Cover crops and conservation soil tillage are reconsidered in cropping systems for their several agronomical and ecosystem services. In this frame, an important role is played by cover crop termination and seedbed preparation, which are crucial for a timely and successful establishment of the following cash crop. This work was aimed at testing a disc chain harrow for terminating a cover crop of hairy vetch and preparing a seedbed for soybean and defining its operational characteristics. A total of three trials were carried out to (1) compare two types of discs in two different front + rear combinations and two different working speeds (8 vs. 14 km h−1) in terms of efficacy of hairy vetch termination; (2) evaluate the seedbed preparation by the disc chain in terms of soybean establishment as a following cash crop; (3) evaluate operational characteristics (working speed, fuel consumption, absorbed power, etc.) of the disc chain at the two different speeds. Results demonstrate that the disc chain is a valid tool for cover crop termination and seedbed preparation in a conservation tillage approach. The quality of work was affected by the type of disc and the working speed. The disc chain showed good operating performance, with low mechanical pulling force, low energy requirement for traction, and low fuel consumption as compared to alternative conservation practices for cover crop termination and/or shallow soil tillage.

While conservation practices promote soil health and reduce the negative environmental effects from agricultural production, their adoption rates are generally low. To facilitate farmer adoption, we carried out a survey to identify potential challenges faced by farmers regarding conservation tillage and cover crop adoption in the western margin of the US Corn Belt. We found farmers' top two concerns regarding conservation tillage were delayed planting, caused by slow soil warming in spring, and increased dependence on herbicide and fungicides. Narrow planting window and lack of time/labor were perceived by farmers as the two primary challenges for cover crop adoption. Some sense of place factors, including the commonly included dimensions of attachment, identity and dependence, played a role in farmers' perceived challenges. For example, respondents more economically dependent on farming perceived greater challenges. We found that farmers' challenge perceptions regarding reduced yield and lack of time/labor significantly decreased as years of usage increased, implying that time and experience could dilute some challenges faced by farmers. Our findings indicate that social network use, technical guidance and economic subsidies are likely to address the concerns of farmers and facilitate their adoption of conservation practices.

Glyphosate resistance is spreading in Spain and Portugal due to excessive herbicide use, in both annual and perennial crops. Compact brome (Bromus madritensis L.) is increasing in frequency in these different cropping systems when under conservation agriculture, particularly when glyphosate fails to control it. Fourteen populations from different areas in the Iberian Peninsula were confirmed as being B. madritensis using simple sequence repeat markers and clearly separated from the closely related species red brome (Bromus rubens L.) and ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus Roth). Six B. madritensis populations were classified as resistant, according to both their shikimic acid accumulation levels and their resistance factors based on LD50 or GR50 (values between 4 and 8). Populations with higher resistance factors also showed lower shikimic acid concentrations. Moreover, these resistant populations were able to survive the minimum registered dose for glyphosate in Spain in perennial crops (1,080 g ae ha−1, five populations) or in arable crops before seeding for annual weeds (540 g ae ha−1, one population), under both greenhouse and field conditions. The trials carried out in a glyphosate-resistant field during 2 consecutive years showed that acceptable control (≥90%) was only consistently achieved 90 d after application for preemergence treatment with flazasulfuron in a tank mix with glyphosate, while control with postemergence treatments, such as propaquizafop plus glyphosate, was below 80%. This research describes the first herbicide-resistance report for the weed species B. madritensis, confirming the presence of glyphosate-resistant populations mainly in perennial cropping systems but also in winter cereals from Spain. Due to the limited chemical tools to manage these populations, there is an urgent need for farmers to implement integrated weed management strategies.

