Human existence on the earth is
dependent on constant and sustainable food supplies. Nevertheless, there are
several factors that damage field crops and their productivity, and hence
disturb the global food security (Gregory et
al. 2009). Weeds are the most important among such factors and
heavily damage the growth, development and productivity of field crops (Lobell et al. 2009). For example, weeds were found to have
a potential to cause a 37, 23, 30, 40, 36 and 37% decline in the productivity
of rice (Oryza sativa L.), wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), potato (Solanum
tuberosum L.), maize (Zea mays L.), cotton (Gossypium hirsutum
L.), and soybean (Glycine max L.) on a global scale (Oerke 2006).
Field bindweed and purple nutsedge take
place among the most damaging and difficult-to-control weeds globally. For
instance, field bindweed is a deep-rooted plant with a perennial growth habit,
and its underground rhizomes help the weed to cover the soil surface. Both of
its rhizomes and roots possess regenerative characteristics when the plant is
in growing phase and each plant of field bindweed may produce more than 500
seeds that are mostly viable. Currently, field bindweed invades several parts
of the world and is a serious threat to the productivity of several field crops
(Davis et al. 2018). Some
herbicide application options are available for the pre-emergence and
post-emergence control of field bindweed, however, the quest for organic
farming and lowering the environmental pollution makes the non-chemical control
options more attractive (Davis et al.
2018; Orloff et al. 2018). Post-emergence control of the weed is
difficult because the herbicides or soil cultivation (mechanical control) do
not completely kill the weed, and it regenerates after a few weeks of the control
practice. Purple nutsedge weed usually propagates through rhizomes and tubers,
and infests several crops including those of vegetables, cereals, legumes,
fodders, pulses, oilseeds, fiber crops, fruit plantations, lawns and
non-agricultural settings (Holm et al.
1977). The weed takes place among the noxious and most difficult to
control weeds. Allelopathic potential of the weed against crops has also been
reported previously (Quayyum et al. 2000).
Mulching the soil with some degradable
(organic) or non-degradable (inorganic) materials has been used to accomplish
benefits such as conservation of moisture, reduction in soil erosion, increase
in microbial activities in the soil and pest control (Dong et al. 2008; Kasirajan and Ngouajio 2012; Haapala et al.
2014; Jabran and Chauhan 2018). Plastic (particularly black colored one)
has been intensively used for several of its benefits in agricultural systems (Scarascia-Mugnozza et al. 2011; Jabran et
al. 2015b). Recently, there has been an increase in the investigations
that focus on exploring the role of plastic mulches in different types of
agricultural systems (Thankamani et al.
2016). However, there are questions regarding the ecological
sustainability and environmental impacts of plastic mulching (Kader et al. 2017). Degradable
alternatives of plastic mulching are also available that not only provide
several ecological benefits but are also effective in control of weeds (and
other pests) and do not leave ill impacts on soil health and the environment (Haapala et al. 2014; Dietrich et al.
2019; Wang et al. 2019). Straw mulch, craft paper mulch,
card-board and woodchip are a few important ones among these alternatives.
These degradable mulches are also named as organic mulches against the
non-degradable (plastic) or inorganic mulches. Mulches can suppress or kill the
weeds through several mechanisms such as physical suppression, obstruction of
light, reduced air circulation and an allelopathic impact.
Spinach is a cool-season leafy
vegetable that is rich in minerals and nutrients, and is consumed in almost all
parts of the world. Weed infestation is an important plant protection problem
in spinach production (Wallace et al.
2007). Market value of spinach is greatly reduced if some weed plants
are mixed with spinach plants. There are very few herbicide options for weed
control in spinach and the available options are also likely to cause injury to
spinach plants and leave a herbicide residue in the leafy (consumable) parts (Fennimore et al. 2001; Fennimore and Doohan
2008; Fan et al. 2013). Hence, non-chemical weed control measures
are desired for production of healthy spinach. Use of mulches may be the most
attractive option because mechanical control is supposed to damage the delicate
spinach plants.
This research work was aimed to
evaluate the effect of different organic (degradable) and inorganic
(non-degradable) mulches for non-chemical control of field bindweed and purple
nutsedge. The objective was to study the effect of different mulches on the
suppression, plant height, and biomass of the weeds. The second study was aimed
to evaluate a non-degradable (thin-plastic) and two degradable (craft paper and
wheat straw) mulches for weed control in spinach. The effect of these mulches
on the weed and crop cover in spinach plantation was tested.
Materials and Methods
Study 1 (field experiment)
The experiments were conducted in the
Faculty of Agriculture and Natural Sciences, Duzce University, Duzce, Turkey
during 2018. The experiment was conducted during spring and repeated in the
summer season. Soil properties of the experimental area have been presented in
Table 1.
Area was selected that was infested
with weeds including field bindweed and purple nutsedge. Both the weeds were
allowed to grow until these were at their peak vegetative growth stage. Parts
of the field that were heavily infested with these weeds were applied with the
mulches including: weedy (no mulch), thick (0.25 mm) and thin (0.05 mm) black
plastic mulches, craft paper (brown colored) mulch (0.23 mm), thick cardboard
(2.83 mm) mulch, woodchip mulch (2.67 mm) and wheat straw mulch at 5 t ha-1.
The experiment was laid out according to randomized complete block design, and
each treatment had three replications and an area of 1 m × 1 m. The fields were
kept covered with the mulches for a period of 18 days each for the spring and
summer experiment.
The physical condition of each mulch
was noted at termination of the studies. Towards end of the studies, the
mulches were removed carefully to record data on weed control (%) provided by
each mulch. The condition of the weeds (because of implementation of the
treatments) were observed keenly and compared with the control (no mulch) to
visually assess the percent weed control. A scale of 0 to 100% was used to record
percent weed control; 100 was considered as full weed control and 0 was
considered as no weed control. Moreover, data on weed height was recorded with
help of a measuring meter. Weed height was recorded from five plants in a plot at termination of the
study with help of a measuring meter starting from base of the plants up to
their tips. Weeds (only the aboveground parts) were harvested with the help of
scissor and immediately weighed to determine the fresh weight. These were then dried (until
constant weight) in an oven at 70°C to determine the dry weight.
Study 2 (pot study)
Mulches were evaluated for controlling
weeds in a leafy vegetable i.e., spinach. The treatments included: (i)
thin (0.05 mm) black plastic mulch, (ii) craft paper (brown colored) mulch
(0.23 mm), (iii) wheat straw mulch (5 t ha-1), (iv) weed-free, and
(v) control (weedy-check). Seeds of spinach cultivar Matador were sown in pots having a size of 1 m
× 0.3 m, and filled with a mixture of sand, compost and perlite (2:1:1). Sowing
was done in the first week of October 2018 using a seed rate of 25 kg ha-1,
and seeds were sown at a soil depth of 2 cm. Mulches were placed in the pots
manually and the spinach intra-rows were kept free of the mulches. The
experiment was conducted according to randomized complete block design with
three replications. The analysis for soil used in the experiment has been given
in the Table 1.
Spinach plants were allowed to grow for
a period of two months. Afterwards, visual observations were made to record
percent cover (for whole of the planted areas) attained either by weeds or the
crops, and the percent weed control. Percent weed control assessment was based
on a scale of 0 to 100% where 0 meant no control was achieved and 100 meant a
complete control of the weeds.
Statistical analysis
Recorded data
were tested for variance homogeneity and normal distribution. Data were
subjected to analysis of variance using STATISTIX 8 Analytical Software to
determine significance of the treatments. ‘Season’ (summer and spring) and the
mulch treatments were considered as factors, results of both the summer and
spring experiments did not differ significantly, hence, the data were pooled
for a subsequent analysis and presentation. The differences among the treatment
means were determined according to Tukey’s HSD test at 0.05 alpha level.
Results
Study 1 (field experiment)
Both the
plastic mulches and woodchip mulch did not witness damage during the
experimental period; however, other mulches had minor deformations (Table 2).
Both the card-board and craft paper mulches absorbed water and were deformed by
50–60% approximately. Wheat straw mulch was originally yellow in color and its
color started changing to brown and black.
Mulches had significantly affected the
percent control, weed height, seedling fresh weight, and seedling dry weight of
the field bindweed (Table 3). Thick and thin black plastic mulches, card-board,
craft-paper, and wood-chip mulches provided the highest and statistically
similar inhibition of field bindweed followed by the wheat straw mulch (Table 3
and Fig. 1). The greatest field bindweed height was noted for plants in control
treatment while all the mulches caused a significant and statistically similar
decrease in height of field bindweed. Similarly, the control plots possessed
the highest seedling fresh weight and dry biomass of field bindweed and all the
mulches caused a significant and statistically similar reduction in seedling
fresh weight and dry biomass. Both the organic and inorganic mulches caused a
similar reduction in the weed height, fresh weight and dry weight of field bindweed. The visible condition of field
bindweed plants in response to application of organic and inorganic mulches is
presented in Fig. 1.
Organic and inorganic mulches caused a
significant decrease in purple nutsedge infestation (Table 4). Thick black
plastic mulch gave the highest control of purple nutsedge followed by thin
black plastic mulch and card-board mulch. Among the mulches, wheat straw mulch
was least effective in suppressing purple nutsedge. The greatest weed height,
seedling fresh weight and dry biomass of purple nutsedge were noted in the
weedy-check (control). Moreover, all the mulches (degradable and
non-degradable) caused a statistically similar decrease in weed height,
seedling fresh weight and dry biomass of purple nutsedge. Fig. 2 shows
condition of purple nutsedge plants as affected by different mulches in the
study.
Study 2 (pot experiment)
Wild oat (Avena fatua L.),
shepherd's purse (Capsella bursa-pastoris (L.) Medik.), and perennial
ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.) were the three weeds found in weedy-check
and other weed control treatments. The approximate densities of these weeds
were 40% for wild oat, 35% for perennial ryegrass and 25% for shepherd's purse.
The mulches had significantly and variably affected the weed cover, crop cover,
and weed control in spinach (Table 5). The highest weed cover (%) was noted in
control (weedy-check) followed by wheat straw mulch. The lowest weed cover was
noted for the spinach grown in the weed-free environment followed by the thin
black plastic mulch and craft-paper mulch. The lowest crop cover was noted for
the weedy-check. Thin black plastic mulch provided the highest weed suppression
followed by the craft-paper mulch while wheat straw mulch provided the lowest
suppression of weeds in spinach (Table 5).
Discussion
This study was aimed
at evaluating inorganic and organic mulches for controlling field bindweed and
purple nutsedge, and non-chemical weed control in spinach vegetable. None of
the mulches witnessed a significant damage and were in good condition by the
end of the experiment; however, minor deformations were noted on the degradable
mulches. Generally, plastic mulches are known to suppress the weeds for one to
two growing-seasons (nearly one year) (Ham et
al. 1993; Ngouajio and Ernest 2005). However, they may have weakened
physical, optical and thermal properties after a single season and may not
provide benefits in addition to weed control and soil moisture conservation (Ham et al. 1993; Ngouajio and Ernest, 2005).
The plastic mulches with weakened thermal and optical properties cannot
properly accomplish the modification of the microclimate or heating of the soil
surface (Ngouajio and Ernest 2005). In
this study, the condition of mulches could be monitored only for 20 days
because visual assessments indicated that weeds were effectively withered and
controlled during this duration. Fading and initiation of deformation in the
organic mulches (wheat straw, card-board and craft paper) were positive signs
in the environmental protection perspective (Valenzuela-Solano
and Crohn 2006; Halde and Entz 2016). This implies that a clean and
mulch-residue free environment will be witnessed after the decaying and
decomposition of the organic mulches during the subsequent cropping seasons.
Environmental benefits of organic mulches over the inorganic mulches are well
established and reported (Jabran 2019).
Table 1: Soil properties
of the experimental site for the study 1 and study 2
|
Soil
characteristics |
Study 1 |
Study 2 |
|
Soil texture |
Loamy
sand |
Clay
loam |
|
pH |
7.44 |
6.79 |
|
Organic
matter (%) |
3.00 |
4.77 |
|
Nitrogen
(%) |
0.15 |
0.24 |
|
Available
phosphorus (mg kg-1) |
69.20 |
82.2 |
|
Extractable
potassium (mg kg-1) |
81.80 |
91.6 |
|
Extractable
iron (mg kg-1) |
3.30 |
3.96 |
|
Extractable
zinc (mg kg-1) |
0.36 |
4.36 |
Table 2: Physical
(visible) condition of mulches at the end of experimentation
|
Mulch
type |
Condition
at the end of experiment |
|
Thick
black plastic mulch |
No
change in the condition |
|
Thin
black plastic mulch |
No
change in the condition |
|
Card-board
mulch |
Absorbed
moisture; 50% deformation |
|
Craft
paper mulch |
Absorbed
moisture; approx. 60% deformation |
|
Wheat
straw mulch |
Straw
started deforming and turned blackish |
|
Woodchip
mulch |
No
change in the condition |
Table 3: Effect of various inorganic and
organic mulches on control and growth of field bindweed
|
Mulch
type |
Weed
control (%) |
Plant
height (cm) |
Seedling
fresh weight (g) |
Seedling
dry weight (g) |
|
Control
(weedy-check) |
0.0 c |
61.0 a |
48.0 a |
10.9 a |
|
Thick
black plastic mulch |
99.2 a |
33.6 b |
3.6 b |
1.3 b |
|
Thin
black plastic mulch |
99.0 a |
38.1 b |
4.2 b |
2.0 b |
|
Card-board
mulch |
96.2 a |
38.7 b |
5.3 b |
2.2 b |
|
Craft
paper mulch |
94.2 a |
42.4 b |
4.9 b |
1.6 b |
|
Wheat
straw mulch |
76.2 b |
42.1 b |
10.3 b |
3.3 b |
|
Woodchip
mulch |
95.3 a |
39.6 b |
5.1 b |
3.0 b |
The data is an average of two-season experimentation;
the means not sharing a letter in common differ significantly at P ≤ 0.05 according to Tukey’s HSD
test
Table 4: Effect of various inorganic and
organic mulches on control and growth of purple nutsedge
|
Mulch
type |
Weed
control (%) |
Plant
height (cm) |
Seedling
fresh weight (g) |
Seedling
dry weight (g) |
|
Control (weedy-check) |
0.0 e |
58.8 a |
34.9 a |
8.8 a |
|
Thick black plastic mulch |
100.0 a |
37.4 b |
2.7 b |
2.3 b |
|
Thin black plastic mulch |
98.0 ab |
37.0 b |
2.4 b |
2.0 b |
|
Card-board mulch |
96.7 abc |
39.8 b |
3.3 b |
1.4 b |
|
Craft paper mulch |
91.7 c |
35.2 b |
1.9 b |
0.8 b |
|
Wheat straw mulch |
57.8 d |
43.4 b |
8.0 b |
2.0 b |
|
Woodchip mulch |
93.3 bc |
33.7 b |
1.7 b |
0.5 b |
The data is an average of two-season experimentation;
the means not sharing a letter in common differ significantly at P ≤ 0.05 according to Tukey’s HSD
test
Table 5: Effect of various
inorganic and organic mulches on weeds and crop cover in spinach
|
Mulch
type |
Weed
cover (%) |
Crop
cover (%) |
Weed
control (%) |
|
Control
(weed-free) |
0.0 d |
65.0 a |
100 a |
|
Control
(weedy-check) |
86.7 a |
30.0 c |
0.0 d |
|
Thin
black plastic mulch |
8.0 cd |
55.0 ab |
90.0 ab |
|
Craft
paper mulch |
20.7 c |
49.0 ab |
83.0 b |
|
Wheat
straw mulch |
40.7 b |
39.3 bc |
49.0 c |
Percent weed control assessment was based on a scale of
0 to 100% where 0 meant no control achieved and 100 meant a complete control of
the weeds
All the mulches provided a significant control of the weed species in
the first study (i.e., field bindweed and purple nutsedge) and the
second study i.e., weeds in the spinach (wild oat, shepherd's purse, and perennial ryegrass). The two
plastic mulches (thick and thin) were equally effective in suppressing the two
weeds and causing a decrease in their height, fresh weight and biomass.
Probably a single season application is not enough to express the difference in
efficacy of thick and thin plastic mulches
|
(a) |
(b) |
(c) |
|
(d) |
(e) |
(f) |
%201114-1120_files/image002.jpg)
%201114-1120_files/image004.jpg)
%201114-1120_files/image006.jpg)
%201114-1120_files/image008.jpg)
%201114-1120_files/image010.jpg)
%201114-1120_files/image012.jpg)
Fig. 1: Effect of different organic and
inorganic mulches on field bindweed: (a)
control (no mulch), (b) thick black
plastic mulch, (c) thin black
plastic mulch, (d) craft-paper
mulch, (e) card-board mulch, and (f) wheat straw mulch
|
(a) |
(b) |
(c) |
|
(d) |
(e) |
(f) |
%201114-1120_files/image014.jpg)
%201114-1120_files/image016.jpg)
%201114-1120_files/image018.jpg)
%201114-1120_files/image020.jpg)
%201114-1120_files/image022.jpg)
%201114-1120_files/image024.jpg)
Fig. 2: Effect of different organic and
inorganic mulches on purple nutsedge: (a)
control (weedy-check, no mulch), (b)
thick black plastic mulch, (c) thin
black plastic mulch, (d) craft-paper
mulch, (e) card-board mulch, and (f) wheat straw mulch
(Changrong et al. 2014). Organic mulches
(woodchip, cardboard, craft paper) were effective in suppressing the two weeds but were not
different from inorganic mulches in their efficacy. Nevertheless, percent weed
control of field bindweed and purple nutsedge through wheat straw mulch was
lower than the other mulches, however, all the mulches had a similar effect on
rest of the weed traits. Nevertheless, field bindweed and purple nutsedge take
place among the most problematic weeds in the agricultural crops and in
non-agricultural settings as well, and very few control options are available
to suppress these weeds effectively (Baumgartner
et al. 2007; Orloff et al. 2018).
The effectiveness of mulches against these weeds in this study implies
that they can be tested and used for weed control in areas heavily infested
with these weeds. Presumably, the mulches in the study exercised a variety of
mechanisms to suppress the studied weed species. Previously, this has been
reported that weed suppression through mulches is accomplished through a
variety of mechanisms (Jabran 2019).
Importantly, the weed suppression mechanism varies depending on the nature of
mulch. Apparently, the plastic mulches (both the thin and thick) in this study
suppressed the weeds (field bindweed and purple nutsedge, and the weeds growing
in spinach plants) by blocking the sunlight and exerting a physical pressure as
well on the weeds (Jabran 2019).
The mechanisms of weed suppression by card-board and craft paper
mulches are similar to that of plastic mulches (e.g., blocking of light,
physical pressure etc.). Another
likely mechanism of weed suppression by mulches is the obstruction of air
circulation to the weeds, and this ultimately created an anoxic or at least a
hypoxic environment for the weed plants (Zhang et
al. 2015). Plastic mulches possess a great capability to create
anoxic or hypoxic environment than the other mulches. Another possible
mechanism of weed suppression by mulches is the heating of soil environment and
a subsequent damage to the weed tissues. Mulches are known to decrease the
albedo of the soil (Zhang et al. 2015).
Nevertheless, this has also been reported that inorganic mulches reduce the
water availability to weeds (Saha et al.
2018).
Although lower than the other mulches, straw mulch (as observed in this
study) also provided a satisfactory suppression of weeds. Straw mulch share
several of weed suppression mechanisms (such as physical stress, obstruction of
light and moisture supply to weeds and heating of soil) with the plastic, craft
paper or card-board mulches. The additional mechanism of weed
suppression by the mulches of plant origin include the release of
allelochemicals that can express and allelopathic activity against the weeds (Jabran et al. 2015a; Saha et al. 2018).
The straw mulch used in this study was obtained from the wheat, and this crop
possesses a proven allelopathic activity (Wu et
al. 2001; Jabran and Farooq 2013; Jabran et al. 2015a).
Importantly, a careful use of mulches is desired owing to certain of
their damages to environment, the crop plants or other living organisms in the
environment. Further, another important consideration includes the comparative
costs expended on different mulch types and the subsequently achieved weed
control (or other additional benefits or damages). In addition to the field or
horticultural crops, the mulches are likely to provide several benefits in
landscape plantations including that of a non-chemical weed control (Chalker-Scott 2007; Saha et al. 2018).
Non-chemical weed control in landscape can ensure an herbicide free and healthy
environment for the people coming in contact with that environment (Marble et al. 2015). Chalker-Scott (2007) described a number of
benefits of mulching to landscape such as improved aesthetics, control of
weeds, reduction in disease infestation, improved germination (of landscape
plants), enhanced plant growth and establishment, and betterment in the soil
hydrothermal, nutritional and microbial status.
Conclusion
Both the organic and
inorganic mulches were effective in suppressing the two hardy weeds i.e.,
field bindweed and purple nutsedge, and helped in achieving clean fields of
spinach. The lowest weed control efficacy was noted for the wheat straw mulch.
Results of these studies have important implications in the perspective of safe
food production and environmental protection. Importantly, the significance of
non-chemical weed control methods has increased over the time due to quest for
organic food production and evolution of herbicide resistance in weeds.
References
Baumgartner K, KL Steenwerth, L Veilleux (2007). Effects
of organic and conventional practices on weed control in a perennial cropping
system. Weed Sci 55:352‒358
Chalker-Scott L (2007). Impact of mulches on landscape
plants and the environment—A review. J Environ Hortic 25:239‒249
Changrong Y, H Wenqing, C Neil (2014). Plastic-film
mulch in Chinese agriculture: Importance and problems. World Agric 4:32‒36
Davis S, J Mangold, F Menalled, N Orloff, Z Miller, E
Lehnhoff (2018). A meta-analysis of field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis)
management in annual and perennial systems. Weed Sci 66:540‒547
Dietrich G, S Recous, PL Pinheiro, DA Weiler, AL Schu,
MRL Rambo, SJ Giacomini (2019). Gradient of
decomposition in sugarcane mulches of various thicknesses. Soil Till Res
192:66‒75
Dong H, W Li, W Tang, D Zhang (2008). Furrow seeding
with plastic mulching increases stand establishment and lint yield of cotton in
a saline field. Agron J 100:1640‒1646
Fan S, F Zhang, K Deng, C Yu, S Liu, P Zhao, C Pan (2013).
Spinach or amaranth contains highest residue of metalaxyl, fluazifop-p-butyl,
chlorpyrifos, and lambda-cyhalothrin on six leaf vegetables upon open field
application. J Agric Food Chem 61:2039‒2044
Fennimore SA, DJ Doohan (2008). The challenges of
specialty crop weed control, future directions. Weed Technol 22:364‒372
Fennimore SA, RF Smith, ME Mcgiffen (2001). Weed
management in fresh market spinach (Spinacia oleracea) with
S-metolachlor. Weed Technol 15:511‒516
Gregory PJ, SN Johnson, AC Newton, JS Ingram 2009.
Integrating pests and pathogens into the climate change/food security debate. J
Exp Bot 60:2827‒2838
Haapala T, P Palonen, A Korpela, J Ahokas (2014).
Feasibility of paper mulches in crop production—a review. Agric Food Sci 23:60‒79
Halde C, MH Entz (2016). Plant species and mulch
application rate affected decomposition of cover crop mulches used in organic
rotational no-till systems. Can J Plant Sci 96:59‒71
Ham JM, G Kluitenberg, W Lamont (1993). Optical
properties of plastic mulches affect the field temperature regime. J Amer Soc
Hortic Sci 118:188‒193
Holm LG, DL Plucknett, JV Pancho, JP Herberger (1977). The
World's Worst Weeds: Distribution And Biology. University Press of Hawaii.
Honolulu, Hawaii, USA
Jabran K (2019). Role of Mulching in Pest Management
and Agricultural Sustainability. Springer International Publishing. Cham,
Switzerland
Jabran K, BS Chauhan (2018). Non-Chemical Weed
Control. Academic Press. Elsevier, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA
Jabran K, M Farooq (2013). Implications of potential
allelopathic crops in agricultural systems. In:
Allelopathy, Current Trends and Future Applications, pp: 349‒385.
Cheema ZA, M Farooq, A Wahid (eds.). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany
Jabran K, G Mahajan, V Sardana, BS Chauhan (2015a).
Allelopathy for weed control in agricultural systems. Crop Prot 72:57‒65
Jabran K, E Ullah, M Hussain, M Farooq, U Zaman, M
Yaseen, BS Chauhan (2015b). Mulching improves water productivity, yield and
quality of fine rice under water‐saving rice production systems. J
Agron Crop Sci 201:389‒400
Kader M, M Senge, M Mojid, K Ito (2017). Recent advances
in mulching materials and methods for modifying soil environment. Soil Til Res
168:155‒166
Kasirajan S, M Ngouajio (2012). Polyethylene and
biodegradable mulches for agricultural applications: a review. Agron Sustain
Dev 32:501‒529
Lobell DB, KG Cassman, CB Field (2009). Crop yield gaps:
their importance, magnitudes, and causes. Annu Rev Environ Resour 34:179‒204
Marble SC, AK
Koeser, G Hasing (2015). A review of weed control practices in landscape
planting beds: part II—chemical weed control methods. HortScience 50:857‒862
Ngouajio M, J Ernest (2005). Changes in the physical,
optical, and thermal properties of polyethylene mulches during double cropping.
HortScience 40:94‒97
Oerke EC (2006). Crop losses to pests. J Agric Sci
144:31‒43
Orloff N, J Mangold, Z Miller, F Menalled (2018). A
meta-analysis of field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis L.) and Canada
thistle (Cirsium arvense L.) management in organic agricultural systems.
Agric Ecosyst Environ 254:264‒272
Quayyum H, A Mallik, D Leach, C Gottardo (2000). Growth inhibitory
effects of nutgrass (Cyperus rotundus) on rice (Oryza sativa)
seedlings. J Chem Ecol 26:2221‒2231
Saha D, SC Marble, BJ Pearson (2018). Allelopathic
effects of common landscape and nursery mulch materials on weed control. Front
Plant Sci 9; Article 733
Scarascia-Mugnozza G, C Sica, G Russo (2011).
Plastic materials in European agriculture: Actual use and perspectives. J
Agric Eng 42:15‒28
Thankamani C, K Kandiannan, S Hamza, K Saji (2016).
Effect of mulches on weed suppression and yield of ginger (Zingiber
officinale Roscoe). Sci Hortic 207:125‒130
Valenzuela-Solano C, DM Crohn (2006). Are decomposition
and N release from organic mulches determined mainly by their chemical
composition? Soil Biol Biochem 38:377‒384
Wallace RW, AL Phillips, JC Hodges (2007). Processing
spinach response to selected herbicides for weed control, crop injury, and
yield. Weed Technol 21:714‒718
Wang Z, Q Wu, B Fan, J Zhang, W Li, X Zheng, H Lin, L
Guo (2019). Testing biodegradable films as alternatives to plastic films in
enhancing cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) yield under mulched drip
irrigation. Soil Till Res 192:196‒205
Wu H, J Pratley, D Lemerle, T Haig (2001). Allelopathy
in wheat (Triticum aestivum). Ann Appl Biol 139:1‒9
Zhang F, M Li, J
Qi, F Li, G Sun (2015). Plastic film mulching increases soil respiration in
ridge-furrow maize management. Arid Land Res Manage 29:432‒453