Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T13:36:33.088Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Are many little hammers effective? Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) population dynamics in two- and four-year crop rotation systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Paula R. Westerman ,
Matt Liebman ,
Fabián D. Menalled ,
Andrew H. Heggenstaller ,
Robert G. Hartzler  and
Philip M. Dixon
Matt Liebman
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, 3405 Agronomy Hall, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011-1010
Fabián D. Menalled
Affiliation:
Department of Land Resources and Environmental Sciences, 719 Leon Johnson Hall, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 59717-3120
Andrew H. Heggenstaller
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, 3403 Agronomy Hall, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011-1010
Robert G. Hartzler
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, 2104 Agronomy Hall, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011-1010
Philip M. Dixon
Affiliation:
Department of Statistics, 125 Snedecor Hall, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011-1210
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

To improve understanding of relationships between crop diversity, weed management practices, and weed population dynamics, we used data from a field experiment and matrix models to examine how contrasting crop rotations affect velvetleaf. We compared a 2-yr rotation system (corn–soybean) managed with conventional rates of herbicides with a 4-yr rotation (corn–soybean–triticale + alfalfa–alfalfa) that received 82% less herbicide. In November 2002, a pulse of velvetleaf seeds (500 seeds m−2) was added to 7- by 7-m areas within replicate plots of each crop phase–rotation system combination. Velvetleaf seed, seedling, and reproductive adult population densities, seed production, and seed losses to predators were measured during the next year. Velvetleaf seed production was greater in the 4-yr rotation than in the 2-yr rotation (460 vs. 16 seeds m−2). Averaged over 12 sampling periods from late May to mid-November 2003, loss of velvetleaf seeds to predators also was greater in the 4-yr rotation than in the 2-yr rotation (32 vs. 17% per 2 d). Modeling analyses indicated that velvetleaf density in the 4-yr rotation should decline if cumulative losses of seeds produced in the soybean phase exceeded 40%. Achieving such a level of predation appears possible, given the observed rates of velvetleaf seed predation. In addition, no tillage occurs in the 4-yr rotation for 26 mo after soybean harvest, thus favoring seed exposure on the soil surface to predators. Models that included estimates of seed predation indicated that to prevent increases in velvetleaf density, weed control efficacy in soybean must be ≥ 93% in the 2-yr rotation, but could drop to 86% in the 4-yr rotation. These results support the hypothesis that diverse rotations that exploit multiple stress and mortality factors, including weed seed predation, can contribute to effective weed suppression with less reliance on herbicides.

Keywords

Velvetleaf, Abutilon theophrasti Medicus ABUTHalfalfa, Medicago sativa L.corn, Zea mays L.soybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr.triticale, Triticosecale spp.Crop rotationmatrix population modelsseed predationweed population dynamics
Type
Symposium
Information
Weed Science , Volume 53 , Issue 3 , June 2005 , pp. 382 - 392
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

Abbott, W. S. 1945. A method of computing the effectiveness of an insecticide. J. Econ. Entomol 18:265–267.Google Scholar
Bauer, T. A. and Mortensen, D. A. 1992. A comparison of economic and economic optimum thresholds for two annual weeds in soybean. Weed Technol 6:228–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benvenuti, S., Macchia, M., and Miele, S. 2001. Quantitative analysis of emergence of seedlings from buried weed seed with increasing soil depth. Weed Sci 49:528–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brust, G. E. and House, G. J. 1988. Weed seed destruction by arthropods and rodents in low-input soybean agroecosystems. Am. J. Altern. Agric 3:19–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buhler, D. D., Doll, J. D., Proost, R. T., and Visocky, M. R. 1994. Interrow cultivation to reduce herbicide use in corn following alfalfa without tillage. Agron. J 86:66–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buhler, D. D. and Hartzler, R. G. 2001. Emergence and persistence of seed of velvetleaf, common waterhemp, woolly cupgrass, and giant foxtail. Weed Sci 49:230–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnside, O. C., Fenster, C. R., Evetts, L. L., and Mumm, R. F. 1981. Germination of exhumed weed seed in Nebraska. Weed Sci 29:577–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bussan, A. J., Boerboom, C. M., and Stoltenberg, D. E. 2001. Response of velvetleaf demographic processes to herbicide rate. Weed Sci 49:22–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caswell, H. 2001. Matrix Population Models: Construction, Analysis, and Interpretation. 2nd ed. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.Google Scholar
Caswell, H. and Trevisan, M. C. 1994. Sensitivity analysis of periodic matrix models. Ecology 75:1299–1303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cousens, R. 1987. Theory and reality of weed control thresholds. Plant Prot. Q 2:13–20.Google Scholar
Cousens, R. and Mortimer, M. 1995. Dynamics of Weed Populations. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 208–212.Google Scholar
Cousens, R. and Moss, S. R. 1990. A model of the effects of cultivation on the vertical distribution of weed seeds within the soil. Weed Res 30:61–70.Google Scholar
Cromar, H. E., Murphy, S. D., and Swanton, C. J. 1999. Influence of tillage and crop residue on postdispersal predation of weed seeds. Weed Sci 47:184–194.Google Scholar
Davis, A. S., Dixon, P. M., and Liebman, M. 2003. Cropping system effects on giant foxtail (Setaria faberi) demography. 2. Retrospective perturbation analysis. Weed Sci 51:930–939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, A. S., Dixon, P. M., and Liebman, M. 2004. Using matrix models to determine cropping system effects on annual weed demography. Ecol. Appl 14:655–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, A. S. and Liebman, M. 2003. Cropping system effects on giant foxtail (Setaria faberi) demography. 1. Green manure and tillage timing. Weed Sci 51:919–929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowling, P. and Wong, P. 1993. Influence of preseason weed management and in-crop treatments on two successive wheat crops. 1. Weed seedling numbers and wheat grain yield. Aust. J. Exp. Agric 33:167–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Einhellig, F. A. 1995. Allelopathy: current status and future goals. Pages 1–24 in Inderjit, , Dakshini, K.M.M., and Einhellig, F. A. eds. Allelopathy: Organisms, Processes, and Applications Washington, DC: American Chemical Society.Google Scholar
Genstat 5 Committee. 1993. Genstat Release 3 Reference Manual. Oxford, U.K.: Clarendon. 796 p.Google Scholar
Gonzalez-Andular, J. L. 1997. A matrix model for the population dynamics and vertical distribution of weed seedbanks. Ecol. Model 97:117–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, S. K., Regnier, E. E., and Schmoll, J. T. 2003. Postdispersal predation of giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida) seed in no-tillage corn. Weed Sci 51:955–964.Google Scholar
Hartzler, R. G., Buhler, D. D., and Stoltenberg, D. E. 1999. Emergence characteristics of four annual weed species. Weed Sci 47:578–584.Google Scholar
Hulme, P. E. 1994. Post dispersal seed predation in grassland: its magnitude and sources of variation. J. Ecol 81:645–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, N., Mortensen, D. A., Prenslow, D. M., and Cox, K. C. 1995. Simulation analysis of crop rotation effects on weed seedbanks. Am. J. Bot 82:390–398.Google Scholar
Kegode, G. O., Forcella, F., and Durgan, B. R. 1999. Limiting green and yellow foxtail (Setaria viridis and S. glauca) seed production following spring wheat (Triticum aestivum) harvest. Weed Technol 13:43–47.Google Scholar
Kremer, R. J. 1993. Management of weed seed banks with microorganisms. Ecol. Appl 3:42–52.Google Scholar
Leighty, C. E. 1938. Crop rotation. Pages 406–430 in Soils and Men: Yearbook of Agriculture 1938. Washington, DC: USDA, Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Liebman, M. and Gallandt, E. R. 1997. Many little hammers: ecological management of crop-weed interactions. Pages 291–343 in Jackson, L. E. ed. Ecology in Agriculture. San Diego, CA: Academic.Google Scholar
Liebman, M. and Staver, C. P. 2001. Crop diversification for weed management. Pages 322–374 in Liebman, M., Mohler, C. L., and Staver, C. P. eds. Ecological Management of Agricultural Weeds. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lindquist, J. L., Maxwell, B. D., Buhler, D. D., and Gunsolus, J. L. 1995. Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) recruitment, survival, seed production, and interference in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci 43:226–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lueschen, W. E., Andersen, R. N., Hoverstad, T. R., and Kanne, B. K. 1993. Seventeen years of cropping systems and tillage affect velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) seed longevity. Weed Sci 41:82–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mertens, S. K., van den Bosch, F., and Heesterbeek, J. A. P. 2002. Weed populations and crop rotations: exploring dynamics of a structured system. Ecol. Appl 12:1125–1141.Google Scholar
Mester, T. C. and Buhler, D. D. 1991. Effects of soil temperature, seed depth, and cyanazine on giant foxtail (Setaria faberi) and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) seedling development. Weed Sci 39:204–209.Google Scholar
Mohler, C. L. 1993. A model of the effects of tillage on emergence of weed seedlings. Ecol. Appl 31:53–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohler, C. L. 2001. Weed life history: identifying vulnerabilities. Pages 40–98 in Liebman, M., Mohler, C. L., and Staver, C. P. eds. Ecological Management of Agricultural Weeds. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohler, C. L. and Galford, A. E. 1997. Weed seedling emergence and seed survival: separating the effects of seed position and soil modification by tillage. Weed Res 37:147–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, R. F. 1999. Ecological implications of using thresholds for weed management. J. Crop. Prot 2:31–58.Google Scholar
O'Donovan, J. T. 1996. Weed economic thresholds: useful agronomic tool or pipe dream? Phytoprotection 77:13–28.Google Scholar
Roberts, H. A. and Feast, P. M. 1972. Fate of seeds of some annual weeds in different depths of cultivated and undisturbed soil. Weed Res 12:316–324.Google Scholar
Seguer Millàs, J. 2002. Influence of Weather Conditions and Seed Features on the Burial Rate of Weed Seeds on the Soil Surface. . Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands. 79 p.Google Scholar
Thompson, K. 1987. Seeds and seed banks. New Phytol 105:23–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vavrek, M. C., McGraw, J. B., and Yang, H. S. 1997. Within-population variation in demography of Taraxacum officinale: season- and size-dependent survival, growth and reproduction. J. Ecol 85:277–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westerman, P. R., Wes, J. S., Kropff, M. J., and van der Werf, W. 2003. Annual losses of weed seeds due to predation in organic cereal fields. J. Appl. Ecol 40:824–836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiles, L. J., Barlin, D. H., Schweitzer, E. E., Duke, H. R., and Whitt, D. E. 1996. A new soil sampler and elutriator for collecting and extracting weed seeds from soil. Weed Technol 10:35–41.Google Scholar
Zanin, G. and Sattin, M. 1988. Threshold level and seed production of velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti Medicus) in maize. Weed Res 28:347–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar