Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T17:54:48.063Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Responses of Proso Millet (Panicum miliaceum) Seedlings to Mechanical Damage and/or Drought Treatments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Paul B. Cavers  and
Marguerite Kane
Paul B. Cavers
Affiliation:
Dep. Plant Sci., Univ. West. Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada N6A 5B7
Marguerite Kane
Affiliation:
Dep. Plant Sci., Univ. West. Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada N6A 5B7
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Seedlings of proso millet usually were killed by discing and rototilling in field experiments but populations were not reduced by mowing or by compressing under tractor wheels. In greenhouse experiments, recently emerged seedlings had the greatest mortality after raking and desiccation treatments but were less affected by shoot and/or root damage. In contrast, seedlings treated several weeks after emergence suffered greater mortality from shoot damage and less from desiccation. Two weedy proso millet biotypes, black and Crown, were used in the field experiments, and up to six biotypes were used in the greenhouse. Few significant differences among biotypes were found. Young (emerging) seedlings were extremely resilient to all treatments.

Keywords

Proso millet, Panicum miliaceum L. ♯3 PANMIMowingrototillingdisc harrowingdesiccationPANMI
Type
Symposium
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 4 , Issue 2 , June 1990 , pp. 425 - 432
Copyright
Copyright © 1990 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

1. Anonymous. 1989. Guide to chemical weed control. Ont. Dep. Agric. Food Publ. No. 75.Google Scholar
2. Bough, M., and Cavers, P. B. 1987. Proso millet. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food Factsheet, No. 87–025.Google Scholar
3. Bough, M., Colosi, J. C., and Cavers, P. B. 1986. The major weedy biotypes of proso millet (Panicum miliaceum) in Canada. Can. J. Bot. 64:1188–1198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Cavers, P. B. 1985. Intractable weeds–Intraspecific variation must be considered in formulating control measures. Proc. Br. Crop Prot. Conf. – Weeds. Brighton, U.K. Vol. 1:367–376.Google Scholar
5. Cavers, P. B., and Bough, M. A. 1985. Proso millet (Panicum miliaceum L.): a crop and a weed. p. 143–155 in White, J., ed. Studies on plant demography: Festschrift for John L. Harper. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
6. Fenner, M. 1987. Seedlings. New Phytol. 106 (Suppl.):35–47.Google Scholar
7. Hackett, N. M., and Murray, D. S. 1987. Germination and seedling development of hogpotato (Hoffmanseggia densiflora). Weed Sci. 35:360–363.Google Scholar
8. Harper, J. L. 1977. Population biology of plants. Academic Press Inc., New York.Google Scholar
9. Hinze, G. 1972. Millets in Colorado. Colo. State Univ. Exp. Stn. Bull. 5535.Google Scholar
10. McVean, D. N. 1966. Ecology of Chondrilla juncea L. in south-eastern Australia. J. Ecol. 54:345–365.Google Scholar
11. Moore, D.R. J., and Cavers, P. B. 1985. A comparison of seedling vigor in crop and weed biotypes of proso millet (Panicum miliaceum). Can. J. Bot. 63:1659–1663.Google Scholar
12. Peterken, G. F. 1966. Mortality of Holly (Ilex aquifolium) seedlings in relation to natural regeneration in the New Forest. J. Ecol. 54:259–269.Google Scholar
13. Pollock, B.M., and Roos, E. E. 1972. Seed and seedling vigor. p. 313–387 in Koslowski, T. T., ed. Seed Biology, Vol. 1. Academic Press Inc., New York.Google Scholar
14. Rachie, K. O. 1975. The Millets. Importance, utilization and outlook. Int. Crops Res. Inst. Semi-arid Tropics, Hyderabad, India.Google Scholar