Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T07:13:30.078Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Emergence Prediction of Common Groundsel (Senecio vulgaris)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Milt McGiffen ,
Kurt Spokas ,
Frank Forcella ,
David Archer ,
Steven Poppe  and
Rodrigo Figueroa
Milt McGiffen*
Affiliation:
Department of Botany and Plant Sciences, University of California, Riverside, CA 92521
Kurt Spokas
Affiliation:
North Central Soil Conservation Research Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Morris, MN 56267
Frank Forcella
Affiliation:
North Central Soil Conservation Research Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Morris, MN 56267
David Archer
Affiliation:
North Central Soil Conservation Research Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Morris, MN 56267
Steven Poppe
Affiliation:
West Central Research and Outreach Center, University of Minnesota, Morris, MN 56267
Rodrigo Figueroa
Affiliation:
Facultad Agronomía e Ing. Forestal, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Avda. Vicuñna Mackenna 4860, Macul, Santiago, Chile
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Common groundsel is an important weed of strawberry and other horticultural crops. Few herbicides are registered for common groundsel control in such crops, and understanding and predicting the timing and extent of common groundsel emergence might facilitate its management. We developed simple emergence models on the basis of soil thermal time and soil hydrothermal time and validate them with the use of field-derived data from Minnesota and Ohio. Soil thermal time did not predict the timing and extent of seedling emergence as well as hydrothermal time. Soil hydrothermal time, adjusted for shading effects caused by straw mulch in strawberry, greatly improved the accuracy of seedling emergence predictions. Although common groundsel generally emerges from sites at or near the soil surface, the hydrothermal model better predicts emergence when using hydrothermal time at 5 cm rather than 0.005 cm, probably because of the volatility of soil temperature and water potential near the soil surface.

Keywords

Common groundsel, Senecio vulgaris L.strawberry, Fragaria × ananassa DuchesneBase temperaturebase soil water potentialWeibull function
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 56 , Issue 1 , February 2008 , pp. 58 - 65
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

Ács, F., Mikhailovi, D. T., and Rajkovi, B. 1991. A coupled soil moisture and surface temperature prediction model. J. Appl. Meteorol. 30:812–822.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agamalian, H. S. 1983. Competition of annual weeds in broccoli. Proc. West. Soc. Weed Sci. 36:192.Google Scholar
Alan, L. R. and Wiese, A. F. 1985. Effects of degree days on weed emergence. in. Proceedings of Southern Weed Science Society, 38th Annual Meeting. Pages 448.Google Scholar
Arya, L. M. and Paris, J. F. 1981. A physioempirical model to predict the soil moisture characteristic from particle-size distribution and bulk density data. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 45:1023–1030.Google Scholar
Beuret, E. 1989. A new problem of herbicide resistance: Senecio vulgaris L. in carrot crops treated with linuron. Rev. Suisse Vitic. Arboric. Hortic. 21:349–352.Google Scholar
Bewick, T. A., Binming, L. K., and Yandell, B. 1988. A degree day model for predicting the emergence of swamp dodder in cranberry. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 113:839–841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradford, K. J. 2002. Application of hydrothermal time to quantifying and modeling seed germination and dormancy. Weed Sci. 50:248–260.Google Scholar
Brooks, R. H. and Corey, A. T. 1964. Hydraulic Properties of Porous Media. Fort Collins, CO Colorado State University Hydrology Pap. 3. 24.Google Scholar
Campbell, G. S. 1974. A simple method for determining unsaturated conductivity from moisture retention data. Soil Sci. 117:311–314.Google Scholar
Campbell, G. S. 1985. Soil Physics with BASIC: Transport Models for Soil–Plant Systems. Amsterdam; New York Elsevier. 150.Google Scholar
Doohan, D. J. and Figueroa, R. 2001. Biology and control of common groundsel in strawberry. 2002 Ohio Fruit and Vegetable Growers Congress/Ohio Roadside Marketing Conference. Toledo, OH.Google Scholar
Ferre, P. A., Knight, J. H., Rudolph, D. L., and Kachanosi, R. G. 1998. The sample areas of conventional and alternative time domain reflectometry probes, Water Resour. Res. 34:2971–2979.Google Scholar
Figueroa, R. A. 2003. Biology and Management of Common Groundsel (Senecio vulgaris L.) in Strawberries. . Wooster, OH: The Ohio State University. 135.Google Scholar
Figueroa, R. A. and Doohan, D. J. 2006. Selectivity and efficacy of clopyralid on strawberry (Fragaria × ananassa). Weed Technol. 20:101–103.Google Scholar
Figueroa, R. A., Doohan, D., and Cardina, C. 2005. Efficacy and selectivity of promising herbicides for common groundsel (Senecio vulgaris L.) control in newly established strawberry. HortTechnology. 15:261–266.Google Scholar
Flerchinger, G. N. 1987. Simultaneous Heat and Water Model of a Snow-Residue-Soil System. . Pullman, WA Washington State University. 132.Google Scholar
Forcella, F., Benech-Arnold, R. L., Sanchez, R., and Ghersa, C. M. 2000. Modeling seedling emergence. Field Crops Res. 67:123–139.Google Scholar
Fuerst, E. P. 1984. Effects of inhibitors and diverters of photosynthetic electron transport on herbicide resistant and susceptible weed biotypes. Diss. Abstr. Int. B Sci. Eng. 45 (4):1079b–1080b.Google Scholar
Grundy, A. C. 2003. Predicting weed emergence: a review of approaches and future challenges. Weed Res. 43:1–11.Google Scholar
Gupta, S. C. and Larson, W. E. 1979. Estimating soil water retention characteristics from particle size distribution, organic matter content, and bulk density. Water Resour. Res. 15:1633–1635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammel, J. E., Papendick, R. I., and Campbell, G. S. 1981. Fallow tillage effects on evaporation and seedzone water content in a dry summer climate. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 45:1016–1022.Google Scholar
Holm, L., Doll, J., Holm, E., Pancho, J., and Herberger, J. 1997. World Weeds: Natural Histories and Distribution. New York John Wiley. 740–750.Google Scholar
Legates, D. R. and McCabe, G. J. 1999. Evaluating the use of “goodness-of-fit” measures in hydrologic and hydroclimatic model validation. Water Resour. Res. 35:233–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mallory-Smith, C. 1998. Bromoxynil-resistant common groundsel (Senecio vulgaris). Weed Technol. 12:322–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagai, H. 2002. Validation and sensitivity analysis of a new atmosphere–soil–vegetation model. J. Appl. Meteorol. 41:160–176.Google Scholar
Radosevich, S. R. and Devilliers, O. T. 1976. Studies on the mechanism of s-triazine resistance in common groundsel. Weed Sci. 24:229–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rawls, W. J., Brakenseik, D. L., and Saxton, K. E. 1982. Estimation of soil water properties. Trans. ASAE (Am. Soc. Agric. Eng.) 25:1316–1320.Google Scholar
Richter, J. 1987. The Soil as a Reactor: Modeling Processes in the Soil. Cremlingen, West Germany Catena Verlag. 192.Google Scholar
Roberts, E. H. 1988. Temperature and seed germination. in Long, S.P. and Woodward, F.I., eds. Plants and Temperature. Cambridge, UK Society for Experimental Biology. 109–132.Google Scholar
Roberts, H. A. 1982. Seasonal patterns of weed emergence. Asp. Appl. Biol. 1:153–154.Google Scholar
Robinson, D. E., O'Donovan, J. T., Sharma, M. P., Doohan, D. J., and Figueroa, R. 2003. The biology of Canadian weeds. 123. Senecio vulgaris L. Can. J. Plant Sci. 83:629–644.Google Scholar
Roman, E. S., Murphy, S. D., and Swanton, C. J. 2000. Simulation of Chenopodium album seedling emergence. Weed Sci. 48:217–224.Google Scholar
Ryan, G. F. 1970. Resistance of common groundsel to simazine and atrazine. Weed Sci. 18:614–616.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems 1995. SAS User's Guide: Statistics. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 956 p.Google Scholar
Saxton, K. E., Rawls, W. J., Romberger, J. S., and Papendick, R. I. 1986. Estimating generalized soil–water characteristics from texture. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 50:1031–1036.Google Scholar
Spokas, K. and Forcella, F. 2006. Estimating hourly incoming solar radiation from limited meteorological data. Weed Sci. 54:182–189.Google Scholar
Willmott, C. J. 1982. Some comments on the evaluation of model performance. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 63:1309–1313.Google Scholar
Willmott, C. J., Davis, R. E., Freddema, J. J., Klink, K. M., Legates, D. R., Rowe, C. M., Ackleson, S. G., and O'Donnell, J. 1985. Statistics for the evaluation and comparison of models. J. Geophys. Res. Oceans. 90:8995–9005.Google Scholar
Xiao, W., Yu, Q., Flerchinger, G. N., and Zheng, Y. 2006. Evaluation of SHAW model in simulating energy balance, leaf temperature, and micrometeorological variables within a maize canopy. Agron. J. 98:722–729.Google Scholar