Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-npj9w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-07T00:45:25.468Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Suppression of weed occurrence in a five-year corn–earthworm coculture system

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 December 2020

Tao Li
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Shanghai Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Shanghai, China
Jiequn Fan
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Shanghai Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Shanghai, China
Zhenguan Qian
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Shanghai Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Shanghai, China
Guohui Yuan
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Shanghai Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Shanghai, China
Dandan Meng
Affiliation:
Graduate Student, Shanghai Normal University, Shanghai, China
Shuiliang Guo*
Affiliation:
Professor, Shanghai Normal University, Shanghai, China
Weiguang Lv*
Affiliation:
Professor, Shanghai Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Shanghai, China
*
Authors for correspondence: Weiguang Lv, Shanghai Academy of Agricultural Sciences, 1000 Jinqi Road, Fengxian District, Shanghai 201403, China. (Email: lwei1217@sina.com); and Shuiliang Guo, Shanghai Normal University, 100 Guilin Road, Xuhui District, Shanghai 200234, China. (Email: gsg@shnu.edu.cn)
Authors for correspondence: Weiguang Lv, Shanghai Academy of Agricultural Sciences, 1000 Jinqi Road, Fengxian District, Shanghai 201403, China. (Email: lwei1217@sina.com); and Shuiliang Guo, Shanghai Normal University, 100 Guilin Road, Xuhui District, Shanghai 200234, China. (Email: gsg@shnu.edu.cn)
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The use of a corn–earthworm coculture (CE) system is an eco-agricultural technology that has been gradually extended due to its high economic output and diverse ecological benefits for urban agriculture in China. However, the effect of CE on weed occurrence has received little attention. A 5-yr successive experiment (2015 to 2019) was conducted to compare weed occurrence in CE and a corn (Zea mays L.) monoculture (CM). The results show that CE significantly decreased weed diversity, the dominance index, total weed density, and biomass, but increased the weed evenness index. The 5-yr mean number of weed species per plot was 8.4 in CE and 10.7 in CM. Compared with those in CM, the 5-yr mean density and biomass of total weeds in CE decreased by 59.2% and 66.6%, respectively. The effect of CE on weed occurrence was species specific. The mean density of large crabgrass [Digitaria sanguinalis (L.) Scop.], green foxtail [Setaria viridis (L.) P. Beauv.], goosegrass [Eleusine indica (L.) Gaertn.], and common purslane (Portulaca oleracea L.) in CE decreased by 94.5%, 78.1%, 75.0%, and 45.8%, whereas the mean biomass decreased by 96.2%, 80.8%, 76.9%, and 41.4%, respectively. Our study suggests that the use of CE could suppress weed occurrence and reduce herbicide inputs in agriculture.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2020
Figure 0

Figure 1. A sketch of the experimental design. (A) Overview of experimental treatments that consisted of eight plots surrounded by water ditches, with four plots for corn–earthworm coculture (CE) farming and four plots for corn monoculture (CM) farming; (B) The profile of CE plots. Juvenile earthworms were introduced at a density of 100 individuals m−2. (1) Ditch (0.6-m upper opening width and 0.6-m depth); (2) experimental plot (6 m by 50 m); (3 and 4) Corn plants (planted with 75-cm row spacing); (5) individual earthworm; and (6) water surface (15 to 25 cm lower than the soil surface).

Figure 1

Figure 2. Field photos of the experiment. (A) The corn–earthworm coculture plot; (B) drainage pipe installed in ditch; (C) earthworms were introduced into a plot; (D) earthworms were placed on the soil surface; and (E) earthworms crawled into the soil by themselves.

Figure 2

Table 1. Hybrid variety of corn and planting and sampling dates in the experiment.

Figure 3

Table 2. Summary of the ANOVA testing the effects of culture years and farming types (corn monoculture farming and corn–earthworm coculture farming) on the indicators.

Figure 4

Figure 3. Comparisons of weed species number, density, and biomass between corn–earthworm coculture (CE) plots and corn monoculture (CM) plots during 2015 to 2019. Vertical bars denote SEs. (A) Weed species number; (B) total weed density; and (C) total weed biomass.

Figure 5

Figure 4. Comparisons of the diversity index, evenness index, and dominance index of weed communities between corn–earthworm coculture (CE) plots and corn monoculture (CM) plots during 2015 to 2019. Vertical bars denote SEs. (A) Shannon diversity index; (B) Pielou’s evenness index; and (C) Simpson’s dominance index.

Figure 6

Figure 5. Comparisons of density and biomass between corn–earthworm coculture (CE) plots and corn monoculture (CM) plots for Digitaria sanguinalis (A and B), Setaria viridis (C and D), Eleusine indica (E and F), and Portulaca oleracea (G and H) during 2015 to 2019. Vertical bars denote SEs.