Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T03:14:30.106Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Organic Amendment and Tillage Effects on Vegetable Field Weed Emergence and Seedbanks

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Steven A. Fennimore*
Affiliation:
Department of Vegetable Crops and Weed Science, University of California–Davis, Davis, CA 95616
Louise E. Jackson
Affiliation:
Department of Vegetable Crops and Weed Science, University of California–Davis, Davis, CA 95616
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: safennimore@ucdavis.edu

Abstract

Evaluations of the effects of minimum tillage vs. conventional tillage and the effects of organic amendments (cover crops and compost) vs. no organic amendments were conducted in a California vegetable field. Weed densities were monitored, and soil samples were taken to measure the effects of the treatments on weed seedbanks and microbial biomass over a 24-mo period. Reduced tillage increased the density of shepherd's-purse in the upper soil layer (0 to 15 cm) of the soil seedbank compared with conventional tillage. Evidence is presented that suggests relationships between organic amendments, weed population reductions, and increases in soil microbial biomass: (1) shepherd's-purse emergence and seedbank densities were lower in the organic amendment plots, (2) microbial biomass was nearly always higher in the organic amendment plots, and (3) significant negative correlations between microbial biomass and burning nettle and shepherd's-purse emergence densities were found. These results suggest that organic matter addition may lead to reduced weed emergence.

