Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T20:36:26.341Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The quantitative relationship between weed emergence and the physical properties of mulches

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

John R. Teasdale  and
Charles L. Mohler
Charles L. Mohler
Affiliation:
Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Corson Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Mulches on the soil surface are known to suppress weed emergence, but the quantitative relationships between emergence and mulch properties have not been clearly defined. A theoretical framework for describing the relationships among mulch mass, area index, height, cover, light extinction, and weed emergence is introduced. This theory is applied to data from experiments on emergence of four annual weed species through mulches of selected materials applied at six rates. Mulch materials, in order from lowest to highest surface-area-to-mass ratio, were bark chips, Zea mays stalks, Secale cereale, Trifolium incarnatum, Vicia villosa, Quercus leaves, and landscape fabric strips. The order of weed species' sensitivity to mulches was Amaranthus retroflexus > Chenopodium album > Setaria faberi > Abutilon theophrasti, regardless of mulch material. The success of emergence through mulches was related to the capacity of seedlings to grow around obstructing mulch elements under limiting light conditions. Mulch area index was a pivotal property for quantitatively defining mulch properties and understanding weed emergence through mulches. A two-parameter model of emergence as a function of mulch area index and fraction of mulch volume that was solid reasonably predicted emergence across the range of mulches investigated.

Keywords

Abutilon theophrasti Medicus ABUTH, velvetleafAmaranthus retroflexus L. AMARE, redroot pigweedChenopodium album L. CHEAL, common lambsquartersSetaria faberi Herrm. SETFA, giant foxtailQuercus alba L., white oakQuercus montana Willd., chestnut oakSecale cereale L., ryeTrifolium incarnatum L., crimson cloverVicia villosa Roth, hairy vetchZea mays L., cornResiduelittercover croplight extinctionseedlingABUTHAMARECHEALSEFTA
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 48 , Issue 3 , June 2000 , pp. 385 - 392
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

Alm, D. M., Stoller, E. W., and Wax, L. M. 1993. An index model for predicting seed germination and emergence rates. Weed Technol. 7:560–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blum, U., King, L. D., Gerig, T. M., Lehman, M. E., and Worsham, A. D. 1997. Effects of clover and small grain cover crops and tillage techniques on seedling emergence of some dicotyledonous weed species. Amer. J. Alternative Agric. 12:146–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bosy, J. L. and Reader, R. J. 1995. Mechanisms underlying the suppression of forb seedling emergence by grass litter. Functional Ecol. 9:635–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buhler, D. D., Mester, T. C., and Kohler, K. A. 1996. The effect of maize residues and tillage on emergence of Setaria faberi, Abutilon theophrasti, Amarathus retroflexus and Chenopodium album . Weed Res. 36:153–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Facelli, J. M. and Pickett, S.T.A. 1991a. Plant litter: Its dynamics and effects on plant community structure. Bot. Rev. 57:1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Facelli, J. M. and Pickett, S.T.A. 1991b. Plant litter: Light interception and effects on an old-field plant community. Ecol. 72:1024–1031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forcella, F. 1998. Real-time assessment of seed dormancy and seedling growth for weed management. Seed Sci. Res. 8:201–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallagher, R. S. and Cardina, J. 1998. Phytochrome-mediated Amaranthus germination II: development of very low fluence sensitivity. Weed Sci. 46:53–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregory, J. M. 1982. Soil cover prediction with various amounts and types of crop residue. Trans. Amer. Soc. Agric. Eng. 1333–1337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatfield, J. L. 1998. Application of micrometeorology to weed biology and modeling. Pages 271–292 In Hatfield, J. L., Buhler, D. D., and Stewart, B. A., eds. Integrated Weed and Soil Management. Chelsea, MI: Ann Arbor Press.Google Scholar
Lybecker, D. W., Schweizer, E. E., and King, R. P. 1991. Weed management decisions in corn based on bioeconomic modeling. Weed Sci. 39:124–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohler, C. L. 1993. A model of the effects of tillage on emergence of weed seedlings. Ecol. Applic. 3:53–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohler, C. L. and Teasdale, J. R. 1993. Response of weed emergence to rate of Vicia villosa Roth and Secale cereale L. residue. Weed Res. 33:487–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swinton, S. M. and King, R. P. 1994. A bioeconomic model for weed management in corn and soybean. Agric. Syst. 44:313–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teasdale, J. R. 1998. Cover crops, smother plants, and weed management. Pages 247–270 In Hatfield, J. L., Buhler, D. D., and Stewart, B. A., eds. Integrated Weed and Soil Management. Chelsea, MI: Ann Arbor Press.Google Scholar
Teasdale, J. R. and Mohler, C. L. 1993. Light transmittance, soil temperature, and soil moisture under residue of hairy vetch and rye. Agron. J. 85:673–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vidal, R. A. and Bauman, T. T. 1996. Surface wheat residues, giant foxtail and soybean yield. Weed Sci. 44:939–943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner-Riddle, C., Gillespie, T. J., and Swanton, C. J. 1996. Rye mulch characterization for the purpose of microclimate modelling. Agric. Forest Meteorol. 78:67–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, R. H., Worsham, A. D., and Blum, U. 1989. Allelopathic potential of legume debris and aqueous extracts. Weed Sci. 37:674–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, M. M. II, Mortensen, D. A., and Doran, J. W. 1998. Assessment of weed and crop fitness in cover crop residues for integrated weed management. Weed Sci. 46:595–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar