Weed suppression by cover crops: comparative on‐farm experiments under integrated and organic conservation tillage

Cover crops are increasingly being used for weed suppression and to enhance the sustainability of agro‐ecosystems. However, the suitability of cover crops for weed suppression in integrated and organic conservation tillage systems is still poorly investigated. Therefore, a 2‐year field study at eight sites was conducted to test the weed suppressive potential of six legume‐based cover crops, with the aim to reduce herbicide input or mechanical weed management interventions. In all experiments, cover crops were directly sown after cereals before next year's main crop (grain maize or sunflower). The presence of cover crops caused a 96% to 100% reduction of weed dry matter at the four sites managed under integrated production, while effects were lower at the four sited managed under organic production, ranging from 19% to 87%. Cover crops that covered soil quickly and which produced much dry matter had the best weed suppressive potential. However, their weed suppressing effect was difficult to predict, as it depended on the year of the investigation, experimental site, cover crop species, the speed of soil cover in autumn and the density of the resulting mulch layer in spring. The study demonstrated that cover crops are a useful tool to suppress weeds under integrated and organic conservation tillage practices. Our recommendation for supporting weed management in conservation tillage systems is to use locally adapted cover crops that have rapid establishment, good soil coverage and high dry matter production. However, additional weed management measures are required for reliable weed control under on‐farm conditions.     

Strategic tillage in Australian conservation agricultural systems to address soil constraints: How does it impact weed management?

In the conservation agricultural systems practised in Australia, cultivation is not commonly utilised for the purpose of weed control. However, occasional use of tillage (strategic tillage) is implemented every few years for soil amelioration, to address constraints such as acidity, water repellence or soil compaction. Depending on the tillage method, the soil amelioration process buries or disturbs the topsoil. The act of amelioration also changes the soil physical and chemical properties and affects crop growth. While these strategic tillage practices are not usually applied for weed control, they are likely to have an impact on weed seedbank burial, which will in turn affect seed dormancy and seedbank depletion. Strategic tillage impacts on seed burial and soil characteristics will also affect weed emergence, plant survival, competitive ability of weeds against the crop and efficiency of soil applied pre-emergent herbicides. If growers understand the impacts of soil amelioration on weed demography, they can more effectively plan management strategies to apply following the strategic tillage practice. Weed seed burial resulting from a full soil inversion is understood, but for many soil tillage implements, more data is needed on the extent of soil mixing, burial of topsoil and the weed seedbank, physical control of existing weeds and stimulation of emergence following the tillage event. Within the agronomic system, there is no research on optimal timing for a tillage event within the year. There are multiple studies to indicate that strategic tillage can reduce weed density, but in most studies, the weed density increases in subsequent years. This indicates that more research is required on the interaction of amelioration and weed ecology, and optimal weed management strategies following a strategic tillage event to maintain weeds at low densities. However, this review also highlights that, where the impacts of soil amelioration are understood, existing data on weed ecology can be applied to potentially determine impacts of amelioration on weed growth.     

Herbicides – a two‐edged sword*

Summary Weeds cause yield losses and reductions in crop quality. Prior to the introduction of selective herbicides, the drudgery of manual weeding forced farmers to adhere to a suit of weed management tactics by carefully combining crop rotation, appropriate tillage and fallow systems. The introduction of selective herbicides in the late 1940s and the constant flow of new herbicides in the succeeding decades provided farmers with a new tool, ‘the chemical hoe’, putting them in a position to consider weed control more independently of the crop production system than hitherto. The reliance on herbicides for weed control, however, resulted in shifts in the weed flora and the selection of herbicide‐resistant biotypes. In the 1980s, the public concern about side‐effects of herbicides on the environment and human health resulted in increasingly strict registration requirements and, in some countries, political initiatives to reduce the use of pesticides were launched. Today, the number of new herbicides being introduced has decreased significantly and integrated weed management has become the guiding concept. Farmers also have the option of growing herbicide‐resistant crops where the biology of the crop has been adapted to tolerate herbicides considered safe to humans and environmentally benign. This paper discusses some of the recent developments in herbicide discovery, technology and fate, and sketches important future developments.     

Robotic weeders can improve weed control options for specialty crops

Specialty crop herbicides are not a priority for the agrochemical industry, and many of these crops do not have access to effective herbicides. High‐value fruit and vegetable crops represent small markets and high potential liability in the case of herbicide‐induced crop damage. Meanwhile, conventional and organic specialty crop producers are experiencing labor shortages and higher manual weeding costs. Robotic weeders are promising new weed control tools for specialty crops, because they are cheaper to develop and, with fewer environmental and human health risks, are less regulated than herbicides. Now is the time for greater investment in robotic weeders as new herbicides are expensive to develop and few in number, organic crops need better weed control technology and governments are demanding reduced use of pesticides. Public funding of fundamental research on robotic weeder technology can help improve weed and crop recognition, weed control actuators, and expansion of weed science curricula to train students in this technology. Robotic weeders can expand the array of tools available to specialty crop growers. However, the development of robotic weeders will require a broader recognition that these tools are a viable path to create new weed control tools for specialty crops. © 2019 Society of Chemical Industry     

Simulation modelling to understand the evolution and management of glyphosate resistance in weeds

BACKGROUND: A simulation model is used to explore the influence of biological, ecological, genetic and operational (management) factors on the probability and rate of glyphosate resistance in model weed species. RESULTS: Glyphosate use for weed control prior to crop emergence is associated with low risks of resistance. These low risks can be further reduced by applying glyphosate in sequence with other broad-spectrum herbicides prior to crop seeding. Post-emergence glyphosate use, associated with glyphosate-resistant crops, very significantly increases risks of resistance evolution. Annual rotation with conventional crops reduces these risks, but the proportion of resistant populations can only be reduced to close to zero by mixing two of three post-emergence glyphosate applications with alternative herbicide modes of action. Weed species that are prolific seed producers with high seed bank turnover rates are most at risk of glyphosate resistance evolution. The model is especially sensitive to the initial frequency of R alleles, and other genetic and reproductive parameters, including weed breeding system, dominance of the resistance trait and relative fitness, influence rates of resistance. CONCLUSION: Changing patterns of glyphosate use associated with glyphosate-resistant crops are increasing risks of evolved glyphosate resistance. Strategies to mitigate these risks can be explored with simulation models. Models can also be used to identify weed species that are most at risk of evolving glyphosate resistance.     

The benefits of herbicide-resistant crops

Since 1996, genetically modified herbicide-resistant crops, primarily glyphosate-resistant soybean, corn, cotton and canola, have helped to revolutionize weed management and have become an important tool in crop production practices. Glyphosate-resistant crops have enabled the implementation of weed management practices that have improved yield and profitability while better protecting the environment. Growers have recognized their benefits and have made glyphosate-resistant crops the most rapidly adopted technology in the history of agriculture. Weed management systems with glyphosate-resistant crops have often relied on glyphosate alone, have been easy to use and have been effective, economical and more environmentally friendly than the systems they have replaced. Glyphosate has worked extremely well in controlling weeds in glyphosate-resistant crops for more than a decade, but some key weeds have evolved resistance, and using glyphosate alone has proved unsustainable. Now, growers need to renew their weed management practices and use glyphosate with other cultural, mechanical and herbicide options in integrated systems. New multiple-herbicide-resistant crops with resistance to glyphosate and other herbicides will expand the utility of existing herbicide technologies and will be an important component of future weed management systems that help to sustain the current benefits of high-efficiency and high-production agriculture. Copyright © 2012 Society of Chemical Industry     

The role of models for multicriteria evaluation and multiobjective design of cropping systems for managing weeds

Weeds are both harmful for crop production and important for biodiversity, while herbicides can pollute the environment. We thus need new cropping systems optimising all cultural techniques, reconciling agricultural production, herbicide reduction and biodiversity conservation. Here, we show how to (i) develop models quantifying the effects of cropping systems on weed dynamics, (ii) integrate interactions between weeds and other organisms, (iii) predict the impact on production and biodiversity and (iv) use the model for multicriteria evaluation and multiobjective design of cropping systems. Among the existing weed dynamics models, we chose the one closest to our requirements to illustrate these different steps, that is, FlorSys which predicts multispecific weed dynamics as a function of cultural techniques and pedoclimate. We have illustrated the development of interaction submodels with the example of a crop pathogen whose propagation is increased when infecting grass weeds. To evaluate the weed flora impact, predicted weed densities were translated into indicators of harmfulness (crop yield loss, technical harvest problems, harvest pollution, field infestation, crop disease increase) and biodiversity (weed species richness and equitability, trophic resources for birds, insects and pollinators). Simulations were run over several years and with different weather scenarios (i) to optimise cultural techniques to control harmful weeds, (ii) to analyse the impact of changing agricultural practices (e.g. simplified tillage and rotations, no‐till, temporary crops) on weed density, species and trait composition and (iii) to evaluate cropping systems for their ability to reconcile agricultural production and biodiversity, thus identifying levers for designing sustainable cropping systems.     

Benchmark study on glyphosate-resistant cropping systems in the United States. Part 4: Weed management practices and effects on weed populations and soil seedbanks

BACKGROUND: Weed management in glyphosate‐resistant (GR) maize, cotton and soybean in the United States relies almost exclusively on glyphosate, which raises criticism for facilitating shifts in weed populations. In 2006, the benchmark study, a field‐scale investigation, was initiated in three different GR cropping systems to characterize academic recommendations for weed management and to determine the level to which these recommendations would reduce weed population shifts. RESULTS: A majority of growers used glyphosate as the only herbicide for weed management, as opposed to 98% of the academic recommendations implementing at least two herbicide active ingredients and modes of action. The additional herbicides were applied with glyphosate and as soil residual treatments. The greater herbicide diversity with academic recommendations reduced weed population densities before and after post‐emergence herbicide applications in 2006 and 2007, particularly in continuous GR crops. CONCLUSION: Diversifying herbicides reduces weed population densities and lowers the risk of weed population shifts and the associated potential for the evolution of glyphosate‐resistant weeds in continuous GR crops. Altered weed management practices (e.g. herbicides or tillage) enabled by rotating crops, whether GR or non‐GR, improves weed management and thus minimizes the effectiveness of only using chemical tactics to mitigate weed population shifts. Copyright © 2011 Society of Chemical Industry     

Perspectives on transgenic,herbicide‐resistant crops in the United States almost 20 years after introduction

Herbicide‐resistant crops have had a profound impact on weed management. Most of the impact has been by glyphosate‐resistant maize, cotton, soybean and canola. Significant economic savings, yield increases and more efficacious and simplified weed management have resulted in widespread adoption of the technology. Initially, glyphosate‐resistant crops enabled significantly reduced tillage and reduced the environmental impact of weed management. Continuous use of glyphosate with glyphosate‐resistant crops over broad areas facilitated the evolution of glyphosate‐resistant weeds, which have resulted in increases in the use of tillage and other herbicides with glyphosate, reducing some of the initial environmental benefits of glyphosate‐resistant crops. Transgenic crops with resistance to auxinic herbicides, as well as to herbicides that inhibit acetolactate synthase, acetyl‐CoA carboxylase and hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase, stacked with glyphosate and/or glufosinate resistance, will become available in the next few years. These technologies will provide additional weed management options for farmers, but will not have all of the positive effects (reduced cost, simplified weed management, lowered environmental impact and reduced tillage) that glyphosate‐resistant crops had initially. In the more distant future, other herbicide‐resistant crops (including non‐transgenic ones), herbicides with new modes of action and technologies that are currently in their infancy (e.g. bioherbicides, sprayable herbicidal RNAi and/or robotic weeding) may affect the role of transgenic, herbicide‐resistant crops in weed management. Published 2014. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.     

Prevalence of herbicide‐resistant weed species in Malaysian rice fields: A review

The management of weeds in Malaysian rice fields is very much herbicide‐based. The heavy reliance on herbicide for weed control by many rice‐growers arguably eventually has led to the development and evolution of herbicide‐resistant biotypes in Malaysian rice fields over the years. The continuous use of synthetic auxin (phenoxy group) herbicides and acetohydroxyacid synthase‐inhibiting herbicides to control rice weeds was consequential in leading to the emergence and prevalence of resistant weed biotypes. This review discusses the history and confirmed cases and incidence of herbicide‐resistant weeds in Malaysian rice fields. It also reviews the Clearfield Production System and its impact on the evolution of herbicide resistance among rice weed species and biotypes. This review also emphasizes the strategies and management options for herbicide‐resistant rice field weeds within the framework of herbicide‐based integrated weed management. These include the use of optimum tillage practices, certified clean seeds, increased crop competition through high seeding rates, crop rotation, the application of multiple modes of action of herbicides in annual rotations, tank mixtures and sequential applications to enable a broad spectrum of weed control, increase the selective control of noxious weed species in a field and help to delay the resistance evolution by reducing the selection pressure that is forced on those weed populations by a specific herbicidal mode of action.     

