Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-17T13:48:43.464Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effectiveness of flame weeding and cultivation on weed control, yield and yield components of organic soybean as influenced by manure application

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 June 2015

Strahinja Stepanovic ,
Avishek Datta ,
Brian Neilson ,
Chris Bruening ,
Charles Shapiro ,
George Gogos  and
Stevan Z. Knezevic
Strahinja Stepanovic
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, Northeast Research and Extension Center, University of Nebraska, Concord, Nebraska 68728, USA.
Avishek Datta
Affiliation:
Agricultural Systems and Engineering, School of Environment, Resources and Development, Asian Institute of Technology, Pathumthani 12120, Thailand.
Brian Neilson
Affiliation:
Mechanical Engineering Department, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, Nebraska 68588, USA.
Chris Bruening
Affiliation:
Mechanical Engineering Department, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, Nebraska 68588, USA.
Charles Shapiro
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, Northeast Research and Extension Center, University of Nebraska, Concord, Nebraska 68728, USA.
George Gogos
Affiliation:
Mechanical Engineering Department, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, Nebraska 68588, USA.
Stevan Z. Knezevic*
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, Northeast Research and Extension Center, University of Nebraska, Concord, Nebraska 68728, USA.
*
*Corresponding author: sknezevic2@unl.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Propane flaming in combination with cultivation could be a potential alternative tool for weed control in organic soybean production. Field experiments were conducted at the Haskell Agricultural Laboratory of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL), Concord, NE in 2010, 2011 and 2012 to determine the level of weed control and the response of soybean grain yield and its components to flaming and cultivation within two fertility regimes (FRs) (with and without manure) utilizing flaming equipment developed at the UNL. The treatments included: weed-free control, weedy season-long and different combinations of banded flaming (intra-row), broadcast flaming and mechanical cultivation (inter-row). The treatments were applied at VC (unfolded cotyledon) and V4–V5 (4-leaf–5-leaf) growth stages. Propane doses were 20 and 45 kg ha−1 for the banded and broadcast flaming treatments, respectively. The data were collected for visual ratings of crop injury and weed control at 7 and 28 days after treatment (DAT) at V4–V5 growth stages, weed dry matter at 60 DAT, crop yield and yield components. The annual application of 101 t ha−1 manure did not alter weed community or influence the effectiveness of weed management treatment; however, it decreased soybean yield by 0.25 t ha−1 through an increased weed biomass of 0.16 t ha−1. The weed-free control plots yielded 4.15 t ha−1. The combination of mechanical cultivation and banded flaming applied twice (at VC and V4–V5) was the best treatment resulting in 80–82% weed control and 6–9% crop injury at 28 DAT and 3.41–3.67 t ha−1 yield. Cultivation conducted twice provided only 19% weed control at 28 DAT and 1.75 t ha−1 yield. Soybean plants recovered well after all flaming treatments, with the exception of broadcast flaming conducted twice (28% crop injury at 28 DAT). Combining flaming with cultivation has a potential to effectively control weeds in organic soybean production across a range of FRs.

Keywords

crop injurymanurenon-chemical weed controlorganic crop productionparallel and cross-flaming
Type
Research Papers
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 31 , Issue 4 , August 2016 , pp. 288 - 299
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

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

Ascard, J. 1995. Effects of flame weeding on weed species at different developmental stages. Weed Research 35:397–411.Google Scholar
Bowman, G. 2002. Steel in the Field: A Farmer's Guide to Weed Management Tools. Sustainable Agriculture Network Handbook Series No. 2. Sustainable Agriculture Publications, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, p. 11–34.Google Scholar
Bruening, C.A. 2009. Development of propane flaming equipment for thermal weed control in agronomic crops. MS thesis, The University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE.Google Scholar
Cavingelli, A.M., Teasdale, R.J., and Conklin, E.A. 2008. Long-term agronomic performance of organic and conventional field crops in the mid-Atlantic region. Agronomy Journal 100:785–794.Google Scholar
Cloutier, D.C., van der Weide, R.Y., Peruzzi, A., and Leblanc, M.L. 2007. Mechanical weed control. In Upadhyaya, M.K. and Blackshaw, R.E. (eds). Non Chemical Weed Management: Principles, Concepts and Technology. CABI, Wallingford.Google Scholar
Cook, A.R., Posner, J.L., and Baldock, J.O. 2007. Effects of dairy manure and weed management of weed communities in corn on Wisconsin cash-grain farms. Weed Technology 21:389–395.Google Scholar
Delate, K., Duffy, M., Chase, C., Holste, A., Friedrich, H., and Wantate, N. 2003. An economic comparison of organic and conventional grain crops in a long-term agroecological research (LTAR) site in Iowa. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 18:59–69.Google Scholar
Gabe, S., Fried, G., Kazakou, E., Chauvel, B., and Navas, M.L. 2014. Agroecological weed control using a functional approach: A review of cropping systems diversity. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 34:103–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gunsolus, J. 2011. Delayed planting, crop rotation keys to weed control in organic corn, soybeans. Ag News Wire – University of Minnesota Extension, St. Paul, MN. Available at: http://blog.lib.umn.edu/umnext/news/2011/06/delayed-planting-crop-rotation-keys-to-weed-control-in-organic-corn-soybeans.php (verified November 27, 2014).Google Scholar
Helmers, M.J., Moody, L.B., and Burns, R. 2008. Utilization of manure nutrients for soybean crop production. Technical Report, Iowa State University Extension, National Pork Board, Des Moines, IA.Google Scholar
Knezevic, S.Z. and Ulloa, S.M. 2007. Flaming: Potential new tool for weed control in organically grown agronomic crops. Journal of Agricultural Science 52:95–104.Google Scholar
Knezevic, Z.S., Datta, A., Bruening, C., and Gogos, G. 2012. Propane-fueled flame weeding in corn, soybean, and sunflower. The Propane Education and Research Council. Available at: http://www.propanemarc.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=PRC-009581 (verified November 27, 2014).Google Scholar
Kruidhof, H.M., Bastiaans, L., and Kropff, M.J. 2008. Ecological weed management by cover cropping: Effects on weed growth in autumn and weed establishment in spring. Weed Research 48:492–502.Google Scholar
Kuepper, G. 2003. Manures for organic crop production. Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas (ATTRA) Soil Systems Guide. Available at: http://www.carolinafarmstewards.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/10-ATTRA-Manures-for-Organic-Production.pdf (verified November 27, 2014).Google Scholar
Larson, H.G., Fairbanks, L.G., and Fenton, G.F. 1960. What it costs to use farm machinery. Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 417, Manhattan, KS.Google Scholar
Leroux, G.D., Douheret, J., Lanouette, M., and Martel, M. 1995. Selectivity of propane flamer as a mean of weed control. HortScience 30:820–828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liebman, M. and Davis, A.S. 2010. Managing weeds in organic farming systems: An ecological approach. In Francis, C. (ed.). Organic Farming: The Ecological System. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI, p. 173–196.Google Scholar
Liebman, M. and Gallandt, E. 1997. Many little hammers: Ecological approaches for management of crop–weed interactions. In Jackson, L.E. (ed.). Ecology in Agriculture. Academic Press, Orlando, FL, p. 291–343.Google Scholar
Mulder, T.A. and Doll, J.D. 1993. Integrating reduced herbicide use with mechanical weeding in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technology 7:382–389.Google Scholar
Neilson, B. 2012. The integration of propane flaming and mechanical cultivation for effective weed control in agriculture. MS thesis, The University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE.Google Scholar
Nemming, A. 1994. Costs of flame cultivation. Acta Horticulturae 372:205–212.Google Scholar
Pleasant, J.M. and Schlather, K.J. 1994. Incidence of weed seed in cow (Bos sp.) manure and its importance as a weed source for cropland. Weed Technology 8:304–310.Google Scholar
Ritchie, S.W., Hanway, J.J., Thompson, H.E., and Benson, G.O. 1997. How a soybean plant develops. Special Report 53. Iowa State University, Cooperative Extension Service, Ames, IA.Google Scholar
Schmidt, J.P., Lamb, J.A., Schmitt, M.A., Randall, G.W., Orf, J.H., and Gollany, H.T. 2001. Soybean varietal response to liquid swine manure application. Agronomy Journal 93:358–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seifert, S. and Snipes, C.E. 1996. Influence of flame cultivation on mortality of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) pests and beneficial insects. Weed Technology 10:544–549.Google Scholar
Statistical Analysis Systems (SAS). 2005. The ANOVA procedure. Online Documentation. Version 9.1. SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Stepanovic, S. 2013. Positioning an innovative flame-weeding technology into crop production. MS thesis, The University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE.Google Scholar
Stephenson, K.Q. 1959. Mechanized weed control for cotton production in Arkansas. Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station Report Series, 87, Fayetteville, AR, p. 16.Google Scholar
Ulloa, S.M., Datta, A., and Knezevic, S.Z. 2010a. Growth stage influenced differential response of foxtail and pigweed species to broadcast flaming. Weed Technology 24:319–325.Google Scholar
Ulloa, S.M., Datta, A., and Knezevic, S.Z. 2010b. Tolerance of selected weed species to broadcast flaming at different growth stages. Crop Protection 29:1381–1388.Google Scholar
Ulloa, S.M., Datta, A., and Knezevic, S.Z. 2010c. Growth stage impacts tolerance of winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) to broadcast flaming. Crop Protection 29:1130–1135.Google Scholar
Ulloa, S.M., Datta, A., Malidza, G., Leskovsek, R., and Knezevic, S.Z. 2010d. Timing and propane dose of broadcast flaming to control weed population influenced yield of sweet maize (Zea mays L. var. rugosa). Field Crops Research 118:282–288.Google Scholar
Ulloa, S.M., Datta, A., Cavalieri, S.D., Lesnik, M., and Knezevic, S.Z. 2010e. Popcorn (Zea mays L. var. everta) yield and yield components as influenced by the timing of broadcast flaming. Crop Protection 29:1496–1501.Google Scholar
Ulloa, S.M., Datta, A., Malidza, G., Leskovsek, R., and Knezevic, S.Z. 2010f. Yield and yield components of soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] are influenced by the timing of broadcast flaming. Field Crops Research 119:348–354.Google Scholar
Ulloa, S.M., Datta, A., Bruening, C., Neilson, B., Miller, J., Gogos, G., and Knezevic, S.Z. 2011a. Maize response to broadcast flaming at different growth stages: Effects on growth, yield and yield components. European Journal of Agronomy 34:10–19.Google Scholar
Ulloa, S.M., Datta, A., and Knezevic, S.Z. 2011b. Growth stage influenced sorghum response to broadcast flaming: Effects on yield and its components. Agronomy Journal 103:7–12.Google Scholar
Walz, E. 2004. Fourth National Organic Farmers’ Survey. Organic Farming Research Foundation, Santa Cruz, CA, p. 106. Available at: http://www.agmrc.org/media/cms/organicsurveyresults_6F6C9F2840CF6.pdf (verified November 27, 2014).Google Scholar
Wszelaki, A.L., Doohan, D.J., and Alexandrou, A. 2007. Weed control and crop quality in cabbage [Brassica oleracea (capitata group)] and tomato (Lycopersicon lycopersicum) using a propane flamer. Crop Protection 26:134–144.Google Scholar