Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T04:40:07.977Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Temperature- and moisture-dependent models of seed germination and shoot elongation in green and redroot pigweed (Amaranthus powellii, A. retroflexus)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Joseph O. E. Oryokot ,
Stephen D. Murphy ,
A. Gordon Thomas  and
Clarence J. Swanton
Joseph O. E. Oryokot
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada N1G 2W1
Stephen D. Murphy
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada N1G 2W1
A. Gordon Thomas
Affiliation:
Research Center, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Saskatoon, SK, Canada S7N 0X2
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

To predict weed emergence and help farmers make weed management decisions, we constructed a mathematical model of seed germination for green and redroot pigweed based on temperature and water potential (moisture) and expressing cumulative germination in terms of thermal time (degree days). Empirical observations indicated green pigweed germinated at a lower base temperature than redroot pigweed but the germination rate of redroot pigweed is much faster as mean temperature increases. Moisture limitation delayed seed germination until 23.8 C (green pigweed) or 27.9 (redroot pigweed); thereafter, germination was independent of water potential as mean temperatures approached germination optima. Our germination model, based on a cumulative normal distribution function, accounted for 80 to 95% of the variation in seed germination and accurately predicted that redroot pigweed would have a faster germination rate than green pigweed. However, the model predicted that redroot pigweed would germinate before green pigweed (in thermal time) and was generally less accurate during the early period of seed germination. The model also predicted that moisture limitation would increase, rather than delay, seed germination. These errors were related to the mathematical function chosen and analyses used, but an explicit interaction term for water potential and temperature is also needed to produce an accurate model. We also tested the effect of mean temperature on shoot elongation (emergence) and described the relationship by a linear model. Base temperatures for shoot elongation were higher than for seed germination. Shoot elongation began at 15.6 and 14.4 C for green and redroot pigweed, respectively; they increased linearly with temperature until the optimum of 27.9 C was reached. Elongation was dependent on completion of the rate-limiting step of radicle emergence and was sensitive to temperature but not moisture; hence, elongation was sensitive to a much smaller temperature range. Beyond mathematical changes, we are testing our model in the field and need to link it to ecophysiological, genetic, and spatially explicit population processes for it to be useful in decision support for weed management.

Keywords

Powell amaranth, green pigweed, Amaranthus powellii S. Wats AMAPOredroot pigweed, Amaranthus retroflexus L. AMAREBase germination temperaturecumulative normal distribution functiondecision support systemsecophysiological modelsintegrated weed managementAMAPOAMARE
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 45 , Issue 4 , August 1997 , pp. 488 - 496
Copyright
Copyright © 1997 by the 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

Addae, P. C., and Pearson, C. J. 1992. Thermal requirements for germination and seedling growth of wheat. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 43: 585–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alm, D. M., Stoller, E. W., and Wax, L. M. 1993. An index model for predicting seed germination and emergence rate. Weed Technol. 7: 560–569.Google Scholar
Angus, J. F., Cunningham, R. B., Moncu, M. W., and Mackenzie, D. H. 1981. Phonic development in field crops. I. Thermal response in the seedling phase. Field Crops Res. 3: 365–378.Google Scholar
Argerich, C. A. and Bradford, K. J. 1989. The effects of priming and ageing on seed vigour in tomato. J. Exp. Bot. 40: 599–607.Google Scholar
Baskin, J. M. and Baskin, C. C. 1987. Temperature requirements for after-ripening in buried seeds for four summer annual weeds. Weed Res. 27: 385–389.Google Scholar
Bewley, J. D. and Black, M. 1994. Seeds: physiology of development and germination. New York: Plenum Press. 445 p.Google Scholar
Bradford, K. 1990a. A water relations analysis of seed germination rates. Plant Physiol. 94: 840–849.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bradford, K. J. 1990b. Manipulation of seed water relations via osmotic priming to improve germination under stress conditions. Hort Science 21: 1105–1112.Google Scholar
Bradford, K. J. and Somasco, O. A. 1994. Water relations of lettuce seed thermoinhibition. I. Priming and endosperm effects on base water potential. Seed Sci. Res. 4: 1–10.Google Scholar
Bridges, D. C., Wu, H., Sharpe, P.J.H., and Chandler, J. M. 1989. Modeling distribution of crop and weed seed germination time. Weed Sci. 37: 724–729.Google Scholar
Carberry, P. S. and Campbell, L. C. 1989. Temperature parameters useful for modeling the germination and emergence of pearl millet. Crop Sci. 29: 220–223.Google Scholar
Covell, S., Ellis, R. H., Roberts, E. H., and Summerfield, R. J. 1986. The influence of temperature on seed germination rate in grain legumes. I. A comparison of chickpea, lentil, soyabean and cowpea at constant temperature. J. Exp. Bot. 37: 705–715.Google Scholar
Dahal, P. and Bradford, K. J. 1990. Effect of priming and endosperm integrity on seed germination rates of tomato genotypes. I. Germination at reduced water potential J. Exp. Bot. 41: 1441–1453.Google Scholar
Dahal, P., Bradford, K. J., and Jones, R. A. 1990. Effect of priming and endosperm integrity on seed germination rates of tomato genotypes. I. Germination at suboptimal temperature. J. Exp. Bot. 41: 1431–1439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dieleman, A., Hamill, A. S., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1995. Empirical models for pigweed (Amaranthus spp.) interference in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Res. 43: 612–618.Google Scholar
Dracup, M., Davis, C., and Tapscott, H. 1993. Temperature and water requirements for germination and emergence of lupin. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 33: 759–766.Google Scholar
Draper, N. R. and Smith, H. 1981. Applied Regression Analysis. New York: Wiley, pp. 37–38.Google Scholar
Dumur, D., Pilbeam, C. J., and Craigon, J. 1990. Use of Weibull function to calculate cardinal temperatures in faba bean. J. Exp. Bot. 41: 1423–1430.Google Scholar
Duta, S. and Bradford, K. J. 1994. Water relations of lettuce seed thermoinhibition. II. Ethylene and endosperm effects on base water potential. Seed Sci. Res. 4: 11–18.Google Scholar
Dyer, W. E. 1995. Exploiting weed seed dormancy and germination requirements through agronomic practices. Weed Sci. 43: 498–503.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. H. and Barrett, S. 1994. Alternating temperatures and rate of seed germination in lentil. Ann. Bot. 74: 519–524.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. H., Covell, S., Roberts, E. H., and Summerfield, R. J. 1986. The influence of temperature on seed germination rate in grain legumes. II. Intraspecific variation in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) at constant temperatures. J. Exp. Bot. 37: 1503–1515.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. H., Simon, G., and Covell, S. 1987. The influence of temperature on seed germination rate in grain legumes. III. A comparison of five fava bean genotypes at constant temperatures using a new screening method. J. Exp. Bot. 38: 1033–1043.Google Scholar
Fernandez-Quinantilla, C., Gonzalez-Andujar, J. L., and Appleby, A. P. 1990. Characterization of the germination and emergence response of temperature and soil moisture in Avena fatua and A. sterilis . Weed Res. 30: 289–295.Google Scholar
[FIG-P] Figure Processor. 1992. User's Manual. Version 6.0. Durham, NC: FIG-P Software Corporation.Google Scholar
Finch-Savage, W. E. and Phelps, K. 1993. Onion (Allium cepa L.) seedling emergence patterns can be explained by the influence of soil temperature and water potential on seed germination. J. Exp. Bot. 44: 407–414.Google Scholar
Forcella, F. 1992. Prediction of weed seedling densities from buried seed reserves. Weed Res. 32: 29–38.Google Scholar
Forcella, F. 1993. Seedling emergence model for velvetleaf. Agron. J. 85: 929–933.Google Scholar
Forcella, F., Eradat-Oskoui, K., and Wagner, S. W. 1993. Application of weed seedbank ecology to low-input crop management. Ecol. Applic. 3: 79–83.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 seedbank of the U.S. Corn Belt: magnitude, variation, emergence and application. Weed Sci. 40: 636–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frost, R. A. and Cavers, P. B. 1975. The ecology of pigweeds (Amaranthus) in Ontario. I. Interspecific and intra specific variation in seed germination among local collections of A. powellii and A. retroflexus . Can. J. Bot. 53: 1276–1284.Google Scholar
Fyfield, T. P. and Gregory, P. J. 1989. Effects of temperature and water potential on germination, radicle elongation and emergence of mungbean. J. Exp. Bot. 40: 667–674.Google Scholar
Garcia-Huidobro, J., Monteith, J. L., and Squire, G. R. 1982a. Time, temperature and germination of pearl millet (Pennisetum typhoides S. and H.). I. Constant temperature. J. Exp. Bot. 33: 288–296.Google Scholar
Garcia-Huidobro, J., Monteith, J. L., and Squire, G. R. 1982b. Time, temperature and germination of pearl millet (Pennisetum typhoides S. and H.). II. Alternating temperature. J. Exp. Bot. 33: 297–302.Google Scholar
Ghersa, C. M. and Holt, J. S. 1996. Using phenology prediction in weed management: a review. Weed Res. 35: 461–470.Google Scholar
Gummerson, R. J. 1986. The effect of constant temperature and osmotic potentials on the germination of sugar beet. J. Exp. Bot. 37: 729–741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammer, G. L., Carberry, P. S., and Muchow, R. C. 1993. Modelling genotypic and environmental control of leaf area dynamics in grain sorghum. I. Whole plant level. Field Crops Res. 33: 293–310.Google Scholar
Hardegree, S. P. and Emmerich, W. E. 1994. Seed germination response to polyethylene glycol solution depth. Seed Sci. Technol. 22: 1–7.Google Scholar
Horak, M. J. and Wax, L. M. 1991. Germination and seedling development of bigroot morningglory (Ipomea pandurata). Weed Sci. 39: 390–396.Google Scholar
Hsu, F. H., Nelson, C. J., and Chow, W. S. 1984. A mathematical model to utilize the logistic function in germination and seedling growth. J. Exp. Bot. 35: 1629–1640.Google Scholar
Hunter, E. A., Glasbey, C. A., and Naylor, R.E.L. 1984. The analysis of data from germination tests. J. Agric. Sci. 102: 207–213.Google Scholar
Khah, E. M., Ellis, R. H., and Roberts, E. H. 1986. Effects of laboratory germination, soil temperature and moisture content on the emergence of spring wheat. J. Agric. Sci. 107: 431–438.Google Scholar
King, C. A. and Oliver, L. R. 1994. A model for predicting large crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis) emergence as influenced by temperature and water potential. Weed Sci. 42: 561–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knezevic, S. Z., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1994. Interference of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) in corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 42: 568–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLaughlin, N. B., Bowes, G. R., Thomas, A. G., Dyck, F. B., Linsay, T. M., and Wise, R. F. 1985. A new design for a seed germinator with 100 independently temperature controlled cells. Weed Res. 25: 161–173.Google Scholar
Michel, B. E. 1983. Evaluation of the water potentials of solutions of polyethyleneglycol 8000 both in the absence and presence of other solutes. Plant Physiol. 72: 66–70.Google Scholar
Mohler, C. L. 1993. A mode of the effects of tillage on emergence of weed seedlings. Ecol. Applic. 3: 53–73.Google Scholar
Ong, C. K. and Monteith, J. L. 1985. Response of pearl millet to light and temperature. Field Crops Res. 11: 141–160.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1990. SAS User's Manual. Version 6.06. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute.Google Scholar
Schonbeck, M. W. and Egley, G. H. 1980. Redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) seed germination responses to after-ripening, temperature, ethylene and some other environmental factors. Weed Sci. 28: 543–548.Google Scholar
Schonbeck, M. W. and Egley, G. H. 1988. Effects of ethylene and some environmental factors on different stages of germination in redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.) seeds. Plant, Cell Environ. 11: 189–197.Google Scholar
Swanton, C. J. and Murphy, S. D. 1996. Weed science beyond the weeds: the role of integrated weed management (IWM) in agroecosystem health. Weed Sci. 44: 437–445.Google Scholar
Tipton, J. L. 1984. Evaluation of three growth curve models for germination data analysis. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 109: 451–454.Google Scholar
Wade, L. J., Hammer, G. L., and Davey, M. A. 1993. Response of germination to temperature amongst diverse sorghum hybrids. Field Crops Res. 31: 295–308.Google Scholar
Weaver, S. E. 1984. Differential growth and competitive ability of Amaranthus retroflexus, Apowellii and A. hybridus . Can. J. Plant Sci. 64: 715–724.Google Scholar
Weaver, S. E., Tan, C. S., and Brain, P. 1988. Effects of temperature and soil moisture on time of emergence of tomatoes and four weed species. Can. J. Plant Sci. 68: 877–886.Google Scholar
Weaver, S. E. and Thomas, A. G. 1986. Germination responses to temperature of atrazine-resistant and susceptible biotypes of two pigweed (Amaranthus) species. Weed Sci. 34: 865–870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar