Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T01:08:14.906Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Band sowing with hoeing in organic grains: I. Comparisons with alternative weed management practices in spring barley

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 October 2019

Margaret R. McCollough Open the ORCID record for Margaret R. McCollough [Opens in a new window] ,
Eric R. Gallandt Open the ORCID record for Eric R. Gallandt [Opens in a new window] ,
Heather M. Darby  and
Thomas Molloy
Margaret R. McCollough*
Affiliation:
Graduate Student, School of Food and Agriculture, University of Maine, Orono, ME, USA; current: Department of Agroecology, Aarhus University, Slagelse, Denmark
Eric R. Gallandt
Affiliation:
Professor, School of Food and Agriculture, University of Maine, Orono, ME, USA
Heather M. Darby
Affiliation:
Professor, University of Vermont Extension, Burlington, VT, USA
Thomas Molloy
Affiliation:
Research Associate, University of Maine Cooperative Extension, Orono, ME, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Margaret R. McCollough, Department of Agroecology, Aarhus University, Forsøgsvej 1, 4200Slagelse, Denmark. (Email: margaret.r.mccollough@gmail.com)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Weeds remain the foremost production challenge for organic small grain farmers in the northeastern United States. Instead of crops sown in narrow, single-line rows, band sowing offers a more uniform spatial arrangement of the crop, maximizing interspecific while reducing intraspecific competition. Weeds in the inter-band zone are controlled by cultivating with aggressive sweeps; tine harrowing can target weeds in both intra- and inter-band zones. Field experiments in Maine and Vermont in 2016 and 2017 evaluated band sowing for improved weed control, crop yield, and grain quality in organic spring barley (Hordeum vulgare L. ‘Newdale’). Specifically, we compared: (1) the standard practice of sowing 16.5-cm rows at a target crop density of 325 plants m−2, (2) narrow-row sowing with increased crop density, (3) wide-row sowing with interrow hoeing, and (4) band sowing both with and (5) without inter-band hoeing. Mustard (Sinapis alba L. ‘Ida Gold’) was planted throughout the experiment as a surrogate weed. Compared with the standard practice, band sowing with hoeing reduced surrogate weed density on average by 45% across site-years. However, effects on weed biomass and yield were inconsistent, perhaps due to suboptimal timing of hoeing and adverse weather conditions. In 1 out of 4 site-years, band sowing with hoeing reduced surrogate weed biomass by 67% and increased crop yield compared with the standard treatment. Results also indicate that band sowing with hoeing may improve 1,000-kernel weight and plump kernel grain-quality parameters.

Keywords

Cerealcrop–weed competitiongraininterrow hoeingnarrow-rowphysical weed controlsmall grainwide-row
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 68 , Issue 3 , May 2020 , pp. 285 - 293
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.)

References

[AMBA] American Malting Barley Association (2019) Malting Barley Breeding Guidelines: Ideal Commercial Malt Criteria. https://ambainc.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Malting_Barley_Breeding_Guidelines_June_2019.pdf. Accessed: November 18, 2019Google Scholar
Andersson, B (1986) Influence of crop density and spacing on weed competition and grain yield in wheat and barley. Pages 121–128in Proceedings of the European Weed Research Society Symposium 1986, Economic Weed Control. Hohenheim, GermanyGoogle Scholar
[ASBC] American Society of Brewing Chemists (1958) ASBC Methods of Analysis, online. Barley-3 germination energy. http://methods.asbcnet.org/toc.aspx. Accessed: November 7, 2019Google Scholar
[ASBC] American Society of Brewing Chemists (2011) ASBC Methods of Analysis, online. Malt-8 protein (N X 6.25). http://methods.asbcnet.org/toc.aspx. Accessed: November 7, 2019Google Scholar
Arduini, I, Masoni, A, Ercoli, L, Mariotti, M (2006) Grain yield, and dry matter and nitrogen accumulation and remobilization in durum wheat as affected by variety and seeding rate. Eur J Agron 25:309–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baerveldt, S, Ascard, J (1999) Effect of soil covering on weeds. Biol Agric Hortic 17:101–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boström, U, Anderson, LE, Wallenhammar, AC (2012) Seed distance in relation to row distance: effect on grain yield and weed biomass in organically grown winter wheat, spring wheat and spring oats. Field Crop Res 134: 144–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, B, Gallandt, ER (2018) Evidence of synergy with “stacked” intrarow cultivation tools. Weed Res 58:284–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheam, AH, Storrie, AM, Koetz, EA, Holding, DJ, Bower, AJ, Barker, JA (2008) Managing Wild Radish and Other Brassicaceous Weeds in Australian Cropping Systems. Adelaide, Australia: Grains Research and Development Corporation, Cooperative Research Centre for Weed Management Systems. 88 pGoogle Scholar
Doll, H (1997) The ability of barley to compete with weeds. Biol Agric Hortic 14:43–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, RA, Miles, RE (1973) The role of spatial pattern in the competition between crop plants and weeds. A theoretical analysis. Math Biosci 18:335–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallandt, ER, Brainard, D, Brown, B (2018) Developments in physical weed control. Pages 1–23in Zimdahl, RL, ed. Integrated Weed Management for Sustainable Agriculture. Cambridge, UK: Burleigh Dodds Science PublishingGoogle Scholar
Heege, HJ (1993) Seeding methods performance for cereals, rape, and beans. Trans Am Soc Agric Eng 36:653–661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hiltbrunner, J, Liedgens, M, Stamp, P, Streit, B (2005) Effects of row spacing and liquid manure on directly drilled winter wheat in organic farming. Eur J Agron 22:411–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huhtapalo, Å (1986) Establishment of the small grain crop by band sowing (wing coulters) or drilling (shoe coulters). Soil Till Res 8:336–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Juskiw, HJ, Helm, JH (2003) Barley response to seeding date in Central Alberta. Can J Plant Sci 83:275–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolb, LN, Gallandt, ER (2012) Weed management in organic cereals: advances and opportunities. Org Agric 2:23–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolb, LN, Gallandt, ER, Mallory, EB (2012) Impact of spring wheat planting density, row spacing, and mechanical weed control on yield, grain protein, and economic return in Maine. Weed Sci 60:244–253Google Scholar
Kolb, LN, Gallandt, ER, Molloy, T (2010) Improving weed management in organic spring barley: physical weed control vs. interspecific competition. Weed Res 50:597–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruskal, WH, Wallis, WA (1952) Use of ranks in one-criterion variance analysis. J Am Stat Assoc 47:583–621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurstjens, DAG, Kropff, MJ (2001) The impact of uprooting and soil-covering on the effectiveness of weed harrowing. Weed Res 41:211–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurstjens, DAG, Perdok, UD, Goense, D (2000) Selective uprooting by weed harrowing on sandy soils. Weed Res 40:431–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lundkvist, A (2009) Effects of pre- and post-emergence weed harrowing on annual weeds in peas and spring cereals. Weed Res 49:409–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Melander, B, Cirujeda, A, Jørgensen, MH (2003) Effects of inter-row hoeing and fertilizer placement on weed growth and yield of winter wheat. Weed Res 43:428–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Melander, B, Rasmussen, IA, Bárberi, P (2005) Integrating physical and cultural methods of weed control: examples from European research. Weed Sci 53:361–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Melander, B, Rasmussen, K, Rasmussen, IA (2001) Row hoeing followed by weed harrowing in winter cereals in spring under the influence of different cropping factors. Pages 211–215in Proceedings of the 18th Danish Plant Protection Conference. Nyborg, Denmark: Danish Institute of Agricultural SciencesGoogle Scholar
Olsen, J, Kristensen, L, Weiner, J (2005a) Effects of density and spatial pattern of winter wheat on suppression of different weed species. Weed Sci 53:690–694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsen, J, Kristensen, L, Weiner, J, Griepentrog, HW (2005b) Increased density and spatial uniformity increase weed suppression by spring wheat. Weed Res 45:316–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pullen, DWM, Cowell, PA (1997) An evaluation of the performance of mechanical weeding mechanisms for use in high speed inter-row weeding of arable crops. J Agric Eng Res 67:27–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rasmussen, IA (2004) The effect of sowing date, stale seedbed, row width and mechanical weed control on weeds and yields of organic winter wheat. Weed Res 44:12–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rasmussen, J (1991) A model for prediction of yield response in weed harrowing. Weed Res 31:401–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rasmussen, J, Nielsen, HH, Gundersen, H (2009) Tolerance and selectivity of cereal species and cultivars to postemergence weed harrowing. Weed Sci 57:338–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Regnier, EE, Bakelana, KB (1995) Crop planting pattern effects on early growth and canopy shape of cultivated and wild oats (Avena fatua). Weed Sci 43:88–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Speelman, L (1975) The seed distribution in band sowing of cereals. J Agric Eng Res 20:25–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sweeney, RA (1989) Generic combustion method for determination of crude protein in feeds: collaborative study. J Assoc Off Anal Chem 72:770–774Google ScholarPubMed
[USDA, GIPSA] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (2006) Plump Barley. Page 24in Grain Inspection Handbook, Book II, Grain Grading Procedures. Washington, DC: USDA, GIPSA Federal Grain Inspection ServiceGoogle Scholar
[USFDA] U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2010) Guidance for Industry and FDA: Advisory Levels for Deoxynivalenon (DON) in Finished Wheat Products for Human Consumption and Grains and Grain By-Products used for Animal Feed. Silver Spring, MD: USFDAGoogle Scholar
Warwick, SI, Francis, A (2005) The biology of Canadian weeds. 132. Raphanus raphanistrum L. Can J Plant Sci 85:709–733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiner, J, Griepentrog, H, Kristensen, L (2001) Suppression of weeds by spring wheat Triticum aestivum increases with crop density and spatial uniformity. J Appl Ecol 38:784–790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welsh, JP, Tillett, ND, Home, M, King, JA (2002) A Review of Knowledge: Inter-row Hoeing and Its Associated Agronomy in Organic Cereals and Pulse Crops. Final report. London: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Funded Project OF312. 21 pGoogle Scholar
Wilcoxon, F (1945) Individual comparisons by ranking methods. Biometrics Bull 1:80–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zadoks, JC, Chang, TT, Konzak, CF (1974) A decimal code for the growth stages of cereals. Weed Res 14:415–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar