Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-cf9d5c678-m9wwp Total loading time: 0.253 Render date: 2021-07-29T18:42:33.716Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Fate of weed seeds after impact mill processing in midwestern and mid-Atlantic United States

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 November 2019

Lovreet S. Shergill
Affiliation:
Postdoctoral Researcher, Sustainable Agricultural Systems Laboratory, Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, USDA-ARS, Beltsville, MD, USA Postdoctoral Researcher, Carvel Research and Education Center, Georgetown, DE, USA
Kreshnik Bejleri
Affiliation:
Faculty Assistant, Sustainable Agricultural Systems Laboratory, Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, USDA-ARS, Beltsville, MD, USA
Adam Davis
Affiliation:
Professor and Head, Department of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois–Champaign, IL, USA
Steven B. Mirsky
Affiliation:
Research Ecologist, Sustainable Agricultural Systems Laboratory, Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, USDA-ARS, Beltsville, MD, USA
Corresponding
E-mail address:

Abstract

Harvest weed seed control (HWSC) technology, such as impact mills that destroy weed seeds in seed-bearing chaff material during grain crop harvest, has been highly effective in Australian cropping systems. However, the impact mill has never been tested in soybeans [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] and weeds common to soybean production systems in the midwestern and mid-Atlantic United States. We conducted stationary testing of Harrington Seed Destructor (HSD) impact mill and winter burial studies during 2015 to 2016 and 2017 to 2018 to determine (1) the efficacy of the impact mill to target weed seeds of seven common weeds in midwestern and five in the mid-Atlantic United States, and (2) the fate of impact mill–processed weed seeds after winter burial. The impact mill was highly effective in destroying seeds of all the species tested, with 93.5% to 99.8% weed seed destruction in 2015 and 85.6% to 100% in 2017. The weak relationships (positive or negative) between seed size and seed destruction by impact mill and the high percentage of weed seed destruction by impact mill across all seed sizes indicate that the biological or practical effect of seed size is limited. The impact mill–processed weed seeds that retained at least 50% of their original size, labeled as potentially viable seed (PVS), were buried for 90 d overwinter to determine the fate of weed seeds after winter burial. At 90 d after burial, the impact mill–processed PVS were significantly less viable than unprocessed control seeds, indicating that impact mill processing physically damaged the PVS and promoted seed mortality overwinter. A very small fraction (<0.4%) of the total weed seed processed by the impact mill remained viable after winter burial. The results presented here demonstrate that the impact mill is highly effective in increasing seed mortality and could potentially be used as an HWSC tactic for weed management in this region.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2019

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.)

Footnotes

Associate Editor: Christopher Preston, University of Adelaide

References

Anonymous (2019) Integrated Harrington Seed Destructor—iHSD. http://www.ihsd.com. Accessed: May 2, 2019Google Scholar
Broster, JC, Walsh, MJ, Chambers, AJ (2016) Harvest weed seed control: the influence of harvester set up and speed on efficacy in south-eastern Australia wheat crops. Pages 3841in Proceedings of 20th Australasian Weeds Conference. Perth, WA, Australia: Weeds Society of Western AustraliaGoogle Scholar
Buhler, DD, Hartzler, RG, Forcella, F (1997) Implications of weed seedbank dynamics to weed management. Weed Sci 45:329336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chauvel, B, Guillemin, J-P, Gasquez, J, Gauvrit, C (2012) History of chemical weeding from 1944 to 2011 in France: changes and evolution of herbicide molecules. Crop Prot 42:320326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chee-Sanford, JC, Williams, MM, Davis, AS, Sims, GK (2006) Do microorganisms influence seed-bank dynamics? Weed Sci 54:575587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, AS (2006) When does it make sense to target the weed seed bank? Weed Sci 54:558565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, AS (2008) Weed seed pools concurrent with corn and soybean harvest in Illinois. Weed Sci 56:503508Google Scholar
Davis, AS, Anderson, KI, Hallett, SG, Renner, KA (2006) Weed seed mortality in soils with contrasting agricultural management histories. Weed Sci 54:291297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, AS, Schutte, BJ, Iannuzzi, J, Renner, KA (2008) Chemical and physical defense of weed seeds in relation to soil seedbank persistence. Weed Sci 56:676684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duke, SO (2012) Why have no new herbicide modes of action appeared in recent years? Pest Manag Sci 68:505512CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elias, S, Garay, A (2004) Tetrazolium Test (TZ): A Fast Reliable Test to Determine Seed Viability. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Seed Laboratory. https://seedlab.oregonstate.edu/sites/seedlab.oregonstate.edu/files/value-tz-test-2004.pdf. Accessed: December 1, 2015Google Scholar
Gallandt, ER (2006) How can we target the weed seedbank? Weed Sci 54:588596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gill, GS, Holmes, JE (1997) Efficacy of cultural control methods for combating herbicide-resistant Lolium rigidum. Pestic Sci 51:3523583.0.CO;2-M>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gómez, R, Liebman, M, Munkvold, G (2014) Weed seed decay in conventional and diversified cropping systems. Weed Res 54:1325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goplen, JJ, Sheaffer, CC, Becker, RL, Coulter, JA, Breitenbach, FR, Behnken, LM, Johnson, GA, Gunsolus, JL (2016) Giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida) seed production and retention in soybean and field margins. Weed Technol 30:246253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heap, I (2014) Global perspective of herbicide-resistant weeds. Pest Manag Sci 70:13061315CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jasieniuk, M, Brule-Babel, AL, Morrison, IN (1996) The evolution and genetics of herbicide resistance in weeds. Weed Sci 44:176193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mirsky, SB, Wallace, JM, Curran, WS, Crockett, BC (2015) Hairy vetch seedbank persistence and implications for cover crop management. Agron J 107:23912400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohamed-Yasseen, Y, Barringer, SA, Splittstoesser, WE, Costanza, S (1994) The role of seed coats in seed viability. Bot Rev 60:426439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodgerson, L (1998) Mechanical defense in seeds adapted for ant dispersal. Ecology 79:16691677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sawma, JT, Mohler, CL (2002) Evaluating seed viability by an unimbibed seed crush test in comparison with the tetrazolium test. Weed Technol 16:781786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, LM, Norsworthy, JK, Young, BG, Bradley, KW, Kruger, GR, Davis, VM, Steckel, LE, Walsh, MJ (2016) Tall waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus) and Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) seed production and retention at soybean maturity. Weed Technol 30:284290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz-Lazaro, LM, Green, JK, Norsworthy, JK (2017a) Seed retention of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) in soybean. Weed Technol 31:617622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz-Lazaro, LM, Norsworthy, JK, Walsh, MJ, Bagavathiannan, MV (2017b) Efficacy of the Integrated Harrington Seed Destructor on weeds of soybean and rice production systems in the southern United States. Crop Sci 57:28122818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tidemann, BD, Hall, LM, Harker, KN, Beckie, HJ (2017) Factors affecting weed seed devitalization with the Harrington Seed Destructor. Weed Sci 65:650658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walsh, M, Newman, P, Powles, S (2013) Targeting weed seeds in-crop: a new weed control paradigm for global agriculture. Weed Technol 27:431436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walsh, MJ, Aves, C, Powles, SB (2017) Harvest weed seed control systems are similarly effective on rigid ryegrass. Weed Technol 31:178183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walsh, MJ, Broster, JC, Powles, SB (2018a) iHSD mill efficacy on the seeds of Australian cropping system weeds. Weed Technol 32:103108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walsh, MJ, Broster, JC, Schwartz-Lazaro, LM, Norsworthy, JK, Davis, AS, Tidemann, BD, Beckie, HJ, Lyon, DJ, Soni, N, Neve, P, Bagavathiannan, MV (2018b) Opportunities and challenges for harvest weed seed control in global cropping systems. Pest Manag Sci 74:22352245CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Walsh, MJ, Harrington, RB, Powles, SB (2012) Harrington Seed Destructor: a new nonchemical weed control tool for global grain crops. Crop Sci 52:13431347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walsh, MJ, Powles, SB (2007) Management strategies for herbicide-resistant weed populations in Australian dryland crop production systems. Weed Technol 21:332338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wychen, LV (2015) 2015 Baseline Survey of the Most Common and Troublesome Weeds in the United States and Canada: Weed Science Society of America National Weed Survey Dataset. http://wssa.net/wp-content/uploads/2015-weed-survey_baseline.xlsx. Accessed: April 1, 2019Google Scholar
Wychen, LV (2016) 2016 Survey of the Most Common and Troublesome Weeds in Broadleaf Crops, Fruits & Vegetables in the United States and Canada: Weed Science Society of America National Weed Survey Dataset. http://wssa.net/wp-content/uploads/2016-weed-survey_broadleaf-crops.xlsx. Accessed: April 1, 2019Google Scholar
2
Cited by

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.

Fate of weed seeds after impact mill processing in midwestern and mid-Atlantic United States
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.

Fate of weed seeds after impact mill processing in midwestern and mid-Atlantic United States
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.

Fate of weed seeds after impact mill processing in midwestern and mid-Atlantic United States
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *