Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T17:11:24.561Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tillage, Cropping System, and Soil Depth Effects on Common Waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) Seed-Bank Persistence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Lawrence E. Steckel ,
Christy L. Sprague ,
Edward W. Stoller ,
Loyd M. Wax  and
F. William Simmons
Lawrence E. Steckel*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences, West Tennessee Research and Education Center, University of Tennessee, 605 Airways Blvd, Jackson, TN 38301
Christy L. Sprague
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824-1325
Edward W. Stoller
Affiliation:
United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801
Loyd M. Wax
Affiliation:
United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801
F. William Simmons
Affiliation:
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: mailto:lsteckel@utk.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A field experiment was conducted in Urbana, IL, from 1997 to 2000 to evaluate the effect that crop, tillage, and soil depth have on common waterhemp seed-bank persistence. A heavy field infestation of common waterhemp (approximately 410 plants m−2) was allowed to set seed in 1996 and was not allowed to go to seed after 1996. In 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000, the percentage of the original common waterhemp seed bank that remained was 39, 28, 10, and 0.004%, respectively, averaged over tillage treatments. Initially, germination and emergence of common waterhemp was greater in no-till systems. Consequently, the number of remaining seeds was greater in the till treatments compared with no-till in the top 0 to 6 cm of the soil profile. This reduction was in part explained by the higher germination and emergence of common waterhemp in the no-tillage treatments. Tillage increased the seed-bank persistence of common waterhemp in the top 0 to 2 cm of the soil profile in 1997 and the top 0 to 6 cm in 1998. Crop had no effect on common waterhemp emergence or seed-bank persistence. In 2001, > 10% of the seed germinated that was buried 6 to 20 cm deep compared with 3% for seed 0 to 2 cm deep.

Keywords

Common waterhemp, Amaranthus rudis Sauer AMATASeed banktillagecrop
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 55 , Issue 3 , June 2007 , pp. 235 - 239
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. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

Alm, E. M., Stoller, E. W., and Wax, L. M. 1993. An index model for predicting seed germination and emergence rates. Weed Technol. 7:560–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ballare, C. L., Scopel, A. L., Ghersa, C. M., and Sanchez, R. A. 1988. The fate of Datura ferox seeds in the soil as affected by cultivation, depth of burial and degree of maturity. J. Appl. Biol. 112:337–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baskin, J. M. and Baskin, C. C. 1989. Physiology of dormancy and germination in relation to seed bank ecology. Pages 53–65. in Leck, M., Parker, V., Simpson, R. eds. Ecology of Soil Seed Banks. San Diego, CA Academic.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D. 1992. Population dynamics and control of annual weeds in corn (Zea mays) as influenced by tillage systems. Weed Sci. 40:241–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardina, J., Herms, C. P., and Doohan, D. J. 2002. Crop rotation and tillage system effects on weed seedbanks. Weed Sci. 50:448–460.Google Scholar
Carmona, D. M., Menalled, F. D., and Landis, D. A. 1999. Gryllus pennsylvanicus (Orthoptera: Gryllidae): laboratory weed seed predation and within field activity-density. Entomol. Soc. Am. 92:825–829.Google Scholar
Egley, G. H. and Williams, R. D. 1990. Decline of weed seeds and seedling emergence over five years as affected by soil disturbances. Weed Sci. 38:504–510.Google Scholar
Fenner, M. 1994. Ecology of seed banks. Pages 507–528. in Kiegle, J., Galili, G. eds. Seed development and germination. New York Marcel Dekker.Google Scholar
Gallagher, R. S. and Cardina, J. 1998a. Phytochrome-mediated Amaranthus germination I: effect of seed burial and germination temperature. Weed Sci. 46:48–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallagher, R. S. and Cardina, J. 1998b. Phytochrome-mediated Amaranthus germination II: development of very low fluence sensitivity. Weed Sci. 46:53–58.Google Scholar
Gashwiler, J. S. 1967. Conifer seed survival in western Oregon clearcut. Ecology. 48:431–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghersa, C. 1997. Fate of seed in soil. Pages 136. in Radosevich, S., Holt, J., Ghersa, C. eds. Weed Ecology, Implications for Management, 2nd ed. New York John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Gutterman, Y. 1992. Maternal effects on seeds during development. Pages 27–59. in Fenner, M. ed. Seeds: The Ecology of Regeneration in Plant Communities. Wallingford, UK C.A.B. International.Google Scholar
Kivilaan, A. and Bandurski, R. S. 1973. The ninety-year period of Dr. Beal's seed viability experiment. Am. J. Bot. 60:321–325.Google Scholar
McIntosh, M. S. 1983. Analysis of combined experiments. Agron. J. 75:153–155.Google Scholar
Mulugeta, D. and Stoltenberg, D. E. 1998. Influence of cohorts on Chenopodium album demography. Weed Sci. 46:65–70.Google Scholar
Oryokot, J. O. and Swanton, C. J. 1997. Effect of tillage and corn on pigweed (Amaranthus spp.) seedling emergence and density. Weed Sci. 45:120–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, H. A. and Feast, P. M. 1972. Fate of seeds of some annual weeds in different depths of cultivated and undisturbed soil. Weed Res. 12:316–324.Google Scholar
Rojas-Garciduenas, M. and Kommedahl, T. 1960. The effect of 2,4-D on germination of pigweed seed. Weeds. 8:1–5.Google Scholar
SAS 2000. SAS User's Guide, Version 8. Cary, NC SAS Institute.Google Scholar
Sauer, J. and Struik, G. 1964. A possible ecological relation between soil disturbance, light-flash, and seed germination. Ecology. 45:884–886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schweizer, E. E. and Zimdahl, R. L. 1984. Weed seed decline in irrigated soil after six years of continuous corn (Zea mays) and herbicides. Weed Sci. 32:76–83.Google Scholar
Scopel, A. L., Ballare, C. L., and Sanchez, R. A. 1991. Induction of extreme light sensitivity in buried weed seeds and its role in the perception of soil cultivations. Plant Cell Environ. 14:501–508.Google Scholar
Steckel, L. E., Sprague, C. L., Stoller, E. W., Bollero, G., and Wax, L. M. 2004. Temperature effects on germination of nine Amaranthus species. Weed Sci. 52:217–221.Google Scholar
Steckel, L. E., Sprague, C. L., Hager, A. G., Simmons, F. W., and Bollero, G. 2003. Effects of shading on common waterhemp growth and development. Weed Sci. 51:898–903.Google Scholar
Stoller, E. W. and Wax, L. M. 1974. Dormancy changes and fate of some annual weed seeds in the soil. Weed Sci. 22:151–155.Google Scholar
Taylorson, R. B. and Hendricks, S. B. 1977. Dormancy in seeds. Annu. Rev. Plant. Physiol. Plant Mol. Biol. 28:331–354.Google Scholar
Toole, E. H. and Brown, E. 1946. Final results of the Duvel buried seed experiment. J. Agric. Res. 72:201–210.Google Scholar