Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T22:35:47.617Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A degree-day model of Cirsium arvense shoot emergence from adventitious root buds in spring

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

William W. Donald
William W. Donald*
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, 269 Agricultural Engineering Building, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211; [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

If decision-aid software models of weed emergence and growth are ever to help producers better time weed management, these models must be able to predict perennial weed shoot emergence from vegetative propagules. In this research, Cirsium arvense shoot emergence from adventitious root buds in spring was modeled using degree-day heat sums. Fractional C. arvense shoot emergence was best modeled as a logistic dose–response function of degree-day heat sum as follows: Y = 1.108/(1+[X/488.344]−5.161) where Y = fractional C. arvense shoot emergence (0 to 1) and X = heat sum in degree-days above 0 C after day 91 of the year (April 1) with an upper limit of 800 degree (C) days (r2 = 0.83). This empirical model was validated by graphing observed vs. model-predicted C. arvense shoot emergence using two independently gathered data sets, one of C. arvense emergence in autumn chisel-plowed Triticum aestivum (r2 = 0.82) and the other in no-till fallow (r2 = 0.63). The model slightly overestimated emergence at low fractional emergence (< ∼7% at 0.1 fractional emergence) and underestimated emergence at high fractional emergence (10 to 20% at 0.8 to 1.0 fractional emergence). Below an emergence fraction of 0.8, the model adequately estimated observed emergence to within about 10% of the predicted regression line. Using the model, about 1% and 80% of C. arvense shoots should emerge from adventitious root buds after a heat sum accumulates of about 197 and 587 C d, respectively, starting from day 91 of the year. Consequently, farmers should begin monitoring C. arvense patches for emergence and height growth after about 197 C d accumulate and expect to control C. arvense before about 587 C d accumulate, which is when about 80% of shoots have emerged.

Keywords

Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop. CIRAR, Canada thistleTriticum aestivum L., wheatHeat sumtemperatureCIRAR
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 48 , Issue 3 , June 2000 , pp. 333 - 341
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

Buhler, D. D., Stoltenberg, D. E., Becker, R. L., and Gunsolus, J. L. 1994. Perennial weed populations after 14 years of variable tillage and cropping practices. Weed Sci. 42:205–209.Google Scholar
Derksen, D. A., Blackshaw, R. E., and Boyetchko, S. M. 1996. Sustainability, conservation tillage and weeds in Canada. Can. J. Plant Sci. 76:651–659.Google Scholar
Derksen, D. A., Thomas, A. G., Lafond, G. P., Loeppky, H. A., and Swanton, C. J. 1995. Impact of post-emergence herbicides on weed community diversity within conservation-tillage systems. Weed Res. 35:311–320.Google Scholar
Donald, W. W. 1993. Retreatment with fall-applied herbicides for Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) control. Weed Sci. 41:434–440.Google Scholar
Donald, W. W. 1994a. The biology of Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense L.). Rev. Weed Sci. 6:77–101.Google Scholar
Donald, W. W. 1994b. Geostatistics for mapping weeds, with a Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) patch as a case study. Weed Sci. 42:648–657.Google Scholar
Donald, W. W. and Khan, M. 1992. Yield loss assessment for spring wheat (Triticum aestivum) infested with Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense). Weed Sci. 40:590–598.Google Scholar
Fidanza, M. A., Dernoeden, P. H., and Zhang, M. 1996. Degree-days for predicting smooth crabgrass emergence in cool-season turfgrasses. Crop Sci. 36:990–996.Google Scholar
Forcella, F. 1998. Real-time assessment of seed dormancy and seedling growth for weed management. Seed Sci. Res. 8:201–209.Google Scholar
Forcella, F. and Banken, K. R. 1996. Relationships among green foxtail seedling growth, growing degree-days, and time of nicosulfuron application. Weed Technol. 10:60–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frick, B. and Thomas, A. G. 1992. Weed surveys in different tillage systems in southwestern Ontario field crops. Can. J. Plant Sci. 72:1337–1347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghersa, C. M., Satorre, E. H., Van Esso, M. L., Pataro, A., and Elizagaray, R. 1990. The use of thermal calendar models to improve the efficiency of herbicide applications in Sorghum halepense (L.) Pers. Weed Res. 30:153–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleinbaum, D. G. and Kupper, L. L. 1978. Applied Regression Analysis and Other Multivariable Methods. North Scituate, MA: Duxbury Press.Google Scholar
McAllister, R. S. and Haderlie, L. C. 1985. Seasonal variations in Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) root bud growth and root carbohydrate reserves. Weed Sci. 33:44–49.Google Scholar
McMaster, G. S. and Smika, D. E. 1988. Estimation and evaluation of winter wheat phenology in the central Great Plains. Agric. For. Meteorol. 43:1–18.Google Scholar
McMaster, G. S. and Wilhelm, W. W. 1997. Growing degree-days: one equation, two interpretations. Agric. For. Meteorol. 87:291–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, R. J. and Frankton, C. 1974. Pages 22–26 In The Thistles of Canada. Monograph 10. Canada Department of Agriculture.Google Scholar
Neter, J., Wasserman, W., and Kutner, M. H. 1989. Applied Linear Regression Models. 2nd ed. Boston, MA: Irwin.Google Scholar
O’Donovan, J. T. 1996. Computerised decision support systems: aids to rational and sustainable weed management. Can. J. Plant Sci. 76:3–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsen, J. R., Harper, J. K., and Curran, W. S. 1996. Selecting cost-minimizing herbicide programs for corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 10:327–336.Google Scholar
Oriade, C. and Forcella, F. 1999. Maximizing efficacy and economics of mechanical weed control in row crops through forecasts of weed emergence. J. Crop Prod. 2:189–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, C. F. 1929. Winter activity of the roots of perennial weeds. Science 69:299–300.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Satorre, E. H., Ghersa, C. M., and Pataro, A. M. 1985. Prediction of Sorghum halepense (L.) Pers. rhizome sprout emergence in relation to air temperature. Weed Res. 25:103–109.Google Scholar
Seefeldt, S. S., Jensen, J. E., and Fuerst, E. P. 1995. Log-logistic analysis of herbicide dose-response relationships. Weed Technol. 9:219–228.Google Scholar
Snyder, R. L., Spano, D., Cesaraccio, C., and Duce, P. 1999. Determining degree-day thresholds from field observations. Int. J. Biometeorol. 42:177–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Triplett, G. B. Jr. and Lytle, G. D. 1972. Control and ecology of weeds in continuous corn grown without tillage. Weed Sci. 20:453–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vitta, J. I. and Leguizamon, E. S. 1991. Dynamics and control of Sorghum halepense (L.) Pers. shoot populations: a test of a thermal calendar model. Weed Res. 31:73–79.Google Scholar