Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xm8r8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-30T19:36:18.638Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

New roller crimper concepts for mechanical termination of cover crops in conservation agriculture

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 July 2009

T.S. Kornecki ,
A.J. Price ,
R.L. Raper  and
F.J. Arriaga
T.S. Kornecki*
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, National Soil Dynamics Laboratory, 411 South Donahue Drive, Auburn, AL, USA.
A.J. Price
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, National Soil Dynamics Laboratory, 411 South Donahue Drive, Auburn, AL, USA.
R.L. Raper
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, National Soil Dynamics Laboratory, 411 South Donahue Drive, Auburn, AL, USA.
F.J. Arriaga
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, National Soil Dynamics Laboratory, 411 South Donahue Drive, Auburn, AL, USA.
*
*Corresponding author: ted.kornecki@ars.usda.gov
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Rollers crimpers have been used in conservation agriculture to terminate cover crops; however, excessive vibration generated by the original straight-bar roller design has delayed adoption of this technology in the United States. To avoid excessive vibration, producers generally reduce operating speeds that increase the time needed to perform the field operation. The objectives of this research were to identify roller crimper designs that terminated rye cover crops consistently, resulted in soil moisture conservation after use, and minimized vibrations when operated in the field. Six different roller types were developed and tested at 3.2 and 6.4 km h−1 in Alabama field experiments during the 2006, 2007 and 2008 growing seasons. All roller types were used alone and one also in combination with glyphosate. Rye mortalities were evaluated 1, 2 and 3 weeks after rolling and compared with the check (non-rolled standing rye). Soil volumetric moisture content (VMC) was measured at the day of rolling, and then at 1, 2 and 3 weeks after rolling. Vibration was measured on the rollers' and tractor's frames during operation. Mortality for rolled rye 2 weeks after rolling was at least 98% compared with 96% for the check in 2006, 93% for rolling compared with 75% for the check in 2007, and 94% for rolling compared with 60% for the check in 2008 (P<0.10). There were no consistent differences in rye mortality across roller types (without glyphosate) and speeds. VMC for soil in non-rolled rye plots was consistently lower than in rolled rye plots, averaging 3% compared with 7% 2 weeks after rolling in 2006, and 4% compared with 8% in 2008. During 2007, VMC was affected by severe drought conditions, and differences between roller treatments were detected but minor. The straight-bar roller generated the highest vibration on the tractor's frame at 6.4 km h−1 (0.71 m s−2, RMS), which exceeded International Standards (International Standard Office (ISO)). At 6.4 km h−1, new roller designs generated significantly lower acceleration levels from 0.12 to 0.32 m s−2 on the tractor's frame and were below detrimental effects on health ‘health limits’ classified by ISO. Overall, 2 weeks after rolling, all roller designs effectively terminated rye above 90%, which is the recommended termination level of rye to plant a cash crop into residue mat, while protecting soil surface from water loss. New roller designs generate less vibration than the original design and can be used safely at higher operating speeds.

Keywords

cover cropsroller crimpermechanical killtermination rateconservation system
Type
Research Papers
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 24 , Issue 3 , September 2009 , pp. 165 - 173
Copyright
Copyright © 2009 Cambridge University Press

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

1Ashford, D.L. and Reeves, D.W. 2003. Use of a mechanical roller crimper as an alternative kill method for cover crop. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 18:37–45.Google Scholar
2Brady, N.C. and Weil, R.R. 1999. The Nature and Properties of Soils. 12th ed.Prentice-Hall, Inc. Upper Saddle River, NJ. p. 881.Google Scholar
3Derpsch, R., Roth, C.H., Sidiras, N., and Köpke, U. 1991. Controle da erosão no Paraná, Brazil: Sistemas de cobertura do solo, plantio directo e prepare conservacionista do solo. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH, Eschborn, SP 245, Germany.Google Scholar
4Raper, R.L., Simionescu, P.A., Kornecki, T.S., Price, A.J., and Reeves, D.W. 2004. Reducing vibration while maintaining efficacy of rollers to terminate cover crops. Cover crop rollers: a new component of conservation tillage systems. Applied Engineering in Agriculture 20:581–584.Google Scholar
5Creamer, N.G., Plassman, B., Bennett, M.A., Wood, R.K., Stinner, B.R., and Cardina, J. 1995. A method for mechanically killing cover crops to optimize weed suppression. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 10:157–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6Creamer, N.G. and Dabney, S.M. 2002. Killing cover crops mechanically: review of recent literature and assessment of new research results. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 17:32–40.Google Scholar
7Wilkins, E.D. and Bellinder, R.R. 1996. Mow-kill regulation of winter cereals for spring no-till crop production. Weed Technology 10:247–252.Google Scholar
8Zadoks, J.C., Chang, T.T., and Konzak, C.F. 1974. A decimal code for the growth stages of cereals. Weed Research 14:415–421.Google Scholar
9Kornecki, T.S., Price, A.J. and Raper, R.L. 2006. Performance of different roller designs in terminating rye cover crop and reducing vibration. Applied Engineering in Agriculture 22:633–641.Google Scholar
10Bovenzi, M. 1996. Low back pain disorders and exposure to whole body vibration in the workplace. Seminars in Perinatology 20:38–53.Google Scholar
11Muzammil, M., Siddiqui, S.S., and Hasan, F. 2004. Physiological effect of vibrations on tractor drivers under variable ploughing conditions. Journal of Occupational Health 46:403–409.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12Toren, A., Obreg, K., Lembke, B., Enlund, K., and Anderson, R.A. 2002. Tractor-driving hours and their relation to self-reported low-back pain and hip symptoms. Applied Ergonomics 33:139–146.Google Scholar
13ISO. 1997. International Standard No. 2631-1. Mechanical Vibration and Shock—Evaluation of Human Exposure to Whole-body Vibration. International Standard Office, Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
14Mabbott, N., Foster, G., and McPhee, B. 2001. Heavy Vehicle Seat Vibration and Driver Fatigue. Department of Transport and Regional Services/Australian Transport Safety Bureau Report No. CR 203. ARRB Transport Research Ltd, Canberra, ACT, Australia.Google Scholar
15Frans, R., Talbert, R., Marx, D., and Crowley, H. 1986. Experimental design and techniques for measuring and analyzing plant response to weed control practices. In Camper, N.D. (ed.), Research Methods in Weed Science. 3rd ed.Southern Weed Science Society, Champaign, IL. p. 37–38.Google Scholar
16Steel, R.G.D. and Torrie, J.H. 1980. Principles and Procedures of Statistics. A Biometrical Approach, 2nd ed.McGraw-Hill Publishing Co., New York.Google Scholar
17SAS. 2001. Proprietary Software Release 8.2. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar