2019HARVEST (University of Saskatchewan)Open access

Integrating the organic arsenal for weed control in field pea and lentil

Oleksandr S. Alba

Open full text 1 citations

Abstract

Organic weed management in pulse crops is challenging due to their uncompetitive nature in the presence of weeds. Since the use of synthetic herbicides is prohibited in organic production, growers tend to rely heavily on mechanical and cultural weed control methods. To our knowledge, no previous research has directly compared the following in-crop mechanical weed control (MWC) methods: rotary hoe (RH), harrow (H) and inter-row cultivation (IT) combined with the cultural practice of increased crop seeding rate (SR) in organic pulse crops. The objective of this research was to determine the effect of mechanical weed control (RH, H and IT) and crop (SR) alone and in combination on weed suppression and yield in organically grown field pea (Pisum sativum L.) and lentil (Lens culinaris L.). The study was conducted in organically managed cropping systems in Saskatchewan, Canada in 2016 and 2017. Mechanical weed control methods including RH, H and IT were applied in a factorial arrangement with normal and increased SR in organically grown field pea (1 and 1.5X) and lentil (1 and 2X). Averaged over all site-years, all MWC treatments resulted in similar field pea yield increases ranging from 38% to 50%. Paired and multiple treatments reduced weed biomass in field pea by 73% to 86%. Increasing field pea SR 1.5X did not significantly improve weed control, but it did increase field pea yield by 13%. The combination of RH-IT resulted in 40% higher lentil grain yield. Increasing lentil SR to 2X the normal rate resulted in a 23% increase in yield, while weed biomass was reduced by 16%. Combinations of RH-IT and RH-H-IT in lentil resulted in a 76% and 79% decline in weed biomass, respectively. Treatments including RH, provided the greatest spectrum of weed control spectrum in both crops as on average they controlled more than 80% of the green foxtail (Setaria viridis L.), 60% of the wild mustard (Sinapis arvense L.), and 86% of the lambsquarters (Chenopodium album L.). Use of MWC did not provide robust control of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.) or wild buckwheat (Polygonum convolvulus L.) and stimulated emergence of stinkweed (Thlaspi arvense L.). Our study suggests that effective weed suppression and greater yield can be achieved in an organic crop production system when MWC methods are paired with cultural practice of increased crop SR.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Organic weed management in pulse crops is challenging due to their uncompetitive nature in the presence of weeds. Since the use of synthetic herbicides is prohibited in organic production, growers tend to rely heavily on mechanical and cultural weed control methods. To our knowledge, no previous research has directly compared the following in-crop mechanical weed control (MWC) methods: rotary hoe (RH), harrow (H) and inter-row cultivation (IT) combined with the cultural practice of increased crop seeding rate (SR) in organic pulse crops. The objective of this research was to determine the effect of mechanical weed control (RH, H and IT) and crop (SR) alone and in combination on weed suppression and yield in organically grown field pea (Pisum sativum L.) and lentil (Lens culinaris L.). The study was conducted in organically managed cropping systems in Saskatchewan, Canada in 2016 and 2017. Mechanical weed control methods including RH, H and IT were applied in a factorial arrangement with normal and increased SR in organically grown field pea (1 and 1.5X) and lentil (1 and 2X). Averaged over all site-years, all MWC treatments resulted in similar field pea yield increases ranging from 38% to 50%. Paired and multiple treatments reduced weed biomass in field pea by 73% to 86%. Increasing field pea SR 1.5X did not significantly improve weed control, but it did increase field pea yield by 13%. The combination of RH-IT resulted in 40% higher lentil grain yield. Increasing lentil SR to 2X the normal rate resulted in a 23% increase in yield, while weed biomass was reduced by 16%. Combinations of RH-IT and RH-H-IT in lentil resulted in a 76% and 79% decline in weed biomass, respectively. Treatments including RH, provided the greatest spectrum of weed control spectrum in both crops as on average they controlled more than 80% of the green foxtail (Setaria viridis L.), 60% of the wild mustard (Sinapis arvense L.), and 86% of the lambsquarters (Chenopodium album L.). Use of MWC did not provide robust control of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.) or wild buckwheat (Polygonum convolvulus L.) and stimulated emergence of stinkweed (Thlaspi arvense L.). Our study suggests that effective weed suppression and greater yield can be achieved in an organic crop production system when MWC methods are paired with cultural practice of increased crop SR.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 1 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Organic weed management in pulse crops is challenging due to their uncompetitive nature in the presence of weeds. Since the use of synthetic herbicides is prohibited in organic production, growers tend to rely heavily on mechanical and cultural weed control methods. To our knowledge, no previous research has directly compared the following in-crop mechanical weed control (MWC) methods: rotary hoe (RH), harrow (H) and inter-row cultivation (IT) combined with the cultural practice of increased crop seeding rate (SR) in organic pulse crops. The objective of this research was to determine the effect of mechanical weed control (RH, H and IT) and crop (SR) alone and in combination on weed suppression and yield in organically grown field pea (Pisum sativum L.) and lentil (Lens culinaris L.). The study was conducted in organically managed cropping systems in Saskatchewan, Canada in 2016 and 2017. Mechanical weed control methods including RH, H and IT were applied in a factorial arrangement with normal and increased SR in organically grown field pea (1 and 1.5X) and lentil (1 and 2X). Averaged over all site-years, all MWC treatments resulted in similar field pea yield increases ranging from 38% to 50%. Paired and multiple treatments reduced weed biomass in field pea by 73% to 86%. Increasing field pea SR 1.5X did not significantly improve weed control, but it did increase field pea yield by 13%. The combination of RH-IT resulted in 40% higher lentil grain yield. Increasing lentil SR to 2X the normal rate resulted in a 23% increase in yield, while weed biomass was reduced by 16%. Combinations of RH-IT and RH-H-IT in lentil resulted in a 76% and 79% decline in weed biomass, respectively. Treatments including RH, provided the greatest spectrum of weed control spectrum in both crops as on average they controlled more than 80% of the green foxtail (Setaria viridis L.), 60% of the wild mustard (Sinapis arvense L.), and 86% of the lambsquarters (Chenopodium album L.). Use of MWC did not provide robust control of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.) or wild buckwheat (Polygonum convolvulus L.) and stimulated emergence of stinkweed (Thlaspi arvense L.). Our study suggests that effective weed suppression and greater yield can be achieved in an organic crop production system when MWC methods are paired with cultural practice of increased crop SR.

Key concepts: Weed control, Weed, Field pea, Field (mathematics), Agronomy, Agricultural engineering, Agroforestry, Biology

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Integrating the organic arsenal for weed control in field pea and lentil — Research Paper | ScholarLens