
Davis, A. S., Dixon, P. M., and Liebman, M. 2003. Cropping system effects on giant foxtail (Setaria faberi) demography: II. retrospective perturbation analysis. Weed Sci. 51:930–939.Google Scholar
Davis, A. S., Renner, K. A., and Gross, K. L. 2005. Weed seedbank and community shifts in a long-term cropping systems experiment. Weed Sci. 53:296–306.Google Scholar
Davis, A. S. and Williams, M. M. II. 2007. Variation in wild proso millet (Panicum miliaceum) fecundity in sweet corn has residual effects in snap bean. Weed Sci. 55:502–507.Google Scholar
Drinkwater, L. E., Wagoner, P., and Sarrontonio, M. 1998. Legume-based cropping systems have reduced carbon and nitrogen losses. Nature. 396:262–264.Google Scholar
Forcella, F., Colbach, N., and Kegode, G. O. 2000. Estimating seed production of three Setaria species in row crops. Weed Sci. 48:436–444.Google Scholar
Gallandt, E. R. 2006. How can we target the weed seedbank? Weed Sci. 54:588–596.Google Scholar
Grace, J. B. 2006. Structural equation modeling and natural systems. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 365.Google Scholar
Hammond, R. B. and Cooper, R. L. 1993. Interaction of planting times following the incorporation of a living green cover crop and control measures on seedcorn maggot populations in soybean. Crop Prot. 12:539–542.Google Scholar
Jordan, N. 1993. Prospects of weed control through crop interference. Ecol. Appl. 3:84–91.Google Scholar
Jurik, T. W. and Zhang, S. 1999. Tractor wheel traffic effects on weed emergence in central Iowa. Weed Technol. 13:741–746.Google Scholar
Kornecki, T. S., Price, A. J., and Raper, R. L. 2006. Performance of different roller designs in terminating rye cover crop and reducing vibration. Appl. Eng. Agric. 22:633–641.Google Scholar
Liebl, R., Simmons, F. W., Wax, L. M., and Stoller, E. W. 1992. Effect of rye (Secale cereale) mulch on weed-control and soil-moisture in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 6:838–846.Google Scholar
Liebman, M. and Davis, A. S. 2000. Integration of soil, crop and weed management in low-external-input farming systems. Weed Res. 40:27–47.Google Scholar
Liebman, M. and Gallandt, E. R. 1997. Many little hammers: ecological approaches for management of crop-weed interactions. Pages 291–343. in Jackson, L. E. ed. Ecology in Agriculture. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lindquist, J. L., Mortensen, D. A., and Westra, P. 1999. Stability of corn (Zea mays)–foxtail (Setaria spp.) interference relationships. Weed Sci. 47:195–200.Google Scholar
Mirsky, S., Curran, W. S., Mortensen, D. A., Ryan, M. R., and Shumway, D. 2009. Control of cereal rye with a roller/crimper as influenced by cover crop phenology. Agron. J. 101:1589–1596.Google Scholar
Nafziger, E. D. 2002. Soybeans. Pages 35–43. in. Illinois Agronomy Handbook. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Extension.Google Scholar
Pinheiro, J. C. and Bates, D. M. 2004. Mixed-effects models in S and S-PLUS. New York: Springer. 528.Google Scholar
R Development Core Team 2006. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org. Accessed: May 3, 2010.Google Scholar
Sayre, L. 2003. Introducing a Cover Crop Roller without All the Drawbacks of a Stalk Chopper. Rodale Institute. http://www.newfarm.org/depts/NFfield_trials/1103/notillroller_print.shtml. Accessed: Sepember 3, 2009.Google Scholar
Singer, J. W., Kohler, K. A., and McDonald, P. B. 2007. Self-seeding winter cereal cover crops in soybean. Agron. J. 99:73–79.Google Scholar
So, Y. F., Williams, M. M., and Pataky, J. K. 2009. Wild-proso millet differentially affects canopy architecture and yield components of 25 sweet corn hybrids. Hortscience. 44:408–412.Google Scholar
Taylor, K. L. and Hartzler, R. G. 2000. Effect of seed bank augmentation on herbicide efficacy. Weed Technol. 14:261–267.Google Scholar
Teasdale, J. R. 1995. Influence of narrow row/high population corn (Zea mays L.) on weed control and light transmittance. Weed Technol. 9:113–118.Google Scholar
Teasdale, J. R. 1996. Contribution of cover crops to weed management in sustainable agricultural systems. J. Prod. Agric. 9:475–479.Google Scholar
Teasdale, J. R. and Mohler, C. L. 2000. The quantitative relationship between weed emergence and the physical properties of mulches. Weed Sci. 48:385–392.Google Scholar
Teasdale, J. R. and Rosecrance, R. C. 2003. Mechanical versus herbicidal strategies for killing a hairy vetch cover crop and controlling weeds in minimum-tillage corn production. Am. J. Altern. Agric. 18:95–102.Google Scholar
University of Illinois Extension 2007. Illinois Agricultural Pest Management Handbook. Urbana: University of Illinois. 357.Google Scholar
Villamil, M. B., Miguez, F. E., and Bollero, G. A. 2008. Multivariate analysis and visualization of soil quality data for no-till systems. J. Environ. Qual. 37:2063–2069.Google Scholar
Williams, M. M., Mortensen, D. A., and Doran, J. W. 2000. No-tillage soybean performance in cover crops for weed management in the western Corn Belt. J. Soil Water Conserv. 55:79–84.Google Scholar