Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Article contents

A sustainable agriculture project at Chesapeake Farms: a six-year summary of weed management aspects, yield, and economic return

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

D. Raymond Forney
Affiliation:
DuPont Crop Protection, Wilmington, DE 19801
Mark Conner
Affiliation:
DuPont Crop Protection, Chestertown, MD 21620
Sujatha Sankula
Affiliation:
National Center for Food and Agricultural Research Policy, Washington, D.C. 20036
Barbara A. Scott
Affiliation:
Department of Plant and Soil Science, University of Delaware, Georgetown, DE 19947
Corresponding
E-mail address:

Abstract

A 6-yr project comparing four cash grain–farming systems relevant to the mid-Atlantic region of the United States was conducted from 1993 to 1999. A wide range of parameters was sampled including soil health, nutrient and agrichemical movement, economic viability, and insect and weed communities. The systems and their approaches to weed management were: continuous no-till corn without (System A1) or with (System A2) rye cover crop and preplanned herbicides based on expected weed infestations; System B was a 2-yr corn–soybean rotation with conventionally tilled corn and no-tillage soybean, with preplanned herbicides based on expected weed infestations; System C was a 2-yr rotation with no-till corn, conventionally tilled wheat, and no-till double-cropped soybean, using postemergence (POST) herbicides on the basis of field scouting; and System D was a 3-yr rotation of corn-soybean-winter wheat with rye and hairy vetch cover crops, using cultivation and reduced rates of POST herbicides based on field scouting. Spring weed assessment in 1999 was similar for species evenness (Shannon's E) and diversity (Shannon's H′) indices. Weed density was lowest in System C because wheat in this system received a spring herbicide application. In the final fall assessment, Shannon's H′ was greater in System D than System C. Common lambsquarters, eastern black nightshade, and jimsonweed were more abundant in System D than Systems A1, A2, and C. Fall 1999 assessment also indicated Canada thistle was more prevalent in Systems A1 and A2 than the other three systems. During the 6-yr period, densities of jimsonweed, eastern black nightshade, morningglory species, crabgrass, and fall panicum dramatically increased in a particular system for 1 to 2 yr, then declined to levels similar to other systems. Overall, weed communities were quite stable and effective weed management did not result in dramatic changes in the weed community, regardless of the approach to cropping systems or weed management.

Type
Symposium
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.

References

Anderson, R. L., Tanaka, D. L., Black, A. L., and Schweizer, E. E. 1998. Weed community and species response to crop rotation, tillage, and nitrogen fertility. Weed Technol 12:531536.Google Scholar
Andersson, T. N. and Milberg, P. 1998. Weed flora and the relative importance of site, crop, crop rotation, and nitrogen. Weed Sci 46:3038.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1999. Pest management recommendations for field crops. University of Maryland Cooperative Extension Bull. 237.Google Scholar
Ball, D. A. 1992. Weed seedbank response to tillage, herbicides, and crop rotation sequence. Weed Sci 40:654659.Google Scholar
Barberi, P., Cozzani, A., Macchia, M., and Bonari, E. 1998. Size and composition of the weed seedbank under different management systems for continuous maize cropping. Weed Res 38:319334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barberi, P. and Lo Cascio, B. 2001. Long-term tillage and crop rotation effects on weed seedbank size and composition. Weed Res 41:325340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barberi, P. and Mazzoncini, M. 2001. Changes in weed community composition as influenced by cover crop and management system in continuous corn. Weed Sci 49:491499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barberi, P., Silvestri, N., and Bonari, E. 1997. Weed communities of winter wheat as influenced by input level and rotation. Weed Res 37:301313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E., Larney, F. O., Lindwall, C. W., and Kozub, G. C. 1994. Crop rotation and tillage effects on weed populations on the semi-arid Canadian prairies. Weed Technol 8:231237.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E., Larney, F. O., Lindwall, C. W., Watson, P. R., and Derksen, D. A. 2001. Tillage intensity and crop rotation affect weed community dynamics in a winter wheat cropping system. Can. J. Plant Sci 81:805813.CrossRefGoogle 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
Buhler, D. D. and Mester, T. C. 1991. Effect of tillage systems on the emergence depth of giant (Setaria faberi) and green foxtail (Setaria viridis). Weed Sci 39:200203.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D. and Oplinger, E. S. 1990. Influence of tillage systems on annual weed densities and control in solid-seeded soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci 38:158165.Google Scholar
Cardina, J., Regnier, E., and Harrison, K. 1991. Long-term tillage effects on seed banks in three Ohio soils. Weed Sci 39:186194.Google Scholar
Coffman, C. B. and Frank, J. R. 1991. Weed-crop responses to weed management systems in conservation tillage corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol 5:7681.Google Scholar
Dale, M. R. T., Thomas, A. G., and John, E. A. 1992. Environmental factors including management practices as correlates of weed community composition in spring seeded crops. Can. J. Bot 70:19311939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derksen, D. A. 1996. Weed community ecology: tedious sampling or relevant science? A Canadian perspective. Phytoprotection 77:2939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derksen, D. A., Lafond, G. P., Thomas, A. G., Loeppky, H. A., and Swanton, C. J. 1993. Impact of agronomic practices on weed communities: tillage systems. Weed Sci 41:409417.Google Scholar
Derksen, D. A., Thomas, A. G., Lafond, G. P., Loeppky, H. A., and Swanton, C. J. 1994. Impact of agronomic practices on weed communities: fallow within tillage systems. Weed Sci 42:184194.Google Scholar
Derksen, D. A., Thomas, A. G., Lafond, G. P., Loeppky, H. A., and Swanton, C. J. 1995. Impact of post-emergence herbicides on weed community diversity within conservation-tillage systems. Weed Res 35:311320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donald, W. W. 1990. Management and control of Canada thistle, Cirsium arvense . Rev. Weed Sci 5:193249.Google Scholar
Drinkwater, L. E. 2002. Cropping systems research: reconsidering agricultural experimental approaches. HortTech 12:355361.Google Scholar
Forcella, F. and Lindstrom, M. J. 1988. Weed seed populations in ridge and conventional tillage. Weed Sci 36:500502.Google Scholar
Forney, D. R., Strahan, J., Rankin, C., Steffin, D., Peter, C. J., Spittler, T. D., and Baker, J. L. 2000. Monitoring pesticide runoff and leaching from four farming systems on field scale coastal plain watersheds in Maryland. Pages 2045 in Steinheimer, T. R., Ross, L. J., and Spittler, T. D. eds. Agrochemical Fate and Movement: Perspectives and Scale of Study. ACS Symposium Series 751. Washington, D.C.: American Chemical Society.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartzler, R. G. and Roth, G. W. 1993. Effect of prior year's weed control on herbicide effectiveness in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol 7:611614.Google Scholar
Johnson, D. M. and West, M. B. 1993. Custom work charges and land-rental rates in Maryland. University of Maryland Cooperative Extension Service Fact Sheet 683. [Updated 1996 and 2000.].Google Scholar
Kapusta, G. and Krausz, R. F. 1993. Weed control and yield are equal in conventional, reduced-, and no-tillage soybean (Glycine max) after 11 yrs. Weed Technol 7:443451.Google Scholar
Magurran, A. E. 1988. Ecological Diversity and Its Measurements. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 179 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manley, B. S., Wilson, H. P., and Hines, T. E. 2001. Weed management and crop rotations influence populations of several broadleaf weeds. Weed Sci 49:106122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGrath, J. M. and Sims, J. T. 1999. Long-term cropping system effects on soil phosphorus in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Agronomy abstracts. Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy. P. 341.Google Scholar
McGrath, J. M., Sims, J. T., Gburek, W. J., and Lariccia, V. 2001. Long-term, field-scale comparison of phosphorus losses in runoff from four cropping systems. Annual meeting abstracts. Madison, WI: ASA, CSSA, SSSA.Google Scholar
Menalled, F. D., Gross, K. L., and Hammond, M. 2001. Weed aboveground and seedbank community responses to agricultural management systems. Ecol. Appl 11:15861601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, S. D. 1990. Integrated weed management in conservation tillage systems. Pages 253262 in Proceedings of the Great Plains Conservation Tillage Symposium. Bismarck, ND: Great Plains Agricultural Council.Google Scholar
Mueller, J. P., Barbercheck, M. E., and Bell, M. et al. 2002. Development and implementation of a long-term agricultural systems study: challenges and opportunities. HortTech 12:362368.Google Scholar
Mulugeta, D. and Boerboom, C. M. 1999. Seasonal abundance and spatial pattern of Setaria faberi, Chenopodium album, and Abutilon theophrasti in reduced-tillage soybeans. Weed Sci 47:95106.Google Scholar
Mulugeta, D. and Stoltenberg, D. E. 1997. Weed and seedbank management with integrated methods as influenced by tillage. Weed Sci 45:706715.Google Scholar
Mulugeta, D., Stoltenberg, D. E., and Boerboom, C. M. 2001. Weed species-area relationships as influenced by tillage. Weed Sci 49:217223.CrossRefGoogle 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
Schweizer, E. E. and Zimdahl, R. L. 1984. Weed seed decline in irrigated soil after rotation of crops and herbicides. Weed Sci 32:8489.Google Scholar
Thomas, A. G. and Frick, B. L. 1993. Influence of tillage systems on weed abundance in southwestern Ontario. Weed Technol 7:699705.Google Scholar
Triplett, G. B. Jr. and Lytle, G. D. 1972. Control and ecology of weeds in continuous corn without tillage. Weed Sci 20:453457.Google Scholar
Witmer, J. E., Hough-Goldstein, J. A., and Pesek, J. D. 2003. Ground-dwelling and foliar arthropods in four cropping systems. Environ. Entomol 32:366376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zanin, G., Otto, S., Riello, L., and Borin, M. 1997. Ecological interpretation of weed flora dynamics under different tillage systems. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ 66:177188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 7 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 20th January 2017 - 26th January 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Hostname: page-component-898fc554b-pkmq7 Total loading time: 0.273 Render date: 2021-01-26T10:07:03.599Z Query parameters: { "hasAccess": "0", "openAccess": "0", "isLogged": "0", "lang": "en" } Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false }

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

A sustainable agriculture project at Chesapeake Farms: a six-year summary of weed management aspects, yield, and economic return
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

A sustainable agriculture project at Chesapeake Farms: a six-year summary of weed management aspects, yield, and economic return
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

A sustainable agriculture project at Chesapeake Farms: a six-year summary of weed management aspects, yield, and economic return
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *