Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T21:08:35.886Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Living mulch cover crops for weed control in small-scale applications

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2015

Anne Pfeiffer ,
Erin Silva  and
Jed Colquhoun
Anne Pfeiffer*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Pathology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 593 Russell Laboratories, 1630 Linden Drive, Madison, WI 53706, USA
Erin Silva
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Pathology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 593 Russell Laboratories, 1630 Linden Drive, Madison, WI 53706, USA
Jed Colquhoun
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 593 Russell Laboratories, 1630 Linden Drive, Madison, WI 53706, USA
*
* Corresponding author: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A primary challenge of managing vegetable production on a small land base is the maintenance and building of soil quality. Previous studies have demonstrated the benefits of cover crops for improved soil quality; however, small growers struggle to fit cover crops into rotations. Small-scale growers with limited available land are under significant pressure to maximize their saleable yield and often work to maximize output by using intensive cropping practices that may include both early and late season crops, thus limiting the typical shoulder season windows in which cover crops can be grown. In-season living mulches may be an effective strategy to provide small-scale growers the benefits of cover crops with less land commitment than cover crops used in typical rotations. However, research on living mulches is generally not suited to small-scale organic production systems due to the typical reliance on chemical herbicide to suppress mulches. An experiment was designed with the goal of evaluating living mulch systems for space-limited organic vegetable production. In a 2-year study, four living mulch crops (buckwheat (Fagopyrum esculentum), field pea (Pisum sativum), crimson clover (Trifolium incarnatum) and medium red clover (Trifolium pratense)) and a cultivated control with no mulch cover were planted in early spring each year. Snap beans (Phaseolus vulgaris var. Tavera), transplanted bell peppers (Capsicum annuum var. Revolution), and transplanted fall broccoli (Brassica oleracea var. Imperial) were then planted directly into living mulches. During each summer growing season, living mulches and weeds were mown between-rows and hand-weeded in-row approximately every 10–14 days as needed for management. Labor times for mowing and cultivation were found to be higher in all treatments relative to the cultivated control. An inverse relationship between living mulch biomass and weed biomass was observed, demonstrating that living mulches may contribute to weed suppression. However, lower vegetable yields were seen in the living mulch treatments, most likely due to resource competition among vegetables, living mulches and weeds. High pre-existing weed seedbank and drought conditions likely increased competition and contributed to reduced vegetable yield.

Keywords

living mulchcover cropweed controlbuckwheatFagopyrum esculentumfield peaPisum sativumcrimson cloverTrifolium incarnatummedium red cloverTrifolium pratensesnap beanPhaseolus vulgarisbell pepperCapsicum annuumbroccoliBrassica oleracea
Type
Research Papers
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 31 , Issue 4 , August 2016 , pp. 309 - 317
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

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

Altieri, M.A., Wilson, R.C., and Schmidt, L.L. 1985. The effects of living mulches and weed cover on the dynamics of foliage- and soil-arthropod communities in three crop systems. Crop Protection 4:201–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Båth, B., Kristensen, H.L., and Thorup-Kristensen, K. 2008. Root pruning reduces root competition and increases crop growth in a living mulch cropping system. Journal of Plant Interactions 3:211–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biazzo, J. and Masiunas, J.B. 2000. The use of living mulches for weed management in hot pepper and okra. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 16:59–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bond, W. and Grundy, A.C. 2001. Non-chemical weed management in organic farming systems. Weed Research 41:383–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brainard, D.C., Miller, A.J., and Bellinder, R.R. 2004. Cultivation and interseeding for weed control in transplanted cabbage. Weed Technology 18:704–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brainard, D.C., Bakker, J., Noyes, D.C., and Myers, N. 2012. Rye living mulch effects on soil moisture and weeds in asparagus. HortScience 47:58–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brainard, D.C., Peachey, R.E., Haramoto, E.R., Luna, J.M., and Rangarajan, A. 2013. Weed ecology and nonchemical management under strip-tillage: Implications for northern US vegetable cropping systems. Weed Technology 27:218–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandsaeter, L.O., Netland, J., and Meadow, R. 1998. Yields, weeds, pests and soil nitrogen in a white cabbage-living mulch system. Biological Agriculture and Horticulture 16:291–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bussan, A.J., Colquhoun, J.B., Cullen, E.M., Davis, V.M., Gevens, A.J., Groves, R.L., Heider, D.J., Jensen, B.M., Nice, G.R.W., and Ruark, M.D. 2012. Commercial Vegetable Production in Wisconsin. Publication A3422. University of Wisconsin-Extension, Madison, WI.Google Scholar
Coolman, R.M. and Hoyt, G.D. 1993. Increasing sustainability by intercropping. Hort Technology 3:309–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enache, A.J. and Ilnicki, R.D. 1990. Weed control by subterranean clover (Trifolium subterraneum) used as a living mulch. Weed Technology 4:534–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hendrickson, M.K. and Porth, M. 2012. Urban agriculture —Best practices and possibilities [Internet]. University of Missouri Extension. Available from: http://extension.missouri.edu/foodsystems/documents/urbanagreport_072012.pdf Google Scholar
Hiltbrunner, J., Liedgens, M., Bloch, L., Stamp, P., and Streit, B. 2007. Legume cover crops as living mulches for winter wheat: Components of biomass and the control of weeds. European Journal of Agronomy 26:21–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoppe, R., MacDonald, J.M., and Korb, P. 2010. Small Farms in the United States: Persistence Under Pressure. USDA-ERS Economic Information Bulletin, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Infante, M.L. and Morse, R.D. 1996. Integration of no tillage and overseeded legume living mulches for transplanted broccoli production. HortScience 31:376–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolota, E. and Adamczewska-Sowinska, K. 2004. The effects of living mulches on yield, overwintering and biological value of leek. Acta Horticulturae 638:209–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leary, J. and DeFrank, J. 2000. Living mulches for organic farming systems. HortTechnology 10:692–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Organic Program. Final Rule. Fed Regist. 2000 Dec 21; 65:80548–96.Google Scholar
Paine, L., Harrison, H., and Newenhouse, A. 1995. Establishment of asparagus with living mulch. Journal of Production Agriculture 8:35–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teasdale, J.R. 1996. Contribution of cover crops to weed management in sustainable agricultural systems. Journal of Production Agriculture 9:475–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
United States Drought Monitor [Internet]. United States Drought Monitor. [cited 2014 Oct 13]. Available from: http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/ Google Scholar