Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T17:20:32.227Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Biological Suppression of Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) in an Eastern Nebraska Soil

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Jane Okalebo ,
Gary Y. Yuen ,
Rhae A. Drijber ,
Erin E. Blankenship ,
Cafer Eken  and
John L. Lindquist
Jane Okalebo
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583-0915
Gary Y. Yuen
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Pathology, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583
Rhae A. Drijber
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583-0915
Erin E. Blankenship
Affiliation:
Department of Statistics, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68588
Cafer Eken
Affiliation:
Ardahan University, 75100 Ardahan, Turkey
John L. Lindquist*
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583-0915
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Weed-suppressive soils contain naturally occurring microorganisms that suppress a weed by inhibiting its growth, development, and reproductive potential. Increased knowledge of microbe–weed interactions in such soils could lead to the identification of management practices that create or enhance soil suppressiveness to weeds. Velvetleaf death and growth suppression was observed in a research field (fieldA) that was planted with high populations of velvetleaf, which may have developed via microbial mediated plant–soil feedback. Greenhouse studies were conducted with soil collected from fieldA (soilA) to determine if it was biologically suppressive to velvetleaf. In one study, mortality of velvetleaf grown for 8 wk in soilA was greatest (86%) and biomass was smallest (0.3 g plant−1) in comparison to soils collected from surrounding fields with similar structure and nutrient content, indicating that suppressiveness of soilA was not likely caused by physical or chemical factors. When soilA was autoclaved in another study, mortality of velvetleaf plants in the heat-treated soil was reduced to 4% compared to 55% for the untreated soil, thus suggesting that suppressiveness of soilA is biological in nature. A third set of experiments showed that suppressiveness to velvetleaf could be transferred to an autoclaved soil by amending the autoclaved soil with untreated soilA; this provided additional evidence for a biological basis for the effects of soilA. The suppressive condition in these greenhouse experiments was associated with high soil populations of fusaria. Fusarium lateritium was the most frequently isolated fungus from roots of diseased velvetleaf plants collected from fieldA, and also was the most virulent when inoculated onto velvetleaf seedlings. Results of this research indicate that velvetleaf suppression can occur naturally in the field and that F. lateritium is an important cause of velvetleaf mortality in fieldA.

Keywords

Velvetleaf, Abutilon theophrasti Medic., ABUTHcorn, Zea mays Lsoybean, Glycine max (L.) MerrSoil qualitypathogenic fungiweed suppressionplant–soil feedbackpopulation biologycompetition
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 59 , Issue 2 , June 2011 , pp. 155 - 161
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

Agrios, G. N. 1997. Plant Pathology. 4th ed. Orlando, FL Academic. Pp. 39–40.Google Scholar
Barker, D. C., Knezevic, S. Z., Martin, A. R., Walters, D. T., and Lindquist, J. L. 2006. Effect of nitrogen addition on the comparative productivity of corn and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti). Weed Sci. 54:354–363.Google Scholar
Begonia, M. F. T. and Kremer, R. J. 1994. Chemotaxis of deleterious rhizobacteria to velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti Medik.) seeds and seedlings FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 15:227–236.Google Scholar
Boewe, G. H. 1963. Host plants of charcoal rot disease in Illinois. Plant Dis. Rep. 47:753–755.Google Scholar
Booth, C. 1975. The present status of Fusarium taxonomy. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 13:83–93.Google Scholar
Boyette, C. D. and Walker, H. L. 1985a. Evaluation of Fusarium lateritium as a biological herbicide for controlling velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) and prickly sida (Sida spinosa). Weed Sci. 34:106–109.Google Scholar
Boyette, C. D. and Walker, H. L. 1985b. Factors influencing biocontrol of velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) and prickly sida (Sida spinosa) with Fusarium lateritium . Weed Sci. 33:209–211.Google 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
Chee-Sanford, J. C. 2008. Weed seeds as nutritional resources for soil Ascoymycota and characterization of specific associations between plant and fungal species. Biol. Fertil. Soils. 44:763–771.Google Scholar
Davis, A. S., Cardina, J., Forcella, F., Johnson, G. A., Kegode, G., Lindquist, J. L., Luschei, E. C., Renner, K. A., Sprague, C. L., and Williams, M. M. 2005. Environmental factors affecting seed persistence of annual weeds across the U.S. Corn Belt. Weed Sci. 53:860–868.Google Scholar
Dhingra, O. D. and Sinclair, J. B. 1978. Biology and Pathology of Macrophomina phaseolina . Minas Gerais, Brasil Universitade Federale de Vicosa. 166 p.Google Scholar
Ehrenfeld, J. G., Ravit, B., and Elgersma, K. 2005. Feedback in the plant–soil system. Annu. Rev. Environ. Res. 30:75–115.Google Scholar
Farr, D. F. and Rossman, A. Y. 2009. Fungal Databases, Systematic Mycology and Microbiology Laboratory, ARS, USDA. http://nt.ars-grin.gov/fungaldatabases/. Accessed: June 4, 2010.Google Scholar
Gallandt, E. R., Liebman, M., and Huggins, D. R. 1999. Improving soil quality: implications for weed management. J. Crop Prod. 2:95–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartman, G. L., Manandhar, J. B., and Sinclair, J. B. 1986. Incidence of Colletotrichum spp. on soybeans and weeds in Illinois and pathogenicity of Colletotrichum trancatum . Plant Dis. 70:780–782.Google Scholar
Hartzler, R. G. and Battles, B. A. 2001. Reduced fitness of velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) surviving glyphosate. Weed Technol. 15:492–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helbig, J. B. and Carroll, R. B. 1984. Dicotyledonous weeds as a source of Fusarium oxysporum pathogenic to soybean. Plant Dis. 68:694–696.Google Scholar
Hepperly, P. R., Kirkpatrick, B. L., and Sinclair, J. B. 1980. Abutilon theophrasti: wild host for three fungal parasites of soybean. Phytopathology. 70:307–310.Google Scholar
Kardol, P., Cornips, N. J., Van Kempen, M. M. L., Bakx-Schotman, J. M. T., and Van der Putten, W. H. 2007. Microbe-mediated plant-soil feedback causes historical contingency effects in plant community assembly. Ecol. Monogr. 77:147–162.Google Scholar
Kennedy, A. C. 1999. Soil microorganisms for weed management. J. Crop Prod. 2:123–138.Google Scholar
Klironomos, J. N. 2002. Feedback with soil biota contributes to plant rarity and invasiveness in communities. Nature. 417:67–70.Google Scholar
Kremer, R. J., Hughes, L. B. Jr., and Aldrich, R. J. 1984. Examination of microorganisms and deterioration resistance mechanisms associated with velvetleaf seed. Agron. J. 76:745–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kremer, R. J. and Li, J. 2003. Developing weed-suppressive soils through improved soil quality management. Soil Tillage Res. 72:193–202.Google Scholar
Kulmatiski, A., Beard, K. H., and Stark, J. M. 2004. Finding endemic soil-based controls for weed growth. Weed Technol. 18:1353–1358.Google Scholar
Kulmatiski, A., Beard, K. H., Stevens, J. R., and Cobbold, S. M. 2008. Plant-soil feedbacks: a meta-analytical review. Ecol. Lett. 11:980–992.Google Scholar
Lamour, K. H. and Hausbeck, M. K. 2003. Susceptibility of mefenoxam-treated cucurbits to isolates of Phytophthora capsici sensitive and insensitive to mefenoxam. Plant Dis. 87:920–922.Google Scholar
Leslie, J. F. and Summerell, B. A. 2006. The Fusarium Laboratory Manual. Ames, IA Blackwell. 388 p.Google Scholar
Li, J. and Kremer, R. J. 2000. Rhizobacteria associated with weed seedlings in different cropping systems. Weed Sci. 48:734–741.Google Scholar
Lindquist, J. L. 2001. Light-saturated CO2 assimilation rates of corn and velvetleaf in response to leaf nitrogen and development stage. Weed Sci. 49:706–710.Google Scholar
Lindquist, J. L., Barker, D. C., Knezevic, S. Z., Martin, A. R., and Walters, D. T. 2007. Comparative nitrogen uptake and distribution in corn and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti). Weed Sci. 55:102–110.Google Scholar
Lindquist, J. L., Maxwell, B. D., Buhler, D. D., and Gunsolus, J. L. 1995. Modeling the population dynamics and economics of velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) control in a corn (Zea mays)–soybean (Glycine max) rotation. Weed Sci. 43:269–275.Google Scholar
Lindquist, J. L. and Mortensen, D. A. 1999. Ecophysiological characteristics of four maize hybrids and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti). Weed Res. 39:271–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Littell, R. C., Milliken, G. A., Stroup, W. W., and Wolfinger, R. D. 1996. SAS System for Mixed Models. Cary, NC SAS Institute. 633 p.Google Scholar
Lueschen, W. E. and Andersen, R. N. 1980. Longevity of velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) seeds in soil under agricultural practices. Weed Sci. 28:341–346.Google Scholar
Mazzola, M. 2002. Mechanisms of natural soil suppressiveness to soilborne diseases. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek. 81:557–564.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Murphy, C. and Lindquist, J. L. 2002. Growth response of velvetleaf to three post emergence herbicides. Weed Sci. 50:364–369.Google Scholar
Nelson, P. E., Toussoun, T. A., and Morasas, W. F. O. 1983. Fusarium Species: An Illustrated Manual for Identification. University Park, PA The Pennsylvania State University Press. 193 p.Google Scholar
Owen, A. and Zdor, R. 2001. Effect of cyanogenic rhizobacteria on the growth of velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) and corn (Zea mays) in autoclaved soil and the influence of supplemental glycine. Soil Biol. BioChem. 33:801–809.Google Scholar
Owen, M. D. K. and Zelaya, I. A. 2005. Herbicide-resistant crops and weed resistance to herbicides. Pest Manag. Sci. 61:301–311.Google Scholar
Reinhart, K. O. and Callaway, R. M. 2006. Soil biota and invasive plants. New Phytol. 170:445–457.Google Scholar
Sickinger, S. M., Grau, C. R., and Harvey, R. G. 1987. Verticillium wilt of velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti). Plant Dis. 71:415–418.Google Scholar
Spencer, N. R. 1984. Velvetleaf, Abutilon theophrasti (Malvaceae), history and economic impact in the United States. Econ. Bot. 38:407–416.Google Scholar
Templeton, G. E., TeBeest, D. O., and Smith, R. J. Jr. 1979. Biological weed control with mycoherbicides. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 17:301–310.Google Scholar
Terra, B. R. M., Martin, A. R., and Lindquist, J. L. 2007. Corn–velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) interference is affected by sublethal doses of postemergence herbicides. Weed Sci. 55:491–496.Google Scholar
Walker, H. L. 1981. Fusarium lateritium: a pathogen of spurred Anoda (Anoda cristata) prickly sida (Sida spinosa) and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti). Weed Sci. 29:629–631.Google Scholar
Westerman, P. R., Liebman, M., Menalled, F. D., Heggenstaller, A. H., Hartzler, R. G., and Dixon, P. M. 2005. Are many little hammers effective? Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) population dynamics in two- and four-year crop rotation systems. Weed Sci. 53:382–392.Google Scholar
Windels, C. E. 1992. Fusarium . Pages 115–128 in Singleton, L. L., Mihail, J. D., and Rush, C. M., eds. Methods for Research on Soilborne Phytopathogenic Fungi. St. Paul, MN APS. Pp. 115–128.Google Scholar
Zhou, J., Tao, B., Messersmith, C. G., and Nalewaja, J. D. 2007. Glyphosate efficacy on velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) is affected by stress. Weed Sci. 55:240–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar