Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-19T06:08:01.088Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Seed and microsite limitations to emergence of four annual weed species

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Nathan Boyd  and
Rene Van Acker
Rene Van Acker
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Science, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, R3T 2N2, Canada
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The emergence of annual species depends on the number of seeds present and the biotic and abiotic conditions directly surrounding those seeds (the microsite). A field experiment was conducted to study the relative importance of seed presence vs. microsite conditions in determining the emergence of four annual species. Green foxtail, wild mustard, wild oat, and canola were seeded at 200, 400, and 1,200 seeds m−2 in separate plots in a coarse, loamy, mixed Typic Haplocryoll and a fine, mixed Typic Haplocryoll soil. Five microsite modification treatments (control, irrigation, soil compaction, soil compaction plus irrigation, and no crop) were applied to all weed seed density treatments for each weed species. All plots were seeded to spring wheat. Irrigation or soil compaction increased percent emergence of wild oat. Green foxtail emergence tended to increase with soil compaction in 2001 but not in 2002. Wild mustard and canola emergence were largely unaffected by microsite modification treatments. Weed emergence increased with increasing seed density for all species, but the proportion of the total number of seeds emerging decreased with increasing seed density for all species. We suggest that the emergence of the four weed species in this experiment was both seed and microsite limited. Increasing the number of seeds in the soil increased the probability of seeds landing within an appropriate microsite. For these four species, therefore, weed spread and weed patch formation may be determined both by seed production and dispersal and by variability in soil microsite conditions. Results suggest that weed management practices should limit seed dispersal of all species and discourage weed emergence of hard-to-control species during critical establishment periods.

Keywords

Green foxtail, Seatria viridis (L.) Beauv. SETVIwild oat, Avena fatua L. AVEFAwild mustard, Brassica kaber (D.C.) L.C. Wheeler SINARcanola, Brassica napus L. ‘Liberty’spring wheat, Triticum aestivum L. ‘AC Barrie’Population dynamicsrecruitmentseed bankweed emergence
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 52 , Issue 4 , August 2004 , pp. 571 - 577
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

Aguilera, M. O. and Lauenroth, W. K. 1995. Influence of gap disturbances and type of microsites on seedling establishment in Bouteloua gracilis . J. Ecol 83:87–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ball, B. C. and O'Sullivan, M. F. 1982. Soil strength and crop emergence in direct drilled and plough cereal seed beds in seven field experiments. J. Soil Sci 33:609–622.Google Scholar
Boyd, N. S. 2003. The Relative Importance of Seed and Microsite Limitation in Annual and Perennial Weed Populations. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. 205 p.Google Scholar
Boyd, N. S. and Van Acker, R. C. 2003. The effects of depth and fluctuating soil moisture on the emergence of eight annual and six perennial plant species. Weed Sci 51:725–730.Google Scholar
Bratton, S. P. 1976. Resource division in an understory herb community: responses to temporal and microtopographical gradients. Am. Nat 110:679–693.Google Scholar
Bullied, W. J., Marginet, A. M., and Van Acker, R. C. 2003. Conventional- and conservation-tillage systems influence emergence periodicity of annual weed species in canola. Weed Sci 51:886–897.Google Scholar
Burke, M. J. and Grime, J. P. 1996. An experimental study of plant community invasibility. Ecology 77:776–790.Google Scholar
Colbach, N., Forcella, F., and Johnson, G. A. 2000. Spatial and temporal stability of weed populations over 5 years. Weed Sci 48:366–377.Google Scholar
Cousens, R. and Moss, S. R. 1990. A model of the effects of cultivation on the vertical distribution of weed seeds within the soil. Weed Res 30:61–70.Google Scholar
Crawley, M. J. 1990. The population dynamics of plants. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London 330:125–140.Google Scholar
Dessaint, F., Chadoeuf, R., and Barralis, G. 1991. Spatial pattern analysis of weed seeds in the cultivated soil seed bank. J. Appl. Ecol 28:721–730.Google Scholar
Dieleman, J. A., Mortensen, D. A., Buhler, D. D., and Ferguson, R. B. 2000a. Identifying associations among site properties and weed species abundance. I. Multivariate analysis. Weed Sci 48:567–575.Google Scholar
Dieleman, J. A., Mortensen, D. A., Buhler, D. D., and Ferguson, R. B. 2000b. Identifying associations among site properties and weed species abundance. II. Hypothesis generation. Weed Sci 48:576–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, B. J., Thomas, A. G., Morrison, I. N., and Maw, M. G. 1985. The biology of Canadian Weeds. 70. Setaria viridis (L). Beauv. Can. J. Plant Sci 65:669–690.Google Scholar
du Croix Sission, M. J., Van Acker, R. C., Derksen, D. A., and Thomas, A. G. 2000. Depth of seedling recruitment of five weed species measured in situ in conventional and zero-tillage fields. Weed Sci 48:327–332.Google Scholar
Eriksson, O. and Ehrlen, J. 1992. Seed and microsite limitation of recruitment in plant populations. Oecologia 91:360–364.Google Scholar
Holm, R. E. 1972. Volatile metabolites controlling germination in buried weed seeds. Plant Physiol 50:293–297.Google Scholar
Jurik, T. W. and Zhang, S. 1999. Tractor wheel traffic effects on weed emergence in central Iowa. Weed Technol 13:741–746.Google Scholar
Kephart, S. R. and Paladino, C. 1997. Demographic change and microhabitat variability in a grassland endemic, Silene douglasii var. oraria (Caryophyllaceae). Am. J. Bot 84:1779–1189.Google Scholar
Klute, A. ed. 1998. Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 1. Physical and Mineralogical Methods. 2nd ed. Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy, Soil Science Society of America. Pp. 635–653.Google Scholar
Liebig, M. A., Jones, A. J., Mielke, L. N., and Doran, J. W. 1993. Controlled wheel traffic effects on soil properties in ridge tillage. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J 57:1061–1066.Google Scholar
Mills, G. F. and Haluschak, P. 1993. Canada-Manitoba Soil Survey. Soils of the Carman Research Station N1/223-6-5W. Special Rep. Ser. 93-1.Google Scholar
Mohler, C. L. 1996. Ecological bases for the cultural control of annual weeds. J. Prod. Agric 9:468–474.Google Scholar
Mulligan, G. A. and Bailey, L. G. 1975. The biology of Canadian weeds. 8. Brassica kaber L. Can J. Plant Sci 55:171–183.Google Scholar
Nadeau, L. B. and King, J. R. 1991. Seed dispersal and seedling establishment of Linaria vulgaris . Mill. Can. J. Plant Sci 71:771–782.Google Scholar
Peart, D. R. 1989. Species interactions in a successional grassland. I. Seed rain and seedling recruitment. J. Ecol 77:236–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1990. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Version 6, 4th ed., Volume 2. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute.Google Scholar
Sharma, M. P. and Vanden Born, W. H. 1978. The biology of Canadian weeds. Avena fatua L. Can. J. Plant Sci 58:141–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skopp, J. M. 2002. Chapter 1. in Warrick, A. W. Soil Physics Companion. New York: CRC.Google Scholar
Tilman, D. 1997. Community invasibility, recruitment limitation, and grassland biodiversity. Ecology 78:81–92.Google Scholar
Vorhees, W. B., Senst, C. G., and Nelson, W. W. 1978. Compaction and soil structure modification by wheel traffic in the northern corn belt. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J 42:344–349.Google Scholar
Zhang, J. and Hamill, A. S. 1998. Temporal and spatial distributions of velvetleaf seedlings after 1 year's seeding. Weed Sci 46:414–418.Google Scholar