Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T20:14:47.726Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of Organic and Conventional Practices on Weed Control in a Perennial Cropping System

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Kendra Baumgartner ,
Kerri L. Steenwerth  and
Lissa Veilleux
Kendra Baumgartner*
Affiliation:
United States Department of Agriculture—Agricultural Research Service, Department of Plant Pathology, University of California, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616
Kerri L. Steenwerth
Affiliation:
United States Department of Agriculture—Agricultural Research Service, Department of Viticulture and Enology, University of California, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616
Lissa Veilleux
Affiliation:
United States Department of Agriculture—Agricultural Research Service, Department of Plant Pathology, University of California, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Vineyard weed communities were examined under the influence of an organic weed control practice, soil cultivation with a Clemens cultivator, and applications of the herbicide glyphosate. Experimental treatments (winter–spring glyphosate, spring cultivation, fall–spring cultivation, fall cultivation–spring glyphosate) were carried out in a California wine grape vineyard for 3 yr. Cultivation alone was not as effective as glyphosate, based on lower weed biomass in the glyphosate-only treatment in 2 of 3 yr. However, given that two passes with the Clemens cultivator decreased weed biomass relative to one pass, it is possible that additional passes could bring about further reductions. Pairing fall cultivation with glyphosate was as effective at reducing weed biomass as two glyphosate applications in 2 of 3 years, suggesting that substituting a glyphosate application with cultivation may be an effective method of reducing herbicide use in vineyards. Canonical correspondence analysis revealed significant treatment effects on community structure. Weed composition in the spring cultivation treatment was significantly different from that of all other treatments. Based on our findings of high relative abundance of field bindweed and sowthistle species, which are problematic vineyard weeds that grow into the vine canopy and disrupt canopy management practices, it is possible that either the presence of soil disturbance or the absence of herbicides favored these species.

Keywords

Glyphosateannual sowthistle, Sonchus oleraceus L. SONALfield bindweed, Convolvulus arvensis L. CONARspiny sowthistle, Sonchus asper (L.) Hill SONASwine grape, Vitis vinifera L. ‘Merlot’Clemens cultivatorperennial cropping systemtillagevineyardweed community
Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 55 , Issue 4 , August 2007 , pp. 352 - 358
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

