Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-sh8wx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-24T13:36:36.532Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of Fall Tillage and Cover Crop Strategies on Wild-Proso Millet (Panicum miliaceum) Emergence and Interference in Snap Beans

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

R. Edward Peachey  and
Carol Mallory-Smith
R. Edward Peachey*
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture, Oregon State University, 4017 ALS, Corvallis, OR 97331–7304
Carol Mallory-Smith
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Science, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331–7304
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: peacheye@hort.oregonstate.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Direct-seeding of cover crops is often promoted to reduce potential soil loss during the winter, enhance soil fertility, and reduce energy use and equipment traffic on fields. The impact of direct-seeding of cover crops on wild-proso millet seedling emergence in subsequent crops is unknown. In this study, a pulse–chase experiment determined the effect of five fall soil management strategies, two spring primary tillage levels, and two herbicide programs on wild-proso millet emergence in a subsequent crop of snap beans. Wild-proso millet seeds were sown following sweet corn harvest in two commercial production fields to simulate seed rain at a density of 500 and 1,000 seeds m−2 in the fall of 2004 and 2005, respectively. The experimental design was a split–split plot. Five fall treatments were applied to main plots and included direct drilling of cover crops, conventionally tilled and drilled cover crops, a winter fallow treatment, and two additional treatments that were direct-drilled and conventionally tilled in the fall but that were not seeded with cover crops to separate the effects of tillage and cover crops on wild-proso millet emergence. Main plots were split in the spring and snap beans planted without primary tillage or conventionally planted after the soil was tilled. Tillage and cover crop treatments applied in the fall influenced emergence in the spring but with slightly different outcomes at the two sites. Direct drilling without a cover crop produced more wild-proso millet seedlings in snap beans than the winter fallow plot; tillage before cover crop planting in the fall produced recruitment levels less than or equal to densities in the winter fallow plots, with one exception. At one site, cover crops increased emergence compared to plots without cover crops. Spring tillage did not alter the affect of the five fall management treatments on wild-proso millet emergence. Direct-seeding of cover crops should be done with equipment or methods that minimize soil disturbance to prevent movement of wild-proso millet seeds into protected and favorable zones of emergence in the soil.

La siembra directa de cultivos de cobertura se promueve frecuentemente para reducir la pérdida potencial del suelo durante el invierno, incrementar la fertilidad del suelo y reducir el uso de energía y el tráfico de equipo en los campos. No se conoce el impacto de la siembra directa de cultivos de cobertura en la emergencia de plántulas de Panicum miliaceum en los cultivos subsecuentes. En este estudio, un experimento pulso-caza determinó el efecto de cinco estrategias de manejo del suelo en el otoño, dos niveles de labranza primaria en la primavera y dos programas de herbicida en la emergencia de Panicum miliaceum en el cultivo subsecuente de Phaseolus vulgaris. Se sembraron semillas de Panicum miliaceum después de la cosecha del maíz dulce en dos campos de producción comercial para simular una lluvia de semillas, a una densidad de 500 y 1000 semillas por metro cuadrado, en el otoño de 2004 y 2005, respectivamente. El diseño experimental fue parcelas subdivididas. Se aplicaron cinco tratamientos en otoño a las parcelas principales y se incluyó una siembra directa de cultivos de cobertura, cultivos con labranza convencional y siembra directa, un tratamiento del suelo en barbecho durante el invierno y dos tratamientos adicionales de siembra directa y labranza convencional en el otoño, que no fueron sembrados con cultivos de cobertura para separar los efectos de la labranza y de los cultivos de cobertura, en la emergencia de Panicum miliaceum. Las parcelas principales fueron divididas en la primavera y se sembró Phaseolus vulgaris sin labranza primaria o con siembra convencional después de labrar el suelo. Los tratamientos de labranza y cultivos de cobertura aplicados en el otoño influenciaron la emergencia en la primavera, pero con resultados ligeramente diferentes en los dos sitios. La siembra directa sin un cultivo de cobertura produjo más plántulas de Panicum miliaceum en el cultivo de Phaseolus vulgaris que en la parcela con barbecho en invierno; la labranza antes de la siembra de cultivos de cobertura en el otoño produjo reclutamiento de semilla menores o iguales a las densidades en las parcela con barbecho de invierno, con una excepción. En un sitio, los cultivos de cobertura incrementaron la emergencia de Panicum miliaceum comparada con las parcelas sin cobertura. La labranza en la primavera no afectó la emergencia de la maleza de los cinco tratamientos de manejo en el otoño. La siembra directa de cultivos de cobertura debería hacerse con equipo o métodos que minimicen la alteración del suelo, para prevenir el movimiento de las semillas de Panicum miliaceum hacia las zonas protegidas y favorables para la emergencia en el suelo.

Keywords

Wild-proso millet, Panicum miliaceum L.snap beans, Phaseolus vulgaris L. ‘OR91G’ and ‘Medinah’Conventional tillagecover cropsdirect drillingno-tillprimary tillageweed emergenceweed seed bank
Type
Weed Management—Techniques
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 25 , Issue 1 , March 2011 , pp. 119 - 126
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

Anderson, R. and Nielsen, D. 1996. Emergence pattern of five weeds in the central Great Plains. Weed Technol. 10:744–749.Google Scholar
Bough, M. A. and Cavers, P. B. 1989. Proso millet, a crop gone wild. Can. J. Plant Sci 69:265.Google Scholar
Bough, M. A., Colosi, J. C., and Cavers, P. B. 1986. The major weedy biotypes of proso millet (Panicum miliaceum) in Canada. Can. J. Bot 64:1188–1198.Google Scholar
Brust, G. E. and House, G. J. 1988. Weed seed destruction by arthropods and rodents in low-input soybean agroecosystems. Am. J. Alt. Agric 3:19–25.Google Scholar
Cardina, J., Norquay, H. M., Stinner, B. R., and McCartney, D. A. 1996. Post-dispersal predation of velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) seeds. Weed Sci. 44:534–539.Google Scholar
Colosi, J. C., Cavers, P. B., and Bough, M. A. 1988. Dormancy and survival in buried seeds of proso millet (Panicum miliaceum). Can. J. Bot 66:161–168.Google Scholar
Colosi, J. C. and Schaal, B. A. 1997. Wild proso millet (Panicum miliaceum) is genetically variable and distinct from crop varieties of proso millet. Weed Sci. 45:509–518.Google Scholar
Froud-Williams, R. J., Chancellor, R. J., and Drennan, D. S. H. 1984. The effects of seed burial and soil disturbance on emergence and survival of arable summer annual weeds in relation to minimal cultivation. J. Appl. Ecol 21:629–641.Google Scholar
Harvey, R. G. and McNevin, G. R. 1990. Combining cultural practices and herbicides to control wild-proso millet (Panicum miliaceum). Weed Technol. 4:433–439.Google Scholar
Mohler, C. L. 1993. A model of the effects of tillage on emergence of weed seedlings. Ecol. Appl 3:53–73.Google Scholar
Mohler, C. L. 2001. Weed life histories: identifying vulnerabilities. Pages 57–58. In Liebman, M., Mohler, C. L., and Staver, C. P. eds. Ecological Management of Agricultural Weeds. Cambridge, UK Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mohler, C. L. and Calloway, M. B. 1992. Effects of tillage and mulch on the emergence and survival of weeds in sweet corn. J. Appl. Ecol 29:21–34.Google Scholar
Mulugeta, D. and Stoltenberg, D. E. 1997. Increased weed emergence and seed bank depletion by soil disturbance in no-tillage systems. Weed Sci. 45:234–241.Google Scholar
Omami, E. N., Haigh, A. M., Medd, R. W., and Nicol, H. I. 1999. Changes in germinability, dormancy, and viability of Amaranthus retroflexus as affected by depth and duration of burial. Weed Res. 39:345–354.Google Scholar
Peachey, R. E. and Mallory-Smith, C. 2007. Influence of winter seed position and recovery date on hairy nightshade (Solanum sarrachoides) recruitment and seed germination, dormancy, and mortality. Weed Sci. 55:49–59.Google Scholar
Peachey, R. E., William, R. D., and Mallory-Smith, C. 2006. Effect of spring tillage sequence on summer annual weeds in vegetable row crop. Weed Technol. 20:204–214.Google Scholar
SAS 2008. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Version 9.2. Cary, NC SAS Institute. 5,136. p.Google Scholar
Schabenberger, O. and Pierce, F. 2002a. Effects and contrasts in the SAS system. Pages. 112. in. Contemporary Statistical Models for Plant and Soil Sciences. New York, NY Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
Schabenberger, O. and Pierce, F. 2002b. Linear mixed models. Pages. 495–496. in. Contemporary Statistical Models for Plant and Soil Sciences. New York, NY Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
Shenk, M. D., Braunworth, W. S. Jr., Fernandez, R. J., Curtis, D. W., McGrath, D., and William, R. D. 1990. Wild-proso millet (Panicum miliaceum) control in sweet corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 4:440–445.Google Scholar
Teasdale, J. R. and Mohler, C. L. 1993. Light transmittance, soil temperature, and soil moisture under residue of hairy vetch and rye. Agron. J. 85:673–680.Google Scholar
Teasdale, J. R. and Mohler, C. L. 2000. The quantitative relationship between weed emergence and the physical properties of mulches. Weed Sci. 48:385–392.Google Scholar
Williams, B. J. and Harvey, R. G. 2000. Effect of nicosulfuron timing on wild-proso millet (Panicum miliaceum) control in sweet corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 14:377–382.Google Scholar
Wilson, R. G. 1993. Wild-proso millet (Panicum miliaceum) interference in dry bean (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Sci. 41:607–610.Google Scholar