Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-sh8wx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-21T23:55:25.010Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

To each their own: case studies of four successful, small-scale organic vegetable farmers with distinct weed management strategies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2017

Bryan Brown  and
Eric R. Gallandt
Bryan Brown*
Affiliation:
New York State Integrated Pest Management, 630 W. North St. Geneva, NY 14456, USA School of Food and Agriculture, University of Maine, Orono, ME 04469, USA
Eric R. Gallandt
Affiliation:
School of Food and Agriculture, University of Maine, Orono, ME 04469, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Bryan Brown, E-mail: bryan.brown@cornell.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Organic vegetable farmers execute weed management using many overall philosophies, including focusing management during the early-season critical period, managing the weed seedbank with a ‘zero seed rain’ strategy, or physically suppressing weeds with plastic or natural mulches. While these strategies vary in their ecological and economic implications, farmers’ reasons for adopting specific weed management approaches, and the related practical implications of each approach remain unclear. To better understand farmer motivations and ecological impacts of broad weed management philosophies, we conducted case studies of four successful organic vegetable farmers with specialization in different management approaches. The farmers were interviewed about their experiences and soil samples were collected for weed community and soil organic matter (SOM) analysis. The farmer who controls weed seedlings primarily during the critical period has appreciated the associated weeding labor savings, but late-season weeds have contributed to a large weed seedbank (38,482 seeds m−2), which is necessitating a change in his management. Conversely, the zero seed rain strategy of another farmer required a large amount of labor in the initial years, but weeding labor requirements have lessened every year due to decreased weed emergence from his diminishing weed seedbank (3065 seeds m−2). Another farmer utilizes plastic mulch in many crops in order to reduce weeding labor during the busy spring planting season. Finally, the farmer that uses natural mulches has high labor costs, but they are offset by the benefits of weed suppression, soil moisture conservation and increases to SOM. The two farmers utilizing mulch had the greatest portion of monocotyledonous weeds, perhaps relating to their morphology allowing them to emerge through the mulch. In ranking management criteria based on their importance, the case study farmers generally valued the criteria that are benefited by their strategy, indicating a strong relationship between their priorities and their management. Overall, there was no ‘best’ weed management strategy, but farmers may benefit from the consideration of how their management priorities match the practical tradeoffs of each strategy.

Keywords

Critical periodzero seed rainmulchorganic farmingvegetable
Type
Preliminary Report
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 34 , Issue 5 , October 2019 , pp. 373 - 379
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