Agamalian, H. S. 1992. Vegetation Management Guidelines. Pages 326–330. in Flaherty, D.L., Christensen, L.P., Lanini, W.T., Marois, J.J., Phillips, P.A., Wilson, L.T. eds. Grape Pest Management. 2nd ed. Oakland, CA University of California, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Publication No. 3343.Google Scholar
Anonymous, , 2006a. The California Water Plan Update. Sacramento, CA California Department of Water Resources Bulletin 160-05 http://www.waterplan.water.ca.gov. Accessed September 28, 2006.Google Scholar
Anonymous, , 2006b. Noncitrus Fruits and Nuts 2005 Summary. Washington, DC United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Statistics Service.Google Scholar
Basu, C., Halfill, M. D., Mueller, T. C., and Stewart, C. N. J. 2004. Weed genomics: new tool to understand weed biology. Trends Plant Sci. 9:391–398.Google Scholar
Baylis, A. D. 2000. Why glyphosate is a global herbicide: strengths, weaknesses and prospects. Pest Manag. Sci. 56:299–308.Google Scholar
Brown, C. S. and Rice, K. J. 2000. The mark of Zorro: Effects of the exotic annual grass Vulpia myuros on California native perennial grasses. Restor. Ecol. 8:10–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buhler, D. D. 2002. Challenges and opportunities for integrated weed management. Weed Sci. 50:273–280.Google Scholar
Calderón, F. J., Jackson, L. E., Scow, K. M., and Rolston, D. E. 2000. Microbial responses to simulated tillage in cultivated and uncultivated soils. Soil Biol. Biochem. 32:1547–1559.Google Scholar
Cardina, J., Herms, C. P., and Doohan, D. J. 2002. Crop rotation and tillage system effects on weed seedbanks. Weed Sci. 50:448–460.Google Scholar
Cardina, J., Webster, T. M., Herms, C. P., and Regnier, E. E. 1999. Development of weed IPM: levels of integration for weed management. J. Crop Prod. 2:239–267.Google Scholar
Christensen, L. P., Kasimatis, A. N., and Jensen, F. L. 1978. Grapevine Nutrition and Fertilization in the San Joaquin Valley. Oakland, CA University of California, Agriculture and Natural Resources.Google Scholar
Critchley, C. N. R., Fowbert, J. A., and Sherwood, A. J. 2006. The effects of annual cultivation on plant community composition of uncropped arable field boundary strips. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 113:196–205.Google Scholar
DiTomaso, J. M. and Healy, E. A. 2007. Weeds of California and Other Western States. Volume 2. Geraniaceae–Zygophyllaceae. Oakland, CA University of California, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Publication No. 3488.Google Scholar
Franzluebbers, A. J., Langdale, G. W., and Schomberg, H. H. 1999. Soil carbon, nitrogen, and aggregation in response to type and frequency of tillage. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 63:349–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Froud-Williams, R. J. 1988. Changes in weed flora with different tillage and agronomic management systems. Pages 213–236. in Altieri, M.A., Liebman, M. eds. Weed Management in Agroecosystems: Ecological Approaches. Boca Raton, FL CRC.Google Scholar
Granett, J., Walker, M. A., Kocsis, L., and Omer, A. D. 2001. Biology and management of grape phylloxera. Ann. Rev. Entomol. 46:387–412.Google Scholar
Green, C. and Kremen, A. 2003. U.S. Organic Farming in 2000–2001: Adoption of Certified Systems, Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 780. Washington, DC United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aib780/. Accessed September 28, 2006.Google Scholar
Jackson, L. E. 2000. Fates and losses of nitrogen from a nitrogen-15-labeled cover crop in an intensively managed vegetable system. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 64:1404–1412.Google Scholar
Kadir, S. and Al-Khatib, K. 2006. Weed control in grape after fall and spring application of selected herbicides. Weed Technol. 20:74–80.Google Scholar
Klonsky, K. 2004. Organic Agricultural Production in California. Pages 241–256. in Siebert, J. ed. California Agriculture: Dimensions and Issues. Oakland, CA Giannini Foundation, University of California Press.Google Scholar
Lanini, W. T. and Bendixen, W. E. 1992. Characteristics of Important Vineyard Weeds. Pages 321–325. in Flaherty, D.L., Christensen, L.P., Lanini, W.T., Marois, J.J., Phillips, P.A., Wilson, L.T. eds. Grape Pest Management. 2nd ed. Oakland, CA University of California, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Publication No. 3343.Google Scholar
Legere, A. and Samson, N. 2004. Tillage and weed management effects on weeds in barley–red clover cropping systems. Weed Sci. 52:881–885.Google Scholar
Legere, A., Stevenson, K. L., and Benoit, D. L. 2005. Diversity and assembly of weed communities: contrasting responses across cropping systems. Weed Res. 45:303–315.Google Scholar
Leps, J. and Smilauer, P. 2003. Multivariate Analysis of Ecological Data using CANOCO. Cambridge, United Kingdom Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Liebman, M. and Gallandt, E. R. 1997. Many Little Hammers: Ecological Approaches for Management of Crop–Weed Interactions. Pages 291–343. in Jackson, L.E. ed. Ecology in Agriculture. San Diego Academic.Google Scholar
Littell, R. C., Milliken, G. A., Stroup, W. W., and Wolfinger, R. D. 1996. SAS System for Mixed Models. Cary, NC SAS Institute.Google Scholar
Menalled, F. D., Gross, K. L., and Hammond, M. 2001. Weed aboveground and seedbank community responses to agricultural management systems. Ecol. Appl. 11:1586–1601.Google Scholar
Monteiro, A. and Moreira, I. 2004. Reduced rates of residual and post-emergence herbicides for weed control in vineyards. Weed Res. 44:117–128.Google Scholar
Poggio, S. L. 2005. Structure of weed communities occurring in monoculture and intercropping of field pea and barley. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 109:48–58.Google Scholar
Puricelli, E. and Tuesca, D. 2005. Weed density and diversity under glyphosate-resistant crop sequences. Crop Protect. 24:533–542.Google Scholar
Robertson, G. P., Wedin, D., Groffman, P. M., Blair, J. M., Holland, E. A., Nadelhoffer, K. J., and Harris, D. 1999. Soil Carbon Availability: Nitrogen Mineralization, Nitrification, and Soil Respiration potentials. Pages 258–271. in Robertson, G.P., Coleman, D.C., Bledsoe, C.S., Sollins, P. eds. Standard Soil Methods for Long-Term Ecological Research. New York Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Shrestha, A., Knezevic, S. Z., Roy, R. C., Ball-Coelho, B. R., and Swanton, C. J. 2002. Effect of tillage, cover crop and crop rotation on the composition of weed flora in a sandy soil. Weed Res. 42:76–87.Google Scholar
ter Braak, C. J. F. 1987. Ordination. Pages 91–169. in Jongman, R.H.G., Braak, C.J.F.T., Tongeren, O.F.R. v. eds. Data Analysis in Community and Landscape Ecology. Wageningen, The Netherlands Centre for Agricultural Publishing and Documentation.Google Scholar
VanGessel, M. J., Forney, D. R., Conner, M., Sankula, S., and Scott, B. A. 2004. A sustainable agriculture project at Chesapeake Farms: a six-year summary of weed management aspects, yield, and economic return. Weed Sci. 52:886–896.Google Scholar
Wallace, A., Lancaster, R. A., and Hill, N. L. 1998. Application of non-selective herbicides during flowering of pasture legumes can reduce seed yield and alter seed characteristics. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 38:583–594.Google Scholar
Westfall, P. H., Tobias, R. D., Rom, D., Wolfinger, R. D., and Hochberg, Y. 1999. Multiple Comparisons and Multiple Tests. Cary, NC SAS Institute.Google Scholar
Willer, H. and Zanoli, R. 2000. Organic viticulture in Europe. Pages 23–29. in Willer, H., Meir, U. eds. Proceedings of the International Congress on Organic Viticulture. Basel, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Winkler, A. J., Cook, J. A., Kliewer, W. M., and Lider, L. A. 1965. General Viticulture. Berkeley, CA University of California Press.Google Scholar
Young, S. L. 2004. Natural product herbicides for control of annual vegetation along roadsides. Weed Technol. 18:580–587.Google Scholar