Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T04:36:04.455Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed Seed Pools Concurrent with Corn and Soybean Harvest in Illinois

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Adam S. Davis
Adam S. Davis*
Affiliation:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Invasive Weed Management Unit, 1102 S. Goodwin Avenue, Urbana, IL 61801. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

At the time of grain harvest, weed seeds can be classed into one of four pools on the basis of dispersal status and location: (1) undispersed, remaining on the mother plant; (2) dispersed in the current year, on the soil surface; (3) dispersed in the current year and collected by harvest machinery; and (4) dispersed in a previous year and persisting within the soil seed bank. Knowledge of the relative sizes of these seed pools for different weed species under different crop environments will be useful for determining the best way to reduce the size of inputs to the soil seed bank. In fall 2004 and fall 2005, four randomly selected commercially managed corn and soybean fields in east-central Illinois were sampled to quantify weed seed pools at time of crop harvest. Thirty randomly located 0.125-m2 quadrats were placed within each field, the four seed pools mentioned above were sampled for each quadrat, and the species composition and abundance of each seed pool was determined. The magnitude of the weed seed rain varied among species and between years and crops. Twenty-six weed species were found to contribute to at least one of the four seed pools. However, the weed seed pools were consistently dominated by six species: velvetleaf, Amaranthus complex (redroot pigweed and waterhemp), ivyleaf morningglory, giant foxtail, prickly sida, and common cocklebur. For each of these species, the ratio of undispersed seeds to seeds in the soil seed bank at harvest time was ≥ 1 in at least one crop during one of the two experimental years, indicating a potential for the soil seed bank to be completely replenished or augmented by that year's seed rain. This analysis demonstrates the urgent need for techniques to limit weed seed inputs to the soil seed bank at the end of the growing season.

Keywords

Common cocklebur, Xanthium strumarium L. XANSTcommon waterhemp, Amaranthus rudis Sauer AMATAgiant foxtail, Setaria faberi Herrm. SETFAivyleaf morningglory, Ipomoea hederacea (L.) Jacq. IPOHEprickly sida, Sida spinosa L. SIDSPredroot pigweed, Amaranthus retroflexus L. AMAREvelvetleaf, Abutilon theophrasti Medik. ABUTHcorn, Zea mays Lsoybean, Glycine max (L.) MerrSeed raincommunity structurerisk analysisseed bank replenishment
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 56 , Issue 4 , August 2008 , pp. 503 - 508
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

AOSA 2000. Tetrazolium Testing Handbook. Contribution 29 to the Handbook on Seed Testing. Association of Official Seed Analysts. 302.Google 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., Liebman, M., and Obrycki, J. J. 2000. Theoretical and practical challenges to an IPM approach to weed management. Weed Sci. 48:274–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnham, K. P. and Anderson, D. R. 2002. Model Selection and Inference: A Practical Information–Theoretic Approach. 2nd ed. New York Springer Verlag. 32–74.Google 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
Cunningham, R. B. and Lindenmayer, D. B. 2005. Modeling count data of rare species: some statistical issues. Ecology. 86:1135–1142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, A. S. 2006. When does it make sense to target the weed seed bank. Weed Sci. 54:558–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, A. S. and Williams, M. M. II. 2007. Variation in wild proso millet (Panicum miliaceum) fecundity in sweet corn has residual effects in snap bean. Weed Sci. 55:502–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dieleman, J. A., Mortensen, D. A., and Martin, A. R. 1999. Influence of velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) and common sunflower (Helianthus annuus) density variation on weed management outcomes. Weed Sci. 47:81–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, P. M. 2001. The bootstrap and the jackknife: describing the precision of ecological indices. Pages 267–288. in Scheiner, S. M. and Gurevitch, J. Design and Analysis of Ecological Experiments. 2nd ed. Oxford, UK Oxford University Press.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forcella, F., Peterson, D. H., and Barbour, J. C. 1996. Timing and measurement of weed seed shed in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 10:535–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forcella, F., Wilson, R. G., Renner, K. A., Dekker, J., Harvey, R. G., Alm, D. A., Buhler, D. D., and Cardina, J. 1992. Weed seedbanks of the U.S. cornbelt: magnitude, variation, emergence, and application. Weed Sci. 40:636–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallandt, E. R. 2006. How can we target the weed seedbank. Weed Sci. 54:588–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hager, A. H. and Nordby, D. 2007. Weed control for corn, soybeans and sorghum. Pages 21–108. in Overmier, M. Illinois Agricultural Pest Management. Urbana, IL University of Illinois Extension.Google Scholar
Harrison, S. K., Regnier, E. E., and Schmoll, J. T. 2003. Postdispersal predation of giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida) in no-tillage corn. Weed Sci. 51:955–964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilborn, R. and Mangel, M. 1997. The Ecological Detective: Confronting Models with Data. Princeton, NJ Princeton University Press. 315.Google Scholar
Hoeft, R. G. and Peck, T. R. 2002. Soil testing and fertility. Pages 91–131. in. Illinois Agronomy Handbook. 23rd ed. Urbana, IL University of Illinois Extension.Google Scholar
Hosmer, D. W. and Lemeshow, S. 2000. Applied logistic regression. 2nd ed. New York John Wiley & Sons. 307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jasieniuk, M., Brule-Babel, A. L., and Morrison, I. N. 1996. The evolution and genetics of herbicide resistance in weeds. Weed Sci. 44:176–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kegode, G. O., Forcella, F., and Clay, S. 1999. Influence of crop rotation, tillage, and management inputs on weed seed production. Weed Sci. 47:175–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knake, E. L. and Slife, F. W. 1969. Effect of time of giant foxtail removal from corn and soybeans. Weed Sci. 17:281–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maxwell, B. D., Roush, M. L., and Radosevich, S. R. 1990. Predicting the evolution and dynamics of herbicide resistance in weed populations. Weed Technol. 4:2–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Medd, R. W., McMillan, M. G., and Cook, A. S. 1992. Spray-topping of wild oats (Avena spp.) in wheat with selective herbicides. Plant Prot. Q. 7:62–65.Google Scholar
Menalled, F. D., Liebman, M., and Renner, K. 2006. The ecology of weed seed predation in herbaceous crop systems. Pages 297–327. in Singh, H. P., Batish, D. R., and Kohli, R. K. Handbook of Sustainable Weed Management. Binghamton, NY Haworth.Google Scholar
Menalled, F. D., Smith, R. G., Dauer, J. T., and Fox, T. B. 2007. Impact of agricultural management on carabid communities and weed seed predation. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 118:49–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[NASS] National Agricultural Statistics Service 2007. Agricultural Chemical Use Database. http://www.pestmanagement.info/nass/. Accessed: November 28, 2007.Google Scholar
Neter, J., Kutner, M. H., Nachtsheim, C. J., and Wasserman, W. 1996. Applied linear statistical models. 4th ed. Chicago Irwin. 1408.Google Scholar
Norris, R. F. 2007. Weed fecundity: current status and future needs. Crop Prot. 26:182–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nurse, R. E., Booth, B. D., and Swanton, C. J. 2003. Predispersal seed predation of Amaranthus retroflexus and Chenopodium album growing in soyabean fields. Weed Res. 43:260–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patzoldt, W. L., Tranel, P. J., and Hager, A. G. 2002. Variable herbicide responses among Illinois waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis and A. tuberculatus) populations. Crop Prot. 21:707–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheiner, S. M. 2001. MANOVA: multiple response variables and multispecies interactions. Pages 99–115. in Scheiner, S. M. and Gurevitch, J. Design and Analysis of Ecological Experiments. 2nd ed. Oxford, UK Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shirtliffe, S. J. and Entz, M. H. 2005. Chaff collection reduces seed dispersal of wild oat (Avena fatua) by a combine harvester. Weed Sci. 53:465–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slagell-Gossen, R. R., Tyrl, R. J., Hauhouot, M., Peeper, T. F., Claypool, P. L., and Solie, J. B. 1998. Effects of mechanical damage on cheat (Bromus secalinus) caryopsis anatomy and germination. Weed Sci. 46:249–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stasinopoulos, M., Rigby, B., and Akantziliotou, C. 2006. Instructions on How To Use the GAMLSS Package in R. http://studweb.north.londonmet.ac.uk/stasinom/papers/gamlss-manual.pdf. Accessed: November 28, 2007.Google Scholar
Stoller, E. W. and Wax, L. M. 1974. Dormancy changes and fate of some annual weed seeds in the soil. Weed Sci. 22:151–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, K. L. and Hartzler, R. G. 2000. Effect of seed bank augmentation on herbicide efficacy. Weed Technol. 14:261–267.CrossRefGoogle 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. 10:35–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimdahl, R. L. 2004. Weed–Crop Competition: A Review. 2nd ed. Ames, IA Blackwell Publishing. 220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar