Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Producers who wish to adopt organic or pesticide-free crop production are seeking alternatives to herbicides. A field experiment was conducted at Scott, SK, from 1999 to 2001 to determine the combination of seeding date (early-May, mid-May, and late-May) and weed management system (shallow-seeded untreated, shallow-seeded with pre-emergence tillage, shallow-seeded herbicide, deep-seeded untreated, deep-seeded with pre-emergence tillage, and deep-seeded herbicide) that would optimize yield of field pea grown without the use of herbicides. The shallow and deep seeded pre-emergence tillage treatments were a 2.5-cm seeding depth followed by two sequential harrow passes and a 7.5-cm seeding depth followed by two sequential rod-weeder passes, respectively. None of the weed management systems had a significant effect on field pea density. The herbicide treatments were the only treatments that had a significant effect on weed density as the application timing was more synchronous with weed emergence than were the tillage treatments. The pre-emergence tillage treatments reduced weed biomass when seeding was delayed until mid-May following weed emergence. Deep seeding followed by pre-emergence rod-weeding was more efficacious in reducing weed fresh weight than shallow seeding followed by pre-emergence harrowing; however, they both provided similar yield responses at the mid-May seeding date. Delayed seeding until late May resulted in a 30 to 35% reduction in field pea yield compared with early or mid-May seeding, respectively. Early-seeded field peas followed by an in-crop herbicide application resulted in the highest field pea yields with the best seeding date by pre-emergence tillage combination achieving 81% of these yields. A strategy for field pea producers who choose not to use herbicides would be to delay seeding until some weeds emerge and seed at a 7.5-cm depth followed by two sequential rod-weeding passes prior to crop emergence.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Johnson et al. (2010) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: