Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Weed harrowing in organically grown cereal crops avoids yield losses without reducing weed diversity

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Agronomy for Sustainable Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This report shows that weed harrowing in organic cereal fields is an efficient alternative to herbicides since weed harrowing does not reduce yields compared to weed-free plots. Arable weeds provide resources and habitat to many organisms. However, weeds are the most important constraint to crop production. Indeed, the potential crop losses of the eight major crops due to weed–crop competition amount to about 30 %. New ways of food production are needed due to the current severe biodiversity decline, about 1,000 times higher than the natural rate of species loss, and the growing food demands. Herbicides are highly efficient at reducing crop losses due to weed–crop competition, but at the expense of declining biodiversity. Studies have shown a poor efficiency of weed harrows in terms of weed reduction in organic farming systems. Here, we evaluated the feasibility of weed harrows in organic fields to reduce weeds to a threshold that does not limit crop production, while maintaining a rich flora. The results were compared to results obtained using herbicides in conventionally managed fields. Eleven organic and conventional cereal field pairs in Catalonia, Spain, were evaluated for one season in 2006–2007. Three different weed control treatments were applied: weed-free plots; weed-controlled plots, using herbicide in conventional fields and weed harrowing in organic ones and non-weeded plots. Crop yield and the abundance, richness and composition of the weed flora, which was dominated by ryegrass and poppies, were evaluated. Our results show that weed harrowing prevents weeds from being a limiting factor of crop productivity in organic cereal fields, since weed-controlled plots did not reduce yields compared to weed-free plots. A similar trend was observed in herbicide-controlled plots. However, herbicides diminished weed species richness in approximately 47 % and changed the species composition whereas harrowing allowed the maintenance of high levels of weed diversity in the organic fields.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Armengot L, José-María L, Blanco-Moreno JM, Bassa M, Chamorro L, Sans FX (2011a) A novel index of land use intensity for organic and conventional farming of Mediterranean cereal fields. Agron Sustain Dev 31:699–707. doi:10.1007/s13593-011-0042-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armengot L, José-María L, Blanco-Moreno JM, Romero-Puente A, Sans FX (2011b) Landscape and land-use effects on weed flora in Mediterranean cereal fields. Agric Ecosyst Environ 142:311–317. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2011.06.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baayen RH (2008) languageR: data sets and functions with “Analyzing linguistic data: a practical introduction to statistics”. R package version 0.953

  • Bàrberi P (2002) Weed management in organic agriculture: are we addressing the right issues? Weed Res 42:177–193. doi:10.1046/j.1365-3180.2002.00277.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bates D, Maechler M, Dai B (2008) lme4: linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. Version 0.999375-26. http://lme4.r-forge.r-project.org/. Accessed 19 February 2009

  • Booth BD, Swanton CJ (2002) Assembly theory applied to weed communities. Weed Sci 50:2–13

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Boutin C, Elmegaard N, Kjaer C (2004) Toxicity testing of fifteen non-crop plant species with six herbicides in a greenhouse experiment: implications for risk assessment. Ecotoxicology 13:823–825. doi:10.1023/B:ECTX.0000033092.82507.f3

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cirujeda A, Aibar J, Zaragoza C (2011) Remarkable changes of weed species in Spanish cereal fields from 1976 to 2007. Agron Sustain Dev 31:275–288. doi:10.1007/s13593-011-0030-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clergue B, Amiaud B, Pervanchon F, Lasserre-Joulin F, Plantureux S (2005) Biodiversity: function and assessment in agricultural areas. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 25:1–15. doi:10.1051/agro:2004049

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerowitt B (2003) Development and control of weeds in arable farming systems. Agric Ecosyst Environ 98:247–254. doi:10.1016/S0167-8809(03)00084-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heap I (2010) International survey of herbicide resistant weeds. At: http://www.weedscience.org. Accessed 15 November 2011

  • José-María L, Sans FX (2011) Weed seedbanks in arable fields: effects of management practices and surrounding landscape. Weed Res 51:631–640. doi:10.1111/j.1365-3180.2011.00872.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Légère A, Stevenson FC, Benoit DL (2005) Diversity and assembly of weed communities: contrasting responses across cropping systems. Weed Res 45:303–315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lundkvist A (2009) Effects of pre- and post-emergence weed harrowing on annual weeds in peas and spring cereals. Weed Res 49:409–416. doi:10.1111/j.1365-3180.2009.00718.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall EJP, Brown VK, Boatman ND, Lutman PJW, Squire GR, Ward LK (2003) The role of weeds in supporting biological diversity within crop fields. Weed Res 43:77–89. doi:10.1046/j.1365-3180.2003.00326.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milberg P, Hallgren E (2004) Yield loss due to weeds in cereals and its large-scale variability in Sweden. Field Crop Res 86:199–209. doi:10.1016/j.fcr.2003.08.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nazarko OM, Van Acker RC, Entz MH, Schoofs A, Martens G (2003) Pesticide free production of field crops: results of an on-farm pilot project. Agron J 95:1262–1273. doi:10.2134/agronj2003.1262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oerke EC, Dehne HW (2004) Safeguarding production–losses in major crops and the role of crop protection. Crop Prot 23:275–285. doi:10.1016/j.cropro.2003.10.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oksanen J, Kindt R, Legendre P, Simpson G, Sólymos P, Stevens MH, Wagner H (2009) Vegan—Community Ecology Package Project. R package version 1.15-2. At: http://vegan.r-forge.r-project.org/. Accessed 22 March 2009

  • Pannell DJ (1990) An economic response model of herbicide application for weed-control. Aust J Agric Econ 34:223–241. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8489.1990.tb00497.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petit S, Boursault A, Le Guilloux M, Munier-Jolain N, Reboud X (2011) Weeds in agricultural landscapes. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 31:309–317. doi:10.1051/agro/2010020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • R Development Core Team (2008) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0. Available from: http://www.R-project.org/. Accessed 19 February 2009

  • Rasmussen J, Kurtzmann J, Jensen A (2004) Tolerance of competitive spring barley cultivars to weed harrowing. Weed Res 44:446–452. doi:10.1111/j.1365-3180.2004.00419.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romero A, Chamorro L, Sans FX (2008) Weed diversity in crop edges and inner fields of organic and conventional dryland winter cereal crops in NE Spain. Agric Ecosyst Environ 124:97–104. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2007.08.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan MR, Mortensen DA, Bastiaans L, Teasdale JR, Mirsky SB, Curran WS, Seidel R, Wilson DO, Hepperly PR (2010) Elucidating the apparent maize tolerance to weed competition in long-term organically managed systems. Weed Res 50:25–36. doi:10.1111/j.1365-3180.2009.00750.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seufert V, Ramankutty N, Foley JA (2012) Comparing the yields of organic and conventional agriculture. Nature 485:229–232. doi:10.1038/nature11069

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Shannon CE, Weaver W (1949) The mathematical theory of communication. University of Illinois Press, Urbana

    Google Scholar 

  • Sumption P, Firth C, Davies G (2004) Observation on agronomic challenges during conversion to organic field vegetable production. In: Hopkins A (ed), Organic farming: science and practice of profitable livestock and cropping. Proceedings of the BGS/AAB/COR conference. British Grassland Society, pp.176–179

  • Teasdale JR, Coffman CB, Mangum RW (2007) Potential long-term benefits of no-tillage and organic cropping systems for grain production and soil improvement. Agron J 99:1297–1305. doi:10.2134/agronj2006.0362

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ulber L, Steinmann H, Klimek S, Isselstein J (2009) An on-farm approach to investigate the impact of diversified crop rotations on weed species richness and composition in winter wheat. Weed Res 49:534–543. doi:10.1111/j.1365-3180.2009.00722.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank E. Lichtfouse and two anonymous referees for valuable comments on the manuscript, the farmers for their collaboration and A. Romero, E.J. Velásquez, P. González, H.F. Osorio and Z. Čermáková for their field and lab assistance. This research was funded by the Spanish Ministry of Education and Science with a fellowship to the first author and the projects CGL2006-13190-C03-01 and CGL2009-13497-C02-01.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Laura Armengot.

About this article

Cite this article

Armengot, L., José-María, L., Chamorro, L. et al. Weed harrowing in organically grown cereal crops avoids yield losses without reducing weed diversity. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 33, 405–411 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-012-0107-8

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-012-0107-8

Keywords

Navigation