The fungal plant pathogen Microsphaeropsis amaranthi is virulent against a number of key weeds in the Amaranthaceae, including common waterhemp, and is under investigation as a bioherbicide. Common waterhemp has become a key weed in midwestern crop production systems and is a good target for a bioherbicide that could be integrated into weed management systems. We investigated the direct effects of a range of chemical herbicides and adjuvants upon conidia of M. amaranthi and found that many herbicides and most adjuvants were strongly inhibitory to germination. On the other hand, M. amaranthi was compatible with a selection of postemergence herbicides commonly used in midwestern weed management systems, including carfentrazone, chloransulam, and imazethapyr. Most glyphosate products suppressed or abolished germination of M. amaranthi conidia, but by testing adjuvants commonly used in glyphosate products and technical-grade glyphosate salts, it was revealed that this inhibition was due to formulation additives and not the active ingredient. When glyphosate and conidia of M. amaranthi were sprayed onto common waterhemp seedlings, the herbicide predisposed plants to infection by M. amaranthi. When M. amaranthi was applied 1 to 3 d after glyphosate, the glyphosate rate required to control common waterhemp was reduced by half. Similar results were observed on clones propagated from a common waterhemp plant resistant to glyphosate. When M. amaranthi was applied to seedlings 2 d before glyphosate, the efficacy of the herbicide was reduced. These findings demonstrate that positive interactions between herbicides and M. amaranthi exist but reveal practical difficulties that may limit the integration of the strategy in the field.

Most well-drained Mississippi Delta soils have been used for cotton production, but corn has recently become a desirable alternative crop, and subsequently, atrazine use has increased. Between 2000 and 2001, 21 surface soils (0 to 5 cm depth) with known management histories were collected from various sites in Leflore, Sunflower, and Washington counties of Mississippi. Atrazine degradation was assessed in 30-d laboratory studies using 14C-ring–labeled herbicide. Mineralization was extensive in all soils with a history of one to three atrazine applications with cumulative mineralization over 30 d ranging from 45 to 72%. In contrast, cumulative mineralization of atrazine from three soils with no atrazine history was only 5 to 10%. However, one soil with no history of atrazine application mineralized 54 and 29% of the atrazine in soils collected in 2000 and 2001, respectively. Methanol extracted 15 to 23% of the 14C-atrazine 7 d after treatment in soils having two applications within the past 6 yr, whereas 65 to 70% was extracted from no-history soils. First-order kinetic models indicated soil with 2 yr of atrazine exposure exhibited a half-life of less than 6 d. Most probable number (MPN) estimates of atrazine-ring mineralizing-microorganisms ranged from 450 to 7,200 propagules g−1 in atrazine-exposed soils, and none were detected in soils with no history of atrazine use. Although most soils exhibited rapid atrazine mineralization, analysis of DNA isolated from these soils by direct or nested polymerase chain reaction (PCR) failed to amplify DNA sequences with primers for the atzA atrazine chlorohydrolase gene. These results indicate that microbial populations capable of accelerated atrazine degradation have developed in Mississippi Delta soils. This may reduce the weed control efficacy of atrazine but also reduce the potential for off-site movement. Studies are continuing to identify the genetic basis of atrazine degradation in these soils.

This article briefly reviews how long weed seeds can live in the soil and what happens to them during burial. Freshly matured seeds of many weeds are water-permeable, but those of others are water-impermeable. Water-permeable seeds may have morphological, physiological, or morphophysiological dormancy, with physiological dormancy (PD) being the one most commonly found in buried weed seeds. Further, nondeep PD is very common in buried weed seeds, and many of them exhibit annual dormancy cycles in response to seasonal temperature changes. The time of year when seeds are nondormant varies with the species, i.e., autumn, spring, or spring to summer. A light requirement for germination plays an important role in preventing nondormant seeds from germinating in the soil. To germinate, soil disturbance that exposes seeds to light must occur at a time of year when seeds are nondormant. Buried seeds of some species come out of dormancy and remain nondormant regardless of seasonal changes in environmental conditions; however, a light requirement for germination prevents them from germinating in the soil. Water-impermeable seeds have either physical dormancy (PY) or a combination of PY and PD, with PY being the most common, e.g., in members of the Fabaceae and Malvaceae. Seeds with PY have a water gap in the seed coat that opens in response to an environmental signal, thereby allowing water to enter. When disturbance brings seeds to the soil surface, temperatures that are higher than those in the soil can cause the water gap to open. Consequently, the water gap indirectly serves as a depth sensor. A challenge for the future is to use information about buried weed seeds to better manage weeds in crops, and modeling is an important step in that direction.

Weed seeds initiate most weed invasions of arable fields, yet there is relatively little information on the value of managing weed seed banks. Matrix population models were used to examine the relative importance of managing weed seed banks, in relation to other life stages, for four model weed species with varying life histories. Simulations for giant foxtail and common lambsquarters, summer annual weeds of arable fields; garlic mustard, an obligate biennial invasive weed of temperate forests; and Canada thistle, a perennial weed of pastures and arable fields, were run under conditions of varying population density and efficacy of seedling control. The models were subjected to elasticity analysis to determine what happened to weed populations when different life stages were targeted. Losses from the dormant seed bank were most important for summer annual weeds, of intermediate importance for biennial weeds, and of low importance for perennial weeds. More effort is needed to develop weed seed-bank management techniques for summer annual weed species as part of integrated weed management systems.

To better understand seed predation and enhance weed seed losses in arable fields, we developed a conceptual model that integrates seed dispersal, seed burial, and seed demand, the three processes that determine the dynamics of summer annual weed seeds on the soil surface in late summer and autumn. Published and unpublished experimental data were used to parameterize a simulation model for a number of crop–weed combinations. Sensitivity analyses of models for giant foxtail in corn and soybean indicated that factors related to seed availability were more important in determining overall seed losses due to predation than those related to seed demand. Delaying harvest date and destroying unshed weed seeds collected at harvest emerged as promising strategies to reduce seed input into the seed bank. The role of plant debris in hiding weed seeds from predators was ambiguous and requires further investigation. Estimates of overall seed losses due to predation based on model simulations in various crops and cropping systems indicated that weed seed predation could serve as an important tool in ecological weed management.

Reduction of seed-bank persistence is an important goal for weed management systems. Recent interest in more biological-based weed management strategies has led to closer examination of the role of soil microorganisms. Incidences of seed decay with certain weed species occur in the laboratory; however, their persistence in soil indicates the presence of yet-unknown factors in natural systems that regulate biological mechanisms of seed antagonism by soil microorganisms. A fundamental understanding of interactions between seeds and microorganisms will have important implications for future weed management systems targeting seed banks. Laboratory studies demonstrate susceptibility to seed decay among weed species, ranging from high (velvetleaf) to very low (giant ragweed). Microscopic examinations revealed dense microbial assemblages formed whenever seeds were exposed to soil microorganisms, regardless of whether the outcome was decay. Microbial communities associated with seeds of four weed species (woolly cupgrass, jimsonweed, Pennsylvania smartweed, and velvetleaf) were distinct from one another. The influence of seeds on microbial growth is hypothesized to be due to nutritional and surface-attachment opportunities. Data from velvetleaf seeds suggests that diverse assemblages of bacteria can mediate decay, whereas fungal associations may be more limited and specific to weed species. Though microbial decay of seeds presents clear opportunities for weed biocontrol, limited success is met when introducing exogenous microorganisms to natural systems. Alternatively, a conservation approach that promotes the function of indigenous natural enemies through habitat or cultural management may be more promising. A comprehensive ecological understanding of the system is needed to identify methods that enhance the activities of microorganisms. Herein, we provide a synthesis of the relevant literature available on seed microbiology; we describe some of the major challenges and opportunities encountered when studying the in situ relationships between seeds and microorganisms, and present examples from studies by the ARS Invasive Weed Management Unit.

Because herbicide and cultivation efficacy is generally density independent, seedling density following these weed control practices will be proportional to the density of germinable seeds in the seedbank. Most farmers would therefore benefit from management practices that reduce seed inputs, increase seed losses, and reduce the probability that remaining seeds establish. Germination, predation, and decay are the primary sources of loss to the seedbank that may respond to management. Farmers have long prepared stale seedbeds in which shallow soil disturbance encourages germination losses. Postdispersal seed predation by vertebrate and invertebrate granivores may cause high rates of seed mortality in a wide range of cropping systems, but seed dispersal asynchronous with predator activity, and seed burial, may limit the overall effect on the seedbank. Although seeds would seem to be an ideal carbon source for soil microorganisms, limited evidence from a study of wild oat suggests that decay may be less responsive to management than germination, and likely predation. A final management objective, supporting a program that aims to reduce seedbank inputs and increase losses, is to reduce the size of the effective seedbank through manipulation of residues and disturbance to reduce the probability of establishment. Incorporation of green manures generally reduces weed establishment, whereas larger-seeded or transplanted crops may better tolerate the residue-mediated changes in the chemical, biological, and physical properties of the soil surface environment. Evidence from no-till systems further support the hypothesis that changes in soil surface conditions may regulate the abundance of “safe sites” for weed establishment, thereby modulating the size of the effective seedbank.

Land managers typically use herbicides, biological controls, fire, grazing, and revegetation to manage and restore rangeland dominated by invasive plants. Without careful planning and implementation, these tools may temporarily control the weeds but may ultimately have minimal influence on ecological processes, fail over the long term, and lead to weed reinvasion. This can result from the lack of a broad ecological perspective. Successional management provides a process-based framework for weed ecologists to develop and test integrated weed management strategies and for land managers to organize implementation of these strategies in a way that adequately addresses ecological processes. This framework offers land managers practical methods for modifying ecological processes to direct plant community composition away from invasive species and toward desired plant assemblages. To date, successional management has not gained widespread application because, in part, it has not been conceptually linked to other successional models. Therefore, we illustrate how other successional models can be incorporated within the framework. Incorporating other prevailing successional models will further elucidate ecological processes, offer additional management strategies, and widen the possibilities for ecologically based management of rangeland weeds. Approaching management of weed-infested rangeland through this process-based framework will enable managers to implement strategies that maximize the likelihood of success because these methods will be integrated based on ecological principles. Successional management should be adjusted as we gain a better understanding of the factors that drive succession.