Crop residue can intercept and adsorb residual herbicides, leading to reduced efficacy. However, adsorption can sometimes be reversed by rainfall or irrigation. Greenhouse experiments were conducted to evaluate the effect of differential overhead irrigation level on barnyardgrass response to acetochlor, pyroxasulfone, and pendimethalin applied to bare soil or wheat straw–covered soil. Acetochlor applied to wheat straw–covered soil resulted in 25% to 40% reduced control, 30 to 50 more plants 213 cm−2, and greater biomass than bare soil applications, regardless of irrigation amount. Barnyardgrass suppression by pyroxasulfone applications to wheat straw–covered soil improved with increased irrigation; however, weed control levels similar to bare soil applications were not observed after any irrigation amount. Barnyardgrass densities from pyroxasulfone applications to bare soil decreased with irrigation but did not change in applications to wheat straw–covered soil. Aboveground barnyardgrass biomass from pyroxasulfone decreased with greater irrigation amounts in both bare soil and wheat straw–covered soil applications; however, decreased efficacy in wheat straw–covered soil applications was not alleviated with irrigation. Pendimethalin was the only herbicide tested that displayed reduced efficacy when irrigation amounts increased in applications to both bare soil and wheat straw–covered soil. Barnyardgrass control from pendimethalin applied to wheat straw–covered soil was similar to bare soil applications when approximately 0.3 to 1.2 cm of irrigation was applied; however, irrigation amounts greater than 1.2 cm resulted in greater barnyardgrass control in bare soil applications. No differences between wheat straw–covered soil and bare soil applications of pendimethalin were observed for barnyardgrass densities. These data indicate that increased irrigation or rainfall level can increase efficacy of acetochlor and pyroxasulfone. Optimal rainfall or irrigation amounts required for efficacy similar to bare soil applications are herbicide specific, and some herbicides, such as pendimethalin, may be adversely affected by increased rainfall or irrigation.

Weeds are a major biotic constraint to the production of crops. Studies on the critical period of weed control (CPWC) consider the yield loss due to the presence of all weeds present in the crop cycle. The CPWC is the time interval between the critical timing of weed removal (CTWR) and the critical weed-free period (CWFP), and the weed presence before and after the extremes of CTWR and CWFP may not significantly reduce crop yield. The crop yield is taken into consideration and weed density or biomass of individual weeds (annual or perennial) is not so important while calculating the CPWC. Only weed density or biomass is considered for calculating weed control efficiency of a particular management practice for which the weed seed bank is also a criterion. However, weed biomass is the outcome after competition experienced by each weed species with the fellow crop and the weeds. Consequently, the weed pressure in the subsequent season will be the cumulative effect of the preceding season too, which is unaccounted for in CPWC. It is argued that in organic farming or low-input farming systems, where herbicides are not used, the concept of CPWC can be misleading and should be avoided. It is concluded that CTWR is more meaningful than the CPWC.

Conservation tillage adoption continues to be threatened by glyphosate and acetolactate synthase–resistant Palmer amaranth and other troublesome weeds. Field experiments were conducted from autumn 2010 through crop harvest in 2013 at two locations in Alabama to evaluate the effect of integrated management practices on weed control and seed cotton yield in glyphosate-resistant cotton. The effects of a cereal rye cover crop using high- or low-biomass residue, followed by wide or narrow within-row strip tillage and three PRE herbicide regimens were evaluated. The three PRE regimens were (1) pendimethalin at 0.84 kg ae ha−1 plus fomesafen at 0.28 kg ai ha−1 applied broadcast, (2) pendimethalin plus fomesafen applied banded on the row, or (3) no PRE. Each PRE treatment was followed by (fb) glyphosate (1.12 kg ae ha−1) applied POST fb layby applications of diuron (1.12 kg ai ha−1) plus monosodium methanearsonate (2.24 kg ai ha−1). Low-residue plots ranged in biomass from 85 to 464 kg ha−1, and high-biomass residue plots ranged from 3,119 to 6,929 kg ha−1. In most comparisons, surface disturbance width, residue amount, and soil-applied herbicide placement did not influence within-row weed control; however, broadcast PRE resulted in increased carpetweed, large crabgrass, Palmer amaranth, tall morning-glory, and yellow nutsedge weed control in row middles compared with plots receiving banded PRE. In addition, high-residue plots had increased carpetweed, common purslane, large crabgrass, Palmer amaranth, sicklepod, and tall morning-glory weed control between rows. Use of banded PRE herbicides resulted in equivalent yield and revenue in four of six comparisons compared with those with broadcast PRE herbicide application; however, this would likely result in many between-row weed escapes. Thus, conservation tillage cotton would benefit from broadcast soil-applied herbicide applications regardless of residue amount and tillage width when infested with Palmer amaranth and other troublesome weed species.

This study uses location-specific data to investigate the role of spatially mediated peer effects in farmers’ adoption of conservation agriculture practices. The literature has shown that farmers trust other farmers and one way to increase conservation practice adoption is through identifying feasible conservation practices in neighboring fields. Estimating this effect can help improve our understanding of what influences the adoption and could play a role in improving federal and local conservation program design. The study finds that although spatial peer effects are important in the adoption of conservation tillage and diverse crop rotation, the scale of peer effects are not substantial.

Tillage regimes can influence weed population dynamics and, consequently, the choice of appropriate weed management practices. Studies were conducted in 2016 and 2017 in a long-term (36-yr) grain sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench ssp. bicolor] experiment at Texas A&M University, College Station, to determine the impact of long-term no-till (NT) and conventional till (CT) systems on weed species dynamics. Higher densities of johnsongrass [Sorghum halepense (L.) Pers.], prostrate spurge [Chamaesyce humistrata (Engelm. ex A. Gray) Small], waterhemp [Amaranthus tuberculatus (Moq.) Sauer], and henbit (Lamium amplexicaule L.) were recorded in the NT system compared with the CT system. Further, the NT system showed greater weed diversity (Shannon-Wiener index, H = 0.8) and species richness (S = 6.2), compared with the CT system (H = 0.6, S = 4.2). Seedling emergence of some dominant weed species was also delayed in the NT system. In the CT system, 50% emergence of S. halepense (8.5 C base temperature) and waterhemp (10 C base temperature) occurred at 59 and 63 growing degree days (GDD), respectively, whereas 68 and 75 GDD, respectively, were required in the NT system. Further, a greater proportion (61%) of the viable seedbank was present at the top 5 cm of the soil in the NT system compared with the CT system (46%). Overall, findings from this 36-yr-long tillage experiment have revealed that the NT system had greater weed densities (especially of the perennial weed S. halepense) and a high proportion of weed seeds (particularly small-seeded annuals) on the topsoil layer, corroborating some earlier reports that were based on short-term investigations. Findings indicate that growers transitioning to NT systems should be mindful of potential shifts in weed species dominance and develop appropriate management tactics.

Six on-farm studies determined the effects of a rolled rye cover crop, herbicide program, and planting technique on cotton stand, weed control, and cotton yield in Georgia. Treatments included: (1) rye drilled broadcast with 19-cm row spacing and a broadcast-herbicide program (2) rye drilled with a 25-cm rye-free zone in the cotton row and a broadcast-herbicide program (3) rye drilled with a 25-cm rye-free zone in the cotton row with PPI and PRE herbicides banded in the cotton planting row, and (4) no cover crop (i.e., weedy cover) with broadcast herbicides. At two locations, cotton stand was lowest with rye drilled broadcast; at these sites the rye-free zone maximized stand equal to the no-cover system. At a third location, cover crop systems resulted in greater stand, due to enhanced soil moisture preservation compared with the no-cover system. Treatments did not influence cotton stand at the other three locations and did not differ in the control of weeds other than Palmer amaranth at any location. Treatments controlled Palmer amaranth equally at three locations; however, differences were observed at the three locations having the greatest glyphosate-resistant plant densities. For these locations, when broadcasting herbicides, Palmer amaranth populations were reduced 82% to 86% in the broadcast rye and rye-free zone systems compared with the no-cover system at harvest. The system with banded herbicides was nearly 21 times less effective than the similar system broadcasting herbicides. At these locations, yields in the rye broadcast and rye-free zone systems with broadcast herbicides were increased 9% to 16% compared with systems with no cover or a rye-free zone with PPI and PRE herbicides banded. A rolled rye cover crop can lessen weed emergence and selection pressure while improving weed control and cotton yield, but herbicides should be broadcast in fields heavily infested with glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth.

A 3-yr watermelon experiment was established in fall 2013 to evaluate cover crop, polyethylene mulch, tillage, and herbicide application components for weed control, yield, and profitability. Conservation tillage, either with a cereal rye cover crop alone or integrated with polyethylene mulch, was compared to the standard industry practice of conventional tillage with bedded polyethylene mulch. The study also used a non-bedded conventional tillage system without polyethylene to determine polyethylene and cover crop residue effects. Within each of the four systems, herbicide treatments comprised halosulfuron applied (1) at 26.3 g ai ha–1 PRE, (2) at 26.3 g ai ha–1 POST, or (3) sequentially at 26.3 g ai ha–1 PRE and POST. Each system also had a nontreated control. In addition, clethodim was applied in all plots twice POST at 140 g ai ha–1, except for nontreated in each system. In 2014, polyethylene or cereal rye cover crop effectively controlled tall morningglory, coffee senna, and carpetweed early season in nontreated plots, whereas the integration of the two was effective at controlling common purslane. Tall morningglory and purslane control was insufficient late season regardless of production system and herbicide application. In 2015, polyethylene effectively controlled cutleaf eveningprimrose, sicklepod, and arrowleaf sida early season in nontreated plots. Yellow nutsedge control was insufficient late season regardless of production system and herbicide application. Utilizing sequential halosulfuron applications did not increase weed control over PRE or POST alone in all years. Polyethylene use resulted in yields higher than systems without in all years. Across all 3 yr, net returns were highest for polyethylene mulch systems. The results of this experiment underscore the need for more progress in developing integrated conservation systems for watermelon production. Effective herbicides, low-disturbance cultivation, and/or hand weeding are most likely the key to success in conservation specialty crop systems.

Conventional agricultural practices can lead to soil erosion and a reduction in soil organic carbon (SOC) content. It has been suggested that less intensive agricultural practices, such as conservation tillage (including no-till and reduced till without soil inversion) may reduce both erosion and loss of SOC. The aim of this study was to determine whether, and why, conservation tillage is used in Scania, which is one of the most agro-intensive regions in Sweden. We also investigated how information on tillage practices is obtained, why one type of tillage may be favored over another, and whether some farmers are more likely to use conservation tillage. The result of this study will benefit policy makers and researchers by pinpointing factors that influence the use of conservation tillage. To collect data, a questionnaire was sent to farmers in Scania in 2016. We found that the majority of the responding farmers used conservation tillage, and that it was more likely to be used if the farmer was highly educated and spent more than 50% of their annual working time on crop production. The use of conservation tillage was also more common if the farm was large and clay soil dominated. Crop rotation was often highlighted as the most important factor influencing the choice of tillage practice, which may be due to crop species requirements. When asked to compare the consequences of reduced tillage and plowing, the perception of farmers using conservation tillage was in general more positive, indicating skepticism toward the practice of reduced tillage until it had been tried. We show that the use of conservation tillage, sometimes in combination with plowing, is widespread in Scania. However, unless changes in, for example, crop rotation and labor requirements occur, the use of conservation tillage will most likely remain the same as today, or only increase slightly in the near future. Farm enlargement may result in an increased conservation tillage use, and so may efforts to educate advisors, increased opportunities for peer-to-peer meetings, and the development of economically viable small farm solutions. Increased conservation tillage may be part of the solution for sustainable crop production, but drawbacks such as increased pesticide use must be addressed further, as well as factors such as crop rotation development and practical knowledge that influence conservation tillage use at the farm level.

Conservation tillage offers economic and soil quality benefits, yet conventional tillage remains the prevailing system in some regions. The purpose of this study is to identify the effect of profitability factors, risk attitudes, crop rotations, and other farmer and farm characteristics on farmers’ choices to use no-till (NT), strip-till (ST) and reduced/conventional tillage (RCT) in producing dryland corn, wheat, and soybean in Kansas. The results show that factors such as crop yields, risk aversion, crop insurance, baling and grazing of crop residue, crop acreage, and farmers’ approach to adopting new technologies are significant factors in farmers’ choice of tillage practice.

A common critique of organic farming is that it is very tillage intensive, and therefore deleterious to soil quality. However, little information is available on the tillage practices currently employed by organic farmers, as well as organic farmers’ attitudes toward reduced tillage (RT). To address these knowledge gaps, a detailed written survey of Michigan organic field crop and vegetable farmers was conducted to investigate their current tillage practices, as well as their perceptions of the barriers and benefits to adoption of RT. Respondents reported a wide range in tillage frequency and intensity, both across and within production of specific crops, with operations split evenly between field preparation and cultivation. Compared with field crop growers, vegetable growers were generally smaller scale and relied more heavily on a limited set of tillage (e.g., rototiller) and cultivation tools. Interest in adoption of RT practices among respondents was low to moderate with median Likert scale ratings (0–7 scale with 0 representing no interest and 7 extreme interest) of 4 or less for all forms of RT. Vegetable growers were most interested in permanent beds, rotational tillage and strip tillage, whereas field crop growers were most interested in rotational tillage and strip tillage. The greatest perceived benefits to adoption of RT were improved soil quality and fuel savings. Both groups ranked weeds, impacts on yields, residue management and crop establishment as high barriers to RT adoption. Vegetable growers also cited lack of scale appropriate equipment as a major barrier. Survey results suggest that future research efforts should focus on overcoming key barriers to adoption, such as weed management and access to low-cost adaptable RT equipment rather than reiterating relatively well-known soil quality benefits. Our results also suggest that promotion of incremental reductions in the frequency and intensity of tillage operations on organic farms may be more realistic and equally valuable compared with promotion of more extreme forms of RT such as no-till.

Adoption of conservation tillage practices has been slow in organic vegetable production, partially due to producers’ concerns regarding weed management. Integrating cover crops into a conservation tillage program may provide organic producers a viable weed management option enabling growers to practice conservation tillage. A four-year study was conducted to evaluate the influence of different tillage methods (two conventional and two conservation practices) jointly with a mixed winter cover crop for weed suppression, time required for hand weeding, and crop yield in organically managed eggplant (2012 and 2014) and sweet corn (2013 and 2015) production systems. Tillage treatments were conventional tillage without surface mulch (CT-BG) and with black polyethylene (plastic) mulch (CT-BP), strip-tillage (ST), and no-tillage (NT) with cover crop residue. At 2 and 7 WAT/P (weeks after transplanting/planting), intra-row weed density was higher in CT-BG and ST, and inter-row weed density was higher in CT-BG and CT-BP treatments. Time required for hand-weeding was greatest in CT-BG and least in CT-BP and NT treatments. Eggplant yield was lowest in NT treatment in 2012 but similar among treatments in 2014. Sweet corn yield was similar among treatments in 2013 but highest in ST in 2015. Though both CT-BP and NT treatments showed greater potential for weed suppression, production input was highest in CT-BP but least in NT. Implications of these findings suggest that there is a potential to use strip tillage integrating with stale seedbed tactic for weed management in organic vegetables, which reduces herbicide use, hand-labor, and overall weed management cost while maintaining high yield potential.

Field and laboratory studies were conducted to evaluate the efficacy of several herbicides applied after small-grain harvest on Russian thistle (Salsola iberica Sennen and Pau # SASKR) control and subsequent seed germination. Best postharvest control of Russian thistle was with chlorsulfuron {2-chloro-N-[[(4-methoxy-6-methyl-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl)amino] carbonyl] benzenesulfonamide} treatments, paraquat (1,1′-dimethyl-4,4′-bipyridinium ion), and bromoxynil (3,5-dibromo-4-hydroxybenzonitrile) plus metribuzin [4-amino-6-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-3-(methylthio)-1,2,4-triazin-5(4H)-one], where control ranged from 73 to 96%. During the summer-fallow year, chlorsulfuron and paraquat decreased Russian thistle population and biomass compared to the untreated control. Germination of large seeds from plants treated with paraquat and both rates of chlorsulfuron was reduced at least 64% compared to seeds of similar size from untreated plants.

