Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T03:25:00.945Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Glyphosate Resistance Does Not Affect Palmer Amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) Seedbank Longevity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Lynn M. Sosnoskie ,
Theodore M. Webster  and
A. Stanley Culpepper
Lynn M. Sosnoskie
Affiliation:
University of Georgia, Tifton, GA 31794
Theodore M. Webster*
Affiliation:
Crop Protection and Management Research Unit, USDA-ARS, Tifton, GA 31794
A. Stanley Culpepper
Affiliation:
University of Georgia, Tifton, GA 31794
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A greater understanding of the factors that regulate weed seed return to and persistence in the soil seedbank is needed for the management of difficult-to-control herbicide-resistant weeds. Studies were conducted in Tifton, GA to (1) evaluate whether glyphosate resistance, burial depth, and burial duration affect the longevity of Palmer amaranth seeds and (2) estimate the potential postdispersal herbivory of seeds. Palmer amaranth seeds from glyphosate-resistant and glyphosate-susceptible populations were buried in nylon bags at four depths ranging from 1 to 40 cm for intervals ranging between 0 and 36 mo, after which the bags were exhumed and seeds evaluated for viability. There were no detectable differences in seed viability between glyphosate-resistant and glyphosate-susceptible Palmer amaranth seeds, but there was a significant burial time by burial depth interaction. Palmer amaranth seed viability for each of the burial depths declined over time and was described by exponential decay regression models. Seed viability at the initiation of the study was ≥ 96%; after 6 mo of burial, viability declined to 65 to 78%. As burial depth increased, so did Palmer amaranth seed viability. By 36 mo, seed viability ranged from 9% (1-cm depth) to 22% (40-cm depth). To evaluate potential herbivory, seed traps with three levels of exclusion were constructed: (1) no exclusion, (2) rodent exclusion, and (3) rodent and large arthropod exclusion. Each seed trap contained 100 Palmer amaranth seeds and were deployed for 7 d at irregular intervals throughout the year, totaling 27 sample times. There were seasonal differences in seed recovery and differences among type of seed trap exclusion, but no interactions. Seed recovery was lower in the summer and early autumn and higher in the late winter and early spring, which may reflect the seasonal fluctuations in herbivore populations or the availability of other food sources. Seed recovery was greatest (44%) from the most restrictive traps, which only allowed access by small arthropods, such as fire ants. Traps that excluded rodents, but allowed access by small and large arthropods, had 34% seed recovery. In the nonexclusion traps, only 25% of seed were recovered, with evidence of rodent activity around these traps. Despite the physically small seed size, Palmer amaranth is targeted for removal from seed traps by seed herbivores, which could signify a reduction in the overall seed density. To be successful, Palmer amaranth management programs will need to reduce soil seedbank population densities. Future studies need to address factors that enhance the depletion of the soil seedbank and evaluate how these interact with other weed control practices.

Keywords

Palmer amaranth, Amaranthus palmeri (S.) Wats. AMAPABiological controlglyphosate resistanceherbicide resistancepredationseed burialsoil seedbank
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 61 , Issue 2 , June 2013 , pp. 283 - 288
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.)

Footnotes

Current address: Project Scientist, University of California, Davis, CA 95616.

References

Literature Cited

Anderson, R. L. 2007. Managing weeds with a dualistic approach of prevention and control. A review. Agron. Sust. Dev. 27: 13–18.Google Scholar
Bell, M. S. and Tranel, P. J. 2010. Time requirement from pollination to seed maturity in waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus). Weed Sci. 58: 167–173.Google Scholar
Benvenuti, S. 2007. Natural weed seed burial: effect of soil texture, rain and seed characteristics. Seed Sci. Res. 17: 211–219.Google Scholar
Borza, J. K., Westerman, P. R., and Liebman, M. 2007. Comparing estimates of seed viability in three foxtail (Setaria) species using the imbibed seed crush test with and without additional tetrazolium testing. Weed Technol. 21: 518–522.Google Scholar
Brown, J. H. and Davidson, D. W. 1977. Competition between seed-eating rodents and ants in desert ecosystems. Science 196: 880–882.Google Scholar
Brown, J. H., Grover, J. J., Davidson, D. W., and Lieberman, G. A. 1975. Preliminary study of seed predation in desert and montane habitats. Ecology 56: 987–992.Google Scholar
Burke, I. C., Schroeder, M., Thomas, W. E., and Wilcut, J. W. 2007. Palmer amaranth interference and seed production in peanut. Weed Technol. 21: 367–371.Google Scholar
Burnside, O. C., Moomaw, R. S., Roeth, F. W., Wicks, G. A., and Wilson, R. G. 1986. Weed seed demise in soil in weed-free corn (Zea mays) production across Nebraska. Weed Sci. 34: 248–251.Google 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: 74–86.Google Scholar
Cardina, J., Harrison, S. K., Regnier, E. E., and Schmoll, J. T. 2002. Seeds as the targets for biological control of weeds. Pages 57–67 in Seminario International Departmento Do Ciencias Vegetales Semilas: Commercializacion, Producion y technologia 2002; Santiago, Chile. Cardina, J., H. M. Norquay, B. R. Stinner, and D. A. McCartney. 1996. Postdispersal predation of velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) seeds. Weed Sci. 44: 534–539.Google Scholar
Cardina, J., Webster, T. M., Herms, C. P., and Regnier, E. E. 1999. Development of weed IPM: levels of integration for weed management. Pages 239–267 in Buhler, D. D., ed. Expanding the Context of Weed Management. New York: Haworth Press.Google Scholar
Cavers, P. B. 1983. Seed demography. Can. J. Bot. 61: 3578–3590.Google Scholar
Chauhan, B. S., Migo, T., Westerman, P. R., and Johnson, D. E. 2010. Postdispersal predation of weed seeds in rice fields. Weed Res. 50: 553–560.Google Scholar
Collins, G., Culpepper, A. S., Day, D., Harris, G., Kemerait, R. C., Roberts, P., Shurley, D., Smith, A., and Whitaker, J. 2010. 2010 Georgia Cotton Production Guide. University of Georgia Cooperative Extension Service, public. no. CSS-10-01. Available at: http://commodities.caes.uga.edu/fieldcrops/cotton/2010cottonguide/2010CottonProductionGuide.pdf. Accessed: March 22, 2010.Google Scholar
Conn, J. S., Beattie, K. L., and Blanchard, A. 2006. Seed viability and dormancy of 17 weed species after 19.7 years of burial in Alaska. Weed Sci. 54: 464–470.Google Scholar
Culpepper, A. S., Grey, T. L., Vencill, W. K., Kichler, J. M., Webster, T. M., Brown, S. M., York, A. C., Davis, J. W., and Hanna, W. W. 2006. Glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) confirmed in Georgia. Weed Sci. 54: 620–626.Google Scholar
DeVlaming, V. and Vernon, W. P. 1968. Dispersal of aquatic organisms: viability of seeds recovered from the droppings of captive killdeer and mallard ducks. Am. J. Bot. 55: 20–26.Google Scholar
Dieleman, J. A., Mortensen, D. A., and Martin, A. R. 1999. Influence of velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) and common sunflower (Helianthus annuus) density variation on weed management outcomes. Weed Sci. 47: 81–89.Google Scholar
Egley, G. H. and Chandler, J. M. 1978. Germination and viability of weed seeds after 2.5 years in a 50-year buried seed study. Weed Sci. 26: 230–238.Google Scholar
Egley, G. H. and Chandler, J. M. 1983. Longevity of weed seeds after 5.5 years in the Stoneville 50-year buried-seed study. Weed Sci. 31: 264–270.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
Faccini, D. and Vitta, J. I. 2005. Germination characteristics of Amaranthus quitensis as affected by seed production date and duration of burial. Weed Res. 45: 371–378.Google Scholar
Forcella, F. 2003. Debiting the seedbank: priorities and predictions. Aspects Appl. Biol. 69: 151–162.Google Scholar
Forcella, F., Webster, T. M., and Cardina, J. 2003. Protocols for weed seed bank determination in agro-ecosystems. Pages 3–18 in Labrada, R., ed. Weed Management for Developing Countries. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Plant Production and Protection Paper 120 (add.1).Google Scholar
Forcella, F., Wilson, R. G., Renner, K. A., Dekker, J., Harvey, R. G., Alm, D. A., Buhler, D. D., and Cardina, J. 1992. Weed seedbanks of the U.S. corn belt: magnitude, variation, emergence, and application. Weed Sci. 40: 636–644.Google Scholar
Gallandt, E. R. 2006. How can we target the weed seedbank? Weed Sci. 54: 588–596.Google Scholar
Gallandt, E. R., Molloy, T., Lynch, R. P., and Drummond, F. A. 2005. Effect of cover-cropping systems on invertebrate seed predation. Weed Sci. 53: 69–76.Google Scholar
Glantz, S. A. and Slinker, B. K. 2001. Primer of Applied Regression and Analysis of Variance. New York: McGraw-Hill. Pages 25–28.Google Scholar
Harrison, S. K., Regnier, E. E., Schmoll, J. T., and Harrison, J. M. 2007. Seed size and burial effects on giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida) emergence and seed demise. Weed Sci. 55: 16–22.Google Scholar
Hartzler, R. G. and Roth, G. W. 1993. Effect of prior years weed control on herbicide effectiveness in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 7: 611–614.Google Scholar
Heap, I. M. 2012. International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds (http://www.weedscience.org/in.asp). Accessed October 19, 2012.Google Scholar
Heggenstaller, A. H., Menalled, F. D., Liebman, M., and Westerman, P. R. 2006. Seasonal patterns in post-dispersal seed predation of Abutilon theophrasti and Setaria faberi in three cropping systems. J. Appl. Ecol. 43: 999–1010.Google Scholar
Hulme, P. E. 1994. Postdispersal seed predation in grassland: its magnitude and sources of variation. J. Ecol. 82: 645–652.Google Scholar
International Seed Testing Association. 1985. International rules for seed testing. Seed Sci. Technol. 13: 300–520.Google 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: 390–398.Google Scholar
Keeley, P. E., Carter, C. H., and Thullen, R. J. 1987. Influence of planting date on growth of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri). Weed Sci. 35: 199–204.Google Scholar
Kromp, B. 1999. Carabid beetles in sustainable agriculture: a review on pest control efficacy, cultivation impacts and enhancement. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 74: 187–228.Google Scholar
Lewis, J. 1973. Longevity of crop and weed seeds—survival after 20 years in the soil. Weed Res. 13: 179–191.Google Scholar
Lutman, P.J.W., Cussans, G. W., Wright, K. J., Wilson, B. J., Wright, G. M., and Lawson, H. M. 2002. The persistence of seeds of 16 weed species over six years in two arable fields. Weed Res. 42: 231–241.Google Scholar
Menalled, F. D., Smith, R. G., Dauer, J. T., and Fox, T. B. 2007. Impact of agricultural management on carabid communities and weed seed predation. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 118: 49–54.Google Scholar
Menges, R. M. 1987. Weed seed population dynamics during six years of weed management systems in crop rotations on irrigated soil. Weed Sci. 35: 328–332.Google Scholar
Mortensen, D. A., Bastiaans, L., and Sattin, M. 2000. The role of ecology in the development of weed management systems: an outlook. Weed Res. 40: 49–62.Google Scholar
Neve, P., Norsworthy, J. K., Smith, K. L., and Zelaya, I. A. 2011. Modelling evolution and management of glyphosate resistance in Amaranthus palmeri . Weed Res. 51: 99–112.Google Scholar
Norsworthy, J. K., Ward, S., Shaw, D. R., Llewellyn, R. S., Nichols, R. L., Webster, T. M., Bradley, K. W., Frisvold, G., Powles, S., Burgos, N. R., Witt, W. W., and Barrett, M. 2012. Reducing the risks of herbicide resistance: best management practices and recommendations. Weed Sci. Spec. Iss. 31–62.Google Scholar
Omami, E. N., Haigh, A. M., Medd, R. W., and Nicol, H. I. 1999. Changes in germinability, dormancy and viability of Amaranthus retroflexus as affected by depth and duration of burial. Weed Res. 39: 345–354.Google Scholar
Proctor, V. W. 1968. Long-distance dispersal of seeds by retention in digestive tract of birds. Science 160: 321–322.Google Scholar
Sawma, J. T. and Mohler, C. L. 2002. Evaluating seed viability by an unimbibed seed crush test in comparison with the tetrazolium test. Weed Technol. 16: 781–786.Google Scholar
Seaman, R. E. and Marino, P. C. 2003. Influence of mound building and selective seed predation by the red imported fire ant (Solenopsis invicta) on an old-field plant assemblage. J. Torrey Bot. Soc. 130: 193–201.Google Scholar
Sellers, B. A., Smeda, R. J., Johnson, W. G., Kendig, J. A., and Ellersieck, M. R. 2003. Comparative growth of six Amaranthus species in Missouri. Weed Sci. 51: 329–333.Google Scholar
Shurley, D., Bednarz, C., Anthony, S., and Brown, S. M. 2004. Increasing cotton yield, fiber quality, and profit through improved defoliation and harvest timeliness. University of Georgia Collge of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Circ. No. AGECON-04-94. (http://www.ces.uga.edu/Agriculture/agecon/pubs/comm/increasingcot.pdf) Accessed June 1, 2012.3 p.Google Scholar
Spafford Jacob, H., Minkey, D. M., Gallagher, R. S., and Borger, C. P. 2006. Variation in postdispersal weed seed predation in a crop field. Weed Sci. 54: 148–155.Google Scholar
Sparks, O. C., Barrentine, J. L., Burgos, N. R., and McClelland, M. R. 2003. Effect of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) seedbank density on the performance of pendimethalin and fluometuron. Sum Ark. Cotton Res. Res. Ser. 521: 167–172.Google 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: 1285–1288.Google Scholar
Thompson, K. 1987. Seeds and seedbanks. New Phytol. 106: 23–34.Google Scholar
Thompson, K., Band, S. R., and Hodgson, J. G. 1993. Seed size and shape predict persistence in soil. Func. Ecol. 7: 236–241.Google Scholar
Vander Wall, S. B., Kuhn, K. M., and Beck, M. J. 2005. Seed removal, seed predation, and secondary dispersal. Ecology 86: 801–806.Google Scholar
Van Mourik, T. A., Stomph, T. J., and Murdoch, A. J. 2005. Why high seed densities within buried mesh bags may overestimate depletion rates of soil seed banks. J. Appl. Ecol. 42: 299–305.Google Scholar
Vencill, W. K., Grey, T. L., Culpepper, A. S., Gaines, C., and Westra, R. 2008. Herbicide resistance in the Amaranthaceae . J. Plant Dis. Prot. Spec. Iss. 21: 41–44.Google Scholar
Webster, T. M., Cardina, J., and Loux, M. M. 1998. The influence of weed management in wheat (Triticum aestivum) stubble on weed control in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 12: 522–526.Google Scholar
Westerman, P. R., Dixon, P. M., and Liebman, M. 2009. Burial rates of surrogate seeds in arable fields. Weed Res. 49: 142–152.Google Scholar
White, S. S., Renner, K. A., Menalled, F. D., and Landis, D. A. 2007. Feeding preferences of weed seed predators and effect on weed emergence. Weed Sci. 55: 606–612.Google Scholar
Wise, A. M., Grey, T. L., Prostko, E. P., Vencill, W. K., and Webster, T. M. 2009. Establishing the geographical distribution and level of acetolactate synthase resistance of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) accessions in Georgia. Weed Technol. 23: 214–220.Google Scholar
Zhang, J. X., Drummond, F. A., Liebman, M., and Hartke, A. 1997. Insect Predation of Seeds and Plant Population Dynamics. Orono: University of Maine, Maine Agricultural Forest Experiment Station Technical Bulletin. 163. 32 p.Google Scholar