Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T08:24:05.394Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed seedbank dynamics in post conservation reserve program land

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Joel Felix  and
Micheal D. K. Owen
Micheal D. K. Owen
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011-1101
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The influence of tillage, crop rotation, and weed management regimes on the weed seedbank in land previously under the conservation reserve program (CRP) for 8 yr was determined from 1994 through 1997. The study was a split-plot design with four replications, two tillage systems, two crop rotations, and three weed management treatments. Eleven weed species were recorded in 1994 and 1995, and 13 in 1996 and 1997. The weed seedbank was dominated by broadleaf species. In 1994, the first year after CRP, the seed population density in the top 15 cm of the soil profile was 51,480 seeds m−2, of which 60 and 20% were pigweed and common lambsquarters. The population density of pigweed seeds in the seedbank increased over time and reached 51,670 seeds m−2 in 1996. In contrast, the seed population density for foxtail species was only 417 seeds m−2 in 1994, but it increased to 7,820 seeds m−2 in 1997. The large increase in foxtail species seed population density in the 4-yr period was mainly in the no-herbicide weed management treatment. The weed seedbank was reduced similarly by band and broadcast herbicide treatments. Tillage and crop rotation did not influence the weed seedbank or Shannon's diversity index, nor did they interact with the weed management treatments in any of the years. The weed seedbank population density varied with the years and time of soil sampling. Weed seed population densities tended to be greater in the fall but declined significantly by time of the spring sampling. The no-herbicide treatment had a more diverse weed seedbank compared with band and broadcast herbicide weed management treatments. An average of one grass and three broadleaf weed species were identified in the three weed management treatments. Band and broadcast herbicide treatments reduced the weed seedbank population density but did not affect the number of broadleaf weed species observed.

Keywords

Common lambsquartersChenopodium album L. CHEALfoxtail speciesSetaria spp.pigweed speciesAmaranthus spp.Seedbank diversityShannon's diversity indexMargalef's D MGconservation reserve program
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 49 , Issue 6 , December 2001 , pp. 780 - 787
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

Ahrens, W. H., Cox, D. J., and Budhwar, G. 1990. Use of the arcsine and square root transformations for subjectively determined percentage data. Weed Sci. 38:452–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ball, D. A. 1992. Weed seedbank response to tillage, herbicides, and crop rotation sequence. Weed Sci. 40:654–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buhler, D. D., Hartzler, R. G., Forcella, F., and Gunsolus, J. L. 1997. Relative Emergence Sequence for Weeds of Corn and Soybeans. Univ. Ext. Bull. SA-11. Ames, IA: Iowa State University.Google Scholar
Burnside, O. C., Wilson, R. G., Wicks, G. A., Roeth, F. W., and Moomaw, R. S. 1986. Weed seed decline and buildup in soils under various corn management systems across Nebraska. Agron. J. 78:451–454.Google Scholar
Cardina, J. and Sparrow, D. H. 1996. A comparison of methods to predict weed seedling populations from the soil seedbank. Weed Sci. 44:46–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardina, J., Sparrow, D. H., and McCoy, E. L. 1996. Spatial relationships between seedbank and seedling populations of common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) and annual grasses. Weed Sci. 44:298–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardina, J. H., Regnier, E., and Sparrow, D. 1995. Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) competition and economic thresholds in conventional and no-tillage corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 43:81–87.Google Scholar
Cavers, P. B. and Benoit, D. L. 1989. Seedbanks in arable land. Pages 309–328 In Allessio, M., Parker, V. T. and Simpson, R. L., eds. Ecology of Soil Seed Banks. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Crookston, R. K., Kurle, J. E., and Lueschen, W. E. 1988. Crop ecology, production and management. Crop Sci. 28:145–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derksen, D. A., Thomas, A. G., Lafond, G. P., Loeppky, H. A., and Swanton, C. J. 1995. Impact of post-emergence herbicides on weed community diversity within conservation-tillage systems. Weed Res. 35:311–320.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felix, J. and Owen, M.D.K. 1999. Weed population dynamics in land removed from the conservative reserve program. Weed Sci. 47:511–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finney, D. J. 1989. Was this in your statistics textbook? V. Transformation of data. Exp. Agric. 25:165–175.Google Scholar
Fryer, J. D. and Chancellor, R. J. 1970. Evidence of changing weed populations in arable land. Proc. Br. Weed Control Conf. 3:958–964.Google Scholar
Gebhardt, M. R., Daniel, T. C., Schweizer, E. E., and Allmaras, R. R. 1985. Conservation tillage. Science 230:625–630.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harrison, S. K. 1990. Interference and seed production by common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 38:113–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holt, S. J. 1988. Ecological and physiological characteristics of weeds. Chap. 2 In Altieri, M. A. and Liebman, M., eds. Weed Management in Agroecosystems: Ecological Approaches. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Kremer, R. J. and Spencer, N. R. 1989. Interaction of insects, fungi, and burial on velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) seed viability. Weed Technol. 3:322–328.Google Scholar
Lewis, J. 1973. Longevity of crop and weed seeds: survival after 20 years in soil. Weed Res. 13:179–191.Google Scholar
Mackay, A. D. and Barber, S. A. 1984. Soil temperature effect on root growth and phosphorus uptake of corn. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 48:818–823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magurran, A. E. 1988. Ecological Diversity and its Measurement. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. pp. 7–45.Google Scholar
Mester, T. C. and Buhler, D. D. 1990. Effect of planting depth on velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) seedling development and response to cyanazine. Weed Sci. 38:34–38.Google Scholar
Mulugeta, D. and Stoltenberg, D. E. 1997. Weed and seedbank management with integrated methods as influenced by tillage. Weed Sci. 45:706–715.Google Scholar
Pareja, M. R., Staniforth, D. W., and Pareja, G. P. 1985. Distribution of weed seed among soil structural units. Weed Sci. 33:182–189.Google Scholar
Roberts, H. A. 1970. Viable Weed Seeds in Cultivated Soils. Rep. Natl. Veg. Stn., 1969. pp. 25–38.Google Scholar
Roberts, H. A. and Feast, P. M. 1972. Fate of seed of some annual weeds in different depths of cultivated and undisturbed soils. Weed Res. 12:316–324.Google Scholar
Sagar, G. R. and Mortimer, A. M. 1976. An approach to the study of the population dynamics of plants with special reference to weeds. Appl. Biol. 1:1–47.Google Scholar
Schafer, D. E. and Chilcote, D. O. 1970. Factors influencing persistence and depletion in buried seed populations. II. Effects of soil temperature and moisture. Crop Sci. 10:342–345.Google Scholar
Sen, D. N. 1987. Key factors affecting weed crop balance in agroecosystems. Chap. 10 In Altieri, M. A. and Liebman, M., eds. Weed Management in Agroecosystems: Ecological Approaches. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Shaw, R. D. and Hainero, H. P. 1990. Weed control in soybean under different cropping and tillage systems. J. Prod. Agric. 3:453–463.Google Scholar
Standifer, L. C. 1980. A technique for estimating weed seed populations in cultivated soil. Weed Sci. 28:134–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1988. SAS Procedures Guide. Version 6, 3rd ed. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 441 p.Google Scholar
Stevenson, F. C., Legere, A., Simard, R. R., and Pageau, D. 1997. Weed species diversity in spring barley varies with crop rotation and tillage, but not with nutrient source. Weed Sci. 45:798–806.Google Scholar
Swanton, C. J., Griffiths, J. T., Cromar, H. E., and Booth, B. D. 1999. Pre- and post-dispersal weed seed predation and its implications to agriculture. 1999 Br. Crop Prot. Conf.—Weeds. 3:829–834.Google Scholar
[USDA] United States Department of Agriculture. 1986. Backgrounder: Conservation Reserve Program. Washington: USDA News Division. 8 p.Google Scholar
Wicks, G. A. and Somerhalder, B. R. 1971. Effect of seedbed preparation on distribution of weed seeds. Weed Sci. 19:666–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, R. G. 1988. Biology of weed seeds in the soil. Chap. 3 In Altieri, M. A. and Liebman, M., eds. Weed Management in Agroecosystems: Ecological approaches. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Zar, J. H. 1996. Biostatistical Analysis. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. pp. 32–47.Google Scholar