Type
Research
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

Ball, D. A. 1992. Weed seedbank response to tillage, herbicides and crop rotation sequence. Weed Sci. 40: 654659.Google Scholar
Ball, D. A. and Miller, S. D. 1989. A comparison of techniques for estimation of arable soil seedbanks and their relationship to weed flora. Weed Res. 29: 365373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Battista, M. 1998. Predicting Weeds in Time and Space from Seedbank and Seedling Measurements. . University of California, Davis, CA. pp. 3738.Google Scholar
Brookes, P. C., Landman, A., Pruden, G., and Jenkinson, D. S. 1985. Chloroform fumigation and the release of soil nitrogen: a rapid direct extraction method to measure microbial biomass nitrogen in soil. Soil Biol. Biochem. 27: 167172.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D. 1995. Influence of tillage systems on weed population dynamics and management in corn and soybean in the central USA. Crop Sci. 35: 12471258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardina, J., Regnier, E., and Harrison, K. 1991. Long-term effects on seed banks in three Ohio soils. Weed Sci. 39: 186194.Google Scholar
Coolman, R. M. and Hoyt, G. D. 1993. The effects of reduced tillage on the soil environment. HortTechnology 3: 143145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duke, S. O., Dayan, F. E., Romagni, J. G., and Rimando, A. M. 2000. Natural products as sources of herbicides: current status and future trends. Weed Res. 40: 99111.Google Scholar
Feast, P. M. and Roberts, H. A. 1973. Note on the estimation of viable weed seeds in soil samples. Weed Res. 13: 110113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fellows, G. M. and Roeth, R. W. 1992. Factors influencing shattercane (Sorghum bicolor) seed survival. Weed Sci. 40: 434440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fennimore, S. A. and Shem-Tov, S. 2002. Seasonal variations in the germinable fraction of soil seedbanks in California. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 42: 82.Google Scholar
Fennimore, S. A., Smith, R. F., and McGiffen, M. E. Jr. 2001. Weed management in fresh market spinach with S-metolachlor. Weed Technol. 15: 511516.Google Scholar
Fennimore, S. A. and Umeda, K. 2002. Evaluation of glyphosate-tolerant lettuce in Arizona and California. Proc. West. Soc. Weed Sci. 55: 50.Google Scholar
Gallandt, E. R., Liebman, M., Corson, S., Porter, G. A., and Urich, S. D. 1998. Effects of pest and soil management systems on weed dynamics in potato. Weed Sci. 46: 238248.Google Scholar
Gallandt, E. R., Liebman, M., and Huggins, D. R. 1999. Improving soil quality: implications for weed management. In Buhler, D. D., ed. Expanding the Context of Weed Management. Binghamton, NY: Food Products Press. pp. 95121.Google Scholar
Gaskill, M., Fouche, B., Koike, S., Lanini, T., Mitchell, J., and Smith, R. 2000. Organic vegetable production in California—science and practice. HortTechnology 10: 699713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haar, M. J., Fennimore, S. A., and Lambert, C. L. 2001. The value of pronamide and pendimethalin in weed management during artichoke stand establishment. HortScience 36: 650653.Google Scholar
Hartz, T. K., Mitchell, J. P., and Giannini, C. 2000. Nitrogen and carbon mineralization dynamics of manures and composts. HortScience 35: 209212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herrero, E. V., Mitchell, J. P., Lanini, W. T., Temple, S. R., Miyao, E. M., Morse, R. D., and Campiglia, E. 2001. Use of cover crop mulches in a no-till furrow irrigated processing tomato production system. HortTechnology 11: 4348.Google Scholar
Jackson, L. E., Ramirez, I., Yokota, R., Fennimore, S. A., Koike, S. T., Henderson, D. M., Chaney, W. E., and Klonsky, K. 2002. Soil quality in response to tillage and organic matter management. Calif. Agric. In press.Google Scholar
Jackson, L. E., Wyland, L. J., Klein, J. A., Smith, R. F., and Chaney, W. E. 1993. Winter cover crops can decrease soil nitrate leaching potential. Calif. Agric. 47/ 5: 1215.Google Scholar
Kennedy, A. C. 1999. Soil microorganisms for weed management. In Buhler, D. D., ed. Expanding the Context of Weed Management. Binghamton, NY: Food Products Press. pp. 123138.Google Scholar
Kremer, R. J. 1993. Management of weed seed banks with microorganisms. Ecol. Appl. 3: 4252.Google Scholar
Lewis, J. 1973. Longevity of crop and weed seeds: survival after 20 years in soil. Weed Res. 13: 179191.Google Scholar
Lonsdale, W. M. 1993. Losses from the seedbank of Mimosa pigra: soil micro-organims vs. temperature fluctuations. J. Appl. Ecol. 30: 654660.Google Scholar
Malone, C. R. 1967. A rapid method for enumeration of viable seeds in the soil. Weeds 15: 381382.Google Scholar
Ryder, E. J. 1999. Crop Production Science in Horticulture 9. Lettuce, Endive and Chicory. Wallingford, U.K.: CABI. pp. 7989.Google Scholar
Schmidt, S. K. and Ley, R. E. 1999. Microbial competition and soil structure limit the expression of allelochemicals in nature. In Inderjit, , Dakshini, K.M.M., and Foy, C. L., eds. Principles and Practices in Plant Ecology: Allelochemical Interactions. New York: CRC. pp. 339351.Google Scholar
Schreiber, M. M. 1992. Influence of tillage, crop rotation, and weed management on giant foxtail (Setaria faberi) population dynamics and corn yield. Weed Sci. 40: 645653.Google Scholar
Shem-Tov, S. and Fennimore, S. A. 2002. Seasonal variations in the weed emergence densities and diversity in California vegetable fields. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 42: 82.Google Scholar
Shem-Tov, S., Zaady, E., and Gutterman, Y. 2002. Germination of Carrichtera annua (Brassicacae) seeds on soil samples collected along a rainfall gradient in the Negev Desert of Israel. Isr. J. Plant Sci. 50: 115120.Google Scholar
Steele, R. G. D. and Torrie, J. H. 1980. Principles and Procedures of Statistics, a Biometrical Approach. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. 235 p.Google Scholar
Vance, E. D., Brookes, P. C., and Jenkinson, D. S. 1987. An extraction method for determining soil microbial biomass C. Soil Biol. Biochem. 29: 703707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wyland, L. J., Jackson, L. E., Chaney, W. E., Klonsky, K., Koike, S. T., and Kjmple, B. 1996. Winter cover crops in a vegetable cropping system: impacts on nitrate leaching, soil water, crop yield, pests and management costs. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 59: 117.Google Scholar