Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T01:21:49.823Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of tillage, fungicide seed treatment, and soil fumigation on seed bank dynamics of wild oat (Avena fatua)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Eric R. Gallandt ,
E. Patrick Fuerst  and
Ann C. Kennedy
E. Patrick Fuerst
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164-6420
Ann C. Kennedy
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164-6420
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

No-tillage offers potential for improved soil quality, reduced erosion, and equal or increased crop yields. We hypothesized that, compared with conservation tillage (CT), no-tillage (NT) offers conditions more conducive to microbial decay of weed seed. In NT systems seed remain at or near the soil surface where crop residues, moisture, and lack of disturbance create an environment with greater soil microbial diversity. In late fall of 1998 and 1999, dormant seed of wild oat, either individually glued to plastic toothpicks or mixed with soil and placed in mesh bags, were buried (mean seed depth of 2.5 cm) in replicated field plots managed by NT or CT since 1982. Treatments including fungicide seed treatment (thiram + metalaxyl + captan) and soil fumigation (propylene oxide) provided estimates of the contribution of microorganisms to observed mortality. Seed were retrieved in May and August, 1999 and 2000. Contrary to our original hypothesis, the proportion of dead seed was generally similar in NT and CT systems. Lack of tillage system by seed or soil treatments affecting the proportion of dead or decayed seed suggests that the contribution of microorganisms to seed fate is similar in these tillage environments. However, the proportion of dormant seed was consistently lower in the NT compared with CT treatments; there was a corresponding increase in the proportion of germinated seed. Overall, more than half of the wild oat seed bank losses could be directly attributed to germination whereas losses due to decay were relatively minor by comparison. Despite favorable distribution of seed and improved quality of the surface-strata of soil in NT systems, this study fails to provide evidence that enhanced microbial decay will contribute to a “weed-suppressive” capacity in such cropping systems.

Keywords

Captan, N-trichloromethylthio-4-cyclohexene-1,2-dicarboximide, metalaxyl, N-(2,6-dimethylphenyl)-N-(methoxyacetyl)alanine methyl esterpropylene oxidethiram, tetramethylthiuram disulfidewild oat, Avena fatua L. AVEFAwheat, Triticum aestivum L. ‘Madsen’Conservation tillageno-tillageweed population dynamicsweed seed bankseed dormancyseed mortality
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 52 , Issue 4 , August 2004 , pp. 597 - 604
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

Allen, P. S., Meyer, S. E., and Khan, M. A. 2000. Hydrothermal time as a tool in comparative germination studies. Pages 401–410 in Black, M., Bradford, K. J., and Vazquez-Ramos, J. eds. Seed Biology: Advances and Applications. Oxfordshire, UK: CABI.Google Scholar
Boyle, M., Frankenberger, J. W. T., and Stolzy, L. H. 1989. The influence of organic matter on soil aggregation and water infiltration. J. Prod. Agric 2:290–299.Google Scholar
Burnside, O. C., Wicks, G. A., and Fenster, C. R. 1977. Longevity of shattercane seed in soil across Nebraska. Weed Res 17:139–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cavers, P. B. and Benoit, D. L. 1989. Seed banks in arable land. Pages 309–328 in Leck, M. A., Parker, V. T., and Simpson, R. L. eds. Ecology of Soil Seed Banks. San Diego, CA: Academic.Google Scholar
Cook, R. E. 1980. The biology of seeds in soil. Pages 107–129 in Solbrig, O. T. ed. Demography and Evolution in Plant Populations. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Cook, R. J. 1982. Use of pathogen-suppressive soils for disease control. Pages 51–65 in Schneider, R. W. ed. Soils and Plant Disease. St. Paul, MN: The American Pathological Society.Google Scholar
Donald, W. W. 1993. Models and sampling for studying weed seed survival with wild mustard (Sinapis arvensis) as a case study. Can. J. Plant Sci 73:637–645.Google Scholar
Egley, G. H. and Duke, S. O. 1985. Physiology of weed seed dormancy and germination. Pages 27–64 in Duke, S. O. ed. Weed Physiology, Volume 1, Reproduction and Ecophysiology. Boca Raton, FL: CRC.Google Scholar
Fellows, G. M. and Roeth, F. W. 1992. Factors influencing shattercane (Sorghum bicolor) seed survival. Weed Sci 40:434–440.Google Scholar
Fenner, M. 1985. Seed Ecology. New York: Chapman and Hall. Pp. 72–86.Google Scholar
Foley, M. E. 1994. Temperature and water status affecting afterripening in wild oat (Avena fatua). Weed Sci 42:200–204.Google Scholar
Forcella, F., Buhler, D. D., and McGiffin, M. E. 1994. Pest management and crop residues. Pages 173–189 in Hatfield, J. L. and Stewart, B. A. eds. Crops Residue Management. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis.Google Scholar
Gallagher, R. S. and Fuerst, E. P. 2004. The ecophysiology of seed longevity. in Basra, A. S., ed. Handbook of Seed Science. Binghamton, NY: Haworth Food Products Press. In press.Google Scholar
Gallandt, E. R., Liebman, M., and Huggins, D. R. 1999. Improving soil quality: implications for weed management. J. Crop Prod 2:95–121.Google Scholar
Harman, G. E. and Stasz, T. E. 1986. Influence of seed quality on soil microbes and seed rots. Pages 11–37 in West, S. H. ed. Physiological-Pathological Interactions Affecting Seed Deterioration. Madison, WI: Crop Science Society of America.Google Scholar
Holm, L. G., Plucknett, D. L., Pancho, J. V., and Herberger, J. P. 1977. The World's Worst Weeds, Distribution and Biology. Honolulu, HI: The University Press of Hawaii. P. 105.Google Scholar
JMP. 2002. JMP® Statistics and Graphics Guide. Version 5. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.Google Scholar
Johnson, M. D. and Lowery, B. 1985. Effect of three conservation tillage practices on soil temperature and thermal properties. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J 49:1547–1552.Google Scholar
Kennedy, A. C. 1999. Soil microorganisms for weed management. J. Prod. Agric 2:123–138.Google Scholar
Kennedy, A. C., Elliott, L. F., Young, F. L., and Douglas, C. L. 1991. Rhizobacteria suppressive to the weed downy brome. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J 55:722–727.Google Scholar
Kiewnick, L. 1964. Experiments on the influence of seedborne and soilborne microflora on the viability of wild oat seeds (Avena fatua L.) II. Experiments on the influence of microflora on the viability of seeds in the soil. Weed Res 4:31–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kladivko, E. J. 2001. Tillage systems and soil ecology. Soil Tillage Res 61:61–76.Google Scholar
Kremer, R. J. 1993. Management of weed seed banks with microorganisms. Ecol. Appl 3:42–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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
Leishman, M. R., Masters, G. J., Clarke, I. P., and Brown, V. K. 2000. Seed bank dynamics: the role of fungal pathogens and climate change. Funct. Ecol 14:293–299.Google Scholar
Lonsdale, W. M. 1993. Losses from the seed bank of Mimosa pigra: soil micro-organisms vs. temperature fluctuations. J. Appl. Ecol 30:654–660.Google Scholar
Lupwayi, N. W., Rice, W. A., and Clayton, G. W. 1998. Soil microbial diversity and community structure under wheat as influenced by tillage and crop rotation. Soil Biol. Biochem 30:1733–1741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mortensen, K. and Hsiao, A. I. 1987. Fungal infestation of seeds from seven populations of wild oats (Avena fatua L.) with different dormancy and viability characteristics. Weed Res 27:297–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naylor, J. M. and Fedec, P. 1978. Dormancy studies in seed of Avena fatua. 8. Genetic diversity affecting response to temperature. Can. J. Bot 56:2224–2229.Google Scholar
Ogg, A. G. and Dawson, J. H. 1984. Time of emergence of eight weed species. Weed Sci 32:327–335.Google Scholar
Papendick, R. I. and Parr, J. F. 1997. No-till farming: the way of the future for a sustainable dryland agriculture. Ann. Arid Zone 36:193–208.Google Scholar
Petersen, S. O., Frohne, P. S., and Kennedy, A. C. 2002. Dynamics of a soil microbial community under spring wheat. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J 66:826–833.Google Scholar
Pitty, A., Staniforth, D. W., and Tiffany, L. H. 1987. Fungi associated with caryopses of Setaria species from field-harvested seeds and from soil under two tillage systems. Weed Sci 35:319–323.Google Scholar
Ramakrishna, N., Lacey, J., and Smith, J. E. 1991. Effect of surface sterilization, fumigation and gamma irradiation on the microflora and germination of barley seeds. Int. J. Food Microbiol 13:47–54.Google Scholar
Reece, C. F. 1996. Evaluation of a line heat dissipation sensor for measuring soil matric potential. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J 60:1022–1028.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1988. SAS/STAT®, User's Guide, Release 6.03. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute.Google Scholar
Sawhney, R. and Naylor, J. M. 1982. Dormancy studies in seed of Avena fatua 13. Influence of drought stress during seed development on the duration of seed dormancy. Can. J. Bot 60:1016–1020.Google Scholar
Simpson, G. M. 1990. Seed Dormancy in Grasses. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 60–194.Google Scholar
Skipper, H. D. and Westermann, D. T. 1973. Comparative effects of propylene oxide, sodium azide, and autoclaving on selected soil properties. Soil Biol. Biochem 5:409–414.Google Scholar
Smith, J. L. and Doran, J. W. 1996. Measurement and use of pH and electrical conductivity for soil quality analysis. Pages 169–185 in Doran, J. W. and Jones, A. J. eds. Methods for Assessing Soil Quality. Madison, WI: Soil Science Society of America.Google Scholar
Smith, T. E. 1947. Gaseous sterilization of biological materials for use as culture media. Phytopathology 37:369–371.Google Scholar
Tabatabai, M. A. 1994. Soil enzymes. in Weaver, R. W., Angle, S., Bottomley, P., Bezdicek, D., Smith, S., Tabatabai, A., and Wollum, A., eds. Methods of Soil Analysis. Part II: Microbiological and Biochemical Properties. Madison, WI: Soil Science Society of America.Google Scholar
Uri, N. D. 1999. Conservation Tillage in U.S. Agriculture—Environmental, Economic, and Policy Issues. New York: Food Products Press, Haworth.Google Scholar
Wollum, A. G. II. 1982. Cultural methods for soil microorganisms. Pages 781–802 in Page, A. L., Miller, R. H., and Keeney, D. R. eds. Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 2. Chemical and Microbiological Properties. Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy.Google Scholar
Yenish, J. P., Doll, J. D., and Buhler, D. D. 1992. Effects of tillage on vertical distribution and viability of weed seed in soil. Weed Sci 40:429–433.Google Scholar
Zorner, P. S., Zimdahl, R. L., and Schweizer, E. E. 1984. Sources of viable seed loss in buried dormant and non-dormant populations of wild oat (Avena fatua L.) seed in Colorado. Weed Res 24:143–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar