Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T19:22:16.581Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of Tillage Systems on the Emergence Depth of Giant (Setaria faberi) and Green Foxtail (Setaria viridis)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Douglas D. Buhler  and
Thomas C. Mester
Douglas D. Buhler
Affiliation:
Plant Sci. Res. Unit, U.S. Dep. Agric., Agric. Res. Serv., Dep. Agron. Plant Genetics, Univ. Minn., St. Paul, MN 55108
Thomas C. Mester
Affiliation:
Landis Int., Inc., Valdosta, GA 31601-6814
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The effect of tillage systems on depth of emergence and densities of giant and green foxtail under different environmental and cropping conditions were evaluated from 1985 to 1987 at Arlington, Hancock, and Janesville, WI. Mean emergence depths in no-till were the shallowest, followed by chisel plow and conventional tillage at each location. At least 40% of the giant and green foxtail plants emerged from the upper 1 cm of soil in no-till compared to about 25% in chisel plow and less than 15% in conventional tillage. As many as 25% of the plants emerged from greater than 4 cm in conventional tillage compared to about 10% in chisel plow and less than 5% in no-till. Seedlings emerged from greater depths in a loamy sand than in a silt loam soil regardless of tillage system. At Arlington, green foxtail was the dominant species in conventional tillage, while giant foxtail dominated in chisel plow and no-till. Foxtail densities were greater in chisel plow and no-till than in conventional tillage at all three locations.

Keywords

Giant foxtail, Setaria faberi Herrm. # SETFAgreen foxtail, Setaria viridis (L.) Beauv. # SETVIConservation tillageno-tillweed densitiesweed ecologySETFASETVI
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 39 , Issue 2 , June 1991 , pp. 200 - 203
Copyright
Copyright © 1991 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

1. Buhler, D. D. and Daniel, T. C. 1988. Influence of tillage systems on giant foxtail (Setaria faberi) and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) density and control. Weed Sci. 36:642–647.Google Scholar
2. Buhler, D. D. and Oplinger, E. S. 1990. Influence of tillage systems on annual weed densities and control in solid-seeded soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 38:158–164.Google Scholar
3. Cassel, D. K. 1982. Tillage effects on soil bulk density and mechanical impedance. Pages 45—67 in Unger, P. W. and VanDoren, D. M. Jr., eds. Predicting Tillage Effects on Soil Physical Properties and Processes. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI.Google Scholar
4. Dao, T. H. 1987. Crop residues and management of annual grass weeds in continuous no-till wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Sci. 35:395–400.Google Scholar
5. de la Cruz, R. 1974. Weed seedling emergence depths under field conditions. Ph.D. Dissertation. Iowa State Univ., Ames, IA 115.Google Scholar
6. Fay, P. K. and Olson, W. A. 1978. Technique for separating weed seed from soil. Weed Sci. 26:530–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Hamrick, J. L. and Lee, J. M. 1987. Effect of soil surface topography and litter cover on the germination, survival, and growth of musk thistle (Carduus nutans). Am. J. Bot. 74:451–457.Google Scholar
8. Harper, J. L., Williams, J. T., and Sager, G. R. 1965. The behavior of seeds in soil. I. The heterogeneity of soil surfaces and its role in determining the establishment of plants from seed. J. Ecol. 53:273–286.Google Scholar
9. Hageman, N. R. and Shrader, W. D. 1979. Effects of crop sequence and N fertilizer levels on soil bulk density. Agron. J. 71:1005–1008.Google Scholar
10. Hartwig, R. O. and Laflen, J. M. 1978. A meterstick method for measuring crop residue cover. J. Soil Water Conserv. 33:90–91.Google Scholar
11. 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
12. Kohnke, H. 1966. Soil Science Simplified. Pages 15—19. Waveland Press, Inc., Prospect Heights, IL.Google Scholar
13. 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
14. Oyarzabal, E. S. and Owen, M.D.K. 1987. Shattercane (Sorghum bicolor) seed biology as affected by different tillage systems. Proc. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. 42:12–13.Google Scholar
15. 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
16. Prendeville, G. N., Eshel, Y., Schreiber, M. M., and Warren, G. F. 1967. Site of uptake of soil-applied herbicides. Weed Res. 7:316–322.Google Scholar
17. Roberts, H. A. 1963. Studies on the weeds of vegetable crops. III. Effect of different primary cultivations on the weed seeds in the soil. J. of Ecol. 51:83–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Zimdahl, R. L. 1980. Weed-Crop Competition: A Review. Pages 29—82. Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, OR.Google Scholar