Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Article contents

Environmental factors affecting seed persistence of annual weeds across the U.S. corn belt

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

John Cardina
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture and Crop Science, Ohio State University, Wooster, OH 44691
Frank Forcella
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, North Central Soil Conservation Research Laboratory, Morris, MN 56267
Gregg A. Johnson
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Plant Genetics, University of Minnesota, Southern Research and Outreach Center, Waseca MN 56093
George Kegode
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58105
John L. Lindquist
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583
Edward C. Luschei
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706
Karen A. Renner
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824
Christy L. Sprague
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801
Martin M. Williams
Affiliation:
Washington State University, Prosser, WA, 99350

Abstract

Weed seedbanks have been studied intensively at local scales, but to date, there have been no regional-scale studies of weed seedbank persistence. Empirical and modeling studies indicate that reducing weed seedbank persistence can play an important role in integrated weed management. Annual seedbank persistence of 13 summer annual weed species was studied from 2001 through 2003 at eight locations in the north central United States and one location in the northwestern United States. Effects of seed depth placement, tillage, and abiotic environmental factors on seedbank persistence were examined through regression and multivariate ordinations. All species examined showed a negative relationship between hydrothermal time and seedbank persistence. Seedbank persistence was very similar between the two years of the study for common lambsquarters, giant foxtail, and velvetleaf when data were pooled over location, depth, and tillage. Seedbank persistence of common lambsquarters, giant foxtail, and velvetleaf from October 2001 through 2002 and October 2002 through 2003 was, respectively, 52.3% and 60.0%, 21.3% and 21.8%, and 57.5% and 57.2%. These results demonstrate that robust estimates of seedbank persistence are possible when many observations are averaged over numerous locations. Future studies are needed to develop methods of reducing seedbank persistence, especially for weed species with particularly long-lived seeds.

Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
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.

References

Benech-Arnold, R. L., Sanchez, R. A., Forcella, F., Kruck, B. C., and Ghersa, C. M. 2000. Environmental control of dormancy in weed seedbanks in soil. Field Crops Res 67:105122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benvenuti, S., Macchia, M., and Miele, S. 2001. Quantitative analysis of emergence of seedlings from buried weed seeds with increasing soil depth. Weed Sci 49:528535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradford, K. 2002. Applications of hydrothermal time to quantifying and modeling seed germination and dormancy. Weed Sci 50:248260.CrossRefGoogle 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 49:230235.CrossRefGoogle 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 44:7486.Google Scholar
Cousens, R. and Mortimer, M. 1995. Dynamics of Weed Populations. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. 332 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, A. S., Dixon, P. M., and Liebman, M. 2004. Using matrix models to determine cropping system effects on annual weed demography. Ecol. Appl 14:655668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fenner, M. and Thompson, K. 2005. The Ecology of Seeds. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. 250 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flerchinger, G. N. 2000. The Simultaneous Heat and Water (SHAW) Model: User's Manual. Northwest Watershed Research Center, U.S.D.A.-A.R.S. Pp. 20. www.nwrc.ars.usda.gov/models/shaw/.Google Scholar
Forcella, F., Wilson, R. G., Dekker, J., Kremer, R. J., Cardina, J., Anderson, R. L., Alm, D., Renner, K. A., Harvey, G., and Clay, S. 1997. Weed seedbank emergence across the corn belt. Weed Sci 45:6776.Google Scholar
Gallandt, E. R., Fuerst, E. P., and Kennedy, A. C. 2004. Effect of tillage, fungicide seed treatment, and soil fumigation on seedbank dynamics of wild oat (Avena fatua). Weed Sci 52:597604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonzalez-Andujar, J. L. and Fernandez-Quintanilla, C. 1991. Modelling the population dynamics of Avena sterilis under dry-land cereal cropping systems. J. Appl. Ecol 28:1627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gotelli, N. J. and Ellison, A. M. 2004. A Primer of Ecological Statistics. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer. 150 p.Google Scholar
Grundy, A. C., Phelps, K., Reader, R. J., and Burston, S. 2000. Modelling the germination of Stellaria media using the concept of hydrothermal time. New Phytol 148:433444.CrossRefGoogle 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 51:955964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, N., Mortensen, D. A., Prenzlow, D. M., and Cox, K. C. 1995. Simulation analysis of crop rotation effects on weed seedbanks. Am. J. Bot 82:390398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kremer, R. J. 1986. Antimicrobial activity of velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) seeds. Weed Sci 34:617622.Google Scholar
Kremer, R. J. 1993. Management of weed seedbanks with microorganisms. Ecol. Appl 3:4252.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lewis, J. 1973. Longevity of crop and weed seeds: survival after 20 years in soil. Weed Res 13:179191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neter, J., Kutner, M. H., Nachtsheim, C. J., and Wasserman, W. 1996. Applied Linear Statistical Models. Chicago: Irwin. 1408 p.Google Scholar
Økland, R. H. 1996. Are ordination and constrained ordination alternative or complementary strategies in general ecological studies? J. Veg. Sci 7:289292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, J. ed. 2000. Tetrazolium Testing Handbook. Contrib. No. 29 to the Handbook on Seed Testing. Lincoln, NE: Association of Official Seed Analysts.Google Scholar
Robertson, G. P., Klingensmith, K. M., Klug, M. J., Paul, E. A., Crum, J. R., and Ellis, B. G. 1997. Soil resources, microbial activity, and primary production across an agricultural ecosystem. Ecol. Appl 7:158170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schafer, M. and Kotanen, P. M. 2003. The influence of soil moisture on losses of buried seeds to fungi. Acta Oecol 24:255263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shem-Tov, S., Klose, S., Ajwa, H. A., and Fennimore, S. A. 2005. Effect of carbon:nitrogen ratio and organic amendments on seedbank longevity. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr 45:97.Google Scholar
Tate, R. L. I. 1987. Soil Organic Matter: Biological and Ecological Effects. New York: Wiley Interscience. 318 p.Google Scholar
Taylor, K. L. and Hartzler, R. G. 2000. Effect of seedbank augmentation on herbicide efficacy. Weed Technol 14:261267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Telewski, F. W. and Zeevaart, J. A. D. 2002. The 120-yr period for Dr. Beal's seed viability experiment. Am. J. Bot 89:12851288.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Teo-Sherrell, C. P. A., Mortensen, D. A., and Keaton, M. E. 1996. Fates of weed seeds in soil: a seeded core method of study. J. Appl. Ecol 33:11071113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ter Braak, C. J. F. and Smilauer, P. 2002. CANOCO Reference Manual and CanoDraw for Window's User's Guide: Software for Canonical Community Ordination (Version 4.5). Ithaca, NY: Microcomputer Power. 500 p.Google Scholar
Thompson, K., Bakker, J., and Bekker, R. 1997. The Soil Seedbanks of North West Europe: Methodology, Density and Longevity. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. 276 p.Google Scholar
Underwood, A. J. 1997. Experiments in Ecology: Their Design and Interpretation Using Analysis of Variance. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. 504 p.Google Scholar

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 14 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 20th January 2017 - 22nd January 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Hostname: page-component-76cb886bbf-pdn9z Total loading time: 0.288 Render date: 2021-01-22T23:52:04.508Z Query parameters: { "hasAccess": "0", "openAccess": "0", "isLogged": "0", "lang": "en" } Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false }

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Environmental factors affecting seed persistence of annual weeds across the U.S. corn belt
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Environmental factors affecting seed persistence of annual weeds across the U.S. corn belt
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Environmental factors affecting seed persistence of annual weeds across the U.S. corn belt
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *