Soybean yield response to different mechanical weed control methods in organic agriculture in Luxembourg

被引:6
作者
Richard, David [1 ,2 ]
Leimbrock-Rosch, Laura [2 ]
Kessler, Sabine [2 ]
Stoll, Evelyne [2 ]
Zimmer, Stephanie [2 ]
机构
[1] Osnabruck Univ Appl Sci, Fac Agr Sci & Landscape Architecture, Krumpel 31, D-49090 Osnabruck, Germany
[2] Inst Organ Agr Luxembourg Asbl IBLA, 27 Schanz, L-6225 Altrier, Luxembourg
关键词
Mechanical weed control; Organic soybean; Cultivation trial; Luxembourg; CAMELINA; GROWTH;
D O I
10.1016/j.eja.2023.126842
中图分类号
S3 [农学(农艺学)];
学科分类号
0901 ;
摘要
Soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr.) is very sensitive to interferences with weeds during vegetative growth. Weed control is a key factor for the successful production of soybean in organic agriculture. In Luxemburg, where soybean is not yet an established crop, cultivation trials were implemented to test and evaluate different methods of mechanical weed control in soybean cultivation. Trials were conducted in 2018 and 2019 at three locations in Luxembourg. A flex-tine harrow that can harrow the whole ground surface and a hoe used as inter-row cultivator were the basis of the mechanical treatments. Complementary technologies for the hoe such as the finger weeder, and an alternative method involving intercropping of soybean with camelina were also integrated in the trials. The main objective of the study was to evaluate the efficiency of the tested methods regarding weed regulation and their effects on soybean growth and development and grain yield. In comparison to the weed-free control, both hoeing and harrowing led to yields losses; these losses were lower with hoeing (-2 %) than with harrowing (-34 %). Yields were similar between hoeing and hand weeding and were also similar between harrowing and the weed-free control. The weed control index based on the difference in weed cover compared with the non-weeded treatment was above 0.6 for hoeing, about 0.2 for harrowing and lower than 0.01 for intercropping. Intercropping with camelina was not suitable for Luxembourg, especially during the dry study years of 2018 and 2019 due too poor establishment. Intra-row weeding with finger weeder in addition to inter-row hoeing did not significantly enhance the single use of the hoe in the inter-row. The non-selectivity of harrowing generated more soybean plant losses (-28 %) and lower plant height (-8 %) than hoeing (-11 % and + 5 %, respectively) when compared with the weed-free control. Other yield components such as the number of pods per plant, number of beans per pod, thousand kernel mass, and the first pod height were not significantly affected by the weeding method. The efficiency of any treatment was low when weed infestation was already high after soybean emergence, although where weed infestation was low, any of the treatments were applicable. Encouraging rigorous weed management throughout the crop rotation is a key factor to maximize soybean yield.
引用
收藏
页数:16
相关论文
共 49 条
[31]   Association of chemical and mechanical weed control methods during the pre-harvest of coffee crops [J].
Ronchi, Claudio P. .
PLANTA DANINHA, 2020, 38 :1-11
[32]   Soybean response to copper applied to two soils with different levels of organic matter and clay [J].
Moreira, Adonis ;
Moraes, Larissa A. C. .
JOURNAL OF PLANT NUTRITION, 2019, 42 (18) :2247-2258
[33]   Variations of Rice Yield and Quality in Response to Different Establishment Methods at Farmers' Field [J].
Wu, Wenge ;
Tu, Debao ;
Xi, Min ;
Xu, Youzun ;
Zhou, Yongjin ;
Li, Zhong ;
Ji, Yalan ;
Sun, Xueyuan ;
Yang, Yachun ;
Li, Feiyue .
AGRONOMY-BASEL, 2022, 12 (12)
[34]   Effect of weed control methods on the yield and starch content of storage root of cassava (Manihot esculenta) and soil health [J].
Nedunchezhiyan, M. ;
Ravi, V. ;
George, James ;
Veena, S. S. .
INDIAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES, 2017, 87 (03) :342-349
[35]   Differential Response of Zea mays L. in Relation to Weed Control and Different Macronutrient Combinations [J].
Khan, M. A. ;
Kakar, S. ;
Marwat, K. B. ;
Khan, I. A. .
SAINS MALAYSIANA, 2013, 42 (10) :1395-1401
[36]   Performance of 45 Non-Linear Models for Determining Critical Period of Weed Control and Acceptable Yield Loss in Soybean Agroforestry Systems [J].
Alam, Taufan ;
Suryanto, Priyono ;
Susyanto, Nanang ;
Kurniasih, Budiastuti ;
Basunanda, Panjisakti ;
Putra, Eka Tarwaca Susila ;
Kastono, Dody ;
Respatie, Dyah Weny ;
Widyawan, Muhammad Habib ;
Nurmansyah ;
Ansari, Andrianto ;
Taryono .
SUSTAINABILITY, 2022, 14 (13)
[37]   Resin yield response to different tapping methods and stimulant pastes in Pinus pinaster Ait [J].
Lopez-Alvarez, Oscar ;
Zas, Rafael ;
Martinez, Enrique ;
Marey-Perez, Manuel .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF FOREST RESEARCH, 2023, 142 (06) :1281-1292
[38]   Impact of Spring Wheat Planting Density, Row Spacing, and Mechanical Weed Control on Yield, Grain Protein, and Economic Return in Maine [J].
Kolb, Lauren N. ;
Gallandt, Eric R. ;
Mallory, Ellen B. .
WEED SCIENCE, 2012, 60 (02) :244-253
[39]   Quantitative and Qualitative Evaluation of Sorghum bicolor L. under Intercropping with Legumes and Different Weed Control Methods [J].
Rad, Saeid Vaezi ;
Valadabadi, Said Ali Reza ;
Pouryousef, Majid ;
Saifzadeh, Saeid ;
Zakrin, Hamid Reza ;
Mastinu, Andrea .
HORTICULTURAE, 2020, 6 (04) :1-15
[40]   Milk thistle (Silybum marianum L. Gaertn.) achene yield had a positive response to nitrogen fertilization, row spacing, sowing date, and weed control methods [J].
Bielski, Stanislaw .
INDUSTRIAL CROPS AND PRODUCTS, 2021, 160 (160)