A linear programming model was used to determine which crop rotations and weed management systems result in the highest net farm income for each of three farm sizes (120, 240, and 480 hectares) under alternative tillage systems. Test plot data for the years 1981 through 1988 from the Purdue University Agronomy Farm, which has highly productive, well-drained soils, were analyzed. Net incomes for no-till tillage systems on all farms in the model were consistently and significantly lower than incomes for moldboard and chisel plow tillage systems due to slightly lower yields and substantially higher herbicide costs. Generally, net farm incomes were slightly higher with a moldboard plow versus chisel plow tillage system. Also, as farm size increased, per hectare net incomes increased. About 80% of the time under moldboard or chisel plow tillage systems, the model chose as optimal the lowest of three herbicide application rates. A corn/soybean rotation was chosen as optimal on 56% of the farm area analyzed, versus 25% for continuous corn and 13% for a corn/soybean/wheat rotation.

Conservation tillage systems for cotton production were monitored for their influence on horseweed populations. Without fall tillage, horseweed became established and was present the following spring. Disking in the fall or spring controlled horseweed for the subsequent cotton crop.

In 1985, when weed densities were low (169 plants/m2 in untreated control), imazaquin applied at 0.07 kg ai/ha early preplant controlled over 90% of all weeds before no-till planting of soybeans. In 1986 and 1987 when weed densities were higher (589 plants/m2 in untreated control), addition of 1.1 kg ai/ha or more of metolachlor to imazaquin (0.07 kg/ha) before soybean planting controlled 95% or more of the grass weeds and 83% or more of the broadleaf weeds. Imazaquin plus metolachlor applied less than 1 day after soybean planting controlled less than 70% of the emerged weeds in 1986 and 1987; common lambsquarters was most tolerant. Early preplant treatments controlled more weeds throughout the growing season than treatments applied after planting. Splitting herbicide treatments among application times generally did not increase weed control compared to single applications. Early preplant applications resulted in higher soybean densities and taller soybeans 30 days after planting in 1986 and 1987 than treatments applied after planting. Soybean yields increased as weed control increased. Weed control and soybean yields were greater with early preplant treatments than paraquat plus alachlor plus metribuzin applied preemergence in 1986 and 1987. No carryover of imazaquin residue was detected through corn bioassay in the field.

Field research from 1986 to 1988 evaluated control of alfalfa, dandelion, orchardgrass, and annual weeds in corn with sequential herbicide treatments. Glyphosate applied the previous fall controlled 95% or more of the dandelion and orchardgrass before postemergence treatments. Atrazine applied early preplant or with paraquat the day before planting only partially controlled the perennial species. Atrazine applied postemergence usually controlled vegetation escaping initial treatment except orchardgrass following the atrazine treatments. Adding tridiphane increased weed control with atrazine or cyanazine applied postemergence only when fall panicum was present. Herbicides applied postemergence increased corn yield compared to the initial treatments alone, and few differences among postemergence treatments were observed. Sequential treatments which included glyphosate applied in the fall controlled 82% or more of each perennial species before the next growing season. Orchardgrass control was 81% or less the following spring when the initial treatment was atrazine or atrazine plus paraquat.

Planting row crops into a stale seedbed has gained popularity in recent years. This concept uses tillage either after harvest in the fall or early in the spring to smooth the seedbed and eliminate ruts and excess residue on the soil surface. Tillage is not used immediately before planting, thus conserving moisture, eliminating costly and time-consuming tillage trips at planting, and allowing more timely planting. While stale seedbed planting minimizes tillage to establish the crop, conservation is not the primary objective of this concept; rather, timely stand establishment following adverse weather conditions has been the driving force behind the popularity of stale seedbed programs. The stale seedbed approach has been used with success on a variety of soils in the southern U.S., but is best suited on the poorly-drained clay soils in the Mississippi River Delta. The system has been adapted for use in soybean, cotton, corn, and rice. A key component of a well-prepared stale seedbed is the absence of weeds at planting. Producers must keep in mind that weeds present and not controlled at planting have the potential to significantly impair stand establishment and crop yields. Although these weeds are often beginning to senesce by the time soybean planting occurs, they are still using soil moisture and shading newly emerging crop plants early in the season.