Reducing the fallow period by using cover crops in a winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)–sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench]–fallow system has the potential to suppress weeds and improve wheat yield, yet limited information is available from the semiarid southern Great Plains (SGP) of the United States. This study determines the effects of spring‐planted cover crops on weed suppression and winter wheat yields in semiarid environments. The study used a randomized complete block design with eight cover crop treatments and three replications. The cover crop treatments consisted of fallow (weeds controlled with herbicide), pea (Pisum sativum L.), oat (Avena sativa L.), canola (Brassica napus L.), pea + oat, pea + canola, pea + oat + canola, and six‐species mixture of pea + oat + canola + hairy vetch (Vicia villosa L.) + forage radish (Raphanus sativus L.) + barley (Hordeum vulgare L.). Both winter wheat and cover crops received supplemental irrigation. The cover crops showed potential to suppress weeds and maintain good ground cover during summer. Specifically, weed biomass in the oat and oat mixtures with legumes and brassicas were 73 to 85% less than in fallow during 2018. Cover crops showed little effect on wheat yield, yield components, and water use efficiency. Although long‐term studies of cover crops effects on multiple ecosystem services may help to select the most effective cover crop on wheat yield and water use efficiency in the SGP, this study revealed benefit of cover cropping through weed suppression.

Smart irrigation controllers have demonstrated potential for turfgrass water conservation in humid and temperate environments but have not been comprehensively tested in arid environments. The objective of this study was to determine the accuracy of a wireless capacitance sensor over a wide soil moisture range and to ascertain if smart irrigation controllers resulted in water savings without reducing quality of tall fescue [Schedonorus arundinaceus (Schreb.) Dumort.] and bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon L.). A two-yr study was conducted to compare turfgrass quality, root morphology, and water use of plots irrigated with a constant run time to plots for which irrigation was scheduled using soil moisture sensors (SMS), evapotranspiration (ET) [Climate Logic (CL)] controllers, or 80% of historic ET (ET80) for tall fescue and 60% (ET60) for bermudagrass. Sensors accurately tracked soil moisture up to salinity levels of 4 dS m −1. Turf performance and root morphology were not affected by irrigation treatments for either grass. Compared to tall fescue plots irrigated with constant run time, plots irrigated using ET80 and CL required 38% less water, and SMS plots used 44% less than tall fescue. Scheduling bermudagrass irrigation by ET60, CL, and SMS resulted in a 29, 42, and 39% reduction in water applied compared to constant run time. The majority of water savings was in spring and fall. Water requirement for bermudagrass during the summer did not differ between the scheduling treatments. Our study confirms that smart irrigation controllers can be used as an effective measure to conserve water in an arid environment.

A study was conducted in an irrigated arid agroecosystem in southwestern USA, to compare two conservation tillage systems (strip tillage (ST) and no-tillage (NT)) to conventional, plow-based tillage (PT) system. Corn silage (Zea mays L.) was planted in this trial. Growth parameters (plant population and height) of corn silage were measured during the season and yield was evaluated at harvest. Soil physical measurements assessed included mean weight diameter of dry aggregates, wet aggregate stability, and penetrometer resistance. While soil biological measurements included total microbial biomass, diversity index (DI), total bacteria biomass, total fungi biomass (TFB), arbuscular mycorrhizae fungi (AMF), and total saprophytes. Results showed that plant population and silage yield at 65% moisture content were not significant with tillage during both trial years. Soil physical parameters were mostly not significant with tillage, while three out of the six biological measurements (DI, TF, and AM) were significant with tillage at p ≤ 0.05. No-tillage had higher DI and TFB than the ST, but not different from PT, while AMF was significantly higher in PT than ST, but not different from NT. The study demonstrates that farmers in the study region can adopt conservation tillage without yield losses during the early years of transition.

Many turfgrass extension bulletins and herbicide labels recommend prolonging or suspending mowing practices 1 day or more before and/or after herbicide applications to increase efficacy. However, the effect of mowing timing on herbicide efficacy has not been sufficiently explored. Field experiments were conducted to evaluate the influence of herbicide selection and mowing timing relative to herbicide application on the control of ground ivy (Glechoma hederacea L.). The three mowing treatments included mowing 30 min before herbicide application, mowing 30 min after herbicide application, and not mowing for at least 7 days prior to and at least 3 days after herbicide application. Aminocyclopyrachlor resulted in the greatest reduction of ground ivy cover in 2011 and 2012. Like aminocyclopyrachlor, 2,4‐D ester and metsulfuron reduced ground ivy cover both years, while triclopyr reduced ground ivy cover as well as aminocyclopyrachlor in 2012. Although 2,4‐D + mecoprop (MCPP) + dicamba was not among the best performing herbicides, it reduced ground ivy cover compared with the untreated check in both years. There were no mowing or mowing‐by‐herbicide interactions on any of the rating dates. Thus, this research suggests that the timing of lawn mowing relative to herbicide application has little measurable impact on herbicide efficacy on ground ivy.

While weed management is often thought of as an agricultural issue, weeds are also problematic for homeowners, public space managers and utilities. In these situations, weeds are typically hand‐pulled, mechanically treated or managed via herbicides. Hand pulling and mechanical treatments are labour‐intensive, and all control methods may have unintended off‐target impacts, necessitating new alternatives for weed control. We have developed a method of using electricity to effectively manage unwanted plants. A series of experiments was conducted with the aim of developing operating protocols with consideration to specific scenarios: we tested a system on Morus alba (mulberry) and Ulmus pumila saplings, determined the response of Tamarix spp. (tamarisk) to different electricity doses, evaluated electricity as pre‐emergent weed control in xeriscaping, and tested the ability of electricity to prevent climbing growth by the vine Convolvulus arvensis (field bindweed). Tests on M. alba and U. pumila demonstrated that low doses of electricity applied over several days are effective in killing trees up to 20 cm in diameter. The Tamarix experiment showed that the plants displayed typical dose–response characteristics with higher doses leading to less plant growth. Results of the pre‐emergent weed control experiment demonstrated the excellent ability of electricity to prevent weed growth, with treated plots having a mean weed cover of 4% compared to 94% in control plots after 4 months. Finally, electricity was shown to be 100% effective in preventing C. arvensis from climbing poles. Our results indicate that electricity is a viable alternative to manual, mechanical or chemical methods for small tree control, pre‐emergent weed control in xeriscaping, and prevention of climbing weeds.