Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-07T23:08:09.326Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed management in organic echinacea (Echinacea purpurea) and lettuce (Lactuca sativa) production

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 May 2008

P. Kristiansen ,
B.M. Sindel  and
R.S. Jessop
P. Kristiansen*
Affiliation:
School of Rural Science and Agriculture, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia.
B.M. Sindel
Affiliation:
School of Rural Science and Agriculture, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia.
R.S. Jessop
Affiliation:
School of Rural Science and Agriculture, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia.
*
*Corresponding author: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Weed management is a major constraint in organic production. It can be expensive and time-consuming and severe crop yield losses may be incurred when weeds are not adequately controlled. Research on organic weed management (OWM) in herb and vegetable production is increasing internationally, although in Australia very little work has been done to assess current OWM knowledge among growers, and to test the efficacy and cost effectiveness of the weed management practices used by organic growers. The effect of hand weeding, tillage, hay mulch, pelletized paper mulch (PP) and an unweeded control treatment on weed growth, crop growth and cost effectiveness were evaluated in several field trials on the Northern Tablelands of New South Wales using lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) and echinacea (Echinacea purpurea Moench. [L.]). In echinacea, hand weeding, hay mulch and PP reduced weed growth by at least 90% compared with the control, while tillage reduced weed levels by about 50%. The more expensive weeding methods such as hand weeding and hay mulch (AU$9600 and 8900 ha−1 respectively) produced higher yields, while the cheaper methods such as tillage ($4000 ha−1) had low crop yields and were therefore 25–50% less cost effective. In lettuce, weed growth was reduced by 96% for hand weeding and PP compared with the control, 85% for hay mulch and 66% for tillage. Weed management was cost-effectively achieved using cheaper weeding methods such as tillage ($985 ha−1) compared with more expensive methods such as hand weeding and hay mulching ($4400 and 7600 ha−1 respectively). PP had lower yields and was expensive ($12,500 ha−1) and was usually not cost effective in these trials. The results highlight several important advantages and disadvantages of currently used OWM methods in the field.

Keywords

tillagehand weedinghay mulchpaper mulchcostvegetable productionAustralia
Type
Research Papers
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 23 , Issue 2 , June 2008 , pp. 120 - 135
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 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.)

References

1 Walz, E. 1999. Final Results of the Third Biennial National Organic Farmers' Survey. Organic Farming Research Foundation, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
2 Penfold, C.M., Miyan, M.S., Reeves, T.G., and Grierson, I.T. 1995. Biological farming for sustainable agricultural production. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 35:849–856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3 Wells, T. 1996. Environmental Impact of Alternative Horticultural Production Systems in the Hawkesbury-Nepean catchment. NSW Agriculture, Gosford.Google Scholar
4 Olsen, J.K. and Gounder, R.K. 2001. Alternatives to polyethylene mulch film—a field assessment of transported materials in capsicum (Capsicum annuum L.). Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 41:93–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5 Dunn, G. and Penfold, C. 1996. Mechanical and biological weed control. In Kristensen, N.H. and Hogh-Jensen, H. (eds). New Research in Organic Agriculture, Down to Earth and Further Afield: Proceedings of the 11th International Scientific IFOAM Conference. International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements, Copenhagen. Available at Website <ecoweb.dk/english/ifoam/conf96/abs193.htm>>Google Scholar
6 Buntain, M. 1999. Commercial Production of Medicinal Herbs in Tasmania. Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Barton.Google Scholar
7 Melander, B. 1998. Economic aspects of physical intra-row weed control in seeded onions. In Foguelman, D. and Lockeretz, W. (eds). Organic Agriculture—the Credible Solution for the XXIst Century: Proceedings of the 12th International IFOAM Scientific Conference. International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements, Mar del Plata, Argentina. p. 180–185.Google Scholar
8 Kristiansen, P.E., Jessop, R.S., and Sindel, B.M. 2001. Organic weed management survey: methods used by Australian herb and vegetable growers. In Rowe, B., Mendham, N., and Donaghy, D. (eds). 10th Australian Agronomy Conference. Science and Technology: Delivering Results for Agriculture. January 28–February 1, 2001. Hobart, Tasmania. Australian Society of Agronomy, Hobart. CD-ROM.Google Scholar
9 Smith, D.R., Gilliam, C.H., Edwards, J.H., Olive, J.W., Eakes, D.J., and Williams, J.D. 1998. Recycled waste paper as a non-chemical alternative for weed control in container production. Journal of Environmental Horticulture 16:69–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10 Roberts, H.A. 1977. Weed competition in drilled summer lettuce. Horticultural Research 17:39–45.Google Scholar
11 Isbell, R.F. 1996. The Australian Soil Classification. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne.Google Scholar
12 Lutman, P.J.W. 1992. Prediction of the competitive effects of weeds on the yields of several spring-sown arable crops. In IXème Colloque International sur la Biologie des Mauvaises Herbes (9th International Colloquium on the Biology of Weeds). p. 337–345.Google Scholar
13 Siddique, K.H.M., Belford, R.K., Perry, M.W., and Tennant, D. 1989. Growth, development and light interception of old and modern wheat cultivars in a Mediterranean-type environment. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 40:473–487.Google Scholar
14 Heisswolf, S. and Jackwitxz, K. 1999. Lettuce: Gross Margin. Queensland Department of Primary Industries, Brisbane.Google Scholar
15 Roltsch, W.J., Zalom, F.G., Strawn, A.J., Strand, J.F., and Pitcairn, M.J. 1999. Evaluation of several degree-day estimation methods in California climates. International Journal of Biometeorology 42:169–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16 Ash, G.H.B., Blatta, D.A., Mitchell, B.A., Davies, B., Shaykewich, C.F., Wilson, J.L., and Raddatz, R.L. 1999. Agricultural Climate of Manitoba. Manitoba Agriculture and Food, Winnipeg.Google Scholar
17 MathSoft. 1999. S-PLUS 2000 Professional Release 2. MathSoft, Seattle.Google Scholar
18 Butler, D., Gilmour, A.R., Cullis, B.R., and Gogel, B.J. 2000. Spatial Analysis Mixed Models with S-PLUS. Queensland Department of Primary Industries, Brisbane.Google Scholar
19 Chapman, D.S. and Auge, R.M. 1994. Physiological mechanisms of drought resistance in four native ornamental perennials. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science 119:299–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20 Chatizwa, I. 1997. Mechanical weed control: the case of hand weeders. In Proceedings of the 1997 Brighton Conference—Weeds. British Crop Protection Council, Surrey. p. 203–208.Google Scholar
21 Bàrberi, P. 2002. Weed management in organic agriculture: are we addressing the right issues? Weed Research 42:177–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22 Bond, W. and Grundy, A.C. 2001. Non-chemical weed management in organic farming systems. Weed Research 41:383–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23 Alemán, F. 2001. Common bean response to tillage intensity and weed control strategies. Agronomy Journal 93:556–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24 Rasmussen, J. and Ascard, J. 1995. Weed control in organic farming systems. In Glen, D.M., Greaves, M.P., and Anderson, H.M. (eds). Ecology and Integrated Farming Systems. John Wiley and Sons, Bristol. p. 49–67.Google Scholar
25 Gallardo, M., Jackson, L.E., and Thompson, R.B. 1996. Shoot and root physiological responses to localized zones of soil moisture in cultivated and wild lettuce (Lactuca spp.). Plant, Cell and Environment 19:1169–1178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26 Weaver, S.E. 1984. Critical period of weed competition in three vegetable crops in relation to management practices. Weed Research 24:317–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27 Munn, D.A. 1992. Comparison of shredded newspaper and wheat straw as crop mulches. HortTechnology 2:361–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28 Stirzaker, R.J. and Bunn, D.G. 1996. Phytotoxicity of ryegrass and clover cover crops, and a lucerne alley crop for no-till vegetable production. Biological Agriculture and Horticulture 13:83–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29 Kristiansen, P. 2003. Sustainable weed management in organic herb and vegetable production. PhD thesis, University of New England, Armidale.Google Scholar
30 Teasdale, J.R. and Mohler, C.L. 1993. Light transmittance, soil temperature, and soil moisture under residue of hairy vetch and rye. Agrononmy Journal 85:673–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31 Smith, D.R., Gilliam, C.H., Edwards, J.H., Eakes, D.J., and Williams, J.D. 1997. Recycled waste paper as a landscape mulch. Journal of Environmental Horticulture 15:191–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32 Creamer, N.G. and Dabney, S.M. 2002. Killing cover crops mechanically: review of recent literature and assessment of new research results. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 17:32–40.Google Scholar
33 Monks, C.D., Monks, D.W., Basden, T., Selders, A., Poland, S., and Rayburn, E. 1997. Soil temperature, soil moisture, weed control, and tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) response to mulching. Weed Technology 11:561–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
34 Teasdale, J.R. and Mohler, C.L. 2000. The quantitative relationship between weed emergence and the physical properties of mulches. Weed Science 48:385–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
35 Guertal, E.A. and Edwards, J.H. 1996. Organic mulch and nitrogen affect spring and fall collard yields. HortScience 31:823–826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
36 Welsh, J.P., Tillett, N., Home, M., and King, J.A. (eds). 2002. A Review of Knowledge. Inter-Row Hoeing and its Associated Agronomy in Organic Cereal and Pulse Crops. Elm Farm Research Center, Newbury.Google Scholar
37 Alemán, F. 2001. Common bean response to tillage intensity and weed control strategies. Agronomy Journal 93:556–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
38 Edwards, C.A., Shuster, W.D., Huelsman, M.F., and Yardim, E.N. 1995. An economic comparison of chemical and lower-chemical input techniques for weed control in vegetables. Brighton Crop Protection Conference—Weeds. British Crop Protection Council, Surrey. p. 919–924.Google Scholar
39 Litterick, A.M., Redpath, J., Seel, W., and Leifert, C. 1999. An evaluation of weed control strategies for large-scale organic potato production in the UK. In Marshal, G. (ed.). Proceedings of the 1999 Brighton Conference—Weeds. British Crop Protection Council, Surrey. p. 951–956.Google Scholar
40 Turner, R.J., Lennartsson, M.E.K., Bond, W., Grundy, A.C., and Whitehouse, D. 1999. Organic weed control-getting it right in time. In Marshal, G. (ed.). Proceedings of the 1999 Brighton Conference—Weeds. British Crop Protection Council, Surrey. p. 969–974.Google Scholar
41 Sjursen, H. 2001. Change of the weed seed bank during the first complete six-course crop rotation after conversion from conventional to organic farming. Biological Agriculture and Horticulture 19:71–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
42 Belde, M., Mattheis, A., Sprenger, B., and Albrecht, H. 2000. Langfristige Entwicklung ertragsrelevanter Ackerwildpflanzen nach Umstellung von konventionellem auf integrierten und ökologischen Landbau. (Long-term development of yield affecting weeds after the change from conventional to integrated and organic farming.) Zeitschrift für Pflanzenkrankheiten und Pflanzenschutz 17:291–301.Google Scholar
43 Bond, W. and Lennartsson, M.E.K. 1999. Organic weed control—back to the future. In Marshal, G. (ed.). Proceedings of the 1999 Brighton Conference—Weeds. British Crop Protection Council, Surrey. p. 929–938.Google Scholar