Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-5cfd469876-qxg62 Total loading time: 0.261 Render date: 2021-06-23T21:47:39.262Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true }

Weed Seedbank Management: Revisiting How Herbicides Are Evaluated

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2018

Jason K. Norsworthy
Affiliation:
Professor and Elms Farming Chair of Weed Science, Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, USA
Nicholas E. Korres
Affiliation:
Postdoctoral Research Associate, Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, USA
Muthukumar V. Bagavathiannan
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Department of Soil and Crop Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA
Corresponding
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

There is great value in quantifying and reporting weed seed production as a component of herbicide efficacy evaluations for two reasons. First, visual weed control ratings and associated measurements such as weed density and biomass are not sufficient indicators of fecundity. Second, knowledge of fecundity associated with herbicide treatments can guide the development of effective management programs that impact long-term weed population dynamics and reduce the risk of herbicide resistance.

Type
My view
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - SA
The online version of this article is published within an Open Access environment subject to the conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike licence http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use.
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2018

Background

As a discipline, our science and the ways in which research is conducted must continue to evolve. In this paper, we discuss how current weed control assessments are not robust and suggest improvements to existing approaches. Even before the first published papers in the journal Weeds (known today as Weed Science), the effectiveness of a herbicide was based on a visual control assessment, among other criteria, relative to a nontreated control (Binns et al. Reference Binns, Nyrop and Van Der Werf2000). While this does allow for rapid evaluation of herbicide efficacy qualitatively, it does little to inform potential weed seed rain associated with a given herbicide treatment. Here, we argue that a strong consideration of weed fecundity assessment is vital in evaluating herbicide treatments. In the very first issue of Weeds, Stamper and Chilton (Reference Stamper and Chilton1951), in their report entitled “Johnson Grass Control in Sugarcane,” pointed to the fact that understanding weed seed production, in addition to efficacy of treatments, is important for formulating viable solutions.

Today, the vast majority of studies focused on the assessment of herbicide performance rely heavily on qualitative efficacy ratings, with crop yield being the only quantitative biological information collected from such evaluations; fecundity of weeds is rarely determined for herbicide treatments. Researchers have traditionally placed little emphasis on measuring seed rain from herbicide evaluation experiments due primarily to the adoption of economic threshold-based weed management approaches. However, given the current scenario of burgeoning herbicide-resistance cases, a core principle of resistance management is the prevention of weed seed production, at least for those weeds that pose high risk for resistance evolution (Bagavathiannan and Norsworthy Reference Bagavathiannan and Norsworthy2012; Norsworthy et al. Reference Norsworthy, Ward, Shaw, Llewellyn, Nichols, Webster, Bradley, Frisvold, Powles, Burgos, Witt and Barrett2012), supporting a zero-threshold-based weed management strategy (Barber et al. Reference Barber, Smith, Scott, Norsworthy and Vangilder2015).

The authors believe that there is great value in quantifying and reporting weed seed production as a component of herbicide efficacy evaluations for two reasons: (1) visual weed control ratings and associated measurements such as weed density and biomass are not sufficient indicators of fecundity, and (2) knowledge of fecundity associated with herbicide treatments can guide the development of effective management programs that impact long-term weed population dynamics and reduce the risk of herbicide resistance.

Meta-analysis Reveals a Lack of Association between Visual Ratings and Fecundity

To better understand what data are routinely collected in trials involving herbicide efficacy evaluations, we conducted a meta-analysis based on a literature survey in the journals Weed Science and Weed Technology from 1970 and 2010 onward, respectively, using “herbicide efficacy,” “herbicide evaluation,” or “herbicide assessment” as key words. In total, 3,496 articles were revealed to use these key words. They were further screened using the key words “seed production,” “soil seedbank,” “fecundity,” or “belowground reproductive organs [i.e., tubers]” (coded as “seed production” in metadata analysis) to determine the extent of such measurements in published literature. Only 81 of these 3,496 articles, 60 and 21 from Weed Science and Weed Technology, respectively, contained these key words. Additional information extracted from these 81 articles fell into the categories of “visual rating,” “visual observations,” “rating,” or “percentage control” (coded as “visual rating”); “population dynamics,” “weed counts,” “population structure,” or “weed density” (coded as “density”); “biomass,” “dry matter,” or “aboveground biomass” (coded as “biomass”); herbicide active ingredient (coded as “herbicide”); and site-of-action group (based on WSSA classification code). Further information pertaining to the journal, publication year, duration of research, weed species, crop, and crop yield was also noted.

A lack of association between visual weed control rating, weed biomass, weed seed production, and to some extent, weed density was revealed when a principal component analysis (PCA) was performed on these characteristics (Figure 1).

Figure 1 Scatter plot of principal component analysis indicating the (dis)associations between visual rating, weed seed production, weed biomass and density as a result of meta-analysis of selected research articles in Weed Science and Weed Technology.

The PCA explained 65% of the metadata variability. Weed density was the only variable that was found to be at least marginally associated with visual ratings. Quantitative measurements of the “weed stand” usually accompany visual observations, as a means to reduce the subjectivity associated with visual assessments (European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization [EPPO] 2012). However, the degree of collinearity between these two parameters needs to be considered. This collinearity depends on how numeric ratings are distributed around a designated threshold or cutoff point (Goldberger Reference Goldberger2008), which can affect the minimum detectable effect size, that is, the smallest treatment effect that a research design has an acceptable chance of detecting whether it exists (Jacob et al. Reference Jacob, Zhu, Somers and Bloom2012). In the present metadata analysis, only 43 research trials (research articles) dominated by soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.], corn (Zea mays L.), and small grain cereals (i.e., wheat [Triticum aestivum L.], rice [Oryza sativa L.], and barley [Hordeum vulgare L.]), continued to crop maturity as indicated by crop yield recordings; this reflects an even smaller percentage (1.2%) of the total herbicide efficacy trials that have been published in both journals. Findings of the meta-analysis clearly indicate that visual ratings and biomass estimation are not sufficient measures of weed fecundity and that quantification of weed seed production is important to fully evaluate long-term impacts of current weed management programs.

Knowledge of Weed Fecundity Informs Effective Weed Management Programs

The long-term impact of a given herbicide program on weed population dynamics (for annual weeds) is directly related to the reduction in weed seed production potential associated with the herbicide treatments. The amount of seed that enters the soil seedbank over a number of seasons will affect the sustainability of any weed control strategy (Grundy et al. Reference Grundy, Mead, Burston and Overs2004). Seed production, albeit minimal at times, ensures the persistence of the weed population. Therefore, knowledge of weed seed production, which is an important element of weed population dynamics, is required for the development of sustainable weed management strategies (Norris Reference Norris2003)

Reducing weed fecundity following a herbicide treatment is also vital for minimizing the risk of herbicide-resistance evolution (Bagavathiannan and Norsworthy Reference Bagavathiannan and Norsworthy2012).

The actual mutation rate for herbicide resistance is not known for most weeds, but the natural, spontaneous mutation rate for a single gene is estimated between 1×10−5 and 1×10−6 per generation (Mortimer et al. Reference Mortimer, Ulf-Hansen and Putwain1992). High levels of fecundity of several weed species mean that there is a high likelihood for the occurrence of rare resistant individuals in a population. Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats.), for example, has been reported to produce more than 600,000 seeds plant−1 (Keeley et al. Reference Keeley, Carter and Thullen1987). It is highly possible, based on these numbers, that herbicide resistance will eventually evolve or a small frequency of resistant individuals is already present in some fields, remaining unnoticed because weed control is rarely absolute (Reference Mallory-Smith, Thill and DialMallory-Smith et al. 1990).

Herbicide-resistance simulation models (e.g., Bagavathiannan et al. Reference Bagavathiannan, Norsworthy, Smith and Neve2013; Neve et al. Reference Neve, Norsworthy, Smith and Zelaya2011) have clearly demonstrated that the risk of resistance is proportional to the soil seedbank size. Thus, a strong emphasis on minimizing weed seed production is of paramount importance, with zero seed production in systems vulnerable to herbicide-resistance evolution (Barber et al. Reference Barber, Smith, Scott, Norsworthy and Vangilder2015). Today, a user-friendly software (Palmer Amaranth Management Model [PAM]) is available for A. palmeri management to bring grower attention to soil seedbank management and an understanding of the impact various management practices have on weed fecundity (Lindsay et al. Reference Lindsay, Popp, Norsworthy, Bagavathiannan, Powles and Lacoste2017). The PAM software demonstrates the value of reducing seedbank inputs for improving long-term economic returns as well as curtailing weed population growth. Thus, weed management programs must aim at reducing weed fecundity, especially in systems vulnerable to herbicide-resistance evolution. Consequently, the robustness of herbicide weed control experiments must be evaluated based on an assessment of weed seed rain in the plots, in addition to other qualitative assessments. Collection of fecundity data in herbicide efficacy trials will further aid the construction and improvement of biological models such as PAM. Moreover, weed population demographics and/or weed seed production provide information on characteristics directly related to the spread of herbicide resistance (Korres and Norsworthy Reference Korres and Norsworthy2017; Norsworthy et al. Reference Norsworthy, Korres, Walsh and Powles2016) as a function of an agroecological niche, time or year of herbicide application, and climate, among others (Streibig Reference Streibig2003). Consequently, comprehensive evaluation of herbicide efficacy, including seed production, which is crucial to understanding weed population dynamics and predicting the evolution of herbicide resistance, aids the development of more biologically sound and effective weed management systems.

It is acknowledged that reporting herbicide efficacy alone is reasonable during herbicide discovery or when initially characterizing a new herbicide before labeling. In these types of experiments, crops may or may not be included, and if included, are seldom continued to maturity due to the crop destruction requirements for unregistered herbicides. As a result, quantification of weed seed production may not be feasible or required in these experiments. However, weed seed production potential should be considered in the evaluation of management programs involving commercially available herbicides. While quantification of seed production can be tedious for large-scale experiments, at the very least one could qualitatively estimate seed production with minimal effort.

References

Bagavathiannan, MV, Norsworthy, JK (2012) Late-season seed production in arable weed communities: management implications. Weed Sci 60:325334 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bagavathiannan, MV, Norsworthy, JK, Smith, KL, Neve, P (2013) Modeling the evolution of glyphosate resistance in barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) in cotton-based production systems of the midsouthern United States. Weed Technol 27:475487 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barber, LT, Smith, KL, Scott, RC, Norsworthy, JK, Vangilder, AM (2015) Zero Tolerance: A Community-based Program for Glyphosate-resistant Palmer Amaranth Management. University of Arkansas System Division of Agriculture. Agriculture and Natural Resources (FSA2177). 6 pGoogle Scholar
Binns, MR, Nyrop, JP, Van Der Werf, W (2000) Sampling and Monitoring in Crop Protection: The Theoretical Basis for Developing Practical Decision Guides. New York: CABI Publishing. 304 pCrossRefGoogle Scholar
[EPPO] European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (2012) Conduct and reporting of efficacy evaluation trials, including good experimental practice. PP 1/181(4). Efficacy Evaluation of Plant Protection Products. Bulletin OEPP/EPPO Bulletin 42:382393 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberger, AS (2008) Selection bias in evaluating treatment effects: some formal illustrations. Adv Econ 21:131 Google Scholar
Grundy, AC, Mead, A, Burston, S, Overs, T (2004) Seed production of Chenopodium album in competition with field vegetables. Weed Res 44:271281 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacob, R, Zhu, P, Somers, M-A, Bloom, H (2012) A Practical Guide to Regression Discontinuity. MDRC Publications. https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/RDD%20Guide_Full%20rev%202016_0.pdf. Accessed: July 11, 2017Google Scholar
Keeley, PE, Carter, CH, Thullen, RJ (1987) Influence of planting date on growth of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri). Weed Sci 35:199204 Google Scholar
Korres, NE, Norsworthy, JK (2017) Palmer amaranth demographic and biological characteristics in wide-row soybean. Weed Sci 65:491503 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindsay, K, Popp, M, Norsworthy, JK, Bagavathiannan, M, Powles, S, Lacoste, M (2017) PAM: decision-support for long-term Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) control. Weed Technol 31:915927 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mallory-Smith, CA, Thill, DC, Dial, MJ (1990) Identification of a sulfonylurea herbicide-resistant prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola). Weed Technol 4:163168 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mortimer, AM, Ulf-Hansen, PF, Putwain, PD (1992) Modeling herbicide resistance—a study of ecological fitness. Pages 283306 in Denholm I, Devonshire AL, Hollomons DW, eds. Achievements and Developments in Combating Pesticide Resistance. Essex, UK: Elsevier Google Scholar
Neve, P, Norsworthy, JK, Smith, KL, Zelaya, I (2011) Modelling evolution and management of glyphosate resistance in Amaranthus palmeri . Weed Res 51:99112 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, RF (2003) Echinochloa crus-galli (barnyardgrass) seed rain under irrigated conditions. Pages 163170 in Bekker RM, Forcella F, Grundy AC, Jones NE, Marshall EJP, Murdoch AJ, eds. Seedbanks: Determination, Dynamics and Management. Aspects of Applied Biology 69. Wellesbourne, UK: Association of Applied Biologists, European Weed Research Society Google Scholar
Norsworthy, JK, Korres, NE, Walsh, MJ, Powles, SB (2016) Integrating herbicide programs with harvest weed seed control and other fall management practices for the control of glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth. Weed Sci 64:540550 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norsworthy, JK, Ward, SM, Shaw, DR, Llewellyn, RS, Nichols, RL, Webster, TM, Bradley, KW, Frisvold, G, Powles, SB, Burgos, NR, Witt, WW, Barrett, M (2012) Reducing the risks of herbicide-resistance: best management practices and recommendations. Weed Sci 60(SP1):3162 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stamper, ER, Chilton, SJP (1951) Johnson grass control in sugarcane. Weeds 1:3242 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Streibig, JC (2003) Assessment of Herbicide Effects. http://www.ewrs.org/et/docs/Herbicide_interaction.pdf. Accessed: January 11, 2018Google Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1 Scatter plot of principal component analysis indicating the (dis)associations between visual rating, weed seed production, weed biomass and density as a result of meta-analysis of selected research articles in Weed Science and Weed Technology.

You have Access
Open access
10
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.

Weed Seedbank Management: Revisiting How Herbicides Are Evaluated
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.

Weed Seedbank Management: Revisiting How Herbicides Are Evaluated
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.

Weed Seedbank Management: Revisiting How Herbicides Are Evaluated
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? *