Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T02:06:05.473Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Significance of herbicide order in sequential applications to target weeds in a sunn hemp living mulch

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 February 2021

Vinay Bhaskar*
Affiliation:
Graduate Student, Horticulture Section, School of Integrative Plant Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA; current: Associate Scientist-Senior Horticulturist, World Vegetable Center-South Asia Office, ICRISAT Campus, Patancheru, Hyderabad, Telangana502324, India
Robin R. Bellinder
Affiliation:
Professor, Horticulture Section, School of Integrative Plant Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA
Stephen Reiners
Affiliation:
Professor, Horticulture Section, School of Integrative Plant Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA
Anna S. Westbrook
Affiliation:
Graduate Student, Soil and Crop Sciences Section, School of Integrative Plant Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA
Antonio DiTommaso
Affiliation:
Professor, Soil and Crop Sciences Section, School of Integrative Plant Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA.
*
Author for correspondence: Vinay Bhaskar, Horticulture Section, School of Integrative Plant Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 14853 Email: [email protected]

Abstract

Striking a balance between the weed control capacity of living mulches and their competition with the main crop is complex. At rates that avoid severe injury to living mulch, herbicides may reduce their vigor while simultaneously contributing to weed control. In a 2-yr field study carried out in Freeville, NY, we evaluated the effects of various combinations consisting of two herbicides, applied sequentially at reduced rates, on the growth of a sunn hemp living mulch and weeds (including common lambsquarters, common purslane, hairy galinsoga, and Powell amaranth). When a herbicide with primarily POST activity (Type 1; e.g., rimsulfuron, 0.005 to 0.007 kg ai ha−1) was applied first, performance of sunn hemp (1700 to 3900 kg ha−1 dry biomass; 10% to 88% groundcover) was poor and weed growth (25% to 62% groundcover) was high, likely because sunn hemp was severely injured at a young growth stage and was outcompeted by weeds. A follow-up application (approximately 2 wk later) of a herbicide with primarily PRE and residual activities (Type 2; e.g., metribuzin, 0.05 to 0.15 kg ai ha−1), with a surfactant to enhance its POST activity, had little effect on established weeds. However, because sunn hemp was already 20 cm tall at weed emergence, applying a Type 2 herbicide first did not cause severe injury to sunn hemp and reduced weed pressure, thereby also enhancing sunn hemp performance (3,800 to 6,100 kg ha−1 dry biomass; 85% to 94% groundcover). Moreover, the follow-up application of a Type 1 herbicide affected the smaller weeds more (4% to 21% groundcover) than the better-established sunn hemp. Our results demonstrate that an appropriate sequence of herbicides at reduced rates may be important to control weeds while maintaining a healthy living mulch stand.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the 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.)

Footnotes

Associate Editor: Darren Robinson, University of Guelph

Deceased.

References

Bhaskar, V, Bellinder, RR, DiTommaso, A, Walter, MF (2018) Living mulch performance in a tropical cotton system and impact on yield and weed control. Agriculture 8:19 10.3390/agriculture8020019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhaskar, V, Bellinder, RR, Reiners, S, DiTommaso, A (2020) Reduced herbicide rates for control of living mulch and weeds in fresh market tomato. Weed Technol 34:5563 10.1017/wet.2019.81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brainard, DC, Bakker, J, Noyes, DC, Myers, N (2012) Rye living mulch effects on soil moisture and weeds in asparagus. HortScience 47:5863 10.21273/HORTSCI.47.1.58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brainard, DC, Bellinder, RR (2004) Weed suppression in a broccoli–winter rye intercropping system. Weed Sci 52:281290 10.1614/WS-03-031RCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brainard, DC, Bellinder, RR, Miller, AJ (2004) Cultivation and interseeding for weed control in transplanted cabbage. Weed Technol 18:704710 10.1614/WT-03-157RCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardina, J, Hartwig, NL (1980) Suppression of crownvetch for no-tillage corn. Pages 53–58 in Proceedings of the 34th Northeastern Weed Science Society Meeting. Salisbury, MD: Northeastern Weed Science SocietyGoogle Scholar
Chase, CA, Mbuya, OS (2008) Greater interference from living mulches than weeds in organic broccoli production. Weed Technol 22:280285 10.1614/WT-07-119.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Echtenkamp, GW, Moomaw, RS (1989) No-till corn production in a living mulch system. Weed Technol 3:261266 10.1017/S0890037X00031778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grabber, JH, Jokela, WE (2013) Off-season groundcover and runoff characteristics of perennial clover and annual grass companion crops for no-till corn fertilized with manure. J Soil Water Conserv 68:411418 10.2489/jswc.68.5.411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenland, RG (2000) Optimum height at which to kill barley used as a living mulch in onions. HortScience 35:853855 10.21273/HORTSCI.35.5.853CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, K, Hartwig, NL, Hoffman, LD (1984) Cyanazine losses in runoff from no-tillage corn in “living” and dead mulches vs. unmulched, conventional tillage. J Environ Qual 13:105110 10.2134/jeq1984.00472425001300010019xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartwig, NL (1976) Legume suppression for double cropped no-tillage corn in crownvetch and birdsfoot trefoil removed for haylage. Pages 82–85 in Proceedings of the 30th Northeastern Weed Science Society Meeting. Salisbury, MD: Northeastern Weed Science SocietyGoogle Scholar
Hartwig, NL (1977) Nutsedge control in no-tillage corn with and without a crownvetch cover crop. Pages 20–23 in Proceedings of the 31st Northeastern Weed Science Society Meeting. Salisbury, MD: Northeastern Weed Science SocietyGoogle Scholar
Hartwig, NL, Ammon, HU (2002) Cover crops and living mulches. Weed Sci 50:688699 10.1614/0043-1745(2002)050[0688:AIACCA]2.0.CO;2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartwig, NL, Hoffman, LD (1975) Suppression of perennial legume and grass cover crops for no-tillage corn. Pages 82–88 in Proceedings of the 29th Northeastern Weed Science Society Meeting. Salisbury, MD: Northeastern Weed Science SocietyGoogle Scholar
Hess, FD, Foy, CL (2000) Interaction of surfactants with plant cuticles. Weed Technol 14:807813 10.1614/0890-037X(2000)014[0807:IOSWPC]2.0.CO;2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinds, J, Wang, K-H, Hooks, CR (2016) Growth and yield of zucchini squash (Cucurbita pepo L.) as influenced by a sunn hemp living mulch. Biol Agric Hortic 32:2133 Google Scholar
Hughes, BJ, Sweet, RD (1979) Living mulch: a preliminary report on grassy cover crops interplanted with vegetables. Page 109 in Proceedings of the 33rd Northeastern Weed Science Society Meeting. Salisbury, MD: Northeastern Weed Science SocietyGoogle Scholar
Kunz, C, Sturm, DJ, Peteinatos, GG, Gerhards, R (2016) Weed suppression of living mulch in sugar beets. Gesunde Pflanzen 68:145154 10.1007/s10343-016-0370-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leary, J, DeFrank, J (2000) Living mulches for organic farming systems. HortTechnology 10:692698 10.21273/HORTTECH.10.4.692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liebman, M, Dyck, E (1993) Crop rotation and intercropping strategies for weed management. Ecol Appl 3:92122 Google ScholarPubMed
Linscott, DL, Hagin, RD (1975) Potential for no-tillage corn in crownvetch sods. Page 81 in Proceedings of the 29th Northeastern Weed Science Society Meeting. Salisbury, MD: Northeastern Weed Science SocietyGoogle Scholar
Martin, RC, Greyson, PR, Gordon, R (1999) Competition between corn and a living mulch. Can J Plant Sci 79:579586 10.4141/P98-089CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Masiunas, JB (1998) Production of vegetables using cover crop and living mulches—a review. J Veg Crop Prod 4:1131 Google Scholar
Mohammadi, GR (2012) Living mulch as a tool to control weeds in agroecosystems: a review. Pages 75–100 in A Price, ed. Weed control. Rijeka, Croatia: InTechGoogle Scholar
Moomaw, RS, Martin, AR (1976) Herbicides for no-tillage corn in alfalfa sod. Weed Sci 24:449453 10.1017/S0043174500066431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Northeast Regional Climate Center (2020) CLIMOD 2. http://climod2.nrcc.cornell.edu/. Accessed: September 13, 2020Google Scholar
Paine, L, Harrison, H, Newenhouse, A (1995) Establishment of asparagus with living mulch. J Prod Agric 8:3540 10.2134/jpa1995.0035CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfeiffer, A, Silva, E, Colquhoun, J (2016) Living mulch cover crops for weed control in small-scale applications. Renew Agric Food Syst 31:309317 10.1017/S1742170515000253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, WK, Lundy, HW, Prine, GM, Currey, WL (1976) Planting corn in sod and small grain residues with minimum tillage. Agron J 68:271274 10.2134/agronj1976.00021962006800020016xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teasdale, JR (1996) Contribution of cover crops to weed management in sustainable agricultural systems. J Prod Agric 9:475479 10.2134/jpa1996.0475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teasdale, JR (1998) Cover crops, smother plants, and weed management. Pages 247–270 in JL Hatfield, DD Buhler, BA Stewart, eds. Integrated weed and soil management. Chelsea, MI: Ann Arbor PressGoogle Scholar
Teasdale, JR, Brandsaeter, LO, Calegari, A, Skora Neto, F (2007) Cover crops and weed management. Pages 49–64 in MK Upadhyaya, RE Blackshaw, eds. Non-chemical weed management: principles, concepts and technology. Wallingford, UK: CABIGoogle Scholar
Vrabel, TE, Minotti, PL, Sweet, RD (1980) Seeded legumes as living mulches in sweet corn. Pages 171–175 in Proceedings of the 34th Northeastern Weed Science Society Meeting. Salisbury, MD: Northeastern Weed Science SocietyGoogle Scholar
Zandstra, BH, Warncke, DD (1993) Interplanted barley and rye in carrots and onions. HortTechnology 3:214218 10.21273/HORTTECH.3.2.214CrossRefGoogle Scholar