Macronutrient inputs to annual cropping systems can benefit weeds as well as crops, sometimes decreasing or eliminating the benefits of fertilization. This interaction between fertility management and integrated weed management is becoming increasingly important as these fields increase their focus on efficiency and prevention, respectively. The risk of increased weed competition reflects the fact that weed biomass and height may be highly responsive to nitrogen, phosphorus, and/or potassium. This generalization is supported by monoculture studies of species such as redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexusL.), common lambsquarters (Chenopodium albumL.), and barnyardgrass [Echinochloa crus-galli(L.) P. Beauv.] and by ecological theory. However, field studies indicate variation in the effects of macronutrients on weed–crop competition and crop yield, even within species groups. To address challenges in interpreting, comparing, and extrapolating from these diverse reports, we propose a conceptual framework that summarizes the mechanisms underlying observed variation within and between studies. This framework highlights functional traits and trends that help predict yield outcomes in binary weed–crop interactions. Important factors include timing of emergence, maximum heights of the weed and crop, and relative responsiveness to the added nutrient. We also survey recent work on the effects of nutrient source (e.g., the composition of organic amendments) on weed–crop competition. Because different sources vary in their nutrient release dynamics and supplied nutrient ratios, they may have dramatically different effects on weed–crop competition and crop yield. Finally, we offer a guide to best practices for studies of fertility effects on weed–crop competition. Although this review highlights several topics requiring further research, including fertility effects on multispecies interactions and interactions with other environmental factors, emerging methods offer considerable promise. Ultimately, an improved understanding of nutrient effects on weed–crop competition will contribute to the efficient and effective management of diverse cropping systems.

Living mulches are cover crops grown simultaneously with and in close proximity to cash crops. Advantages of living mulches over dead cover crops may include increased weed suppression, reduced erosion and leaching, better soil health, and greater resource-use efficiency. Advantages of living mulches over synthetic mulches may include enhanced agroecosystem biodiversity and suitability for a wider range of cropping systems. A major disadvantage of this practice is the potential for competition between living mulches and cash crops. The intensity and outcome of mulch-crop competition depend on agroecosystem management as well as climate and other factors. In this review, we consider the management of living mulches for weed control in field and vegetable cropping systems of temperate environments. More than 50 yr of research have demonstrated that mechanical or chemical suppression of a living mulch can limit mulch-crop competition without killing the mulch and thereby losing its benefits. Such tactics can also contribute to weed suppression. Mechanical and chemical regulation should be combined with cultural practices that give the main crop a competitive advantage over the living mulch, which, in turn, outcompetes the weeds. Promising approaches include crop and mulch cultivar selection; changes to planting time, density, and planting pattern; and changes to fertilization or irrigation regimes. A systems approach to living mulch management, including an increased emphasis on the interactions between management methods, may increase the benefits and lower the risks associated with this practice.

Weeds are a fundamental component of agroecosystems and, if not appropriately managed, can cause severe crop yield losses. New perspectives on weed management are required, because current approaches, such as herbicide application or soil tillage, have significant environmental and agronomic drawbacks. We propose the concept of “neutral weed communities,” which are weed communities that coexist with crops and do not negatively affect crop yield and quality compared with weed-free conditions. Management practices that promote neutral weed communities can enable reduced use of herbicides and soil tillage while enhancing ecosystem services and biodiversity. We report scientific evidence of neutral weed communities and survey ecological explanations for why different weed communities have different effects on crop production. We also propose two weed management approaches for attaining neutral weed communities. The first approach aims to maximize weed biodiversity using traditional approaches such as cropping system diversification and integrated weed management. Higher weed biodiversity is associated with lower dominance of competitive weed species that reduce crop yield. The second approach relies on modern tools such as robots and biotechnology to manipulate the density of specific weed species. This approach can remove highly problematic species and minimize niche overlap between the weeds and crops. Given the complexity of interactions among crops, weeds, and other components of the agroecosystem, we highlight the need for multidisciplinary research to illuminate mechanisms that determine the neutrality of weed communities.