Hostname: page-component-7f64f4797f-n5rmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-11-04T13:06:26.580Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cover crop residue components and their effect on summer annual weed suppression in corn and soybean

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 February 2020

Kara B. Pittman Open the ORCID record for Kara B. Pittman [Opens in a new window] ,
Jacob N. Barney Open the ORCID record for Jacob N. Barney [Opens in a new window]  and
Michael L. Flessner Open the ORCID record for Michael L. Flessner [Opens in a new window]
Kara B. Pittman
Affiliation:
Graduate Research Assistant, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA
Jacob N. Barney
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA
Michael L. Flessner*
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Michael L. Flessner, Virginia Tech, 675 Old Glade Road, Blacksburg, VA24061, USA. Email: flessner@vt.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Cover crop residue can act as a mulch that will suppress weeds, but as the residue degrades, weed suppression diminishes. Biomass of cover crop residue is positively correlated to weed suppression, but little research is available regarding the composition of cover crop residue and its effect on weed suppression. Field experiments were conducted to determine the impact of cover crop residue properties (i.e., total carbon, total nitrogen, lignin, cellulose, and hemicellulose) on summer annual weed suppression and cash crop yield. Cover crop monocultures and mixtures were planted in the fall and designed to provide a range of biomass and residue properties. Cover crops were followed by corn (Zea mays L.) or soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.]. At termination, cover crop biomass and residue components were determined. Biomass ranged from 3,640 to 8,750 kg ha−1, and the carbon-to-nitrogen (C:N) ratio ranged from 12:1 to 36:1. As both cover crop biomass and C:N ratio increased, weed suppression and duration of suppression increased. For example, a C:N ratio of 9:1 is needed to suppress redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.) 50% at 4 wk after termination (WAT), and that increases to 16:1 and 20:1 to have 50% suppression at 6 and 8 WAT, respectively. Similarly, with biomass, 2,800 kg ha−1 is needed for 50% A. retroflexus suppression at 4 WAT, which increases to 5,280 kg ha−1 and 6,610 kg ha−1 needed for 50% suppression at 6 and 8 WAT, respectively. In general, similar trends were observed for pitted morningglory (Ipomoea lacunosa L.) and large crabgrass [Digitaria sanguinalis (L.) Scop.]. Corn and soybean yield increased as both cover crop biomass and C:N ratio increased where no weed control measures were implemented beyond cover crop. The same trend was observed with cash crop yield in the weed-free subblocks, with one exception. This research indicates that cover crop residue composition is important for weed control in addition to biomass.

Keywords

BiomassC:N ratiolarge crabgrasspitted morninggloryredroot pigweed

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 68 , Issue 3 , May 2020 , pp. 301 - 310
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

Associate Editor: Timothy L. Grey, University of Georgia

References

Aerts, R (1997) Climate, leaf litter chemistry and leaf litter decomposition in terrestrial ecosystems—a triangular relationship. Oikos 79:439–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anonymous (2015) Virginia NRCS Cover Crop Planning Manual 1.0. https://efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov/references/public/VA/VA_TN10_Agronomy.pdf. Accessed: August 21, 2019Google Scholar
Berg, B, McClaugherty, C (2003) Plant Litter: Decomposition, Humus Formation, Carbon Sequestration. New York: Springer. Pp 53–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhowmik, PC, Bekech, MM (1993) Horseweed (Conyza canadensis) seed production, emergence, and distribution in no-tillage and conventional-tillage corn (Zea mays). Agron Trends Agric Sci 1:67–71Google Scholar
Brady, NC, Weil, RR (2010) Elements of the Nature and Properties of Soils. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Pp 396–412Google Scholar
Burgess, MS, Mehuys, GR, Madramootoo, CA (2002) Nitrogen dynamics of decompsing corn residue components under three tillage systems. Soil Sci Soc Am J 66:1350–1358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burket, JZ, Hemphill, DD, Dick, RP (1997) Winter cover crops and nitrogen management in sweet corn and broccoli rotations. HortScience 32:664–668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, G, Weil, RR (2010) Penetration of cover crop roots through compacted soils. Plant Soil 331:31–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coombs, C, Lauzon, JD, Deen, B, Van Eerd, LL (2017) Legume cover crop management on nitrogen dynamics and yield in grain corn systems. Field Crops Res 201:75–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, A, ed (2012) Managing Cover Crops Profitably. 3rd ed. College Park, MD: SARE Outreach. 245 pGoogle Scholar
Dabney, SM, Delgado, JA, Reeves, DW (2001) Using winter cover crops to improve soil and water quality. Commun Soil Sci Plan 32:1221–1250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finney, DM, White, CM, Kaye, JP (2016) Biomass production and carbon/nitrogen ratio influence ecosystem services from cover crop mixtures. Agron J 108:39–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fogel, R, Cromack, K Jr (1977) Effect of habitat and substrate quality on Douglas fir litter decomposition in western Oregon. Can J Bot 55:1632–1640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frans, R, Talbert, R, Marx, D, Crowley, H (1986) Experimental design and techniques for measuring and analyzing plant responses to weed control practices. Pages 29–46in Camper, ND, ed. Research Methods in Weed Science. 3rd ed. Champaign, IL: Southern Weed Science SocietyGoogle Scholar
Gantoli, G, Ayala, VR, Gerhards, R (2013) Determination of the critical period for weed control in corn. Weed Technol 27:63–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, MR, Swanton, CJ, Anderson, GW (1992) The critical period of weed control in grain corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci 40:441–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Havlin, JL, Beaton, JD, Tisdale, SL, Nelson, WL (2005) Soil Fertility and Fertilizers. 7th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Pp 117–124Google Scholar
Hayden, ZD, Brainard, DC, Henshaw, B, Ngouajio, M (2012) Winter annual weed suppression in rye–vetch cover crop mixtures. Weed Technol 26:818–825CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobbie, SE (2008) Nitrogen effects on decomposition—a five-year experiment in eight temperate sites. Ecology 89:2633–2644CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hunter, MC, Schipanski, ME, Burgess, MH, LaChance, JC, Bradley, BA, Barbercheck, ME, Kaye, JP, Mortensen, DA (2019) Cover crop mixture effects on maize, soybean, and wheat yield in rotation. Agric Environ Lett 4:1–5Google Scholar
Iritani, WM, Arnold, CY (1960) Nitrogen release of vegetable crop residues during incubation as related to their chemical composition. Soil Sci 89:74–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knezevic, SZ, Evans, SP, Blankenship, EE, Van Acker, RC, Lindquist, JL (2002) Critical period for weed control: the concept and data analysis. Weed Sci 50:773–786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lavelle, P, Blanchart, E, Martin, A, Martin, S, Spain, A (1993) A hierarchical model for decomposition in terrestrial ecosystems: application to soils of the humid tropics. Biotropica 25:130–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liebert, JA, DiTommaso, A, Ryan, MR (2017) Rolled mixtures of barley and cereal rye for weed suppression in cover crop-based organic no-till planted soybean. Weed Sci 65:426–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marcillo, GS, Miguez, FE (2017) Corn yield response to winter cover crops: an updated meta-analysis. J Soil Water Conserv 72:226–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Melillo, JM, Aber, JD, Muratore, JF (1982) Nitrogen and lignin control of hardwood leaf litter decomposition dynamics. Ecology 63:621–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milberg, P, Andersson, L, Thompson, K (2000) Large-seeded species are less dependent on light for germination than small-seeded ones. Seed Sci Res 10:99–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mirsky, SB, Ryan, MR, Teasdale, JR, Curran, WS, Reberg-Horton, CS, Spargo, JT, Wells, MS, Keene, CL, Moyer, JW (2013) Overcoming weed management challenges in cover crop–based organic rotational no-till soybean production in the eastern United States. Weed Technol 27:193–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohler, CL, Teasdale, JR (1993) Response of weed emergence to rate of Vicia villosa Roth and Secale cereale L. residue. Weed Res 33:487–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mulugeta, D, Boerboom, CM (2000) Critical time of weed removal in glyphosate-resistant Glycine max. Weed Sci 48:35–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poffenbarger, HJ, Mirsky, SB, Weil, RR, Kramer, M, Spargo, JT, Cavigelli, MA (2015) Legume proportion, poultry litter, and tillage effects on cover crop decomposition. Agron J 107:2083–2096CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ranells, NN, Wagger, MG (1996) Nitrogen release from grass and legume cover crop monocultures and bicultures. Agron J 88:777–782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reddy, KN (2001) Effects of cereal and legume cover crop residues on weeds, yield, and net return in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol 15:660–668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reddy, KN, Zablotowicz, RM, Locke, MA, Koger, CH (2003) Cover crop, tillage, and herbicide effects on weeds, soil properties, microbial populations, and soybean yield. Weed Sci 51:987–994CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sainju, UM, Whitehead, WF, Singh, BP (2005) Biculture legume-cereal cover crops for enhanced biomass yield and carbon and nitrogen. Agron J 97:1403–1412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schulz, M, Marocco, A, Tabaglio, V, Macias, FA, Molinillo, JM (2013) Benzoxazinoids in rye allelopathy—from discovery to application in sustainable weed control and organic farming. J Chem Ecol 39:154–74CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Seefeldt, SS, Jensen, JE, Fuerst, EP (1995) Log-logistic analysis of herbicide dose-response relationships. Weed Technol 9:218–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soltani, N, Dille, JA, Burke, IC, Everman, WJ, VanGessel, MJ, Davis, VM, Sikkema, PH (2016) Potential corn yield losses from weeds in North America. Weed Technol 30:979–984CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soltani, N, Dille, JA, Burke, IC, Everman, WJ, VanGessel, MJ, Davis, VM, Sikkema, PH (2017) Perspectives on potential soybean yield losses from weeds in North America. Weed Technol 31:148–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swift, MJ, Heal, OW, Anderson, JM (1979) Decomposition in Terrestrial Ecosystems. Berkeley: University of California Press. 372 pGoogle Scholar
Teasdale, JR, Mohler, CL (2000) The quantitative relationship between weed emergence and the physical properties of mulches. Weed Sci 48:385–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Acker, RC, Swanton, CJ, Weise, SF (1993) The critical period of weed control in soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.]. Weed Sci 41:194–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, SM, Weil, RR (2004) Cover crop root channels may alleviate soil compation efforts on soybean crop. Soil Sci Soc Am J 68:1403–1409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wortman, SE, Francis, CA, Bernards, ML, Drijber, RA, Lindquist, JL (2012) Optimizing cover crop benefits with diverse mixtures and an alternative termination method. Agron J 104:1425–1435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Pittman et al. supplementary material

Figures S1-S2

Download Pittman et al. supplementary material(File)
File 177.4 KB