Data from: Integrated Weed Management in Cucurbit Production Using Spring-seeded Grass Cover Crops

<p dir="ltr">Study locations<br>o Watermelon- University of Maryland Wye Research and Education Center Queenstown, MD (38.9°N, 76.2°W)</p><p dir="ltr">o Cucumber- Rutgers Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Bridgeton, NJ (39.5°N,75.2°W)· </p><p dir="ltr">Study design: split-split plot arranged on a randomized complete block design with 4 replicates<br>o Whole plots = post-transplant treatments (clethodim [ 140 g ai·ha^-1¹], paraquat [ 336 g ai·ha^-1], crimped [no herbicide])</p><p dir="ltr">o Subplots = cover crop species (cereal rye [268 kg·ha^-1], oat [310 kg·ha^-1], cereal rye [134 kg·ha^-1] + oat [155 kg·ha^-1], no cover)<br>o Sub-subplot = residual herbicide (fomesafen [421 g ai·ha^-1] + <i>S-</i>metolachlor [1783 g ai·ha^-1])</p><p dir="ltr"><br>Plot size = 4 rows of plastic mulch 7.6 m long, 6.9 m wide in 2021 and 4.6 m long, 6.9 m wide in 2022.</p><p dir="ltr"><br>Study dates: 4/21 – 9/21, 4/22/ - 8/22</p><p dir="ltr">o Bed formation = MD (4/20/21, 4/14/22), NJ (4/6/21, 4/13/22)<br>o Cover crop seeding = MD (4/27/21), 4/25/22), NJ (4/7/21, 4/20/22)</p><p dir="ltr">o Crop seeding/transplant = MD (6/24/21, 6/16/22), NJ (6/2/21, 6/7/22)<br>o Post-transplant treatment = MD (7/14/21, 7/12/22), NJ (6/24/21, 7/6/22)</p><p dir="ltr">o Harvest = MD (9/8/21-9/21/21, 8/7/22), NJ (7/14/21-8/3/21, 7/26/22-8/9/22)</p><p dir="ltr">Data collection<br>o Cover crop biomass collected from two-0.25m²quadrats randomly selected within each plot<br>o Smooth pigweed (artificially seeded) density (1 permanent-0.25 m²quadrat placed in the center of each plot) collected prior to post-transplant treatment, 2 weeks after post-transplant treatment.</p><p dir="ltr">o Other annual broadleaf weeds (natural population) density (1 permanent-0.25 m²quadrat placed in the center of each plot) collected prior to post-transplant treatment, 2 weeks after post-transplant treatment.<br>o Smooth pigweed (AMACH) and other annual weed biomass (GEN) collected 6 weeks after post-transplant treatment by cutting all the plants at ground level from the same aforementioned squares. Weed and cover crop biomass samples were benched dried in a greenhouse for 14 d at 35 °C in Maryland, and were or oven-dried at 60 °C for 7 d in New Jersey before weighing.</p><p dir="ltr">o Broadleaf (BLD) weed control (relative to the no cover, crimped, no herbicide treatment) in the center (Ctr) of each row and adjacent to the plastic mulch (Edg) was visually evaluated 3 weeks after post-transplant treatments both years in MD and in 2021 in NJ using a 0 to 100 scale, with 0 = no plant response and 100 = complete plant death.<br>o Harvest<br>· Individual fruits were harvested from the two center rows within each plot.</p><p dir="ltr">· Yield data for both crops consisted of count and weight of total and marketable fruits as well as the individual weight of marketable fruits.</p><p dir="ltr">Data analysis<br>o Data were subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA) using the generalized linear mixed model (GLIMMIX) procedure in SAS</p><p dir="ltr">o Fixed effects = Cover crops, post-plant treatments and inclusion of a residual herbicide as well as all interactions between these three factors.<br>o Random effects = Locations, runs, and replication nested within runs</p><p dir="ltr">o Data transformation = percentage or numerical data were converted using the arcsine square root or the square root transformation, respectively, prior to ANOVA<br>o Means separation = Tukey’s honest significance test (HSD) test (α = 0.05)</p><p dir="ltr"><br></p><p dir="ltr">Data files<br>o MD_Watermelon yield data.csv</p><p dir="ltr">o NJ_Cucumber yield data.csv<br>o NJ+MD cover crop data.csv</p><p dir="ltr">o NJ+MD Weed control data.csv<br>o NJ+MD Weed count pre-term data.csv</p><p dir="ltr">o Weed biomass.csv<br>o Weed contro_at harvest.csv</p><p dir="ltr">o Weed count_12 d after term data.csv<br>o Weed count_41 DATrplt.csv</p><p><br></p>