4.4 Article

Mustard Cover Crop Growth and Weed Suppression in Organic, Strawberry Furrows in California

期刊

HORTSCIENCE
卷 53, 期 4, 页码 432-440

出版社

AMER SOC HORTICULTURAL SCIENCE
DOI: 10.21273/HORTSCI12576-17

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Strawberry (Fragaria xananassa Duch.) production in California uses plastic mulch-covered beds that provide many benefits such as moisture conservation and weed control. Unfortunately, the mulch can also cause environmental problems by increasing runoff and soil erosion and reducing groundwater recharge. Planting cover crops in bare furrows between the plastic cover beds can help minimize these problems. Furrow cover cropping was evaluated during two growing seasons in organic strawberries in Salinas, CA, using a mustard (Sinapis alba L.) cover crop planted at two seeding rates (1x and 33). Mustard was planted in November or December after strawberry transplanting and it resulted in average densities per meter of furrow of 54 and 162 mustard plants for the 1x and 3x rates, respectively. The mustard was mowed in February before it shaded the strawberry plants. Increasing the seeding rate increased mustard shoot biomass and height, and reduced the concentration of P in the mustard shoots. Compared with furrows with no cover crop, cover-cropped furrows reduced weed biomass by 29% and 40% in the 1x and 3x seeding rates, respectively, although weeds still accounted for at least 28% of the furrow biomass in the cover-cropped furrows. These results show that growing mustard cover crops in furrows without irrigating the furrows worked well even during years with relatively minimal precipitation. We conclude that 1) mustard densities of approximate to 150 plants/m furrow will likely provide the most benefits due to greater biomass production, N scavenging, and weed suppression; 2) mowing was an effective way to kill the mustard; and 3) high seeding rates of mustard alone are insufficient to provide adequate weed suppression in strawberry furrows.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据