Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T09:02:42.438Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cropping system effects on giant foxtail (Setaria faberi) demography: I. Green manure and tillage timing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Adam S. Davis  and
Matt Liebman
Matt Liebman
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011-1010
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Manipulation of cropping systems to improve weed management requires a better understanding of how crop- and soil-related factors affect weed life cycles. Our objective was to assess the impacts of timing of primary tillage and use of legume green manure on giant foxtail demography and soil properties. We measured giant foxtail seed survival and dormancy, seedling emergence and survival, and fecundity, in addition to soil phytotoxicity, chemical properties affecting soil fertility and soil water, in the transition between the wheat and corn phases of a wheat–corn–soybean crop sequence. Postdispersal predation of giant foxtail seeds was measured in all three phases of the crop sequence. Wheat was grown either as a sole crop (W) or underseeded with red clover (R), and residues from this phase were rototilled either in the fall (FT) or in spring (ST). There were strong interactions between Red clover and Tillage timing in their effects on giant foxtail recruitment and fecundity in corn. Giant foxtail seedling emergence was 30% lower, and time to 50% emergence was more than 1 wk later, in the ST/R treatment than in the ST/W, FT/W, and FT/R treatments, which did not differ. However, fecundity of giant foxtail was 200% greater in the ST/R treatment than in the other three treatments because of suppressed early corn growth. The net effect of the ST/R treatment on giant foxtail demography in corn was to greatly increase inputs to the seedbank compared with the ST/W, FT/W, and FT/R treatments. Giant foxtail demography in the wheat phase was also affected by Red clover. There was a 200% increase in daily rates of postdispersal seed predation in the wheat phase of the R treatment compared with the W treatment. High-seed predation in the wheat phase and low fecundity in the corn phase of the FT/R treatment suggest that population growth rate of giant foxtail will be lower in this treatment than in the other treatments. The degree of soil phytotoxicity from red clover residues, the changes in the amount of interference from the corn crop early in the growing season, and the differential suitability of crop residues in the different rotations as habitat for seed predators all contributed to changes in giant foxtail demography. Understanding the effects of cropping system characteristics on entire weed life cycles will facilitate the design of integrated suites of complementary weed management tactics.

Keywords

Giant foxtail, Setaria faberi Herrm. SETFAcorn, Zea mays L. ‘Pioneer 3512’red clover, Trifolium pratense L. ‘Cherokee’soybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr. ‘IA 2039’spring wheat, Triticum aestivum L. ‘Sharp’Soil organic amendmentsallelopathyintegrated weed managementpostdispersal seed predationarthropod activity-densityseedbank dynamicsdormancyseedling recruitmentfecundity
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 51 , Issue 6 , December 2003 , pp. 919 - 929
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

Arntz, A. M., DeLucia, E. H., and Jordan, N. 2000. From fluorescence to fitness: variation in photosynthetic rate affects fecundity and survivorship. Ecology 81:2567–2576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benech-Arnold, R. L., Sanchez, R. A., Forcella, F., Kruck, B. C., and Ghersa, C. M. 2000. Environmental control of dormancy in weed seed banks in soil. Field Crops Res 67:105–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blumenthal, D. and Jordan, N. 2001. Weeds in field margins: a spatially explicit simulation analysis of Canada thistle population dynamics. Weed Sci 49:509–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breland, T. A. 1996. Phytotoxic effects of fresh and decomposing cover crop residues. Norw. J. Agric. Sci 10:355–362.Google Scholar
Brown, J. R., Peck, T. R., and Brouden, S. et al. 1998. Recommended Soil Test Procedures for the North Central Region. Columbia, MO: Missouri Agricultural Experiment Station. Pp. 17–58.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D. 1995. Influence of tillage systems on weed population dynamics and management in corn and soybean in the central USA. Crop Sci 35:1247–1258.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D. 2002. Challenges and opportunities for integrated weed management. Weed Sci 50:273–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buhler, D. D. and Hartzler, R. G. 2001. Emergence and persistence of seed of velvetleaf, common waterhemp, wooly cupgrass, and giant foxtail. Weed Sci 49:230–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buhler, D. D., Kohler, K. A., and Thompson, R. L. 2001. Weed seed bank dynamics during a five-year crop rotation. Weed Technol 15:170–176.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D. and Mester, T. C. 1991. Effect of tillage systems on the emergence depth of giant (Setaria faberi) and green foxtail (Setaria viridis). Weed Sci 39:200–203.Google Scholar
Burnham, K. P. and Anderson, D. R. 1998. Model Selection and Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach. New York: Springer. Pp. 75–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnside, O. C., Wilson, R. G., Weisberg, S., and Hubbard, K. G. 1996. Seed longevity of 41 weed species buried 17 years in eastern and western Nebraska. Weed Sci 44:74–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bussan, A. J. and Boerboom, C. M. 2001a. Modeling the integrated management of giant foxtail in corn-soybean. Weed Sci 49:675–684.Google Scholar
Bussan, A. J. and Boerboom, C. M. 2001b. Modeling the integrated management of velvetleaf in a corn-soybean rotation. Weed Sci 49:31–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carmona, D. M. and Landis, D. A. 1999. Influence of refuge habitats and cover crops on seasonal activity-density of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in field crops. Environ. Entomol 28:1145–1153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carmona, D. M., Menalled, F. D., and Landis, D. A. 1999. Gryllus pennsylvanicus (Orthoptera: Gryllidae) laboratory weed seed predation and within field activity-density. J. Econ. Entomol 92:825–829.Google Scholar
Caswell, H. 2001. Matrix Population Models: Construction, Analysis and Interpretation. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer. Pp. 133–174.Google Scholar
Conklin, A. E., Erich, M. S., Liebman, M., Lambert, D., Gallandt, E. R., and Halteman, W. A. 2002. Effects of red clover (Trifolium pratense) green manure and compost soil amendments on wild mustard (Brassica kaber) growth and incidence of disease. Plant Soil 238:245–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cousens, R. and Mortimer, M. 1995. Dynamics of Weed Populations. Cambridge, Great Britain: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 169–216.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dabney, S. M., Schreiber, J. D., Rothrock, C. S., and Johnson, J. R. 1996. Cover crops affect sorghum seedling growth. Agron. J 88:961–970.Google Scholar
Davis, A. S. and Liebman, M. 2001. Nitrogen source influences wild mustard growth and competitive effect on sweet corn. Weed Sci 49:558–566.Google Scholar
Dekker, J. and Hargrove, M. 2002. Weedy adaptation in Setaria spp. V. Effects of gaseous environment on giant foxtail (Setaria faberii) (Poaceae) seed germination. Am. J. Bot 89:410–416.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fausey, J. C. and Renner, K. A. 1997. Germination, emergence and growth of giant foxtail (Setaria faberi) and fall panicum (Panicum dichotomiflorum). Weed Sci 45:423–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forcella, F., Colbach, N., and Kegode, G. O. 2000. Estimating seed production of three Setaria species in row crops. Weed Sci 48:436–444.Google Scholar
Forcella, F., Wilson, R. G., and Dekker, J. et al. 1997. Weed seed bank emergence across the corn belt. Weed Sci 45:67–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallandt, E. R., Liebman, M., Porter, G. A., and Ulrich, S. D. 1998. Effects of pest and soil management systems on weed dynamics in potato. Weed Sci 46:238–248.Google Scholar
Gomez, K. A. and Gomez, A. A. 1984. Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research. 2nd ed. New York: J. Wiley. Pp. 188–189.Google Scholar
Gonzalez-Andujar, J. L. and Fernandez-Quintanilla, C. 1991. Modelling the population dynamics of Avena sterilis under dry-land cereal cropping systems. J. Appl. Ecol 28:16–27.Google Scholar
Honeyman, M. S. and Kent, D. 2001. Performance of a Swedish deep-bedded feeder pig production system in Iowa. Am. J. Altern. Agric 16:50–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, N. 1996. Weed prevention: priority research for alternative weed management. J. Prod. Agric 9:485–490.Google Scholar
Jordan, N., Mortensen, D. A., Prenzlow, D. M., and Cox, K. C. 1995. Simulation analysis of crop rotation effects on weed seedbanks. Am. J. Bot 82:390–398.Google Scholar
Liebman, M. and Davis, A. S. 2000. Integration of soil, crop and weed management in low-external-input farming systems. Weed Res 40:27–47.Google Scholar
Liebman, M. and Gallandt, E. R. 1997. Many little hammers: ecological approaches for management of crop-weed interactions. Pages 291–343 in Jackson, L. E. ed. Ecology in Agriculture. San Diego, CA: Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindquist, J. L., Maxwell, B. D., Buhler, D. D., and Gonsolus, J. L. 1995. Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) recruitment, survival, seed production, and interference in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci 43:226–232.Google Scholar
Lindquist, J. L., Mortensen, D. A., and Westra, P. et al. 1999. Stability of corn (Zea mays)-foxtail (Setaria spp.) interference relationships. Weed Sci 47:195–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menalled, F. D., Marino, P. C., Renner, K. A., and Landis, D. A. 2000. Post-dispersal weed seed predation in Michigan crop fields as a function of agricultural landscape structure. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ 77:193–202.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
Misra, J., Pandey, H. N., Tripathi, R. S., and Sahoo, U. K. 1992. Weed population dynamics under ‘jhum’ (slash and burn agriculture) and terrace cultivation in northeast India. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ 41:285–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, R. J. 2001. Path analysis: pollination. Pages 217–234 in Scheiner, S. M. and Gurevitch, J. eds. Design and Analysis of Ecological Experiments. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mittelbach, G. G. and Gross, K. L. 1984. Experimental studies of seed predation in old fields. Oecologia 65:7–13.Google Scholar
Neter, J., Kutner, M. H., Nachtsheim, C. J., and Wasserman, W. 1996. Applied Linear Statistical Models. Chicago: Irwin. Pp. 766–773.Google Scholar
Peters, J. ed. 2000. Tetrazolium Testing Handbook. Contribution No. 29 to the Handbook on Seed Testing. Lincoln, NE: Association of Official Seed Analysts. Pp. 1–18, 151–154.Google Scholar
Pino, J., Sans, F. X., and Masalles, R. M. 1998. Population dynamics of Rumex obtusifolius under contrasting lucerne cropping systems. Weed Res 38:25–33.Google Scholar
Rice, K. J. and Mack, R. N. 1991. Ecological genetics of Bromus tectorum. III. The demography of reciprocally sown populations. Oecologia 88:91–101.Google Scholar
Shea, K. and Kelly, D. 1998. Estimating biocontrol agent impact with matrix models: Carduus nutans in New Zealand. Ecol. Appl 8:824–832.Google Scholar
Synergy Software. 1998. Kaleidagraph® v. 3.0.8, Macintosh Version. Reading, PA: Synergy Software.Google Scholar
Teasdale, J. R. and Mohler, C. L. 2000. The quantitative relationship between weed emergence and the physical properties of mulches. Weed Sci 48:385–392.Google Scholar
Ullrich, S. D. 2000. Weed Population Dynamics in Potato Cropping Systems as Affected by Crop, Cultivation and Primary Tillage. Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Plant, Soil and Environmental Sciences, University of Maine, Orono, ME. 171 p.Google Scholar
Underwood, A. J. 1997. Experiments in Ecology: Their Design and Interpretation Using Analysis of Variance. Cambridge, Great Britain: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 178–179.Google Scholar
Voss, R. D., Sawyer, J. E., Mallarino, A. P., and Killorn, R. 1999. General Guide for Crop Nutrient Recommendations in Iowa. Publ. PM-1688. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Extension, p. 3.Google Scholar
Wang, R. L., Wendel, J. F., and Dekker, J. H. 1995. Weedy adaptation in Setaria spp. II. Genetic diversity and population genetic structure in S. glauca, S. geniculata, and S. faberii (Poaceae). Am. J. Bot 82:1031–1039.Google Scholar
Weaver, S. E., Tan, C. S., and Brain, P. 1988. Effect of temperature and soil moisture on time of emergence of tomatoes and four weed species. Can. J. Plant Sci 68:877–886.Google Scholar
Wiles, L. J., Barlin, D. H., Schweizer, 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 11:35–41.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, L. 1999. SYSTAT® v. 9.0 for Windows. Chicago: SPSS.Google Scholar