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

Baker, BP and Mohler, CL (2014) Weed management by upstate New York organic farmers: strategies, techniques and research priorities. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 30, 1–10.Google Scholar
Bernard, HR (2011) Research Methods in Anthropology—Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, 5th edn., Oxford, UK: AltaMira Press.Google Scholar
Bowman, G (2002) Steel in the Field: A Farmer's Guide to Weed Management Tools. Beltsville, MD: Sustainable Agriculture Network.Google Scholar
Brown, B and Gallandt, E (2017) A systems comparison of contrasting organic weed management strategies. Weed Science 1–12. doi: 10.1017/wsc.2017.34.Google Scholar
Cirujeda, A and Taberner, A (2004) Defining optimal conditions for weed harrowing in winter cereals on Papaver rhoeas L. and other dicotyledonous weeds. In 6th EWRS Workshop on Physical and Cultural Weed Control. Lilliehammer, Norway.Google Scholar
DeDecker, JJ, Masiunas, JB, Davis, AS and Flint, CG (2014) Weed management practice selection among Midwest U.S. organic growers. Weed Science 62, 520–531.Google Scholar
Evans, GJ, Bellinder, RR and Hahn, RR (2012) An evaluation of two novel cultivation tools. Weed Technology 26, 316–325.Google Scholar
Gallandt, ER (2014) Weed management in organic farming. In Chauhan, BS and Mahajan, G (eds). Recent Advances in Weed Management. New York: Springer, pp. 63–85.Google Scholar
Gallandt, ER, Liebman, M, Corson, S, Porter, GA and Ullrich, SD (1998) Effects of pest and soil management systems on weed dynamics in potato. Weed Science 46, 238–248.Google Scholar
Grubinger, V (2005) Managing nitrogen on organic farms. The University of Vermont Extension. Available at https://www.uvm.edu/vtvegandberry/factsheets/managingNorganic.html (Verified 3 October 2016).Google Scholar
Holm, RE (1972) Volatile metabolites controlling weed germination in soil. Plant Physiology 50, 293–297.Google Scholar
Jabbour, R, Gallandt, ER, Zwickle, S, Wilson, RS and Doohan, D (2014 a) Organic farmer knowledge and perceptions are associated with on-farm weed seedbank densities in northern New England. Weed Science 62, 338–349.Google Scholar
Jabbour, R, Zwickle, S, Gallandt, ER, McPhee, KE, Wilson, RS and Doohan, D (2014 b) Mental models of organic weed management: comparison of New England US farmer and expert models. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 29, 319–333.Google Scholar
Kaya, C, Higgs, D and Kirnak, H (2005) Influence of polyethylene mulch, irrigation regime, and potassium rates on field cucumber yield and related traits. Journal of Plant Nutrition 28, 1739–1753.Google Scholar
Knezevic, SZ, Evans, SP, Blankenship, EE, Van Acker, RC and Lindquist, JL (2002) Critical period for weed control: the concept and data analysis. Weed Science 50, 773–786.Google Scholar
Kopittke, PM and Menzies, NW (2007) A review of the use of the basic cation saturation ratio and the ‘ideal’ soil. Soil Science Society of America Journal 71, 259–265.Google Scholar
Lament, WJ (1993) Plastic mulches for the production of vegetable crops. HortTechnology 3, 35–39.Google Scholar
Marshall, EJ, Brown, VK, Boatman, ND, Lutman, PJW, Squire, GR and Ward, LK (2003) The role of weeds in supporting biological diversity within crop fields. Weed Research 43, 77–89.Google Scholar
Mirsky, SB, Gallandt, ER, Mortensen, DA, Curran, WS and Shumway, DL (2010) Reducing the germinable weed seedbank with soil disturbance and cover crops. Weed Research 50, 324–352.Google Scholar
Miyanishi, K and Cavers, PB (1980) The biology of Canadian weeds. 40. Portulaca oleracea L. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 60, 953–963.Google Scholar
Mohler, CL (1993) A model of the effects of tillage on emergence of weed seedlings. Ecological Applications 3, 53–73.Google Scholar
Nieto, HJ, Brondo, MA and Gonzales, JT (1968) Critical periods of the crop growth cycle for competition from weeds. PANS (C) 14, 159–166.Google Scholar
Nordell, A and Nordell, E (2009) Weed the soil, not the crop. Acres USA 40, 21–28.Google Scholar
Norris, R (1999) Ecological implications of using thresholds for weed management. Journal of Crop Production 2, 31–58.Google Scholar
Petit, S, Boursault, A, Guilloux, ML, Munier-Jolain, N and Reboud, X (2010) Weeds in agricultural landscapes. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 31, 309–317.Google Scholar
Proctor, CA, Gaussoin, RE and Reicher, ZJ (2011) Vegetative reproduction potential of common purslane (Portulaca oleracea). Weed Technology 26, 694–697.Google Scholar
Riemens, MM, Groeneveld, RMW, Lotz, LAP and Kropff, MJ (2007) Effects of three management strategies on the seedbank, emergence and the need for hand weeding in an organic arable cropping system. Weed Research 47, 442–451.Google Scholar
Riemens, MM, Groaneveld, RMW, Kropff, M, Lotz, LAP, Renes, R, Sukkel, W and van der Weide, RY (2010) Linking farmer weed management behavior with weed pressure: more than just technology. Weed Science 58, 490–496.Google Scholar
Rogers, EM (1988) Social Change in Rural Societies: An Introduction to Rural Sociology, 3rd edn., Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Ryan, MR, Smith, RG, Mirsky, SB, Mortensen, DA and Seidel, R (2010) Management filters and species traits: weed community assembly in long-term organic and conventional systems. Weed Science 58, 265–277.Google Scholar
Saaty, TL (1982) Decision Making for Leaders: The Analytical Hierarchy Process for Decisions in A Complex World. Belmont, CA: Lifetime Learning Publications.Google Scholar
Slovic, P (1987) Perception of risk. Science 236, 280–285.Google Scholar
Stoller, EW and Wax, LM (1973) Periodicity of germination and emergence of some annual weeds. Weed Science 21, 574–580.Google Scholar
Terpstra, R and Kouwenhoven, J (1981) Inter-row and intra-row weed control with a hoe-ridger. Journal of Agricultural Engineering 26, 127–134.Google Scholar
Tilman, EA, Tilman, D, Crawley, MJ, Johnston, AE (1999) Biological weed control via nutrient competition: potassium limitation of dandelions. Ecological Applications 9, 103–111.Google Scholar
Vavrina, CS and Roka, FM (2000) Comparison of plastic mulch and bare-ground production economics for short-day onions in a semitropical environment. HortTechnology 10, 326–330.Google Scholar
Wilson, RS, Hooker, N, Tucker, M, LeJeune, J and Doohan, D (2009) Targeting the farmer decision making process: a pathway to increased adoption of integrated weed management. Crop Protection 28, 756–764.Google Scholar
Zhang, TQ, Tan, CS and Warner, J (2007) Fresh market sweet corn production with clear and wavelength selective soil mulch films. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 87, 559–564.Google Scholar
Zwickle, S (2011) Weeds and organic weed management: investigating farmer decisions with a mental models approach. M.S. thesis. Ohio State University, Columbus, OH. 171 p.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Brown and Gallandt supplementary material

Brown and Gallandt supplementary material 1

Download Brown and Gallandt supplementary material(File)
File 2.8 MB