Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-7bb4899584-l6r8n Total loading time: 0.289 Render date: 2023-01-26T22:52:53.934Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true

Article contents

Brassica cover cropping: II. Effects on growth and interference of green bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) and redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Erin R. Haramoto
Affiliation:
Sustainable Agriculture Program, Department of Plant, Soil, and Environmental Sciences, University of Maine, Orono, ME 04469-5722

Abstract

Field studies have shown that weed density and biomass were lower in crops following incorporation of brassica cover crops compared with fallow but have not determined whether weed-suppressive effects are solely a consequence of reduced establishment, as evidenced in our companion paper, reduced growth of established plants, or both. In 2002 and 2003, canola and yellow mustard were seeded in early May, mowed in early July, and the residues incorporated. Green bean and redroot pigweed were then planted at fixed densities. Plant height and biomass were measured weekly; leaf area and biomass of component plant parts were measured at three harvests. Based on analysis of variance (ANOVA) at discreet sampling points, growth of redroot pigweed and green bean in monoculture or mixture were similar following fallow and incorporated brassica cover crops. However, based on aboveground biomass fitted to a Richards function, redroot pigweed growth in monoculture was reduced by the yellow mustard cover crop compared with fallow in both years (P = 0.007), but the magnitude of this effect was small; the canola cover crop did not affect growth (P = 0.179). Brassica cover crops did not reduce redroot pigweed growth when it was grown in mixture with green bean (P ≥ 0.382). Redroot pigweed competition reduced green bean yield, but incorporated brassica cover crops did not affect green bean growth and yield, nor did they confer a competitive advantage to the crop. Thus, brassica cover crops may suppress the growth of established weed and crop plants, but the magnitude of suppression was less than previously documented for effects on weed establishment.

Type
Weed Management
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

Al-Khatib, K., Libbey, C., and Boydston, R. 1997. Weed suppression with Brassica green manure crops in green pea. Weed Sci 45:439445.Google Scholar
Boydston, R. and Hang, A. 1995. Rapeseed (Brassica napus) green manure crop suppresses weeds in potato (Solanum tuberosum). Weed Technol 9:669675.Google Scholar
Brown, P. D. and Morra, M. J. 1996. Hydrolysis products of glucosinolates in Brassica napus tissues as inhibitors of seed germination. Plant Soil 181:307316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, P. D. and Morra, M. J. 1997. Control of soil-borne plant pests using glucosinolate-containing plants. Adv. Agron 61:167231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, A. P., Brown, J., and Davis, J. B. 1999. Developing high glucosinolate cultivars suitable for bio-fumigation from intergeneric hybrids. in Wratten, N. and Salisbury, P. A., eds. Proceedings of the 10th International Rapeseed Conference, Canberra, Australia. Gosford, New South Wales: The Regional Institute Ltd. (May 2005; www.regional.org.au/au/gcirc/).Google Scholar
Causton, D. R., Elias, C. O., and Hadley, P. 1978. Biometrical studies of plant growth, I: the Richards function, and its application in analyzing the effects of temperature on leaf growth. Plant Cell Environ 1:163184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fieldsend, J. and Milford, G. 1994. Changes in glucosinolates during crop development in single- and double-low genotypes of winter oilseed rape (Brassica napus), I: production and distribution in vegetative tissues and developing pods during development and potential role in the recycling of sulphur within the crop. Ann. Appl. Biol 124:531542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haramoto, E. R. and Gallandt, E. R. 2004. Brassica cover cropping for weed management: a review. Renew. Agric. Food Syst 19:187198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haramoto, E. R. and Gallandt, E. R. 2005. Brassica cover cropping: I. Effects on crop and weed establishment. Weed Sci 53:695701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harper, F. R. and Berkenkamp, B. 1975. Revised growth-stage key for Brassica campestris and B. napus . Can. J. Plant Sci 55:657658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krishnan, G., Holshouser, D. L., and Nissen, S. J. 1998. Weed control in soybean (Glycine max) with green manure crops. Weed Technol 12:97102.Google Scholar
Liebman, M. and Davis, A. S. 2000. Integration of soil, crop, and weed management in low-external-input farming systems. Weed Res 40:2747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindquist, J. L., Mortensen, D. A., Clay, S. A., Schmenk, R., Kells, J. J., Howatt, K., and Westra, P. 1996. Stability of coefficients in the corn yield loss—velvetleaf density relationship across the North Central U.S. Weed Sci 44:309313.Google Scholar
Miles, J. E., Kawabata, O., and Nishimoto, R. K. 2002. Modeling purple nutsedge sprouting under soil solarization. Weed Sci 50:6471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mithen, R. 2001. Glucosinolates and the degradation products. Pages 214262, in Callow, J. ed. Advances in Botanical Research, Vol. 35. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Mohler, C. L. 1996. Ecological basis for the cultural control of annual weeds. J. Prod. Agric 9:468474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mojtahedi, H., Santo, G., Wilson, J., and Hang, A. N. 1993. Managing Meloidogyne chitwoodi on potato with rapeseed as green manure. Plant Dis 77:4246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morra, M. J. and Kirkegaard, J. A. 2002. Isothiocyanate release from soil-incorporated Brassica tissues. Soil Biol. Biochem 34:16831690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Motulsky, H. J. and Christopoulos, A. 2003. Fitting Models to Biological Data Using Linear and Nonlinear Regression: A Practical Guide to Curve Fitting. San Diego, CA: GraphPad Software.Google Scholar
Ratkowsky, D. A. 1983. Nonlinear Regression Modeling. New York: Marcel Dekker. Pp. 135154.Google Scholar
Rosa, E., Heaney, R., Fenwick, G., and Portas, C. 1997. Glucosinolates in crop plants. Pages 99215, in Janick, J. ed. Horticultural Reviews, Vol. 19. New York: J Wiley.Google Scholar
[SYSTAT] Systat Software Inc. 2003. Release 10.2.01, Richmond, CA: Systat Software Inc. Google Scholar
Teasdale, J. R. and Taylorson, R. B. 1986. Weed seed response to methyl isothiocyanate and metham. Weed Sci 34:520524.Google Scholar
Vaughn, S. F. and Boydston, R. A. 1997. Volatile allelochemicals released by crucifer green manures. J. Chem. Ecol 23:21072116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westoby, M., Leishman, M., and Lord, J. 1996. Comparative ecology of seed size and dispersal. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci 351:13091318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolf, R. B., Spencer, G. F., and Kwolek, W. F. 1984. Inhibition of velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) germination and growth by benzyl isothiocyanate, a natural toxicant. Weed Sci 32:612615.Google Scholar
19
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@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 saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved 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.

Brassica cover cropping: II. Effects on growth and interference of green bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) and redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus)
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save 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 used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Brassica cover cropping: II. Effects on growth and interference of green bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) and redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus)
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save 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 used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Brassica cover cropping: II. Effects on growth and interference of green bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) and redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus)
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *