Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T19:56:51.182Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Emergence Timing and Recruitment of Volunteer Spring Wheat

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Kristi A. De Corby ,
Rene C. Van Acker ,
Anita L. Brûlé-Babel  and
Lyle F. Friesen
Kristi A. De Corby
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Science, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, R3T 2N2, Canada
Rene C. Van Acker
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Agriculture, Crop Science Building, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, N1G 2W1, Canada
Anita L. Brûlé-Babel
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Science, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, R3T 2N2, Canada
Lyle F. Friesen*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Science, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, R3T 2N2, Canada
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

With the recent interest in genetically engineered (GE) wheat and the commercialization of novel-trait imidazolinone herbicide-resistant wheat in North America, volunteer wheat as a weed has also been the subject of renewed interest, specifically, its recruitment and persistence in annual cropping systems. The recruitment of seed from a wheat seedbank established the previous autumn was monitored in a flax crop at two field sites in southern Manitoba, Canada, in 2003 and 2004. Seeds of eight Canadian Western Hard Red spring wheat cultivars, which exhibit a range of preharvest sprouting-resistance characteristics, were broadcast and incorporated into the soil in the autumn at 500 seeds m−2. Tillage treatments consisted of autumn tillage only, and autumn and spring tillage. Recruitment the following spring occurred very early in terms of accumulated growing–degree days (base temperature of 0 C) but expressed as a proportion of total seeds broadcast was low and variable. Total cumulative emergence of wheat over all 4 site yr ranged from 0.9 to 13.1%, with an overall average of 4.3%. There was no relationship between preharvest sprouting-resistance characteristics and recruitment proportion, and no significant influence of tillage treatment on wheat recruitment. Wheat seed that did not recruit was rapidly degraded in the soil and did not persist for more than 12 mo. However, some emerged volunteer wheat plants escaped all control measures normally used in establishing and growing a typical flax crop, and these escaped volunteer wheat plants set viable seed. Therefore, results of this study indicate that efforts and attention should be directed toward achieving very high levels of volunteer wheat control in subsequent rotational crops and that reseeding by escaped volunteer wheat plants may be a more important persistence mechanism for spring wheat than multiyear soil seedbank persistence.

Keywords

Flax, Linum usitatissimum L., ‘CDC Bethune’spring wheat, Triticum aestivum L., ‘AC Barrie’, ‘AC Domain’, ‘AC Intrepid’, ‘AC Majestic’, ‘CDC Teal’, ‘Katepwa’, ‘McKenzie’, ‘Superb’Emergence timingemergence densityvolunteer wheatseedbank persistencegrowing degree days
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 55 , Issue 1 , February 2007 , pp. 60 - 69
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

Anderson, R. L. and Soper, G. 2003. Review of volunteer wheat (Triticum aestivum) seedling emergence and longevity in soil. Weed Technol. 17:620–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckie, H. 2001. Impact of herbicide resistant crops as weeds in Canada. Pages 135–142. in. Proceedings of the Brighton Crop Protection Conference—Weeds. Brighton, UK British Crop Protection Council.Google Scholar
Beckie, H. J., Warwick, S. I., Nair, H., and Séguin-Swartz, G. 2003. Gene flow in commercial fields of herbicide-resistant canola (Brassica napus). Ecol. Appl. 13:1276–1294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benvenuti, S., Macchia, M., and Miele, S. 2001. Quantitative analysis of emergence of seedlings from buried weed seeds with increasing soil depth. Weed Sci. 49:528–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E., Harker, K. N., Clayton, G. W., and O'Donovan, J. T. 2006. Broadleaf herbicide effects on clethodim and quizalofop-P efficacy on volunteer wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Technol. 20:221–226.Google Scholar
Brûlé-Babel, A. L., Willenborg, C. J., Friesen, L. F., and Van Acker, R. C. 2006. Modeling the influence of gene flow and selection pressure on the frequency of a GE herbicide-tolerant trait in non-GE wheat and wheat volunteers. Crop Sci. 46:1704–1710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bullied, W. J., Marginet, A. M., and Van Acker, R. C. 2003. Conventional- and conservation-tillage systems influence emergence periodicity of annual weed species in canola. Weed Sci. 51:886–897.Google Scholar
Burke, I. C., Thomas, W. E., Pline-Srnić, W. A., Fisher, L. R., Smith, W. D., and Wilcut, J. W. 2005. Yield and physiological response of flue-cured tobacco to simulated glyphosate drift. Weed Technol. 19:255–260.Google Scholar
Cardina, J. and Sparrow, D. H. 1996. A comparison of methods to predict weed seedling populations from the soil seedbank. Weed Sci. 44:46–51.Google Scholar
Clarke, J. M. 1985. Harvesting losses of spring wheat in windrower/combine and direct combine harvesting systems. Agron. J. 77:13–17.Google Scholar
Colbach, N., Clermont-Dauphin, C., and Meynard, J. M. 2001. GENESYS: a model of the influence of cropping system on gene escape from herbicide tolerant rapeseed crops to rape volunteers, II: genetic exchange among volunteer and cropped populations in a small region. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 83:255–270.Google Scholar
Conner, A. J., Glare, T. R., and Nap, J. 2003. The release of genetically modified crops into the environment, II: overview of ecological risk assessment. Plant. J. 33:19–46.Google Scholar
Crawley, M. J. and Brown, S. L. 1995. Seed limitation and the dynamics of feral oilseed rape on the M25 motorway. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 259:49–54.Google Scholar
De Corby, K. A. 2005. Emergence Timing and Persistence of Volunteer Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) as Affected by Cultivar and Tillage. M.Sc. dissertation. Winnipeg, MB, Canada University of Manitoba. 108.Google Scholar
Demeke, T., Perry, D. J., and Scowcroft, W. R. 2006. Adventitious presence of GMOs: scientific overview for Canadian grains. Can. J. Plant Sci. 86:1–23.Google Scholar
Environment Canada 2006. National Climate Archive. http://www.climate.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca Accessed: January 9, 2006.Google Scholar
Friesen, L. F., Nelson, A. G., and Van Acker, R. C. 2003. Evidence of contamination of pedigreed canola (Brassica napus) seedlots in western Canada with genetically engineered herbicide resistance traits. Agron. J. 95:1342–1347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gressel, J. B. 2005. Introduction—the challenges of ferality. Pages 1–7. in Gressel, J.B. ed. Crop Ferality and Volunteerism. Boca Raton, FL: CRC.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gulden, R. H., Thomas, A. G., and Shirtliffe, S. J. 2004. Secondary dormancy, temperature, and burial depth regulate seedbank dynamics in canola. Weed Sci. 52:382–388.Google Scholar
Hacault, K. M. and Van Acker, R. C. 2006. Emergence timing and management of dandelion (Taraxacum officinale) in spring wheat. Weed Sci. 54:172–181.Google Scholar
Harker, K. N., Clayton, G. W., and Blackshaw, R. E. et al. 2005. Glyphosate-resistant wheat persistence in western Canadian cropping systems. Weed Sci. 53:846–859.Google Scholar
Kershen, D. L. 2004. Legal liability issues in agricultural biotechnology. Crop Sci. 44:456–463.Google Scholar
Kremer, R. J. 1993. Management of weed seedbanks with microorganisms. Ecol. Appl. 3:42–52.Google Scholar
Kvalseth, T. O. 1985. Cautionary note about R 2 . Am. Stat. 39:279–285.Google Scholar
Lawson, A. 2005. Emergence Timing of Volunteer Canola (Brassica napus L.) in Spring Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) Fields in Manitoba. M.Sc. dissertation. Winnipeg, Canada University of Manitoba. 148.Google Scholar
Lawson, A. N., Van Acker, R. C., and Friesen, L. F. 2006. Emergence timing of volunteer canola in spring wheat fields in Manitoba. Weed Sci. 54:873–882.Google Scholar
Leeson, J. Y., Thomas, A. G., Hall, L. M., Brenzil, C. A., Andrews, T., Brown, K. R., and Van Acker, R. C. 2005. Prairie weed surveys of cereal, oilseed and pulse crops from the 1970s to the 2000s. Saskatoon, SK, Canada Saskatoon Research Centre Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Weed Survey Series Publication 05-1. 395.Google Scholar
Marginet, A. M. 2001. Effect of Tillage System and Eco-regional Field Location Cluster on the Emergence Periodicity of Wild Oat and Green Foxtail. M.Sc. dissertation. Winnipeg, Canada University of Manitoba. 120.Google Scholar
Marvier, M. and Van Acker, R. C. 2005. Can crop transgenes be kept on a leash? Front. Ecol. Environ. 3:93–100.Google Scholar
Morse, P. M. and Thompson, B. K. 1981. Presentation of experimental results. Can. J. Plant Sci. 61:799–802.Google Scholar
Reimer, A. and Shaykewich, C. F. 1980. Estimation of Manitoba soil temperatures from atmospheric meteorological measurements. Can. J. Soil Sci. 60:299–309.Google Scholar
Saskatchewan Agriculture and Food 2006. Varieties of Grain Crops 2006. http://www.agr.gov.sk.ca/docs/crops/cereals/var2006.pdf. Accessed: May 10, 2006.Google Scholar
Saxton, A. M. 1998. A macro for converting mean separation output to letter groupings in Proc Mixed. Pages 1243–1246. in Proc. 23rd SAS Users Group Intl. Cary, NC SAS Institute Available from: http://animalscience.ag.utk.edu/faculty/saxton/software.htm. Accessed: November 14, 2005.Google Scholar
Seefeldt, S. S., Jensen, J. E., and Fuerst, E. P. 1995. Log-logistic analysis of herbicide dose–response relationships. Weed Technol. 9:218–227.Google Scholar
Shirtliffe, S. J., Entz, M. H., and Van Acker, R. C. 2000. Avena fatua development and seed shatter as related to thermal time. Weed Sci. 48:555–560.Google Scholar
Strand, E. 1989. Studies on seed dormancy in small grain species, II: wheat. Nor. J. Agric. Sci. 3:101–115.Google Scholar
Van Acker, R. C., Brûlé-Babel, A. L., and Friesen, L. F. 2003. An environmental risk assessment of Roundup Ready wheat: risks for direct seeding systems in western Canada. Report prepared for the Canadian Wheat Board, Winnipeg, MB. 33. http://www.cwb.ca/en/topics/biotechnology/report/index.jsp. Accessed: May 1, 2006.Google Scholar
Van Acker, R. C., Brûlé-Babel, A. L., and Friesen, L. F. 2004. Intraspecific gene movement can create environmental risk: The example of Roundup Ready® wheat in western Canada. in Breckling, B. and Verhoeven, R., eds. Risk, Hazard, Damage—Specification of Criteria to Assess Environmental Impact of Genetically Modified Organisms. BfN Naturschutz Biol. Vielfalt. 1:37–47.Google Scholar
Wilson, H. K. and Hottes, C. F. 1927. Wheat germination studies with particular reference to temperature and moisture relationships. Agron. J. 19:181–190.Google Scholar
Wilson, W. W., Janzen, E. L., and Dahl, B. L. 2003. Issues in development and adoption of genetically modified (GM) wheats. AgBioForum. 6:101–112.Google Scholar