Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T02:45:09.869Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of Tansy Mustard (Descurainia intermedia) on Moisture Storage During Fallow

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

A. F. Wiese
A. F. Wiese*
Affiliation:
Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Southwestern Great Plains Field Station, Bushland, Texas
Get access

Extract

Since the work of Cox and Cates in 1912, it had been shown repeatedly that weeds growing in competition with crops decrease yields. These results lead to the general assumption that weeds are detrimental anytime, including a fallow period for moisture conservation. In fact many farmers in the Great Plains area still plow during the winter or when there are no weeds to promote a “dust mulch” for moisture conservation even though this practice has been shown to be of little value. Recent research has shown that where runoff is prevented and weed control is adequate during the fallow period, type of tillage or amount of mulch does not greatly affect moisture storage in the Southern Great Plains. Finnell stated that on the heavy soils of the Southern Great Plains 65.8 percent of the rainfall was evaporated, 13.5 percent was runoff, 2.7 percent was lost in tillage operations and 18.0 percent was stored in the soil.

Type
Brief Papers
Information
Weeds , Volume 8 , Issue 4 , October 1960 , pp. 683 - 685
Copyright
Copyright © 1960 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

1. Briggs, L. J., and Shantz, H. L. Relative water requirement of plants. Jour. Agr. Res. 3:1–63. 1914.Google Scholar
2. Cates, J. S., and Cox, H. R. The weed factor in the cultivation of corn. U.S. Dept. Agr. Bur. Plant Indus. Bul. 257. 1912.Google Scholar
3. Coover, J. R., Van Doren, C. E., and Whitfield, C. J. Some characteristics of the Pullman soils on the Amarillo Experiment Station. Texas Agr. Exp. Sta. Misc. Pub. 97. 1953.Google Scholar
4. Dixon, W. J., and Massey, F. J. Introduction to Statistical Analysis. McGraw-Hill, New York. p. 121. 1951.Google Scholar
5. Finnell, H. H. The utilization of moisture on heavy soils of the Southern Great Plains. Oklahoma Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 190. 1929.Google Scholar
6. Jacks, G. V., Brind, W. D., and Smith, R. Mulching. Tech. Communication No. 49 of the Commonwealth Bur. of Soil Sci., Commonwealth Agri. Bureaux, Farnham Royal, Bucks., England. 1955.Google Scholar
7. Veihmeyer, F. J., and Hendrichson, A. H. Some plant and soil-moisture relations. Amer. Soil Survey Assoc. Bul. 15:76–80. 1934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Wiese, A. F., and Army, T. J. Effect of tillage and chemical weed control practices on soil moisture storage and losses. Agron. Jour. 50:465–468. 1958.Google Scholar