Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-zzh7m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T05:44:51.777Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of Tef as a Smother Crop during Transition to Organic Management

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Stephanie Wedryk  and
John Cardina
Stephanie Wedryk*
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture and Crop Science, The Ohio State University, Wooster, OH 44691
John Cardina
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture and Crop Science, The Ohio State University, Wooster, OH 44691
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: wedryk.1@osu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Management of weeds is often a barrier to conversion from conventional to organic agriculture. Tef is a C4 annual cereal that is valued for its small seeds, rapid establishment, and wide adaptation. The objective of this study was to evaluate tef as a smother crop for management of weeds during transition to organic production. Greenhouse and field trials were conducted in 2008 and 2009 to evaluate the growth of eight tef varieties and their effect on Canada thistle and annual weeds. In greenhouse studies, tef decreased the biomass of Canada thistle shoots and roots 44 to 74%, depending on variety. Emergence of Canada thistle shoots was affected by the planting depth of their roots. Tef variety Corvalis suppressed Canada thistle biomass and accumulated more biomass than most other tef varieties. In field studies, tef varieties suppressed annual weed biomass by 35 to 54% with varieties Corvalis, Dessie, and VA-T1 being least suppressive in 2008, but there were no differences between varieties in 2009. Canada thistle growth was suppressed an average of 73% by tef in 2008 and 37% in 2009, a year of cooler temperatures and unseasonal rainfall. Differences between varieties in suppressing Canada thistle and annual weeds were mostly inconsistent between years. However, tef variety Tiffany did consistently suppress biomass, height, and percentage cover of Canada thistle and other weeds in the field study in 2008 and 2009.

El manejo de malezas es frecuentemente una barrera para la conversión de la agricultura convencional a la orgánica. Tef [Eragrostis tef (Zucc.) Trotter] es un cereal anual C4 que es apreciado por sus semillas pequeñas, rápido establecimiento y amplia adaptación. El objetivo de este estudio fue evaluar el tef como un cultivo de cobertura para el manejo de malezas durante la transición a la producción orgánica. Estudios de invernadero y de campo se condujeron en 2008 y 2009 para evaluar el crecimiento de ocho variedades de tef y su efecto en Cirsium arvense y malezas anuales. En los estudios de invernadero, tef disminuyó la biomasa de los brotes y raíces de C. arvense de 44 a 74%, dependiendo de la variedad. La emergencia de los brotes de C. arvense fue afectada por la profundidad de siembra de sus raíces. La variedad Corvalis de tef suprimió la biomasa de C. arvense y acumuló más biomasa que la mayoría de las otras variedades de tef. En estudios de campo, las variedades de este cereal suprimieron la biomasa de las malezas anuales de 35 a 54%, con las variedades Corvalis, Dessie y VA-T1, siendo menos la supresión en 2008, pero no hubo diferencia entre las variedades en 2009. Tef suprimió el crecimiento de C. arvense en un promedio de 73% en 2008 y 37% en 2009, un año de temperaturas más frescas y lluvias fuera de temporada. Las diferencias entre variedades en supresión de C. arvense y malezas anuales fueron mayormente inconsistentes entre años. Sin embargo, la variedad Tiffany de tef suprimió consistentemente en 2008 y 2009 la biomasa, la altura y el porcentaje de cobertura de C. arvense y otras malezas en el estudio de campo.

Keywords

Tef, Eragrostis tef (Zucc.) TrotterCanada thistle, Cirsium arvense (L.) ScopAlternative weed managementcultural weed control
Type
Weed Management—Techniques
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 26 , Issue 1 , March 2012 , pp. 102 - 109
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

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

Literature Cited

Adnew, T., Ketema, S., Tefera, H., and Sridhara, H. 2005. Genetic diversity in tef [Eragrostis tef (Zucc.) Trotter] germplasm. Genet. Resour. Crop Evol. 52:891–902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Assefa, K., Tefera, H., Merker, A., Kefyalew, T., and Hundera, F. 2001. Quantitative trait diversity in tef [Eragrostis tef (Zucc.) Trotter] germplasm from Central and Northern Ethiopia. Genet. Resour. Crop Evol. 48:53–61.Google Scholar
Bàrberi, P. 2002. Weed management in organic agriculture: are we addressing the right issues? Weed Res. 41:177–193.Google Scholar
Barnes, J. P. and Putnam, A. R. 1983. Rye residues contribute weed suppression in no-tillage cropping systems. J. Chem. Ecol. 9:1045–1057.Google Scholar
Beveridge, L. E. and Naylor, R. E. L. 1999. Options for organic weed control—what farmers do. Pages 939–944. in The 1999 Brighton Crop Protection Conference—Weeds. Brighton, UK British Crop Protection Council.Google Scholar
Bicksler, A. J. and Masiunas, J. B. 2009. Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) suppression with buckwheat or sudangrass cover crops and mowing. Weed Technol. 23:556–563.Google Scholar
Collins, A. S., Chase, C. A., Stall, W. M., and Hutchinson, C. M. 2007. Competitiveness of three leguminous cover crops with yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus) and smooth pigweed (Amaranthus hybridus). Weed Sci. 55:613–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Debelo, A. 1992. Germination, Yield and Yield Components of Tef (Eragrostis tef) as Affected by Environment, Tillage, and Weed Control Practices. Ph.D Dissertation. Stillwater, OK Oklahoma State University. 162 p.Google Scholar
DeHaan, R. L., Wyse, D. L., Ehlke, N. J., Maxwell, B. D., and Putnam, D. H. 1994. Simulation of spring-seeded smother plants for weed control in corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 42:35–43.Google Scholar
Donald, W. W. 1994a. The biology of Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense). Rev. Weed Sci. 6:77–101.Google Scholar
Donald, W. W. 1994b. Geostatistics for mapping weeds, with a Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) patch as a case study. Weed Sci. 42:648–657.Google Scholar
Evans, J. E. 1984. Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense): a literature review of management practices. Nat. Areas J. 4:11–21.Google Scholar
Gaudet, C. L. and Keddy, P. A. 1988. A comparative approach to predicting competitive ability from plant traits. Nature 334:242–243.Google Scholar
Graglia, E., Melander, B., and Jensen, R. K. 2006. Mechanical and cultural strategies to control Cirsium arvense in organic arable cropping systems. Weed Res. 46:304–312.Google Scholar
Greene, C. and Kremen, A. 2003. U.S. Organic Farming in 2000–2001: Adoption of Certified Systems. Washington, DC U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Resource Economics Division, Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 780. 55 p.Google Scholar
Gustavsson, A.M.D. 1997. Growth and regenerative capacity of plants of Cirsium arvense . Weed Res. 37:229–236.Google Scholar
Hanson, J., Dismukes, R., Chambers, W., Greene, C., and Kremen, A. 2004. Risk and risk management in organic agriculture: views of organic farmers. Renew. Agr. Food Syst. 19:218–227.Google Scholar
Hodgson, J. M. 1958. Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense Scop.) control with cultivation, cropping, and chemical sprays. Weeds 6:1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iqbal, J., Cheema, Z. A., and An, M. 2007. Intercropping of field crops in cotton for the management of purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus L.). Plant Soil 300:163–171.Google Scholar
Jordan, N. 1993. Prospects for weed control through crop interference. Ecol. Appl. 3:84–91.Google Scholar
Kefyalew, T., Tefera, H., Assefa, K., and Ayele, M. 2000. Phenotypic diversity for qualitative and phonologic characters in germplasm collections of tef (Eragrostis tef). Genet. Resour. Crop Evol. 47:73–80.Google Scholar
Ketema, S. 1997. Tef (Eragrostis tef (Zucc.) Trotter). Pages 50 p. In Heller, J., Engels, J. and Hammer, K., eds. Promoting the Conservation and Use of Underutilized and Neglected Crops. 12. Rome Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research.Google Scholar
McAllister, R. S. and Haderlie, L. C. 1985. Seasonal variations in Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) root bud growth and root carbohydrate reserves. Weed Sci. 33:44–49.Google Scholar
Moore, R. J. 1975. The biology of Canadian weeds 13. Cirsium arvense (L.). Scop. Can. J. Plant Sci. 55:1033–1048.Google Scholar
Nelson, W. A., Kahn, B. A., and Roberts, B. W. Screening cover crops for use in conservation tillage systems for vegetables following spring plowing. HortScience, 26:860–862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rees, D. J. 1986. Crop growth, development, and yield in semiarid conditions in Botswana I. The effects of population density and row spacing on Sorghum bicolor . Exp. Agr. 22:153–168.Google Scholar
Regnier, E. E. and Janke, R. R. 1990. Evolving strategies for managing weeds. Pages 174–202. In Edwards, C. A., Lal, R., Madden, P., Miller, R. H. and House, G., eds. Sustainable Agricultural Systems. Boca Raton, FL CRC Press.Google Scholar
Schoofs, A. and Entz, M. H. 2000. Influence of annual forages on weed dynamics in a cropping system. Can. J. Plant Sci. 80:187–198.Google Scholar
Teasdale, J. R. 1998. Cover crops, smother plants, and weed management. Pages 247–270. In Hatfield, J. L., Buhler, D. D. and Stewart, B. A., eds. Integrated Weed and Soil Management. Chelsea, MI Sleeping Bear Press.Google Scholar
Turner, R. J., Davies, G., Moore, H., Grundy, A. C., and Mead, A. 2007. Organic weed management: a review of the current UK farmer perspective. Crop Prot. 26:377–382.Google Scholar
Udensi, U. E., Akobundu, I. O., Ayeni, A. O., and Chikoye, D. 1999. Management of cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica) with velvetbean (Mucuna pruriens var. utilis) and herbicides. Weed Technol. 13:201–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verschwele, A. and Häusler, A. 2004. Effect of crop rotation and tillage on infestation of Cirsium arvense in organic farming systems. Pages 187–194. in 6th EWRS Workshop on Physical and Cultural Weed Control. Lillehammer, Norway European Weed Research Society.Google Scholar
Wang, G., McGiffen, M. E. Jr., Ehlers, J. D., and Marchi, E.C.S. 2006. Competitive ability of cowpea genotypes with different growth habit. Weed Sci. 54:775–782.Google Scholar
Wu, H., Walker, S. R., Osten, V. A., and Robinson, G. 2010. Competition of sorghum cultivars and densities with Japanese millet (Echinochloa esculenta). Weed Biol. Manag. 10:185–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yu, J. K., Graznak, E., Breseghello, F., Tefera, H., and Sorrells, M. E. 2007. QTL mapping of agronomic traits in tef (Eragrostis tef (Zucc) Trotter). BMC Plant Biol. 7:30.Google Scholar