Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T19:05:06.121Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Smother Crop Mixtures for Canada Thistle (Cirsium arvense) Suppression in Organic Transition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Stephanie Wedryk  and
John Cardina
Stephanie Wedryk*
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture and Crop Science, The Ohio State University, Wooster, OH 44691
John Cardina
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture and Crop Science, The Ohio State University, Wooster, OH 44691
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Canada thistle poses a particular threat to organic producers in temperate agriculture due to its ability to reproduce through an extensive system of underground roots. The Canada thistle life cycle, growth, and development are seasonally affected, and exploiting this biology may be useful for weed management. The objective of this study was to evaluate smother crop mixtures, seeded at different times, for Canada thistle control. Field trials were established in 2009 and 2010 to evaluate the ability of smother crop mixtures to suppress Canada thistle growth and development. Canada thistle aboveground biomass was suppressed 50% in 2009 and 87% in 2010 by the sorghum–sudangrass mixture, averaged over planting times. The oat mixture suppressed annual weed biomass more than 58% in 2009 and 67% in 2010 in all planting dates. Percent cover of Canada thistle was affected by crop mixture in 2009 and 2010, with sorghum–sudangrass being the most suppressive. The sorghum–sudangrass mixture was more suppressive of Canada thistle, probably because it included soybean and sunflower, all high-biomass, competitive crops. Planting date affected smother crop suppression of Canada thistle growth, but the effect was not consistent between 2009 and 2010 due to differences in weather conditions.

Keywords

Canada thistle, Cirsium arvense (L.) Scopoat, Avena sativa Lsorghum-sudangrass, Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench. × Sorghum sudanese (Piper) Stapfsoybean, Glycine max (L.) Merrsunflower, Helianthus annuus LOrganic weed managementsmother crop
Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 60 , Issue 4 , December 2012 , pp. 618 - 623
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

Bicksler, A. J. and Masiunas, J. B. 2009. Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) suppression with buckwheat or sudangrass cover crops and mowing. Weed Technol. 23:556–563.Google Scholar
Creamer, N. G., Bennett, M. A., and Stinner, B. R. 1997. Evaluation of cover crop mixtures for use in vegetable production systems. HortScience. 32:866–860.Google Scholar
Creamer, N. G. and Baldwin, K. R. 2000. An evaluation of summer cover crops for use in vegetable production systems in North Carolina. HortScience. 35:600–603.Google Scholar
Donald, W. W. 1994a. The biology of Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense). Rev. Weed Sci. 6:77–101.Google Scholar
Donald, W. W. 1994b. Geostatistics for mapping weeds, with a Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) patch as a case study. Weed Sci. 42:648–657.Google Scholar
Evans, J. E. 1984. Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense): a literature review of management practices. Natural Areas Journal. 4:11–21.Google Scholar
Gaudet, C. L. and Keddy, P. A. 1988. A comparative approach to predicting competitive ability from plant traits. Nature. 334:242–243.Google Scholar
Graglia, E., Melander, B., and Jensen, R. K. 2006. Mechanical and cultural strategies to control Cirsium arvense in organic arable cropping systems. Weed Res. 46:304–312.Google Scholar
Haynes, R. J. 1980. Competitive aspects of the grass-legume association. Adv. Agron. 33:227–261.Google Scholar
Holm, L. G., Plucknett, D. L., Pancho, J. V., and Herberger, J. P. 1977. The World's Worst Weeds, Distribution And Biology. Honolulu University Press of Hawaii. 607 p.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
Linares, J., Scholberg, J., Boote, K., Chase, C. A., Ferguson, J. J., and McSorley, R. 2008. Use of the cover crop weed index to evaluate weed suppression by cover crops in organic citrus orchards. HortScience. 43:27–34.Google Scholar
McAllister, R. S. and Haderlie, L. C. 1985. Seasonal variations in Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) root bud growth and root carbohydrate reserves. Weed Sci. 33:44–49.Google Scholar
Menalled, F., Jones, C., Suchena, D., and Miller, P. 2009. From Conventional to Organic Cropping: What to Expect during the Transition Years. Montana State University Extension Publication MT200901AG. http://www.msuextension.org/publications/AgandNaturalResources/MT200901AG.pdf. Accessed: November 16, 2011.Google Scholar
Riemens, M. M., Groeneveld, R. M. W., Kropff, M. J. J., Lotz, L. A. P., Renes, R. J., Sukkel, W., and van der Weide, R. Y. 2010. Linking farmer weed management behavior with weed pressure: more than just technology. Weed Sci. 58:490–496.Google Scholar
Rzewnicki, P. E. 2000. Ohio Organic Producers: Final Survey Results. Special Circular 174, Wooster, OH: Ohio Agricultural and Research Development Center. 28 p.Google Scholar
Teasdale, J. R. 1998. Cover crops, smother plants, and weed management. Pp. 247–270 in Hatfield, J. L., Buhler, D. D., and Stewart, B. A., eds. Integrated Weed and Soil Management. Chelsea, MI Sleeping Bear Press.Google Scholar
Walz, E. 1999. Third biennial national organic farmers' survey. Santa Cruz, CA Organic Farming Research Foundation. Available at http://ofrf.org/publications/pubs/3rdsurvey_results.pdf. Accessed: November 16, 2011.Google Scholar