Reduced-tillage systems including no-tillage and striptillage have well-known benefits for conserving and improving soils, protecting vulnerable crops from extreme weather events, and reducing labor and fuel costs associated with full-width inversion tillage (Franzluebbers 2002, 2005; Parsch et al. 2001; Pesant et al. 1987; Spargo et al. 2008). Despite these benefits, reduced-tillage has not been widely adopted in many cropping systems due in part to the increased difficulty of managing weeds when tillage is not used. Not surprisingly, adoption of reduced-tillage has occurred primarily in crops for which low-cost, effective herbicides are available, including glyphosate-resistant soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.], corn (Zea mays L.), cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.), and sugarbeets (Beta vulgaris L.) (Horowitz et al. 2010; Tarkalson et al. 2012). Increased use of a narrow range of herbicides in these cropping systems has exacerbated problems of herbicide resistance (Duke and Powles 2009; Heap 2012). Conversely, adoption of reduced-tillage has been limited in crops where effective herbicides are not available (e.g. in “minor crops” like vegetables) or prohibited (e.g. in organic production systems). Research aimed at identifying nonchemical approaches to managing weeds in reduced-tillage production systems has the potential to increase adoption of reducedtillage while minimizing herbicide use and selection pressure for herbicide resistance in production systems currently using reduced tillage (Figure 1).