Biomass shifts and suppresses weed populations under CA. Michael Mulvaney
1. Biomass shifts and suppresses
weed populations under
conservation agriculture
Michael J. Mulvaney, Virginia Tech, USA
C. Wes Wood, Auburn University, USA
Andrew J. Price, USDA ARS National Soil Dynamics Lab, USA
SANREM CRSP is made possible by the United States Agency for International Development and the generous support
of the American people through USAID Cooperative Agreement No. EPP-A-00-04-00013-00.
5. Hypothesis
• Combine cover crops and mulches
• Improve soil quality on productive field
• Effects on:
– Weeds, soil C, yields
6. Objective
Quantify weed suppression of a summer cover
crop and organic mulches under no-till collard
(Brassica oleracea L.) production during
conversion to CA:
• Weed populations
• SOC
• Collard yield
20. Conclusions
• Forage soybean does not effectively suppress
weeds
• Broadleaf and sedge control
– suppressed under high biomass CA after 1st yr
• Grass control
– variable, increases in 2nd yr
• Population shifts from broadleaves and sedges
toward grasses
• Conversion from fallow to CA increased SOC
• Yield not affected by mulching or forage
soybean
This effect was most apparent on broadleaf control (Figure 1). Mulching the first year was effective for suppression of broadleaf weeds. Suppression of broadleaf weeds during the first year appears to lessen broadleaf infestation during subsequent years, although mulching during 2007-8 did not have the same level of suppression compared to the non-mulched control. Since conservation tillage tends to shift weed populations away from broadleaves (Teasdale et al., 1991; El Titi, 2003), it is not surprising that broadleaf control can be enhanced with mulch application.
This effect was most apparent on broadleaf control (Figure 1). Mulching the first year was effective for suppression of broadleaf weeds. Suppression of broadleaf weeds during the first year appears to lessen broadleaf infestation during subsequent years, although mulching during 2007-8 did not have the same level of suppression compared to the non-mulched control. Since conservation tillage tends to shift weed populations away from broadleaves (Teasdale et al., 1991; El Titi, 2003), it is not surprising that broadleaf control can be enhanced with mulch application.
The population shift toward grasses under conservation tillage makes grass control more difficult (El Titi, 2003). During the first year of no-till, grass control was not effective using any of the mulches (Figure 2), but subsequent years showed much better grass suppression using mulches compared to the non-mulched control. Grass infestation was maintained below 10% by the application of any mulching material in 2007 (compared to 17% for the non-mulched control), and below 6% in 2008. The data show that mulching suppresses monocot weed populations in no-till systems if used for more than one year compared to the control, and may suggest that >2 years of no-till with high-biomass producing cover crops may be effective at reducing grassy weeds, although more data are needed to support this claim. In any case, the data show that grass populations under no-till are highly variable, with populations increasing dramatically during the second year of conversion from conventional tillage, but decreasing in the third year. Mowing grasses before seed heads become viable may reduce the grass populations to manageable levels during transition to conservation tillage.
During the first year of transition from conventional to conservation tillage, yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus L.) control was highly problematic, with total coverage ranging from 7-21% (Figure 3). However, subsequent years of high residue no-till improved sedge suppression, generally below 5% coverage, although there was not much difference between any of the mulching treatments and the control. It is interesting to note that sedge coverage was subject to a significant cover crop by mulch interaction (Table 1), resulting from increased sedge suppression by mimosa prunings after a forage soybean summer cover crop in 2006 and increased sedge suppression achieved in control plots when combined with forage soybean in 2007 and 2008 (Figure 3). Although it is unclear why this should be the case, it is apparent that sedge suppression is improved during subsequent years of high-biomass producing cover crops in combination with no-till, with or without the application of mulches. Yellow nutsedge was the only perennial weed species present after three years (Fig. 4).
Spatial distribution of weeds: tends to be in-row, where row cleaners were used prior to transplant. Shows that no-till is effective for weed suppression. Will be interesting to see how manure injection will affect weed populations in the SESARE project.
SOC did not differ by summer cover crops trts nor mulching trts, but was diff’t by depth.All trt’s, incl. control, significantly improved SOC in the 0-5 cm depth after 3 yrs. Any mulching trt tended to increase SOC compared to a no-mulch control in the 0-5 cm fraction.Mimosa and Lespedeza were significantly higher than the control at 0-5 cm.Only mimosa is significantly diff’t than initial C in the 5-10 cm depth.The results imply that conversion to no-till with the utilization high biomass winter cover crops had a greater impact on the improvement of SOC than did the inclusion of organic mulchesAssuming 58% of SOM is C, 2% SOC translates to almost 3.5% SOM! Not bad for an agriculturally productive soil in AL, where most soils are about 1%. (0.7% SOC is about 1.2% SOM, initial values.)
SOC did not differ by summer cover crops trts nor mulching trts, but was diff’t by depth.All trt’s, incl. control, significantly improved SOC in the 0-5 cm depth after 3 yrs. Any mulching trt tended to increase SOC compared to a no-mulch control in the 0-5 cm fraction.Mimosa and Lespedeza were significantly higher than the control at 0-5 cm.Only mimosa is significantly diff’t than initial C in the 5-10 cm depth.The results imply that conversion to no-till with the utilization high biomass winter cover crops had a greater impact on the improvement of SOC than did the inclusion of organic mulches