Managing weeds with crop rotation

Posted November 9, 2009 by gallandt
Categories: Ecologically-based Weed Management

“Rotation of crops…is the most effective means yet devised for keeping land free of weeds.  No other method of weed control, mechanical, chemical, or biological, is so economical or so easily practiced as a well-arranged sequence of tillage and cropping.”

— C.E. Leighty.  1938 Yearbook of Agriculture

Diversity is key.  Dissimilar crop species with disparate management practices impose a wide range of stresses and mortality factors, creating an unpredictable environment to which the weed community is continually adjusting (Liebman and Staver, 2001).  Diversity, however, may also establish and/or perpetuate weed problems.  Fall cucurbits, for example, may permit considerable weed growth after vines run, causing abundant seed rain (see, Figure 1, below).  Cover crops, while frequently noted for their ability to reduce weed biomass, often contain weeds going to seed.  Perennial legumes or sod crops favor perennial weeds such as quackgrass, and do not include timely soil disturbance events that promote germination losses of annual weeds.  Thus, while diversity is key, successful weed management requires cropping sequences that feature practices that minimize, or better, eliminate, “credits” to the weed seedbank, while maximizing seed “debits.”

Short-season cash or cover crops, whose growth is terminated before weeds set seed, are the most useful elements in preventing weed seed credits (Figure 1).  The tillage events necessary for these crops are often well-timed to preempt seed rain of winter annual weeds.  Ideally, the crops are then terminated before their associated summer annual weeds set seed.  In considering longer-season crops, good weed control, a competitive canopy, and opportunity for hand roguing surviving weeds are key attributes.

We measured common lambsquarters weed seed rain in a broccoli, winter squash rotation, managed without cover crops (control), with fall cover crops, two consecutive years of red clover (2-Yr. CC), or alternate years of vegetables and cover crops with summer fallowing (e.g., after strategies described by Nordell and Nordell, 2007; Figure 1).  The alternate year cover crop system consistently had the lowest common lambsquarters seed rain (see Alt.-Yr. CC, solid boxes, below).  This, combined with the seedbank depleting fallowing periods during the cover crop years, prevented this species from increasing over the four years of the experiment (data not shown).


SARE_CHEAL_seedrain

Figure 1.  Effect of cover crop systems on common lambsquarters seed rain in 2001 through 2004.  Within a year means labeled with different lowercase letters are significantly different based on Tukey’s HSD (P < 0.05).

 

Debiting strategies require consideration of weed seedbank ecology (Gallandt, 2006).  Because germination is the most effective way to deplete the seedbank, it may be useful to consider primary tillage practices that maintain seeds at or near the soil surface, in the “active seedbank,” where seeds are most likely to experience environmental conditions that encourage germination.  Seed predation is also an important source of loss from the seedbank, and a further reason to keep seeds at the soil surface.  Avoiding fall tillage and rapid weed seed burial maintains seed at the soil surface where they are more readily consumed by predators.

Initial conditions of the seedbank should be carefully considered in short-term crop sequence planning.  Where the starting weed pressure is very high, a clean fallow period is the best strategy for drawing down the seedbank (Mohler, 2009; Nordell and Nordell, 2007).  Because weed species vary in their seasonal patterns of emergence, the timing of fallow periods should target the most problematic species or group of weeds.  Winter annuals, for example, exhibit peak emergence in the late fall and early spring—summer annuals, in the warmer periods of June and July.  Shallow tillage coincident with this emergence periodicity will stimulate germination of the targeted group of weeds, and subsequent tillage kills these seedlings.

If the seedbank is at a moderate level, cropping options may be expanded to include crops that are both amenable to effective cultivation, and are sufficiently competitive that abundant weed seed rain is unlikely.  These so-called “cleaning crops,” seem to vary from farm to farm.  Onions, for example, are a cleaning crop for some growers.  A long-season and uncompetitive crop, growers know onions must be nearly weed free, so they make frequent cultivation a priority for this crop.  This frequent, shallow cultivation offers benefits similar to fallowing strategies, encouraging successive flushes of weeds that are removed by subsequent cultivation events.  While the need for repeated cultivation may be viewed negatively in the short-term, the long term effect is depletion of the seedbank. Potato and sweet corn are cleaning crops for some growers.  These crops can be aggressively cultivated and weeds kept at a minimum.  Slow to establish, uncompetitive species, e.g., carrot and parsnip, onion and leek, are ideally planted in the cleanest of fields.

Given the importance of the relative size of the weed seedbank to the success of subsequent weed management practices, it seems counterproductive for an otherwise clean rotation sequence to include a crop likely to result in abundant weed seed rain (e.g., my problem with winter cucurbits).  Rotation blocks could consider likelihood of seed rain as a first separating criterion.  “Weed-free” blocks could be managed with a long-term vision for improving weed management conditions.  Elsewhere, the commonly used “critical period” for weed control can continue to guide management, focusing on control of weed seedlings in the early to mid-period of crop growth.  Before the start of this period, weeds are too small to reduce crop yield; after this period crop competition alone will avoid weed-related yield losses.  In other words, “beat the weeds back” early to ensure a good crop and don’t worry about weedy crops late in the season.  There are many successful farmers who rely on this approach to weed management.  They focus on repeated cultivation and hand weeding until crops are judged to be sufficiently weed-free.  However, seed rain from weeds surviving the critical period means that weed pressure is likely to increase over time.  In response, the frequency of cultivation and hours of hand weeding will have to increase to simply maintain a given level of weed control.  The alternative, managing for improving weed conditions, requires careful deployment of diversity, minimizing credits and maximizing debits to the seedbank (Gallandt, 2006).

___________________________

 

Gallandt, E. R. (2006). “How can we target the weed seedbank?” Weed Science 54: 588-596.

Leighty, C.E.  1938.  “Crop Rotation.”  in Soils and Men, U.S.D.A Yearbook of Agriculture.  pgs. 406-430

Liebman, M. and C. P. Staver (2001). Crop diversification for weed management. Ecological Management of Agricultural Weeds. M. Liebman, C. L. Mohler and C. P. Staver. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press: 322-374.

Mohler, C. L. (2009). The role of crop rotation in weed management. Crop Rotation on Organic Farms.  A Planning Manual. C. L. Mohler and S. E. Johnson. Ithaca, NY, Natural Resource, Agriculture, an dEngineering Service (NRAES): 44-46.

Nordell, A. and E. Nordell (2007). Weed the Soil, Not the Crop.  A Whole Farm Approach to Weed Management. Trout Run, PA: 42.

 

Prepared for the 2009 Proceedings of the New England Vegetable & Berry Conference.

A Look Back at Hand Weeding Tools

Posted September 3, 2009 by gallandt
Categories: Weed Master Project

Tags: , , , ,

In preparation for some fall meetings I spent some time recently looking for other examples of hand weeding tools and, thanks to the scanning efforts of Google, happened upon some fantastic advertisements from the 1919 issues of The Garden Magazine. It would seem that we could have initiated the Weed Master Project nearly a century ago!

From:  The Garden Magazine, 1919

From: The Garden Magazine, 1919

"On-farm evaluation of innovative cultivation tools"  The Garden Magzine, 1919

"On-farm evaluation of innovative cultivation tools" The Garden Magzine, 1919

I have started a collection of images of these tools for a future article, so if you have any good examples please send them our way.

"Eliminating the backbreaking drudgery of weeding."  from The Garden Magazine, 1919

"Eliminating the backbreaking drudgery of weeding." from The Garden Magazine, 1919

Rain, rain, rain…

Posted July 8, 2009 by gallandt
Categories: Weed Master Project

Tags: , , , , ,

Tuesday, July 7, 2009

Wolf Pine Farm, Alfred, Maine

On the way to the York County Farmers’ Network July meeting at Wildroot Farm in Kennebunk, we stopped by Wolf Pine Farm so Amy Sprague and crew could field test the Weed Master cultivation tools.  Unfortunately, the rain started soon after we completed assembly, but with a coarse textured site in mind, and the seemingly unending days of rain we have had in recent weeks, we headed to the field.

Although the finger weeders were quickly clogged, we were able to use the disk hillers in leeks despite the rain (although it was raining too hard at this point to get the camera out!).

Disk-hilling leeks

Disk-hilling leeks

We then headed to the nearby Wildroot Farm where the York County Farmers’ Network was holding a potluck and meeting.  We retreated indoors to assemble the Weed Master, examine the components, and discuss the experiences from our field tests conducted to date.

Unloading the Weed Master at Wildroot Farm in Kennebunk.  July 7, 2009

Unloading the Weed Master at Wildroot Farm in Kennebunk. July 7, 2009

Farm Training Project Workshop

Posted June 22, 2009 by gallandt
Categories: Weed Master Project

Tags: , , , , , ,

June 16, 2009

Peacemeal Farm, Dixmont, Maine

There was an impressive turnout Tuesday evening for the Weed Management workshop at the Peacemeal farm.  Part of the Farm Training Project Workshop program organized for farm apprentices, and others, by MOFGA, the Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association, the presentations, demonstrations and field tour for this session were focused on weeds.  After some introductory comments related to the ecology of weeds in organic farming systems, the seventy five participants moved to the field for a demonstration of hand tools, including the Weed Master.

Clayton Carter, Fail Better Farm, Montville, Maine, demonstrates the Weed Master to MOFGA Apprentices at the June 16 evening Farm Training Project Workshop on weeds.  Photo Credit: Mike Mardosa, University of Maine

Clayton Carter, Fail Better Farm, Montville, Maine, demonstrates the Weed Master to MOFGA Apprentices at the June 16 evening Farm Training Project Workshop on weeds. Photo Credit: Mike Mardosa, University of Maine

Mark Guzzie, Peacemeal Farm, Dixmont, Maine, offers Russell Libby, Executive Director of MOFGA a turn at the helm of the Weed Master.  Photo Credit: Mike Mardosa, University of Maine.

Mark Guzzie, Peacemeal Farm, Dixmont, Maine, offers Russell Libby, Executive Director of MOFGA a turn at the helm of the Weed Master. Photo Credit: Mike Mardosa, University of Maine.

Fail Better Farm, Montville

Posted June 5, 2009 by gallandt
Categories: Weed Master Project

Tags: , , , ,

June 2 and 3, 2009

We visited Clayton Carter, Fail Better Farm, Montville, Maine, this week to test the Weed Master in several crops on his diverse organic vegetable farm.

Here are some images from these tests; I’ll update the post further next week.

Cultivating garlic with the Weed Master and sweeps

Cultivating garlic with the Weed Master and sweeps

Sweeps attached to parallel linkage units entering a 3-row bed of garlic

Sweeps attached to parallel linkage units entering a 3-row bed of garlic

Sweeps even controlled some large horsetail weeds in fava beans

Sweeps even controlled some large horsetail weeds in fava beans

Fava beans cultivated with disk hillers and then sweeps

Fava beans cultivated with disk hillers and then sweeps

Using the depth control wheels as row markers

Using the depth control wheels as row markers

Finger-weeding Onions at Fisher Farm

Posted June 5, 2009 by gallandt
Categories: Weed Master Project

Tags: , , ,

22 May 2009

We headed to the Fisher Farm in Winterport, Maine, Friday morning to meet Beth Haines, Dennis and Joe Fisher, and found perfect conditions for cultivating onions.  Hot, dry weather, level beds, and straight rows of onions.   Particularly convenient was the fact that there were two-rows per bed so it was not necessary to adjust the Weed Master for a center row and then outside rows as we had to at Peacemeal.  Weeds included crabgrass, common lambsquarters, chickweed, some larger than would be optimal, but mostly in the cotyledon to 1-leaf stage.

Beth Haines, Joe and Dennis Fisher of Fisher Farm in Winterport, ME, prepare to cultivate onions.

Beth Haines, Joe and Dennis Fisher of Fisher Farm in Winterport, ME, prepare to cultivate onions.

Dennis and Joe Fisher testing the finger weeders on onions.

Dennis and Joe Fisher testing the finger weeders on onions.

Finger weeders get close within the row and dislodge some, but certainly not all, larger weeds (e.g., 2 to 4-leaf).

Finger weeders get close within the row and dislodge some, but certainly not all, larger weeds (e.g., 2 to 4-leaf).

Long-handled, colinear hoes are the favored precision cultivating tools at the Fisher Farm.  They are sharpened to a fine edge before each use.

Long-handled, colinear hoes are the favored precision cultivating tools at the Fisher Farm. They are sharpened to a fine edge before each use.

Well-sharpened colinear hoes provide the "standard practice," that the finger weeders were matched against.

Well-sharpened colinear hoes provide the "standard practice," that the finger weeders were matched against.

Before cultivation, weed counts were made in 1/16 square meter quadrats at six locations within each bed. Post cultivation weed counts in these flagged areas were made the following day. The colinear hoe bed had an average of 45 weed seedlings per quadrat before hoeing, and 12 afterwords, a reduction of 73% in the 12 minutes it took to weed this bed (seed bar graph below). Five other beds were cultivated with the Weed Master and finger weeders, taking an average of 2 min 30 seconds per bed. Weed control efficacy for these treatments ranged from 44 to 62% (avg. 55%).

Thus, the standard practice of precision colinear hoeing was more effective, but the improved weed control was not proportional to the additional time input.

The very high working speed of the finger weeders was impressive and, combined with subsequent hand weeding, could improve overall weed control with out additional labor, or maintain a similar level of weed control with less time commitment.

Weed density in onions before and after cultivation

Weed density in onions before and after cultivation

Fisher Farm, Winterport Maine

Fisher Farm, Winterport Maine

Disk Hilling Peas

Posted May 23, 2009 by gallandt
Categories: Weed Master Project

Tags: , , ,

May 20, 2009

Peacemeal Farm, Dixmont, Maine

Peas are nearly ready for trellising at Peacemeal, and thus the last opportunity for cultivating.  The disk hillers were quite simple to attach to the tool bar, and relatively simple to adjust.  We found the pushing bar/handle adjustment to have a noticable affect on the aggressivity of the disks.  If the handle was low for a shorter operator, the frame was not horizontal to the ground, and the disks moved less soil.  We adjusted the handle lower to ensure the tool bars were parallel to the soil surface, and the disks were more aggressive.

A brief video clip of the disk hillers in action has been posted to YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h14aD2h3EOc

Overall the disk hillers were quite impressive.  Conditions were optimal, including the fact that Tim had “Pigged” the inter-row space the day before, leaving loose soil easily moved by the disks.

Peas, post-hilling, Peacemeal Farm, 22 May 2009

Peas, post-hilling, Peacemeal Farm, 22 May 2009

The disks rolled over coarse residues in the field; efficacy was likely reduced in these areas, but the unit rolled on.  Performance was best on the flatter, more uniform beds, with increasing inconsistency in places where peas were on the edge of a ridge or other irregular soil feature.

Most observing the field following hilling were impressed.  Mike’s first comment was “Fantastic.”  I think we were all impressed with the consistency of the action of the disks.  Each pass of the 277 ft. bed took 2 min. 30 sec.  The disks were relatively easy to control at a comfortable walking pace, simply by focusing on the area where the disks attached to the tool bar, and ensuring that the crop row was centered here enabled a good working speed.  In places where the crop was short it was possible to slow considerably to reduce soil movement into the row.

As in the previous trials we conducted pre-cultivation weed censuses.  Post-cultivation censuses were conducted Friday, 22 May.  Counts were made in 15 quadrats, and by subtracting the number surviving from the starting number we calculate efficacy, i.e., proportion of weeds killed, which can range from zero, no weeds killed, to 1.0, all killed.  Mean efficacy of the disk hillers was 0.59, ranging from 0.32 to 0.86.  We did not separate our censuses to distinguish the intra-row region from the inter-row (between rows), but the lower efficacy values likely reflect areas where weeds were outsize the zone of working for the disks.

Cultivation efficacy, total weeds, intra- and inter-row following disk hilling.

Cultivation efficacy, total weeds, intra- and inter-row following disk hilling.

Peas, two days post disk-hilling at Peacemeal Farm, 22 May 2009.

Peas, two days post disk-hilling at Peacemeal Farm, 22 May 2009.

Carrot Bed Flaming, Pre-emergence

Posted May 19, 2009 by gallandt
Categories: Weed Master Project

Tags: , , , ,

May 13, 2009

Peacemeal Farm, Dixmont, Maine

In addition to the tests in onion, we used the bed flamer to preemergence flame two beds of carrots.  Six quadrates were placed in each bed and all weeds counted prior to flaming; post-flaming weed density was measured the following day (14 May).  Efficacy was greater in the ‘Nelson’ carrots, 82% compared to ‘Mokum’ carrots, 66%.  Both beds contained predominately broadleaf weeds; very few grass weeds were counted.  The working speed of the unit was 2 min. 30 sec. to cover the length of the 320 ft. beds.  Two passes were used to cover the entire width of the bed, with some overlap at the center row.  There were no problems with the tank or lines freezing up during these tests.

David Merrill films the Weed Master bed flamer in action.  May 13, 2009

David Merrill films the Weed Master bed flamer in action. May 13, 2009

Two flaming units attached to the shroud of the Weed Master bed flamer.

Two flaming units attached to the shroud of the Weed Master bed flamer.

Weed Master vs. “The Pig” vs. “Scuffles”

Posted May 17, 2009 by gallandt
Categories: Weed Master Project

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

13 May 2009

It was a very exciting day comparing the Weed Master to tried-and-true cultivation tools at the Peacemeal Farm.  Depending on conditions, the crew would use a favorite old steel-wheeled hoe with a wide stirrup, “The Pig,” and/or scuffle hoes.  We decided to compare the Weed Master, with sweeps or finger weeders, to these typical tools, looking at both efficacy (proportion of weed seedlings killed), and working speed.

Mike "The Pig," vs. Mark "The Weed Master," vs. Tim "Scuffles," May 13, 2009

Mike "The Pig," vs. Mark "The Weed Master," vs. Tim "Scuffles," May 13, 2009

One bed of onions each in a timed event with pre- and post-emergence efficacy measured in four randomly located 1/16th square meter quadrats.  The contoured, 216 ft. long beds contained three rows of transplanted onions on 15 in. centers; onions were 4 to 6 in. tall at the time of the trial.  Post-cultivation censuses of weeds was performed the following day.

The stirrup hoe was a 7 in. wide model commonly available through garden suppliers (e.g., Johnny’s Selected Seeds).  The operator, Tim, is a highly-regarded by farm members as an expert with the stirrup or “scuffel” hoe, and has several seasons of experience.

Scuffle hoeing transplanted onions at Peacemeal Farm.  May 2009

Scuffle hoeing transplanted onions at Peacemeal Farm. May 2009

“The Pig,” as it is affectionately known on the Peacemeal Farm, is a wheel hoe that is no longer commercially available.  A copy of the Planet Jr No. 17 that was reproduced by Red Pig tools, now in Oregon.  Although not presently available, Rita Denman of Red Pig Tools indicated that they have plans to reintroduce “Red Pig No. 1,” which they hope will be available in the spring of 2010.  Two notable features of this tool offer superior performance to currently-available options.  First, the steel wheel does not bounce over stones or other obstructions, a problem with the pneumatic tires of, for example, the Glaser® wheel hoe.  Secondly, the Peacemeal team likes the heavy cast frame assembly of The Pig.

Mike and "The Pig," a favorite wheel hoe at the Peacemeal Farm

Time. Considering only the working time, the Weed Master was the clear winner.  With the finger weeders it took 7 min. 10 sec. to weed the three rows of onions in the 216 ft. bed; with sweeps, 10 min. 20 sec.  This compares to 13 min. 58 sec. for The Pig and 29 min. 6 sec. for the scuffle hoe.

However, the Weed Master can only weed one row at a time and we could not set up the parallel linkages in one location on the tool bar that would be suitable for both the center and the outside rows.  Mark started with the linkages adjusted for the center row, but at the end of this pass he had to move them to the side to cultivate the outside rows.  Thus, if we add this “fiddling time” with the working time and considering total time, the Weed Master w/finger weeders barely inched out a victory over The Pig: 13 min. 16 sec. total for the Weed Master w/finger weeders vs. 13 min. 58 sec. for The Pig.  The scuffle hoe and The Pig had no need for such adjustments.  Total time for the Weed Master w/sweeps was similar at 14 min. 30 sec.

Efficacy. Were the tools similarly effective at killing weeds?  Generally yes.  We measured the proportion of weeds killed (mortality, from 0, none killed, to 1, all killed), both between the crop rows and within the crop rows.  As expected, each of the tools did a fine job killing between-row weeds, with mortality ranging from 80 to nearly 100% (see figure, below).  The means and variation within the treatments were remarkable similar; the overall mean of all treatments was 89%.

Mortality (proportion of weeds killed) between onion rows

Mortality (proportion of weeds killed) between onion rows

Control of the within-row weeds was more consistent with The Pig, which was unexpected.  I would have considered the flexibility of the scuffle hoe and the consistent working action of the finger weeders to have offered more consistent results.   Overall, control of in-row weeds was, as expected, less than control of between-row weeds; overall mortality of in-row weeds averaged 50%.  There is some evidence that The Pig outperformed the other tools based on this criterion.  Mean proportion of weeds controlled and variation were similar for the other tools.  Note that this field evaluation, although multiple samples were measured for each treatment, they represent subsamples, not true replication.

Mortality of weeds within the onion rows

Mortality of weeds within the onion rows

Tim, “Scuffles,” bed was quite attractive in it complete lack of foot prints within the bed.  In using The Pig, Mike used a technique to minimize the number of foot prints between the rows while maximizing speed and control:  “large step, lunge with body and arms.”

Mike's long-stride, lunging technique with The Pig.

Mike's long-stride, lunging technique with The Pig.

Despite the slow working time of the scuffle hoe the quality of this weeding job was outstanding.  The scuffle hoe, in the hands of an experienced user, is unparalleled in ability to immediately adjust to variations in soil conditions, crop, or weed size (e.g., to make passes more or less aggressive as needed).

Overall I am most impressed to date with the finger weeders.  Early in the day, when soil conditions were moist their working action was not impressive.  However, later in the day, as the soil dried to nearly perfect cultivating conditions, I adjusted the yellow fingers to a 1 in. gap and did a final bed, first the center row, and then adjusting the linkages to and pushing handle to the side for the outside rows.  Keeping up a rather quick walking speed, the fingers did a very thorough job of disturbing or throwing soil in the row, between the onion plants.  The working width of fingers was about 6 in. on either side of the row, so the passes on the outside rows mostly obliterated the footprints from my center row pass, and the working speed, although not timed, was quite fast.

Weed Master

The pushing handle section of the Weed Master has proven difficult to keep in a lowered adjustment.  There does not seem to be sufficient friction with the carriage bolts to hold the handle against the force of the user pushing.  The handle then slowly moves up to the maximal height.  This will be a problem for uses who wish to have the handle lower.  Perhaps a pin/hole design could index the handle into a range of positions.

Under challenging conditions, e.g., up hill or on uneven ground, pushing the Weed Master is physically demanding, perhaps due the weight of the tool, and the effort to keep it centered on the row being cultivated.

Mike celebrates "The Pig's" victory over the Weed Master w/sweeps.

Mike celebrates "The Pig's" victory over the Weed Master w/sweeps.