Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T06:26:52.107Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Can hemp hurd or paper mulch and biochar application improve weed management in matted-row strawberry production systems?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2021

Greta G. Gramig*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences, North Dakota State University, P.O. Box 6050, Department 7670, Fargo, ND 58108-6050, USA
Samantha K. Hogstad
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58102, USA Currently Space Planner, Smith Gardens, 23150 Boones Ferry Road NE, Aurora, OR 97002, USA
Patrick M. Carr
Affiliation:
Central Agricultural Research Center, Montana State University, Moccasin, MT 59462-9512, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Greta G. Gramig, E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

During 2015 and 2016, studies were conducted at Absaraka and Dickinson, North Dakota to evaluate the impacts of hemp (applied at 1156 m3 ha−1) and commercial paper mulch, as well as soil-applied biochar (applied at 11.25 m3 ha−1), on weed suppression and strawberry growth during the establishment year, and on weed suppression and strawberry yield during the production year, in a matted row production (MRP) system. During 2015, biochar influenced dry weed biomass only within the hemp mulch, with slightly more weed biomass associated with biochar application compared to zero biochar (3.1 vs 0.4 g m−2), suggesting that biochar may have increased weed germination and/or emergence from beneath hemp mulch. Biochar application also slightly increased soil pH, from 6.9 in non-amended soil to 7.0 in amended soil. Strawberry runner number during 2015 was greater in association with hemp or paper mulch compared to zero mulch (4.5 and 4.9 vs 2.4 runners plant −1, respectively). This result mirrored a similar differential in per berry mass across sites (7.6 and 7.4 vs 6.2 g berry −1 for hemp mulch, paper mulch and zero mulch, respectively). These results may be related to hemp and paper mulch reducing maximum soil temperatures during summer 2015. During the establishment year, both hemp and paper mulch suppressed weeds well compared to zero mulch, although at Absaraka hemp mulch provided slightly better weed suppression than paper mulch. During the production year, both mulches continued to suppress weeds compared to zero mulch at Dickinson. However, at Absaraka, only hemp mulch provided weed suppression compared to zero mulch, possibly because of faster paper degradation caused by greater numbers of large precipitation events and greater relative humidity at Absaraka compared to Dickinson. Weeds were removed from plots during 2015 to allow separation of weed suppression from other possible mulch impacts; therefore, yield data do not reveal striking differences among mulch treatments. Because previous research has demonstrated the impact of weed management during the establishment of strawberries in a matted row system, we concluded that hemp mulch may provide more durable weed suppression compared to paper mulch, which would increase strawberry yield protection in an MRP system. Material cost may be an issue for implementing hemp mulch, as hemp hurd cost was 25 times paper mulch at the application rates used in this study. However, hemp mulch could still be a beneficial option, especially for organic strawberry growers desiring a renewable and environmentally sound replacement for plastic mulch who are able to find affordable local sources of this material.

Type
Research Paper
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by 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.)

Footnotes

*

To whom reprint requests should be addressed.

References

Allen, WW and Gaede, SE (1963) The relationship of Lygus bugs and thrips to fruit deformity in strawberries. Journal of Economic Entomology 56, 823825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
American Hemp Mulch (2021) Hemp mulch benefits. Available at https://www.americanhempllc.com/hemp-mulch.Google Scholar
Atkinson, CJ, Fitzgerald, JD and Hipps, NA (2010) Potential mechanisms for achieving agricultural benefits from biochar application to temperate soils: a review. Plant and Soil 337, 118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biederman, LA and Harpole, WS (2013) Biochar and its effects on plant productivity and nutrient cycling: a meta-analysis. GCB Bioenergy 5, 202214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burke, IC, Thomas, WE, Spears, JF and Wilcut, JW (2003) Influence of environmental factors on after-ripened crowfootgrass (Dactyloctenium aegyptium) seed germination. Weed Science 51, 342347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cirujeda, A, Anzalone, A, Aibar, J, Moreno, MM and Zaragoza, C (2012) Purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus L.) control with paper mulch in processing tomato. Crop Protection 39, 6671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conti, GO, Ferrante, M, Banni, M, Favara, C, Nicolosi, I, Cristaldi, A, Fiore, M and Zuccarello, P (2020) Micro-and nano-plastics in edible fruit and vegetables. The first diet risks assessment for the general population. Environmental Research 187, 109677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalman, P and Matala, V (1997) The effect of cultivation practices on the overwintering and yield of strawberry. Acta Horticulturae 439, 881886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dentzman, KE and Goldberger, JR (2020) Organic standards, farmers’ perceptions, and the contested case of biodegradable plastic mulch in the United States. Journal of Rural Studies 73, 203213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Souza Machado, AA, Kloas, W, Zarfl, C, Hempel, S and Rillig, MC (2018) Microplastics as an emerging threat to terrestrial ecosystems. Global Change Biology 24, 14051416.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Tender, C, Haegeman, A, Vandecasteele, B, Clement, L, Cremelie, P, Dawyndt, P, Martine, M and Debode, J (2016) Dynamics in the strawberry rhizosphere microbiome in response to biochar and Botrytis cinerea leaf infection. Frontiers in Microbiology 7, 2062.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Drotlef, L (2020) 2020 Outlook: licensed US hemp acreage falls 9% from 2019, but grower numbers increase 27%. Hemp Industry Daily. https://hempindustrydaily.com/2020-outlook-licensed-u-s-hemp-acreage-falls-9-from-2019-but-grower-numbers-increase-27/.Google Scholar
Fonsah, EG and Shealey, J (2019) Estimated cost per acre of removing and replacing plastic mulch damaged by hurricane Michael in Georgia. University of Georgia Extension Publication, pp. 12. Available at https://site.extension.uga.edu/aaecext/files/2019/10/Ext-Publication-Estimated-Cost-Per-Acre.pdf.Google Scholar
Forcella, F, Poppe, SR, Hansen, NC, Head, WA, Hoover, E, Propsom, F and McKensie, J (2003) Biological mulches for managing weeds in transplanted strawberry (Fragaria x ananassa). Weed Technology 17, 782787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galloway, TS (2015) Micro- and nano-plastics and human health. In Bergmann, M, Gutow, L and Klages, M (eds), Marine Anthropogenic Litter. Cham: Springer, pp. 67104.Google Scholar
Gravel, V, Dorais, M and Ménard, C (2013) Organic potted plants amended with biochar: its effect on growth and Pythium colonization. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 93, 12171227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gu, S, Guan, W and Beck, JE (2017) Strawberry cultivar evaluation under high-tunnel and organic management in North Carolina. HortTechnology 27, 8492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gupta, R and Acharya, CL (1993) Effect of mulch induced hydrothermal regime on root growth, water use efficiency, yield and quality of strawberry. Journal of the Indian Society of Soil Science 41, 1725.Google Scholar
Hancock, JF, Goulart, BL, Luby, JJ and Pritts, MP (1997) Strawberry matted row: practical cropping system or dated anachronism? Advances in Strawberry Research 16, 14.Google Scholar
Harel, YM, Elad, Y, Rav-David, D, Borenstein, M, Shulchani, R, Lew, B and Graber, ER (2012) Biochar mediates systemic response of strawberry to foliar fungal pathogens. Plant and Soil 357, 245257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemp Technologies (2021) Hemp mulch. Available at https://hemptechglobal.com/page73/page73.html.Google Scholar
Hemp Works (2021) Hemp mulch. Available at https://www.hemp-works.ca/hemp-mulch.Google Scholar
Hokanson, SC and Finn, CE (2000) Strawberry cultivar use in North America. HortTechnology 10, 94106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoover, E, Rosen, C, Luby, J and Wold-Burkness, S (2017) Commercial fruit and vegetable production: commercial strawberry production in Minnesota. University of Minnesota Extension. Pp. 1-16. Available at https://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/handle/11299/197959/Commercial%20strawberry%20production%20fact%20sheet_2016.pdf.Google Scholar
Jay, CN, Fitzgerald, JD, Hipps, NA and Atkinson, CJ (2015) Why short-term biochar application has no yield benefits; evidence from three field-grown crops. Soil Use and Management 31, 241250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kadir, S, Sidhu, G and Al-Khatib, K (2006) Strawberry (Fragaria × ananassa Duch.) growth and productivity as affected by temperature. HortScience 41, 14231430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirnak, H, Cengiz, K, Higgs, D and Sihan, G (2001) A long-term experiment to study the role of mulches in the physiology and macro-nutrition of strawberry grown under water stress. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 52, 937943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kumar, S and Dey, P (2011) Effects of different mulches and irrigation methods on root growth, nutrient uptake, water-use efficiency and yield of strawberry. Scientia Horticulturae 127, 318324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, J (2007) Bio-energy in the black. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 5, 381387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LóPez-Medina, J, Vazquez, E, Medina, JJ, Dominguez, F, Lopez-Aranda, JM, Bartual, R and Flores, F (2001) Genotype x environment interaction for planting date and plant density effects on yield characters of strawberry. The Journal of Horticultural Science and Biotechnology 76, 564568.Google Scholar
Merwin, IA, Rosenberger, DA, Engle, CA, Rist, DL and Fargione, M (1995) Comparing mulches, herbicides, and cultivation as orchard groundcover management systems. HortTechnology 5, 151158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monaco, TA, MacKown, CT, Johnson, DA, Jones, TA, Norton, JM, Norton, JB and Redinbaugh, MG (2003) Nitrogen effects on seed germination and seedling growth. Journal of Range Management 56, 646653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Dell, CR and Williams, J (2009) Hill system plastic mulched strawberry production guide for colder areas. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Publication, 438–018, pp. 140. Available at: https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/bitstream/handle/10919/55305/438-018.pdf.Google Scholar
Pecenka, R, Luhr, C and Gustovis, H (2012) Design of competitive processing plants for hemp fibre production. International Scholarly Research Network ISRN Agronomy Article ID 647867, 5 pages.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Penn, CJ and Camberato, JJ (2019) A critical review on soil chemical processes that control how soil pH affects phosphorus availability to plants. Agriculture 9, 120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierce, GL, Warren, SL, Mikkelsen, RL and Linker, HM (1999) Effects of soil calcium and pH on seed germination and subsequent growth of large crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis). Weed Technology 13, 421424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pritts, M and Handley, D (1998) Strawberry production guide for the Northeast, Midwest and eastern Canada. Northeast Regional Agricultural Engineering Service-88, Ithaca, N.Y.Google Scholar
Pritts, MP and Kelly, MJ (2001) Early season weed competition reduces yield of newly planted matted row strawberries. HortScience 36, 729731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Razzaghi, F, Obour, BO and Arthur, E (2020) Does biochar improve soil water retention? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Geoderma 361, 114055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rindom, A and Hansen, P (1995) Effects of fruit numbers and plant status on fruit size in the strawberry. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section B – Soil and Plant Science 45, 142147.Google Scholar
Sakamoto, M, Uenishi, M, Miyamoto, K and Suzuk, T (2016) Effect of root-zone temperature on the growth and fruit quality of hydroponically grown strawberry plants. Journal of Agricultural Science 8, 19169752.Google Scholar
Salentijn, EMJ, Zhang, Q, Amaducci, S, Yang, M and Tringdale, LM (2014) New developments in fiber hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) breeding. Industrial Crops and Products 68, 3241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samtani, JB, Weber, JB and Fennimore, SA (2012) Tolerance of strawberry cultivars to oxyfluorfen and flumioxazin herbicides. HortScience 47, 848851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samtani, JB, Rom, CR, Friedrich, H, Fennimore, SA, Finn, CE, Petran, A, Wallace, RW, Pritts, MP, Fernandez, G, Chase, CA, Kubota, C and Bergefurd, B (2019) The status and future of the strawberry industry in the United States. HortTechnology 29, 1124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shogren, RL and Hochmuth, RC (2004) Field evaluation of watermelon grown on paper-polymerized vegetable oil mulches. HortScience 39, 15881591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, S and Singh, M (2009) Effect of temperature, light and pH on germination of twelve weed species. Indian Journal of Weed Science 41, 113126.Google Scholar
Smeets, L (1956) Influence of the temperature on runner production in five strawberry varieties. Euphytica 5, 1317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soni, N, Leon, RG, Erickson, JE, Ferrell, JA, Silveira, ML and Giurcanu, MC (2014) Vinasse and biochar effects on germination and growth of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri), sicklepod (Senna obtusifolia), and southern crabgrass (Digitaria ciliaris). Weed Technology 28, 694702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevulova, N, Cigasova, J, Estokova, A, Terpakova, E, Geffert, A, Kacik, F, Singovszka, E and Holub, M (2014) Properties characterization of chemically modified hemp hurds. Materials 7, 81318150.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sweeney, AE, Renner, KA, Laboski, C and Davis, A (2008) Effect of fertilizer nitrogen on weed emergence and growth. Weed Science 56, 714721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teasdale, JR and Mohler, CL (2000) The quantitative relationship between weed emergence and the physical properties of mulches. Weed Science 48, 385392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
USDA-NRCS (2011) Carbon to Nitrogen Ratios in Cropping Systems. East National Technology Support Center, Greensboro, NC and in cooperation with North Dakota NRCS. Available at https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/PA_NRCSConsumption/download?cid=nrcs142p2_052823&ext=pdf.Google Scholar
USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (2007) Census of Agriculture. Available at www.nass.usda.gov/AgCensus.Google Scholar
USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (2017) Census of Agriculture. Available at www.nass.usda.gov/AgCensus.Google Scholar
USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (2021) NASS—Quick Stats. USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service. Available at https://data.nal.usda.gov/dataset/nass-quick-stats.Google Scholar
Velandia, M, Smith, A, Wszelaki, A, Galinato, S and Marsh, T (2020) Economic evaluation of biodegradable plastic films in Tennessee pumpkin production. University of Tennessee Extension Publication W650. Available at https://ag.tennessee.edu/biodegradablemulch/Documents/Velandia%20et%20al%20The%20Economics%20of%20Adopting%20Biodegradable%20Mulch.pdf.Google Scholar
Wang, J, Wu, W, Wang, W and Zhang, J (2011) Effect of a coupling agent on the properties of hemp-hurd-powder-filled styrene–butadiene rubber. Journal of Applied Polymer Science 121, 681689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, CA (2003) Biodegradable mulch films for weed suppression in the establishment year of matted-row strawberries. Hort Technology 13, 665666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar