Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T15:40:11.917Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Floristic diversity, size, and vertical distribution of the weed seedbank in ridge and conventional tillage systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Anne Vanasse  and
Gilles D. Leroux
Anne Vanasse
Affiliation:
Department of Phytology, Laval University, Quebec, QC, Canada G1K 7P4
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The floristic diversity and the vertical distribution of the weed seedbank were studied in ridge tillage (RT) and conventional tillage (CT) systems in clay and clay loam soils. Viable seedbank populations were monitored during 3 yr using germination in a greenhouse. Ridge-tilled fields had a larger soil seedbank (2,992 seeds m−2) than moldboard-plowed fields (1,481 seeds m−2) in the top 15 cm. This result can be explained by the larger perennial seedbank of RT fields at both the 0- to 5-cm and 5- to 15-cm depths. Annual dicot seeds were more abundant in clay soils than in clay loams at the two soil depths. Annual grass seeds were more abundant under CT than under RT in clay soils at the two sampled depths. In clay loams, the density of annual grass seeds in RT fields was six times greater than in CT fields in the top 5 cm of soil and two times greater at the 5- to 15-cm depth. The vertical distribution of total seeds in soil did not differ between tillage systems. The top 5 cm of the 15-cm soil core contained 35 and 46% of all weed seed in CT and RT systems, respectively. However, the CT system had the highest concentration of annual dicot seeds 5 to 15 cm deep, whereas in the RT system, the same depth contained the highest concentration of perennial seeds. These results confirm that tillage systems and soil types can regulate seedbanks. Weed management programs must take this information into account.

Keywords

DicambaglyphosateAbutilon theophrasti Medik ABUTH, velvetleafAmbrosia artemisiifolia L. AMBEL, common ragweedChenopodium album L. CHEAL, common lambsquartersEchinochloa crus-galli (L.) Beauv. ECHCG, barnyard grassOxalis stricta L. OXAST, yellow woodsorrelPlantago major L. PLAMA, broad-leaved plantainSetaria faberi Herrm. SETFA, giant foxtailSetaria pumila (Poir) Roem et Schult SETLU, yellow foxtailSetaria viridis (L.) Beauv. SETVI, green foxtailBrassica napus L., oilseed rapeGlycine max (L.) Merr., soybeanTriticum aestivum L., wheatZea mays L., cornRidge tillageconservation tillagesoil typecorn
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 48 , Issue 4 , August 2000 , pp. 454 - 460
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

Ball, D. A. 1992. Weed seedbank response to tillage, herbicides, and crop rotation sequence. Weed Sci. 40:654–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ball, D. A. and Miller, S. D. 1990. Weed seed population response to tillage and herbicide use in three irrigated cropping sequences. Weed Sci. 38:511–517.Google Scholar
Bassett, I. J. and Crompton, C. W. 1975. The biology of Canadian weeds. 11. Ambrosia artemisiifolia. L. and A. psilostachya DC. Can. J. Plant Sci. 55:463–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benoit, D. L. and Lemieux, C. L. 1987. La dynamique des populations de mauvaises herbes. Phytoprotection 68:1–15.Google Scholar
Benoit, D. L., Swanton, C. J., Chandler, K., and Derksen, D. A. 1991. Changes in weed populations and seed bank through two cycles of a maize-soyabean rotation in Ontario, Canada. Brighton Crop Prot. Conf.—Weeds—1991 4B- 5:403–410.Google Scholar
Beuret, E. 1988. Long term effects on the weed seed potential in nonploughing crop production. Mitt. Schweiz. Landwirtsch. 36:1–2, 77–83.Google Scholar
Beuret, E. 1989. Influence des pratiques culturales sur l’évolution de la flore adventice: étude du potentiel semencier des sols. Rev. Suisse Agric. 21:75–82.Google Scholar
Bouyoucos, G. J. 1936. Directions for making mechanical analysis of soils by the hydrometer method. Soil Sci. 42:225–229.CrossRefGoogle 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
Cardina, J., Regnier, E., and Harrison, K. 1991. Long-term tillage effects on seed banks in three Ohio soils. Weed Sci. 39:186–194.Google Scholar
Clements, D. R., Benoit, D. L., Murphy, S. D., and Swanton, C. J. 1996. Tillage effects on weed seed return and seedbank composition. Weed Sci. 44:314–322.Google Scholar
Cousens, R. and Moss, S. R. 1990. A model of the effects of cultivation on the vertical distribution of weed seeds within the soil. Weed Res. 30:61–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[CPVQ] Conseil des Productions Végétales du Québec. 1994. Grilles de référence en fertilisation. Québec: Conseil des Productions Végétales du Queébec Inc., Agdex 540, 91 p.Google Scholar
Dolling, P. J. and Richie, G.S.P. 1985. Estimate of soil solution ionic strength and the determination of pH in West Australian soil. Aust. J. Soil Res. 23:309–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elustundo, J., Angers, D. A., Laverdière, M. R., and N’Dayegamiye, A. 1990. Étude comparative de l'aggrégation et de la matière organique associeée aux fractions granulométriques de sept sols sous culture de maïs ou en prairie. Can. J. Soil Sci. 70:395–402.Google Scholar
Forcella, F. and Lindstrom, M. J. 1988a. Movement and germination of weeds in ridge-till crop production systems. Weed Sci. 36:56–59.Google Scholar
Forcella, F. and Lindstrom, M. J. 1988b. Weed seed populations in ridge and conventional tillage. Weed Sci. 36:500–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, N. 1993. Simulation analysis of weed population dynamics in ridge-tilled fields. Weed Sci. 41:468–474.Google Scholar
Marshall, E.J.P. and Arnold, G. M. 1994. Weed seed banks in arable fields under contrasting pesticide regimes. Ann. Appl. Biol. 125:349–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mehlich, A. 1984. Mehlich-3 soil test extractant: a modification of Mehlich-2 extractant. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 15:1409–1416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pareja, M. R. and Staniforth, D. W. 1985. Seed-soil microsite characteristics in relation to weed seed germination. Weed Sci. 33:190–195.Google Scholar
Pareja, M. R., Staniforth, D. W., and Pareja, G. P. 1985. Distribution of weed seed among soil structural units. Weed Sci. 33:182–189.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1990. SAS User's Guide: Statistics. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute Inc.Google Scholar
Schafer, D. E. and Chilcote, D. O. 1970. Factors influencing persistence and depletion in buried seed populations. II. Effects of soil temperature and moisture. Crop Sci. 10:342–345.Google Scholar
Sloneker, L. L. and Moldenhaner, W. C. 1977. Measuring the amounts of crop residue remaining after tillage. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2:231–236.Google Scholar
Walkley, A. and Black, C. A. 1934. An examination of the Degtjareff method for determining soil organic matter and a proposal modification of the chromic acid titration method. Soil Sci. 37:29–38.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yenish, J. P., Doll, J. D., and Buhler, D. D. 1992. Effects of tillage on vertical distribution and viability of weed seed in soil. Weed Sci. 40:429–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar