Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T21:57:38.910Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Herbicide selection to terminate grass, legume, and brassica cover crop species

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 November 2019

Kara B. Pittman Open the ORCID record for Kara B. Pittman [Opens in a new window] ,
Charles W. Cahoon Open the ORCID record for Charles W. Cahoon [Opens in a new window] ,
Kevin W. Bamber ,
Lucas S. Rector  and
Michael L. Flessner Open the ORCID record for Michael L. Flessner [Opens in a new window]
Kara B. Pittman
Affiliation:
Research Associate, School of Plant and Environmental Sciences, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA
Charles W. Cahoon
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, School of Plant and Environmental Sciences, Virginia Tech, Painter, VA, USA (current affiliation: Crop and Soil Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA)
Kevin W. Bamber
Affiliation:
Senior Research Specialist, School of Plant and Environmental Sciences, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA
Lucas S. Rector
Affiliation:
Graduate Research Assistant, School of Plant and Environmental Sciences, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA
Michael L. Flessner*
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, School of Plant and Environmental Sciences, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Michael L. Flessner, School of Plant and Environmental Sciences, Virginia Tech, 675 Old Glade Rd., Blacksburg, VA 24061. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Cover crops provide a number of agronomic benefits, including weed suppression, which is important as cases of herbicide resistance continue to rise. To effectively suppress weeds, high cover crop biomass is needed, which necessitates later termination timing. Cover crop termination is important to mitigate potential planting issues and prevent surviving cover crop competition with cash crops. Field studies were conducted in Virginia to determine the most effective herbicide options alone or combined with glyphosate or paraquat to terminate a range of cover crop species. Results revealed that grass cover crop species were controlled (94% to 98%) by glyphosate alone 4 wk after application (WAA). Overall, legume species varied in response to the single active-ingredient treatments, and control increased with the addition of glyphosate or paraquat. Mixes with glyphosate provided better control of crimson clover and hairy vetch by 7% to 8% compared with mixes containing paraquat 4 WAA. Mix partner did not influence control of Austrian winter pea. No treatment adequately controlled rapeseed in this study, with a maximum of 58% control observed with single active-ingredient treatments and 62% control with mixes. Height reduction for all cover crop species supports visible rating data. Rapeseed should be terminated when smaller, which could negate weed suppressive benefits from this cover crop species. Growers should consider herbicide selection and termination timing in their cover crop plan to ensure effective termination.

Keywords

Aaron Hager, University of IllinoisGlyphosateparaquatcrimson clover, Trifolium incarnatum L.hairy vetch, Vicia villosa RothAustrian winter pea, Pisum sativum L. ssp. sativum var. arvenserapeseed, Brassica napus L.Mixescereal ryecereal grainsannual ryegrass
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 34 , Issue 1 , February 2020 , pp. 48 - 54
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2019 

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

Askew, MC, Cahoon, CW Jr, Flessner, ML, VanGessel, MJ, Langston, DB Jr, Ferebee, JH IV (2019) Chemical termination of cover crop rapeseed. Weed Technol 33:686–692 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckie, HJ, Nair, GSH, Warwick, SI, Johnson, E (2004) Multiple herbicide-resistant canola can be controlled by alternative herbicides. Weed Sci 52:152–157 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bendig, J, Bolten, A, Bennertz, S, Broscheit, J, Eichfuss, S, Bareth, G (2014) Estimating biomass of barley using crop surface models (CSM) derived from UAV-based RGB imaging. Remote Sens 6:10395–10412 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blouin, DC, Webster, EP, Bond, JA (2011) On the analysis of combined experiments. Weed Technol 25:165–169 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burket, JZ, Hemphill, DD, Dick, RP (1997) Winter cover crops and nitrogen management in sweet corn and broccoli rotations. HortScience 32:664–668 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carmer, SG, Nyquist, WE, Walker, WM (1989) Least significant differences for combined analyses of experiments with two- or three-factor treatment designs. Agron J 81:665–672 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, A, ed (2007) Managing Cover Crops Profitably. 3rd edn. College Park, MD: Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education. Pp 9–33 Google Scholar
Cornelius, CD, Bradley, KW (2017) Herbicide programs for the termination of various cover crop species. Weed Technol 31:514–522 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crespo, RJ, Wingeyer, AB, Kruger, GR, Riggins, CW, Tranel, PJ, Bernards, ML (2017) Multiple-herbicide resistance in a 2,4-D-resistant waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus) population from Nebraska. Weed Sci 65:743–754 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[CTIC] Conservation Technology Information Center (2017) Report of the 2016-17 National Cover Crop Survey. Joint publication of the Conservation Technology Information Center, the North Central Region Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program, and the American Seed Trade Association. https://www.sare.org/content/download/79876/1402074/2016-2017_Cover_Crop_Survey_Report.pdf?inlinedownload=1. Accessed: March 3, 2019Google Scholar
Culpepper, AS, York, AC, Batts, RB, Jennings, KM (2000) Weed management in glufosinate- and glyphosate-resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol 14:77–88 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curran, WS, Wallace, JM, Mirsky, S, Crockett, B (2015) Effectiveness of herbicides for control of hairy vetch (Vicia villosa) in winter wheat. Weed Technol 29:509–518 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dabney, SM, Delgado, JA, Reeves, DW (2001) Using winter cover crops to improve soil and water quality. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal 32:1221–1250 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehlert, D, Horn, HJ, Adamek, R (2008) Measuring crop biomass density by laser triangulation. Comput Electron Agr 61:117–125 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frans, R, Talbert, R, Marx, D, Crowley, H (1986) Experimental design and techniques for measuring and analyzing plant responses to weed control practices. Pages 29–46 in Camper, ND, ed. Research Methods in Weed Science, 3rd edn. Westminster, CO: Southern Weed Science Society Google Scholar
Heap, I (2019) International survey of herbicide resistant weeds. http://www.weedscience.org Accessed: March 3, 2019Google Scholar
Holt, JS, LeBaron, HM (1990) Significance and distribution of herbicide resistance. Weed Technol 4:141–149 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kegode, GO, Fronning, BE (2005) Artemisia biennis (biennial wormwood) control is influenced by plant size and weed flora at time of herbicide application. Crop Prot 24:915–920 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klingaman, TE, King, CA, Oliver, LR (1992) Effect of application rate, weed species, and weed stage of growth on imazethapyr activity. Weed Sci 40:227–232 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawson, A, Cogger, C, Bary, A, Fortuna, A (2015) Influence of seeding ratio, planting date, and termination date on rye-hairy vetch cover crop mixture performance under organic management. PLoS ONE 10(6):e0129597 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCurdy, JD, McElroy, JS, Flessner, ML (2013) Differential response of four Trifolium species to common broadleaf herbicides: implications for mixed grass-legume swards. Weed Technol 27:123–128 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mirsky, SB, Curran, WS, Mortensen, DA, Ryan, MR, Shumway, DL (2009) Control of cereal rye with a roller/crimper as influenced by cover crop phenology. Agron J 101:1589–1596 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mirsky, SB, Curran, WS, Mortensen, DA, Ryan, MR, Shumway, DL (2011) Timing of cover-crop management effects on weed suppression in no-till planted soybean using a roller crimper. Weed Sci 59:380–389 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mirsky, SB, Ryan, MR, Teasdale, JR, Curran, WS, Reberg-Horton, CS, Spargo, JT, Wells, MS, Keene, CL, Moyer, JW (2013) Overcoming weed management challenges in cover crop-based organic rotational no-till soybean production in the Eastern United States. Weed Technol 27:193–203 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mischler, R, Duiker, SW, Curran, WS, Wilson, D (2010) Hairy vetch management for no-till organic corn production. Agron J 102:355–362 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miville, D, Leroux, GD (2018) Rolled winter rye-hairy vetch cover crops for weed control in no-till pumpkin. Weed Technol 32:251–259 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owen, LN, Mueller, TC, Main, CL, Bond, J, Steckel, LE (2011) Evaluating rates and application timings of saflufenacil for control of glyphosate-resistant horseweed (Conyza canadensis) prior to planting no-till cotton. Weed Technol 25:1–5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palhano, MG, Norsworthy, JK, Barber, T (2018) Evaluation of chemical termination options for cover crops. Weed Technol 32:227–235 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roth, L, Streit, B (2018) Predicting cover crop biomass by lightweight UAS-based RGB and NIR photography: an applied photogrammetric approach. Precis Agric 19:93–114 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sellers, BA, Ferrell, JA, MacDonald, GE, Kline, WM (2009) Dogfennel (Eupatorium capillifolium) size at application affects herbicide efficacy. Weed Technol 23:247–250 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stephenson, DO, Bond, JA (2012) Evaluation of thiencarbazone-methyl- and isoxaflutole-based herbicide programs in corn. Weed Technol 26:37–42 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teasdale, JR (1996) Contribution of cover crops to weed management in sustainable agricultural systems. J Prod Agric 9: 475–479 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture (2015) Virginia NRCS Cover Crop Planning Manual 1.0. https://efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov/references/public/VA/VA_TN10_Agronomy.pdf. Accessed: September 13, 2018Google Scholar
[USDA ERS] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service (2012) Distribution of cover crop use in the contiguous U.S., 2012. https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/charts/81674/percent_of_cropland_acres_with_cover_crops_by_county__2012_rred-01.png?v=8661.2. Accessed: March 3, 2019Google Scholar
Waggoner, BS, Mueller, TC, Bond, JA, Steckel, LE (2011) Control of glyphosate-resistant horseweed (Conyza canadensis) with saflufenacil tank mixtures in no-till cotton. Weed Technol 25:310–315 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallace, J, Lingenfelter, D, VanGessel, M, Johnson, Q, Vollmer, K, Besancon, T, Flessner, M, Chandran, R (2019) 2019 Mid-Atlantic Field Crop Weed Management Guide. University Park, PA: Penn State Agricultural Communications and Marketing. 55 p Google Scholar
Wayman, S, Cogger, C, Benedict, C, Burke, I, Collins, D, Bary, A (2014) The influence of cover crop variety, termination timing and termination method on mulch, weed cover and soil nitrate in reduced-tillage organic systems. Renew Agr Food Syst 30:450–460 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westgate, LR, Singer, JW, Kohler, KA (2005) Method and timing of rye control affects soybean development and resource utilization. Agron J 97:806–816 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitaker, JR, York, AC, Jordan, DL, Culpepper, AS (2011) Weed management with glyphosate- and glufosinate-based systems in PHY 485 WRF Cotton. Weed Technol 25:183–191 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yu, Q, Powles, S (2014) Metabolism-based herbicide resistance and cross-resistance in crop weeds: a threat to herbicide sustainability and global crop production. Plant Physiol 166:1106–1118 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zimmer, M, Young, B, Johnson, W (2018a) Herbicide programs utilizing halauxifen-methyl for glyphosate-resistant horseweed (Conyza canadensis) control in soybean. Weed Technol 32:659–664 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimmer, M, Young, B, Johnson, W (2018b) Weed control with halauxifen-methyl applied alone and in mixtures with 2,4-D, dicamba, and glyphosate. Weed Technol 32:597–602 CrossRefGoogle Scholar