Advertisement

Agroecological service crops managed with roller crimper reduce weed density and weed species richness in organic vegetable systems across Europe

  • David Navarro-MiróEmail author
  • José M. Blanco-Moreno
  • Corrado Ciaccia
  • Lourdes Chamorro
  • Elena Testani
  • Hanne Lakkenborg Kristensen
  • Margita Hefner
  • Kalvi Tamm
  • Ingrid Bender
  • Manfred Jakop
  • Martina Bavec
  • Hélène Védie
  • Līga Lepse
  • Stefano Canali
  • F. Xavier Sans
Research Article
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Organic farming

Abstract

Agroecological service crops are introduced into the vegetable crop rotation to provide agroecosystem services, and are a key strategy for weed management in organic systems. Organic farmers across Europe usually terminate these crops before cultivation of the subsequent cash crop, using them as green manure. Recently, the in-line tillage-roller crimper has attracted interest across Europe. It allows flattening the agroecological service crops and creates a narrow furrow that facilitates the fertilization and transplantation of organic vegetables. In Europe, most of the research on this technology has been carried out in Italy, and no studies are available analyzing its effect on weed density, weed species richness, and community composition in different vegetable crops, soils, and climatic conditions across Europe. We compared the effects of the usage of in-line tillage-roller crimper versus green manure on the weed abundance, species richness, and community composition in fourteen original datasets from five countries over 2 years. The support for a common effect of in-line tillage-roller crimper across trials was tested by means of a meta-analytic approach based on a weighted version of Stouffer’s method. Our results indicate that in-line tillage-roller crimper management reduced weed density by 35.1% on average in comparison with green manure, and this trend was significant across trials. Moreover, we document a significant reduction of weed species richness under this technique and significant but, in general, minor changes in the weed community composition across the trials. Therefore, this study provides for the first time a solid evidence of the effectiveness of this management technique to reduce weed density at the early stages of crop growth across a wide range of vegetable systems and production conditions in Europe. Nonetheless, it is important to note that the effect of this technology can be strongly affected by variations in cropping conditions.

Keywords

Agroecological service crops In-line tillage Mulch Community composition 

Notes

Authors’ contributions

David Navarro-Miró contributed to the design of the work, collected and analyzed the data, interpreted the results, and drafted the article. José M. Blanco-Moreno contributed to the analysis of data, the interpretation of the results, and the drafting of the article. Corrado Ciaccia contributed to the conception and design of the work and collected and analyzed data. Lourdes Chamorro, Hanne Lakkenborg Kristensen, Margita Hefner, Kalvi Tamm, Elena Testani, Ingrid Bender, Urška Lisec, Martina Bavec, Hélène Vedie, and Līga Lepse contributed to the design and management of the experiments and collection of data in each country. Stefano Canali (SoilVeg project coordinator) conceived the trans-national, multisite, and multi-season dimension of the entire experiment. F. Xavier Sans had a major role in the conception and design of the work, data analysis, and interpretation of the results and contributed to drafting the article. All the authors critically revised the final manuscript.

Funding information

The project SoilVeg (http://projects.au.dk/coreorganicplus/research-projects/soilveg/) is funded by ERA-Net CORE Organic Plus Funding Bodies partners of the European Union’s FP7 research and innovation program under the grant agreement no. 618107. DNM was funded by a PhD grant from the Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte from Spain (FPU14/03868).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Disclaimer

The findings and conclusions expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of the Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte of Spain, or any of the EU funding bodies.

References

  1. Altieri MA, Lana MA, Bittencourt HV et al (2011) Enhancing crop productivity via weed suppression in organic no-till cropping systems in Santa Catarina, Brazil. J Sustain Agric 35:855–869.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10440046.2011.588998 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson MJ (2001) A new method for non-parametric multivariate analysis of variance. Austral Ecol 26:32–46.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-9993.2001.01070.pp.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Armengot L, Berner A, Blanco-Moreno JM et al (2015) Long-term feasibility of reduced tillage in organic farming. Agron Sustain Dev 35:339–346.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-014-0249-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Batlla D, Benech-Arnold RL (2014) Weed seed germination and the light environment: implications for weed management. Weed Biol Manag 14(2):77–87.  https://doi.org/10.1111/wbm.12039 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Campiglia E, Mancinelli R, Radicetti E, Caporali F (2010) Effect of cover crops and mulches on weed control and nitrogen fertilization in tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.). Crop Prot 29:354–363.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CROPRO.2009.12.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Canali S, Campanelli G, Ciaccia C et al (2013) Conservation tillage strategy based on the roller crimper technology for weed control in Mediterranean vegetable organic cropping systems. Eur J Agron 50:11–18.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EJA.2013.05.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Canali S, Diacono M, Campanelli G, Montemurro F (2015) Organic no-till with roller crimpers: agro-ecosystem services and applications in organic Mediterranean vegetable productions. Sustain Agric Res 4:70.  https://doi.org/10.5539/sar.v4n3p70 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carr PM, Anderson RL, Lawley YE et al (2012) Organic zero-till in the northern US Great Plains Region: opportunities and obstacles. Renew Agric Food Syst 27:12–20.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S174217051100041X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Casagrande M, Peigné J, Payet V et al (2016) Organic farmers’ motivations and challenges for adopting conservation agriculture in Europe. Org Agric 6:281–295.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13165-015-0136-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ciaccia C, Canali S, Campanelli G et al (2016) Effect of roller-crimper technology on weed management in organic zucchini production in a Mediterranean climate zone. Renew Agric Food Syst 31:111–121.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170515000046 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ciaccia C, Testani E, Campanelli G et al (2015) Ecological service providing crops effect on melon-weed competition and allelopathic interactions. Org Agric 5:199–207.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13165-014-0088-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Frasconi C, Martelloni L, Antichi D et al (2019) Combining roller crimpers and flaming for the termination of cover crops in herbicide-free no-till cropping systems. PLoS One 14:e0211573.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211573 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Gallandt E (2014) Weed management in organic farming. In: Recent advances in weed management. Springer New York, New York, pp 63–85Google Scholar
  14. Guillemin JP, Gardarin A, Granger S et al (2013) Assessing potential germination period of weeds with base temperatures and base water potentials. Weed Res 53:76–87.  https://doi.org/10.1111/wre.12000 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Halde C, Bamford KC, Entz MH (2015) Crop agronomic performance under a six-year continuous organic no-till system and other tilled and conventionally-managed systems in the northern Great Plains of Canada. Agric Ecosyst Environ 213:121–130.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2015.07.029 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Koricheva J, Gurevitch J, Mengersen KL (2013) Handbook of meta-analysis in ecology and evolution. Princeton University Press ISBN 9781400846184Google Scholar
  17. Luna JM, Mitchell JP, Shrestha A (2012) Conservation tillage for organic agriculture: evolution toward hybrid systems in the western USA. Renew Agric Food Syst 27:21–30.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170511000494 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mäder P, Berner A (2012) Development of reduced tillage systems in organic farming in Europe. Renew Agric Food Syst 27:7–11.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170511000470 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Metzger MJ, Bunce RGH, Jongman RHG et al (2005) A climatic stratification of the environment of Europe. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 14(6):549–563.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-822x.2005.00190.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mirsky SB, Ryan MR, Curran WS et al (2012) Conservation tillage issues: cover crop-based organic rotational no-till grain production in the mid-Atlantic region, USA. Renew Agric Food Syst 27:31–40.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170511000457 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Moonen AC, Bàrberi P (2004) Size and composition of the weed seedbank after 7 years of different cover-crop-maize management systems. Weed Res 44:163–177.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3180.2004.00388.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Nichols V, Verhulst N, Cox R, Govaerts B (2015) Weed dynamics and conservation agriculture principles: a review. Field Crop Res 183:56–68.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2015.07.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Oksanen J, Blanchet FG, Friendly M, et al (2017) vegan: Community Ecology Package. R package version 2.4-5. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegan
  24. Peigné J, Casagrande M, Payet V et al (2016) How organic farmers practice conservation agriculture in Europe. Renew Agric Food Syst 31:72–85.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170514000477 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pinheiro J, Bates D, DebRoy S, Sarkar D and R Core Team (2017). nlme: Linear and Nonlinear Mixed Effects Models. R package version 3.1-131. https://CRAN.Rproject.org/package=nlme
  26. Pinheiro J, Bates D, Douglas M (2000) Mixed-effects models in S and S-PLUS. Springer-Verlag, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Radicetti E, Mancinelli R, Campiglia E (2013) Impact of managing cover crop residues on the floristic composition and species diversity of the weed community of pepper crop (Capsicum annuum L.). Crop Prot 44:109–119.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CROPRO.2012.10.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. R Core Team (2017) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna https://www.R-project.org/ Google Scholar
  29. Sapkota TB, Mazzoncini M, Bàrberi P et al (2012) Fifteen years of no till increase soil organic matter, microbial biomass and arthropod diversity in cover crop-based arable cropping systems. Agron Sustain Dev 32:853–863.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-011-0079-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Teasdale JR, Mohler CL (2000) The quantitative relationship between weed emergence and the physical properties of mulches. Weed Sci 48:385–392.  https://doi.org/10.1614/0043-1745(2000)048[0385:TQRBWE]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Vincent-Caboud L, Peigné J, Casagrande M, Silva E (2017) Overview of organic cover crop-based no-tillage technique in Europe: farmers’ practices and research challenges. Agriculture 7:42.  https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture7050042 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Zaykin DV (2011) Optimally weighted Z-test is a powerful method for combining probabilities in meta-analysis. J Evol Biol 24:1836–1841.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2011.02297.x CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© INRA and Springer-Verlag France SAS, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Navarro-Miró
    • 1
    Email author
  • José M. Blanco-Moreno
    • 1
  • Corrado Ciaccia
    • 2
  • Lourdes Chamorro
    • 1
  • Elena Testani
    • 2
  • Hanne Lakkenborg Kristensen
    • 3
  • Margita Hefner
    • 3
  • Kalvi Tamm
    • 4
  • Ingrid Bender
    • 5
  • Manfred Jakop
    • 6
  • Martina Bavec
    • 6
  • Hélène Védie
    • 7
  • Līga Lepse
    • 8
  • Stefano Canali
    • 2
  • F. Xavier Sans
    • 1
  1. 1.Agroecosystems Research Group; Biodiversity Research Institute (IRBio); and Section of Botany and Mycology, Department of Evolutionary Biology, Ecology and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of BiologyUniversity of BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain
  2. 2.Council for Agricultural Research and Economics, Research Centre for Agriculture and Environment (CREA-AA)RomeItaly
  3. 3.Department of Food ScienceAarhus UniversityAarhusDenmark
  4. 4.Department of AgrotechnologyEstonian Crop Research InstituteJõgevaEstonia
  5. 5.Department of Jõgeva Plant BreedingEstonian Crop Research InstituteJõgevaEstonia
  6. 6.Institute for Organic Farming, Faculty of Agriculture and Life SciencesUniversity of Maribor, Ho??eMariborSlovenia
  7. 7.Groupe de Recherche en Agriculture Biologique (GRAB)AvignonFrance
  8. 8.Institute of HorticultureLatvian University of AgricultureDobeles novadsLatvia

Personalised recommendations