Integrated pest management and weed management in the United States and Canada

There is interest in more diverse weed management tactics because of evolved herbicide resistance in important weeds in many US and Canadian crop systems. While herbicide resistance in weeds is not new, the issue has become critical because of the adoption of simple, convenient and inexpensive crop systems based on genetically engineered glyphosate‐tolerant crop cultivars. Importantly, genetic engineering has not been a factor in rice and wheat, two globally important food crops. There are many tactics that help to mitigate herbicide resistance in weeds and should be widely adopted. Evolved herbicide resistance in key weeds has influenced a limited number of growers to include a more diverse suite of tactics to supplement existing herbicidal tactics. Most growers still emphasize herbicides, often to the exclusion of alternative tactics. Application of integrated pest management for weeds is better characterized as integrated weed management, and more typically integrated herbicide management. However, adoption of diverse weed management tactics is limited. Modifying herbicide use will not solve herbicide resistance in weeds, and the relief provided by different herbicide use practices is generally short‐lived at best. More diversity of tactics for weed management must be incorporated in crop systems. © 2014 Society of Chemical Industry     

Integrating soil conservation practices and glyphosate-resistant crops: impacts on soil

BACKGROUND: Conservation practices often associated with glyphosate-resistant crops, e.g. limited tillage and crop cover, improve soil conditions, but only limited research has evaluated their effects on soil in combination with glyphosate-resistant crops. It is assumed that conservation practices have similar benefits to soil whether or not glyphosate-resistant crops are used. This paper reviews the impact on soil of conservation practices and glyphosate-resistant crops, and presents data from a Mississippi field trial comparing glyphosate-resistant and non-glyphosate-resistant maize (Zea mays L.) and cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) under limited tillage management. RESULTS: Results from the reduced-tillage study indicate differences in soil biological and chemical properties owing to glyphosate-resistant crops. Under continuous glyphosate-resistant maize, soils maintained greater soil organic carbon and nitrogen as compared with continuous non-glyphosate-resistant maize, but no differences were measured in continuous cotton or in cotton rotated with maize. Soil microbial community structure based on total fatty acid methyl ester analysis indicated a significant effect of glyphosate-resistant crop following 5 years of continuous glyphosate-resistant crop as compared with the non-glyphosate-resistant crop system. Results from this study, as well as the literature review, indicate differences attributable to the interaction of conservation practices and glyphosate-resistant crop, but many are transient and benign for the soil ecosystem. CONCLUSIONS: Glyphosate use may result in minor effects on soil biological/chemical properties. However, enhanced organic carbon and plant residues in surface soils under conservation practices may buffer potential effects of glyphosate. Long-term field research established under various cropping systems and ecological regions is needed for critical assessment of glyphosate-resistant crop and conservation practice interactions.     

Development of chemical weed control and integrated weed management in China

More than 200 species of weeds are infesting main crop fields in China, among which approximately 30 species are major weeds causing great crop yield losses. About 35.8 million hectares of crop fields are heavily infested by weeds and the annual reduction of crop yields is 12.3–16.5% (weighted average). Along with rural economic development, approximately 50% of the main crop fields undergo herbicide application. Chemical weed control has changed cultural practices to save weeding labor in rice, wheat, maize, soybeans and cotton. At the same time, continuous use of the same herbicides has caused weed shift problems and weed resistance to herbicides. Consequently, integrated weed management in main crops is being developed.     

Response and effect traits of arable weeds in agro‐ecosystems: a review of current knowledge

Integrating principles of ecological intensification into weed management strategies requires an understanding of the many relationships among weeds, crops and other organisms of agro‐ecosystems in a changing context. Extensively used during the last two decades in weed science, trait‐based approaches have provided general insights into weed community response to agricultural practices, and recently to understanding the effect of weeds on agro‐ecosystem functioning. In this review, we provide a holistic synthesis of the current knowledge on weed response and effect functional traits. Based on the literature and recent advances in weed science, we review current knowledge on (i) weed functional groups and ecological strategies, (ii) weed functional response traits to cropping systems and (iii) weed functional effect traits affecting agro‐ecosystem functioning. For each functional trait, we explicitly present the assumptions and evidence on the linkage between trait values and ecological functions, in response to either management practices, for example tillage, sowing and herbicides, or biotic interactions, for example crop–weed competition and pollination. Finally, we address and discuss major research avenues that may significantly improve the use of traits and the knowledge of functional diversity in weed science for the future, especially to design and implement more environmentally sustainable weed management strategies.     

Weed management in organic agriculture: are we addressing the right issues?

Summary Despite the serious threat which weeds offer to organic crop production, relatively little attention has so far been paid to research on weed management in organic agriculture, an issue that is often approached from a reductionist perspective. This paper aims to outline why and how this problem should instead be tackled from a system perspective. Compared with conventional agriculture, in organic agriculture the effects of cultural practices (e.g. fertilization and direct weed control) on crop:weed interactions usually manifest themselves more slowly. It follows that weed management should be tackled in an extended time domain and needs deep integration with the other cultural practices, aiming to optimize the whole cropping system rather than weed control per se . In this respect, cover crop management is an important issue because of its implications for soil, nutrient, pest and weed management. It is stressed that direct (physical) weed control can only be successful where preventive and cultural weed management is applied to reduce weed emergence (e.g. through appropriate choice of crop sequence, tillage, smother/cover crops) and improve crop competitive ability (e.g. through appropriate choice of crop genotype, sowing/planting pattern and fertilization strategy). Two examples of system-oriented weed management systems designed for organic agriculture are illustrated as well as future perspectives and problems.     

Simulating evolution of glyphosate resistance in Lolium rigidum II: past, present and future glyphosate use in Australian cropping

Glyphosate is a key component of weed control strategies in Australia and worldwide. Despite widespread and frequent use, evolved resistance to glyphosate is rare. A herbicide resistance model, parameterized for Lolium rigidum has been used to perform a number of simulations to compare predicted rates of evolution of glyphosate resistance under past, present and projected future use strategies. In a 30‐year wheat, lupin, wheat, oilseed rape crop rotation with minimum tillage (100% shallow depth soil disturbance at sowing) and annual use of glyphosate pre‐sowing, L. rigidum control was sustainable with no predicted glyphosate resistance. When the crop establishment system was changed to annual no‐tillage (15% soil disturbance at sowing), glyphosate resistance was predicted in 90% of populations, with resistance becoming apparent after between 10 and 18 years when sowing was delayed. Resistance was predicted in 20% of populations after 25–30 years with early sowing. Risks of glyphosate resistance could be reduced by rotating between no‐tillage and minimum‐tillage establishment systems, or by rotating between glyphosate and paraquat for pre‐sowing weed control. The double knockdown strategy (sequential full rate applications of glyphosate and paraquat) reduced risks of glyphosate and paraquat resistance to <2%. Introduction of glyphosate‐resistant oilseed rape significantly increased predicted risks of glyphosate resistance in no‐tillage systems even when the double knockdown was practised. These increased risks could be offset by high crop sowing rates and weed seed collection at harvest. When no selective herbicides were available in wheat crops, the introduction of glyphosate‐resistant oilseed rape necessitated a return to a minimum‐tillage crop establishment system.     

Integration of soil, crop and weed management in low-external-input farming systems

Greater adoption and refinement of low-external-input (LEI) farming systems have been proposed as ways to ameliorate economic, environmental and health problems associated with conventional farming systems. Organic soil amendments and crop diversification are basic components of LEI systems. Weed scientists can improve the use of these practices for weed management by improving knowledge of four relevant ecological mechanisms. First, multispecies crop rotations, intercrops and cover crops may reduce opportunities for weed growth and regeneration through resource competition and niche disruption. Secondly, weed species appear to be more susceptible to phytotoxic effects of crop residues and other organic soil amendments than crop species, possibly because of differences in seed mass. Thirdly, delayed patterns of N availability in LEI systems may favour large-seeded crops over small-seeded weeds. Finally, additions of organic materials can change the incidence and severity of soil-borne diseases affecting weeds and crops. Our research on LEI sweetcorn and potato production systems in central and northern Maine (USA) suggests that these mechanisms can reduce weed density and growth while maintaining crop yields. Low-external-input farming systems will advance most quickly through the application of interdisciplinary research focused on these and other ecological mechanisms.     

Weed species shifts in glyphosate-resistant crops

The adoption of glyphosate-based crop production systems has been one of the most important revolutions in the history of agriculture. Changes in weed communities owing to species that do not respond to current glyphosate-based management tactics are rapidly increasing. Clearly, glyphosate-resistant crops (GRCs) do not influence weeds any more than non-transgenic crops. For most crops, the trait itself is essentially benign in the environment. Rather, the weed control tactics imposed by growers create the ecological selection pressure that ultimately changes the weed communities. This is seen in the adoption of conservation tillage and weed management programs that focus on one herbicide mode of action and have hastened several important weed population shifts. Tillage (disturbance) is one of the primary factors that affect changes in weed communities. The intense selection pressure from herbicide use will result in the evolution of herbicide-resistant weed biotypes or shifts in the relative prominence of one weed species in the weed community. Changes in weed communities are inevitable and an intrinsic consequence of growing crops over time. The glyphosate-based weed management tactics used in GRCs impose the selection pressure that supports weed population shifts. Examples of weed population shifts in GRCs include common waterhemp [Amaranthus tuberculatus (Moq ex DC) JD Sauer], horseweed (Conyza canadensis L), giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida L) and other relatively new weed problems. Growers have handled these weed population shifts with varying success depending on the crop.     

Efficacy of cultural control methods for combating herbicide-resistant Lolium rigidum

Herbicide-resistant populations of annual ryegrass (Lolium rigidum) are estimated to affect crop production on about 5000 farms in southern Australia. In order to manage resistant populations, some farmers have adopted a two-to-three-year pasture phase which allows use of grazing by sheep, and non-selective herbicides to deplete the weed seed-bank. However, in low-to-medium rainfall zones, where financial returns from pastures are relatively low, farmers have generally combined cultural practices for weed management with the use of alternative herbicides, mainly trifluralin. Used singly, none of the currently available cultural techniques provides an adequate level of weed control. However, when used in carefully planned combinations, extremely effective ryegrass control can be achieved. Some of the important cultural practices for ryegrass control include delayed sowing (sometimes in conjunction with a shallow autumn cultivation); stubble burning; cutting the crop for hay or green manure, increased crop density and capture of weed seeds at harvest. Selection of crop species and cultivars with superior weed suppression potential is also receiving considerable attention. ©1997 SCI     

Frequency and distribution of herbicide resistance in Raphanus raphanistrum populations randomly collected across the Western Australian wheatbelt

In 2003, a random survey was conducted across the Western Australian wheatbelt to establish the extent and frequency of herbicide resistance in Raphanus raphanistrum populations infesting crop fields. Five hundred cropping fields were visited, with 90 R. raphanistrum populations collected, representative of populations present in crop fields throughout the Western Australian wheatbelt. Collected populations were screened with four herbicides of various modes of action that are commonly used for the control of this weed. The majority of Western Australian R. raphanistrum populations were found to contain plants resistant to the acetolactate synthase (ALS)‐inhibiting herbicide chlorsulfuron (54%) and auxin analogue herbicide, 2,4‐D amine (60%). This survey also determined that over half (58%) of these populations were multiple resistant across at least two of the four herbicide modes of action used in the screening. Only 17% of R. raphanistrum populations have retained their initial status of susceptibility to all four herbicides. The distribution patterns of the herbicide‐resistant populations identified that there were higher frequencies of resistant and developing resistance populations occurring in the intensively cropped northern regions of the wheatbelt. These results clearly indicate that the reliance on herbicidal weed control in cropping systems based on reduced tillage and stubble retention will lead to higher frequencies of herbicide‐resistant weed populations. Therefore, within intensive crop production systems, there is a need to diversify weed management strategies and not rely entirely on too few herbicide control options.