Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T23:28:46.143Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed competition in organic and no-till conventional soils under nonlimiting nutrient conditions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 August 2020

Dilshan Benaragama Open the ORCID record for Dilshan Benaragama [Opens in a new window]  and
Steven J. Shirtliffe
Dilshan Benaragama*
Affiliation:
Research Assistant, Department of Plant Sciences, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SaskatchewanS7N 5A8, Canada
Steven J. Shirtliffe
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Plant Sciences, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SaskatchewanS7N 5A8, Canada
*
Author for correspondence: Dilshan Benaragama, Department of Plant Sciences, University of Saskatchewan, 51 Campus Drive, Saskatoon, SKS7N 5A8, Canada. (Email: [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Some well-managed organic soils are known to have higher crop yield potential than conventionally managed soils due to the greater soil quality and the ability to tolerate weed competition. However, low available soil mineral N and P in some organic systems may mask such soil quality–related benefits. We hypothesize that when plant-available N and P are not limiting, tillage-based highly diverse organic crop rotations have less yield loss (better crop tolerance) due to weed competition and higher crop yields than no-till conventional systems with low-diversity rotations. A greenhouse study was carried out in Saskatoon, Canada, using long-term (18-yr) organically managed soils (ORG) and no-till conventional soils (CONV) with three crop rotation diversities (LOW, MEDIUM, and HIGH) to compare the crop tolerance to weed competition under standard soil nutrient management conditions and under excess supply of mineral N and P. Under fertilized conditions, crop biomass increased by 50% and 69% in ORG and CONV systems, respectively. Weed biomass was similar between ORG and CONV systems under nonfertilized conditions but was 14% greater in CONV when excessive N and P were supplied. Crop biomass loss (crop tolerance) was not different among cropping systems under excess fertilizer or under standard fertilizer levels. Even with greater weed biomass under fertilized conditions, the CONV system showed crop tolerance similar to that of the ORG system. Under nonfertilized conditions, the crop biomass yield was 43% lower in ORG compared with CONV, and even after mineral N and P were applied, ORG systems showed less (17%) crop biomass than CONV. Further, differences in crop tolerance were not identified among crop rotations under both fertilizer levels. Overall, this study revealed that there were no yield benefits or better crop tolerance to weed competition in organically managed soils compared with no-till conventional soils, even under nonlimiting soil macronutrient conditions.

Keywords

Crop rotationsoil qualityweed competitionyield loss
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 68 , Issue 6 , November 2020 , pp. 654 - 663
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2020

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

Associate Editor: Martin M. Williams II, USDA-ARS

References

Altieri, MA, Letpourneau, DK, Davis, JR (1983) Developing sustainable agroecosystems. BioScience 33:45–49 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arcand, MM, Helgason, BL, Lemke, RL (2016) Microbial crop residue decomposition dynamics in organic and conventionally managed soils. Appl Soil Ecol 107:347–359 Google Scholar
Ashton, IW, Miller, AE, Bowman, WD, Suding, KN (2010) Niche complementary due to plasticity in resource use: plant partitioning of chemical N forms. Ecology 91:3252–3260 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aziz, I, Mahmood, T, Islam, KR (2013) Effect of long term no-till and conventional tillage practices on soil quality. Soil Till Res 131:28–35 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benaragama, D, Leeson, JL, Shirtliffe, SJ (2019) Understanding the long-term weed community dynamics in organic and conventional crop rotations using the principal response curve method. Weed Sci 67:195–204 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benaragama, D, Shirtliffe, SJ, Gossen, BD, Brandt, SA, Lemke, R, Johnson, EN, Zentner, RP, Olfert, O, Leeson, J, Moulin, A, Stevenson, C (2016a) Long-term weed dynamics and crop yields under diverse crop rotations in organic and conventional cropping systems in the Canadian prairies. Field Crops Res 196:357–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benaragama, D, Shirtliffe, SJ, Johnson, EN, Duddu, HSN, Syrovy, L (2016b) Does yield loss due to weed competition differ between organic and conventional cropping systems? Weed Res 56:274–283 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, PM, Sylvester-Bradley, R, Philipps, L, Hatch, DJ, Cuttle, SP, Rayns, FW, Gosling, P (2002) Is the productivity of organic farms restricted by the supply of available nitrogen? Soil Use Manage 18:248–255 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birkhofer, K, Bezemer, TM, Bloem, J, Bonkowski, M, Christensen, S, Dubois, D, Ekelund, F, Fließbach, A, Gunst, L, Hedlund, K, Mäder, P (2008) Long-term organic farming fosters below and aboveground biota: implications for soil quality, biological control and productivity. Soil Biol Biochem 40:2297–2308 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bol, R, Ostle, NJ, Petzke, KJ (2002) Compound specific plant amino acid δ15N values differ with functional plant strategies in temperate grassland. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 165:661–667 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolton, H, Elliott, LF, Papendick, PR, Bezdicek, DF (1985) Soil microbial biomass and selected soil enzyme activities: effect of fertilization and cropping practices. Soil Biol Biochem 17:297–302 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandt, SA, Thomas, AG, Olfert, OO, Leeson, JY, Ulrich, D, Weiss, R (2010) Design, rationale and methodological considerations for a long-term alternative cropping experiment in the Canadian plain region. Euro J Agron 32:73–79 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bulluck, LR, Brosius, M, Evanylo, GK, Ristaino, JB (2002) Organic and synthetic fertility amendments influence soil microbial, physical and chemical properties on organic and conventional farms. Appl Soil Ecol 19:147–160 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casper, BB, Jackson, RB (1997) Plant competition underground. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 28: 545–570 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, MS, Horwath, WR, Sherman, C, Scow, KM (1998) Changes in soil chemical properties resulting from organic and low-management system farming practices. Agron J 90:662–671 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daroub, SH, Ellis, BG, Robertson, GP (2001) Effect of cropping and low-chemical management system on soil phosphorus fractions. Soil Sci 166:281–291 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, AS, Renner, KA, Gross, KL (2005) Weed seed bank and community shifts in a long-term cropping systems experiment. Weed Sci 53:296–306 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delate, KM, Cambardella, CA (2004) Agro-ecosystem performance during transition to organic grain production. Agron J 96:1288–1298 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Ponti, T, Rijk, B, van Ittersum, MK (2012) The crop yield gap between organic and conventional agriculture. Agric Sys 108:1–9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drinkwater, LE, Letourneau, DK, Workneh, F, Van Bruggen, AHC, and Sherman, C (1995) Fundamental differences between conventional and organic tomato agroecosystems in California. Ecol Appl 5:1098–1112 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drinkwater, LE, Wagoner, P, Sarrantonio, M (1998) Legume-based cropping systems have reduced carbon and nitrogen losses. Nature 396:262–265 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Entz, MH, Guilford, R, Gulden, R (2001) Crop yield and soil nutrient status on 14 organic farms in the eastern portion of the northern Great Plains. Can J Plant Sci 81:351–354 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franzluebbers, AJ, Langdale, GW, Schomberg, HH (1999) Soil carbon, nitrogen, and aggregation in response to type and frequency of tillage. Soil Sci Soc Am J 63:349–355 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grandy, AS, Robertson, GP, Thelen, KD (2006) Do productivity and environmental trade-offs justify periodically cultivating no-till cropping systems? Agron J 98:1377–1383 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halde, C, Bamford, KC, Entz, MH (2015) Crop agronomic performance under a six-year continuous organic no-till system and other tilled and conventionally-managed systems in the northern Great Plains of Canada. Agric Ecosyst Environ 213:121–130 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, KA, Bol, R, Bardgett, RD (2007) Preferences for different nitrogen forms by coexisting plant species and soil microbes. Ecology 88:989–999 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hiltbrunner, J, Scherrer, CB, Streit, P, Jeanneret, U, Zihlmann, Chachtli RT (2008) Long-term weed community dynamics in Swiss organic and integrated farming systems. Weed Res 48:360–369 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooper, DU (1998) The role of complementarity and competition in ecosystem responses to variation in plant diversity. Ecol 79:704–719 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, AE (1997) The value of long-term field experiments in ecological and environmental research. Adv Agron 59:291–333 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karlen, DL, Hurley, EG, Andrews, SS, Camberdella, CA, Meek, DW, Duffy, MD, Mallarino, AP (2006) Crop rotation effects on soil quality at three northern corn/soybean belt locations. Agron J 98:484–495 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirchmann, H, Bergström, L, Kätterer, T, Mattsson, L, Gesslein, S (2007) Comparison of long-term organic and conventional crop–livestock systems on a previously nutrient-depleted soil in Sweden Agron J 99:960–972 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirchmann, HT, Kätterer, O, Bergström, L (2008) Nutrient supply in organic agriculture–plant availability, sources and recycling. Pages 89–119 in Kirchmann H, Bergström L, eds. Organic Crop Production—Ambitions and Limitations. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer Science Business MediaGoogle Scholar
Kirchmann, H, Kätterer, T, Bergström, L, Börjesson, G, Bolinder, MA (2016) Flaws and criteria for design and evaluation of comparative organic and conventional cropping systems. Field Crops Res 186:99–106 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knight, JD, Buhler, RR, Leeson, JY, Shirtliffe, SJ (2010) Classification and fertility status of organically managed fields across Saskatchewan, Canada. Can J Soil Sci 90:667–678 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lal, R (2004) Soil carbon sequestration impact on global climate and food security. Science 304:1623–1627 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leifeld, J, Fuhrer, J (2010) Organic farming and soil carbon sequestration: what do we really know about the benefits? Ambio 39:585–599 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liebig, MA, Doran, JW (1999) Impact of organic production practices on soil quality indicators. J Environ Qual 28:1601–1609 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liebig, MA, Tanaka, DL, Wienhold, BJ (2004) Tillage and cropping effects on soil quality indicators in the northern Great Plains. Soil Till Res 78:131–141 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynch, DH, Halberg, N, Bhatta, GD (2012) Environmental impact of organic agriculture in temperate regions. CAB Review 7(10)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mäder, P, Fliessbach, A, Dubois, D, Gunst, L, Fried, P, Niggli, U (2002) Soil fertility and biodiversity in organic farming. Science 296:1694–1697 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Malhi, SS, Brandt, SA, Lemke, R, Moulin, AP, Zentner, RP (2009) Effects of management system level and crop diversity on soil nitrate-N, extractable P, aggregation, organic C and N, and nutrient balance in the Canadian Prairie. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst 84:1–22 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marriott, EE, Wander, MM (2006) Total and labile soil organic matter in organic and conventional farming systems. Soil Sci Soc Am J 70:950–959 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, RC, Lynch, DH, Frick, B, van Straaten, P (2007) Phosphorus status on Canadian organic farms. J Sci Food Agric 87:2737–2740 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKane, RB, Johnson, LC, Shaver, GR, Nadelhoffer, KJ, Rastetter, EB, Fry, B, Giblin, AE, Kielland, K, Kwiatkowski, BL, Laundre, JA, Murray, G (2002) Resource-based niches provide a basis for plant species diversity and dominance in arctic tundra. Nature 415:68–71 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mulder, C, de Zwart, D, van Wijnen, HJ, Schouten, AJ, Breure, AM (2003) Observational and simulated evidence of ecological shifts within the soil nematode community of agroecosystems under conventional and organic farming. Funct Ecol 17:516–525 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nordin, A, Högberg, P, Näsholm, T (2001) Soil nitrogen form and plant nitrogen uptake along a boreal forest productivity gradient. Oecologia 129:125–132 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Persson, J, Högberg, P, Ekblad, A, Högberg, M, Nordgren, A, Näsholm, T (2003) Nitrogen acquisition from inorganic and organic sources by boreal forest plants in the field. Oecologia 137:252–257 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pimentel, D, Hepperly, P, Hanson, J, Douds, D, Seidel, R (2005) Environmental, energetic, and economic comparisons of organic and conventional farming systems. BioScience 55:573–582 Google Scholar
Poffenbarger, HJ, Mirsky, SB, Teasdale, JR, Spargo, JT, Cavigelli, MA, Kramer, M (2015) Nitrogen competition between corn and weeds in soils under organic and conventional management. Weed Sci 63:461–476 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ponisio, LC, M’gonigle, LK, Mace, KC, Palomino, J, De Valpine, P, Kremen, C (2015) Diversification practices reduce organic to conventional yield gap. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 282:1799 Google ScholarPubMed
Pornon, A, Escaravage, N, Lamaze, T (2007) Complementarity in mineral nitrogen use among dominant plant species in a subalpine community. Am J Bot 94:1778–1785 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Posner, JL, Baldock, JO, Hedtcke, JL (2008) Organic and conventional production systems in the Wisconsin integrated cropping systems trials: I. Productivity 1990–2002. Agron J 100:253–260 Google Scholar
Reganold, JP (1988) Comparison of soil properties as influenced by organic and conventional farming systems. Am J Altern Agric 3:144–155 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reganold, JP, Palmer, AS, Lockhart, JP, Macgregor, AN (1993) Soil quality and financial performance of biodynamic and conventional farms in New Zealand. Science 260:344–349 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roberts, CJ, Lynch, DH, Voroney, RP, Martin, RC, Juurlink, SD (2008) Nutrient budgets of organic dairy farms. Can J Soil Sci 88:107–113 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryan, MR, Mortensen, DA, Bastiaans, L, Teasdale, JR, Mirsky, S, Curran, WS, Seidel, R, Wilson, DO, Hepperly, PR (2010) Elucidating the apparent maize tolerance to weed competition in long-term organically managed systems. Weed Res 50:25–36 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryan, MR, Smith, RG, Mortensen, DA, Teasdale, JR, Curran, WS, Seidel, R, Shumway, DL (2009) Weed–crop competition relationships differ between organic and conventional cropping systems. Weed Res 49:572–580 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salas, ML, Hickman, MV, Huber, DM, Schreiber, MM (1997) Influence of nitrate and ammonium nutrition on the growth of giant foxtail (Setaria faberi). Weed Sci 45:664–669 Google Scholar
SAS Institute (2011). Version 9.3. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Google Scholar
Seufert, V, Ramankutty, N, Foley, JA (2012) Comparing the yields of organic and conventional agriculture. Nature 485:229–232 Google ScholarPubMed
Smith, RG, Menalled, FD, Robertson, GP (2007) Temporal yield variability under conventional and alternative management systems. Agron J 99:1629–1634 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, RG, Mortensen, DA, Ryan, MR (2010) A new hypothesis for the functional role of diversity in mediating resource pools and weed–crop competition in agroecosystems. Weed Res 50:37–48 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teasdale, JR, Coffma, CB, Magnum, RW (2007) Potential long-term benefits of no tillage and organic cropping systems for grain production and soil improvement. Agron J 99:1297–1305 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teyker, RH (1992) Seedling response to band applied NH4OH rates and to N form in two maize hybrids. Plant Soil 144:289–295 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuomisto, HL, Hodge, ID, Riordan, P, Macdonald, DW (2012) Does organic farming reduce environmental impacts?—A meta-analysis of European research. J Environ Manag 112:309–320 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Waldon, H, Gleissman, S, Buchanan, M (1998) Agro-ecosystem responses to organic and conventional management practices. Agric Syst 57:65–75 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yamagata, M, Ae, N (1996) Nitrogen uptake response of crops to organic nitrogen. Soil Sci Plant Nutr 42:389–394 Google Scholar