Hostname: page-component-669899f699-vbsjw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-07T04:20:56.723Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Are cover crop mixtures better at suppressing weeds than cover crop monocultures?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 January 2020

Richard G. Smith Open the ORCID record for Richard G. Smith [Opens in a new window] ,
Nicholas D. Warren  and
Stéphane Cordeau
Richard G. Smith*
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Department of Natural Resources and the Environment, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH, USA
Nicholas D. Warren
Affiliation:
Research Scientist, Department of Natural Resources and the Environment, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH, USA
Stéphane Cordeau
Affiliation:
Research Scientist, Agroécologie, AgroSup Dijon, INRA, Université Bourgogne Franche-Comté, F-21000 Dijon, France
*
Author for correspondence: Richard Smith, Department of Natural Resources and the Environment, University of New Hampshire, 264 James Hall, Durham, NH 03824. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Cover crops are increasingly being used for weed management, and planting them as diverse mixtures has become an increasingly popular strategy for their implementation. While ecological theory suggests that cover crop mixtures should be more weed suppressive than cover crop monocultures, few experiments have explicitly tested this for more than a single temporal niche. We assessed the effects of cover crop mixtures (5- or 6-species and 14-species mixtures) and monocultures on weed abundance (weed biomass) and weed suppression at the time of cover crop termination. Separate experiments were conducted in Madbury, NH, from 2014 to 2017 for each of three temporal cover-cropping niches: summer (spring planting–summer termination), fall (summer planting–fall termination), and spring (fall planting–subsequent spring termination). Regardless of temporal niche, mixtures were never more weed suppressive than the most weed-suppressive cover crop grown as a monoculture, and the more diverse mixture (14 species) never outperformed the less diverse mixture. Mean weed-suppression levels of the best-performing monocultures in each temporal niche ranged from 97% to 98% for buckwheat (Fagopyrum esculentum Moench) in the summer niche and forage radish (Raphanus sativus L. var. niger J. Kern.) in the fall niche, and 83% to 100% for triticale (×Triticosecale Wittm. ex A. Camus [Secale × Triticum]) in the winter–spring niche. In comparison, weed-suppression levels for the mixtures ranged from 66% to 97%, 70% to 90%, and 67% to 99% in the summer, fall, and spring niches, respectively. Stability of weed suppression, measured as the coefficient of variation, was two to six times greater in the best-performing monoculture compared with the most stable mixture, depending on the temporal niche. Results of this study suggest that when weed suppression is the sole objective, farmers are more likely to achieve better results planting the most weed-suppressive cover crop as a monoculture than a mixture.

Keywords

Agroecologyblendscocktailscompetitiondiversityecosystem servicesintegrated weed managementmultifunctionresistance management
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 68 , Issue 2 , March 2020 , pp. 186 - 194
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: Martin M. Williams II, USDA–ARS

References

Arbuckle, JG, Roesch-McNally, G (2015) Cover crop adoption in Iowa: the role of perceived practice characteristics. J Soil Water Conserv 70:418–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baraibar, B, Hunter, MC, Schipanski, ME, Hamilton, A, Mortensen, DA (2018) Weed suppression in cover crop monocultures and mixtures. Weed Sci 66:121–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bicksler, AJ, Masiunas, JB (2009) Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) suppression with buckwheat or Sudangrass cover crops and mowing. Weed Technol 23:556–563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blanco-Canqui, H, Shaver, TM, Lindquist, JL, Shapiro, CA, Elmore, RW, Francis, CA, Hergert, GW (2015) Cover crops and ecosystem services: insights from studies in temperate soils. Agron J 107:2449–2474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blesh, J, VanDusen, BM, Brainard, DC (2019) Managing ecosystem services with cover crop mixtures on organic farms. Agron J 111:826–840CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brainard, DC, Bellinder, RR, Kumar, V (2011) Grass-legume mixtures and soil fertility affect cover crop performance and weed seed production. Weed Technol 35:473–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee-Finley, KA, Mirsky, SB, Ryan, MR (2017) Crop biomass not species richness drives weed suppression in warm-season annual grass-legume intercrops in the Northeast. Weed Sci 65:669–680Google Scholar
[CTIC] Conservation Technology Information Center (2017). Report of the 2016-17 National Cover Crop Survey. Joint Publication of the Conservation Technology Information Center, the North Central Region Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program, and the American Seed Trade Association. West Lafayette, IN: CTIC. 46 pGoogle Scholar
Couëdel, A, Alletto, L, Tribouillois, H, Justes, E (2018) Cover crop crucifer-legume mixtures provide effective nitrate catch crop and nitrogen green manure ecosystem services. Agric Ecosyst Environ 254:50–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Creamer, NG, Bennett, MA, Stinner, BR (1997) Evaluation of cover crop mixtures for use in vegetable production systems. HortScience 32:866–870CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Creamer, NG, Bennett, MA, Stinner, BR, Cardina, J, Regnier, EE (1996) Mechanisms of weed suppression in cover crop-based production systems. HortScience 31:410–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falquet, B, Gfeller, A, Pourcelot, M, Tschuy, F, Wirth, J (2015) Weed suppression by common buckwheat: a review. Environ Control Biol 53:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fargione, J, Brown, CS, Tilman, D (2003) Community assembly and invasion: an experimental test of neutral versus niche processes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:8916–8920CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Finney, DM, Kaye, JP (2017) Functional diversity in cover crop polycultures increases multifunctionality of an agricultural system. J Appl Ecol 54:509–517CrossRefGoogle 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
Florence, AM, Higley, LG, Drijber, RA, Francis, CA, Lindquist, JL (2019) Cover crop mixture diversity, biomass productivity, weed suppression, and stability. PLoS ONE 14:e0206195CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Freyre, R, Loy, JB (2000) Evaluation and yield trials of tomatillo in New Hampshire. HortTechnology 10:374–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fridley, JD (2003) Diversity effects on production in different light and fertility environments: an experiment with communities of annual plants. J Ecol 91:396–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groff, S (2008) Mixtures and cocktails: soil is meant to be covered. J Soil Water Conserv 63:110A–111ACrossRefGoogle 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
Hodgdon, EA, Warren, ND, Smith, RG, Sideman, RG (2016) In-season and carry-over effects of cover crops on productivity and weed suppression. Agron J 108:1624–1635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunter, MC, Smith, RG, Schipanski, ME, Atwood, LW, Mortensen, DA (2017) Agriculture in 2050: recalibrating targets for sustainable intensification. BioScience 67:386–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jiang, XL, Zhang, WG, Wang, G (2007) Biodiversity effects on biomass production and invasion resistance in annual versus perennial plant communities. Biodivers Conserv 16:1983–1994CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kladivko, EJ, Kaspar, TC, Jaynes, DB, Malone, RW, Singer, J, Morin, XK, Searchinger, T (2014) Cover crops in the upper midwestern United States: potential adoption and reduction of nitrate leaching in the Mississippi River Basin. J Soil Water Conserv 69:279–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawley, YE, Teasdale, JR, Weil, RR (2012) The mechanism for weed suppression by a forage radish cover crop. Agron J 104:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawley, YE, Weil, RR, Teasdale, JR (2011) Forage radish cover crop suppresses winter annual weeds in fall and before corn planting. Agron J 103:137–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacLaren, C, Swanepoel, P, Bennett, J, Wright, J, Dehnen-Schmutz, K (2019) Cover crop biomass production is more important than diversity for weed suppression. Crop Sci 59:733–748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohler, CL, Liebman, M (1987) Weed productivity and composition in sole crops and intercrops of barley and field pea. J Appl Ecol 24:685–699CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murrell, EG, Schipanski, ME, Finney, DM, Hunter, MC, Burgess, M, LaChance, JC, Baraibar, B, White, CM, Mortensen, DA, Kaye, JP (2017) Achieving diverse cover crop mixtures: effects of planting date and seeding rate. Agron J 109:259–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naeem, S, Knops, JMH, Tilman, D, Howe, KM, Kennedy, T, Gale, S (2000) Plant diversity increases resistance to invasion in the absence of covarying extrinsic factors. Oikos 91:97–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, AG, Pswarayi, A, Quideau, S, Frick, B, Spaner, D (2011) Yield and weed suppression of crop mixtures in organic and conventional systems of the western Canadian Prairie. Agron J 104:756–762CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norsworthy, JK, Ward, SM, Shaw, DR, Llewellyn, RS, Nichols, RL, Webster, TM, Bradley, KW, Frisvold, G, Powles, SB, Burgos, NR, Witt, WW, Barrett, M (2012) Reducing the risks of herbicide resistance: best management practices and recommendations. Weed Sci 12(SP):31–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osipitan, OA, Dille, JA, Assefa, Y, Knezevic, SZ (2018) Cover crop for early season weed suppression in crops: systematic review and meta-analysis. Agron J 110:2211–2221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, AJ, Balkcom, KS, Culpepper, SA, Kelton, JA, Nichols, RL, Schomberg, H (2011) Glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth: a threat to conservation tillage. J Soil Water Conserv 66:265–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ranells, NN, Wagger, MG (1997) Grass-legume bicultures as winter annual cover crops. Agron J 89:659–665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schappert, A, Schumacher, M, Gerhards, R (2019) Weed control ability of single sown cover crops compared to species mixtures. Agronomy 9:294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, RG, Atwood, LW, Pollnac, FW, Warren, ND (2015) Cover crop species as distinct biotic filters in weed community assembly. Weed Sci 63:282–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, RG, Atwood, LW, Warren, ND (2014) Increased productivity of a cover crop mixture is not associated with enhanced agroecosystem services. PLoS ONE 9: e97351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snapp, SS, Swinton, SM, Labarta, R, Mutch, D, Black, JR, Leep, R, Nyiraneza, J, O’Neil, K (2005) Evaluating cover crops for benefits, costs and performance within cropping system niches. Agron J 97:322–332Google Scholar
Storkey, J, Doring, T, Baddeley, J, Collins, R, Roderick, S, Jones, H, Watson, C (2015) Engineering a plant community to deliver multiple ecosystem services. Ecol Appl 25:1034–1043CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Teasdale, JR, Brandsaeter, LO, Calegari, A, Skora Neto, F (2007) Cover crops and weed management. Pages 49–64in Upadhyaya, MK, Blackshaw, RE, eds. Non Chemical Weed Management Principles, Concepts and Technology. Wallingford, UK: CABICrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thapa, R, Poffenbarger, H, Tully, KL, Ackroyd, VJ, Kramer, M, Mirsky, SB (2018) Biomass production and nitrogen accumulation by hairy vetch-cereal rye mixtures: a meta-analysis. Agron J 110:1197–1208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tilman, D, Wedin, D, Knops, JMH (1996) Productivity and sustainability influenced by biodiversity in grassland ecosystems. Nature 379:718–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tilman, D, Isbell, F, Cowles, JM (2014) Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 45:471–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tribouillois, H, Fort, F, Cruz, P, Charles, R, Flores, O, Garnier, E, Justes, E (2015) A functional characterization of a wide range of cover crop species: growth and nitrogen acquisition rates, leaf traits and ecological strategies. PLoS ONE 10:e0122156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallace, JM, Curran, WS, Mortensen, DA (2019) Cover crop effects on horseweed (Erigeron canadensis) density and size inequality at the time of herbicide exposure. Weed Sci 67:327–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weisser, WW, Roscher, C, Meyer, ST, Ebeling, A, Luo, G, Allan, E, Beßler, H, Barnard, RL, Buchmann, N, Buscot, F, et al. (2017) Biodiversity effects on ecosystem functioning in a 15-year grassland experiment: patterns, mechanisms, and open questions. Basic Appl Ecol 23:1–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weston, LA (1996) Utilization of allelopathy for weed management in agroecosystems. Agron J 88:860–866CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiggins, MS, Hayes, RM, Steckel, LE (2016) Evaluating cover crops and herbicides for glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) control in cotton. Weed Technol 30:415–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wortman, SE, Francis, CA, Lindquist, JL (2012) Cover crop mixtures for the western Corn Belt: opportunities for increased productivity and stability. Agron J 104:699–705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Smith et al. supplementary material

Figures S1-S4

Download Smith et al. supplementary material(File)
File 59.1 KB