Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T19:57:10.810Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed population dynamics in land removed from the conservation reserve program

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Joel Felix  and
Micheal D. K. Owen
Joel Felix
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011-1101; [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A field study was established in southern Iowa in 1994 to study seasonal and long-term weed population dynamics on land being brought back into production after 8 yr as part of the conservation reserve program (CRP). The study was a split-plot design with four replications; two tillage regimes, two crop rotations, and three herbicide application methods were used. Even though the tillage regime did not influence individual weed population density throughout the study, the no-till (NT) regime had more weeds compared to conventional tillage (CT). However, when weeds were grouped into categories, tillage influenced broadleaf weeds in 1994 and 1996 and total weeds in 1995. Plots under the NT regime had an average of 46 broadleaf weeds m−2 compared to 27 in CT in 1994, with Amaranthus rudis Sauer (common waterhemp) being the most prevalent. NT had a total of 186 weeds m−2 compared to 125 m−2 weeds in CT in 1995; however, in 1996, CT plots had 184 weeds m−2 compared to 121 m−2 in the NT regime. Except for broadleaf weeds in 1994, crop rotation did not influence the number of weeds, and herbicide application methods had the greatest effect on weed populations. Overall, weed populations were greater in 1997, 1996, and 1995 than in 1994 for all herbicide application methods. The no-herbicide treatment had the highest number of weeds throughout the study. The total number of weeds in band and broadcast treatments averaged 41 and 26 m−2 in 1994; 96 and 24 m−2 in 1995; 96 and 12 m−2 in 1996; and 109 and 95 m−2 in 1997. The use of broadcast herbicides in NT should be recommended for land coming out of CRP. Regardless of the herbicide application method or crop rotation, CT plots had better yields for both Zea mays L. (corn) and Glycine max L. (soybean). Glycine max had a better stand compared to Z. mays in the first year, indicating that a rotation starting with G. max might be preferred in the land coming out of CRP.

Keywords

Amaranthus rudis Sauer AMATA, common waterhempZea mays L., cornGlycine max L., soybeanAndropogon gerardii Vitman, big blue stemBromus inermis Leyss, smooth bromegrassMelilotus officinalis Lam, yellow sweetcloverConservation reserve programno herbicidebanded herbicidebroadcast herbicideAMATA
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 47 , Issue 5 , October 1999 , pp. 511 - 517
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 by the 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

Ahrens, W. H., Cox, D. J., and Budhwar, G. 1990. Use of the arcsine and square root transformations for subjectively determined percentage data. Weed Sci. 38:452–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bachthaler, G. 1974. The development of the weed flora after several years of direct drilling in cereal rotations on different soils. Pages 1063–1071 in Proceedings of the 12th British Weed Control Conference. London: British Crop Protection Council.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D. 1995. Influence of tillage systems on weed population dynamics and management in corn and soybeans in the central USA. Crop Sci. 35:1247–1258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buhler, D. D. and Gunsolus, J. L. 1996. Effect of date of pre-plant tillage and planting on weed populations and mechanical weed control in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 44:373–379.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D., Hartzler, R. G., Forcella, F., and Gunsolus, J. L. 1997. Relative Emergence Sequence for Weeds of Corn and Soybeans. Iowa State University Extension Bull. SA-11. 4 p.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D. and Oplinger, E. S. 1990. Influence of tillage systems on annual weed densities and control in solid-seeded soybeans. Weed Sci. 38:158–164.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnside, O. C., Wilson, R. G., Wicks, G. A., Roeth, F. W., and Moomaw, R. S. 1986. Weed seed decline and buildup in soils under various corn management systems across Nebraska. Agron. J. 78:451–454.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clements, D. R., Benoit, D., Murphy, S. D., and Swanton, C. J. 1996. Tillage effects on weed seed return and seedbank composition. Weed Sci. 44:314–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Froud-Williams, R. J., Chancellor, R. J., and Drennan, D.S.H. 1983. Influence of cultivation regime upon buried weed seeds in arable cropping systems. J. Appl. Ecol. 20:199–208.Google Scholar
Johnson, M. D. and Lowery, B. 1985. Effect of three conservation tillage practices on soil temperature and thermal properties. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 49:1549–1552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knab, W. and Hurle, K. 1986. Influence of primary tillage on weeds—a contribution to the prediction of infestation. Pages 306–316 in Proceedings of the European Weed Research Society Symposium on the Economics of Weed Control. Wageningen, The Netherlands: European Weed Research Society.Google Scholar
Kotile, D. G. 1992. Effect of Crop Management Strategies on Weed and Weed Seed Population. M.S. thesis. Iowa State University, Ames, LA. 94 p.Google Scholar
Mohler, C. L. and Callaway, M. B. 1992. Effects of tillage and mulch on the emergence and survival of weeds in sweet corn. J. Appl. Ecol. 29:21–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owen, M.D.K. 1992. Theory and practice: weed management in no tillage soybeans. Proc. Crop Prod. Prot. Conf. Iowa State Univ. 4:91–96.Google Scholar
Pollard, F. and Cussans, G. W. 1976. The influence of tillage on the weed flora of four sites sown to successive crops of spring barley. Pages 1019–1028 in Proceedings of the 1976 British Crop Protection Conference on Weeds. London: British Crop Protection Council.Google Scholar
Roberts, H. A. and Feast, P. M. 1973. Emergence and longevity of seeds of annual weeds in cultivated and undisturbed soil. 1. Appl. Ecol. 10:133–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1987. SAS/STAT Guide for Personal Computers. Version 6.10. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 534 p.Google Scholar
Schweizer, E. E. and Zimdahl, R. J. 1984. Weed seed decline in irrigated soil after six years of continuous corn (Zea mays) and herbicides. Weed Sci. 32:76–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[USDA] United States Department of Agriculture. 1986. Backgrounder: Conservation Reserve Program. Washington, D.C.: USDA News Division. 8 p.Google Scholar
Wilson, R. G. 1988. Biology of weed seeds in the soil. Chapter 3 in Altieri, M. A. and Liebman, M., eds. Weed Management in Agroecosystems: Ecological Approaches. Boca Raton, PL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Wrucke, M. A. and Arnold, W. E. 1985. Weed species distributions as influenced by tillage and herbicides. Weed Sci. 33:853–856.Google Scholar