4.1 Article

Cultivation and interseeding for weed control in transplanted cabbage

Journal

WEED TECHNOLOGY
Volume 18, Issue 3, Pages 704-710

Publisher

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1614/WT-03-157R

Keywords

cover crops; cultivation; interseeding; interspecific competition; living mulches; smother crops

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Multiple means of overcoming interspecific competition between transplanted cabbage and interseeded cover crops were studied in field trials conducted from 1995 to 2001. Cover crop species and time of seeding (1995 and 1996), use of supplemental nitrogen (1997 and 1998), and herbicide regulation (1999 and 2001) were evaluated with the objective of integrating soil-improving cover crops into cabbage production while facilitating weed suppression with minimal use of herbicides. Cabbage was cultivated at 10, 10 + 20, or 10 + 20 + 30 d after transplanting (DAT) with or without cover crops (hairy vetch, lana vetch, or oats) sown at the time of the last cultivation. Early interseeding (10 DAT) of all species significantly reduced cabbage yields. Both vetches could be sown 20 or 30 DAT without a yield penalty. However, weed suppression was not consistently greater than cultivation without cover crops. Spring oats were unacceptably competitive, even when sown 30 DAT in some years. With additional nitrogen, cabbage yields were consistently increased, but the increases were not directly related to decreased competition from either weeds or cover crops. The potential for herbicide regulation of cover crops to prevent cabbage yield losses could not be evaluated because cabbage yields were not reduced by cover crops in 1999 and 2001. Although interseeded crops did not generally provide significant in-season weed suppression compared with cultivation alone, the lack of yield penalty and the potential soil-improving qualities of legumes may justify interseeding hairy vetch at 20 DAT in an integrated system.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available