Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T19:14:51.092Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Seed Size and Burial Effects on Giant Ragweed (Ambrosia trifida) Emergence and Seed Demise

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

S. K. Harrison ,
E. E. Regnier ,
J. T. Schmoll  and
J. M. Harrison
S. K. Harrison*
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture and Crop Science, 2021 Coffey Road, Columbus, OH 43210
E. E. Regnier
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture and Crop Science, 2021 Coffey Road, Columbus, OH 43210
J. T. Schmoll
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture and Crop Science, 2021 Coffey Road, Columbus, OH 43210
J. M. Harrison
Affiliation:
Seed Breeding and Biotechnology Statistical Services, Monsanto Co., 700 Chesterfield Parkway West, Chesterfield, MO 63017
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Giant ragweed is a competitive, allergenic weed that persists in agricultural fields and early successional sites. Field experiments were conducted to determine the effects of seed size and seed burial depth on giant ragweed emergence and seed demise. In a seedling emergence experiment, small (< 4.8 mm in diameter) and large (> 6.6 mm in diameter) seeds were buried 0, 5, 10, and 20 cm in fall 1997, and weed emergence was monitored over the next seven growing seasons. A generalized linear mixed model fit to the cumulative emergence data showed that maximum emergence for both seed sizes occurred at the 5-cm burial depth, where probability of emergence was 19% for small seeds and 49% for large seeds. Emergence probability at the 10-cm burial depth was 9% for small seeds and 30% for large seeds, and no seedlings emerged from the 20-cm burial depth. The model predicted that ≥ 98% of total cumulative emergence was completed after four growing seasons for large seeds buried 5 cm, five growing seasons for small seeds buried 5 cm and large seeds buried 10 cm, and seven growing seasons for small seeds buried 10 cm. Seed size and burial treatment effects on seed demise were tested in a second experiment using seed packets. Rates of seed demise were inversely proportional to burial depth, and the percentage of viable seeds remaining after 4 yr ranged from 0% on the soil surface to 19% at the 20-cm burial depth. Some seeds recovered from the 20-cm burial depth were viable after 9 yr of burial. These results, coupled with previous research, suggest that seed size polymorphism facilitates giant ragweed adaptation across habitats and that a combination of no-tillage cropping practices, habitat modification, and timely weed control measures can reduce its active seed bank in agricultural fields by 90% or more after 4 yr.

Keywords

Giant ragweed, Ambrosia trifida L. AMBTRDormancygeneralized linear mixed modelintegrated weed managementseed bankseed bank persistenceseed demiseseedling emergence
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 55 , Issue 1 , February 2007 , pp. 16 - 22
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

Abul-Fatih, H. A. and Bazzaz, F. A. 1979. The biology of Ambrosia trifida L., II: germination, emergence, growth and survival. New Phytol. 83:817–827.Google Scholar
[AOSA] Association of Official Seed Analysts 2000. Asteraceae. Pages 17 and Sections A–B. in Peters, J. ed. Tetrazolium Testing Handbook Contribution 29. Lincoln, NE: AOSA.Google Scholar
Bassett, I. J. and Crompton, C. W. 1982. The biology of Canadian weeds, 55: Ambrosia trifida L. Can. J. Plant Sci. 62:1002–1010.Google Scholar
Baysinger, J. A. and Sims, B. D. 1991. Giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida L.) interference in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 39:358–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bekker, R. M., Bakker, J. P., Grandin, U., Kalamees, R., Milberg, P., Poschlod, P., Thompson, K., and Willems, J. H. 1998. Seed size, shape, and vertical distribution in soil: indicators of seed longevity. Funct. Ecol. 12:834–842.Google Scholar
Benvenuti, S., Macchia, M., and Miele, S. 2001. Quantitative analysis of emergence of seedlings from buried weed seeds with increasing soil depth. Weed Sci. 49:528–535.Google Scholar
Brown, M. L. and Brown, R. G. 1984. Herbaceous Plants of Maryland. College Park, MD University of Maryland. 987–989.Google Scholar
Davis, A. S., Cardina, J., Forcella, F., Johnson, G. A., Kegode, G., Lindquist, J. L., Luschei, E. C., Renner, K. A., Sprague, C. L., and Williams, M. M. II. 2005. Environmental factors affecting seed persistence of annual weeds across the U.S. Corn Belt. Weed Sci. 53:860–868.Google Scholar
Forcella, F., Wilson, R. G., and Dekker, J. et al. 1997. Weed seed bank emergence across the Corn Belt. Weed Sci. 45:67–76.Google Scholar
Gueorguieva, R. 2001. A multivariate generalized linear mixed model for joint modeling of clustered outcomes in the exponential family. Stat. Model. 1:177–193.Google Scholar
Harper, J. L. 1977. Population Biology of Plants. San Diego, CA Academic Press. 120.Google Scholar
Harrison, S. K., Regnier, E. E., and Schmoll, J. T. 2003. Postdispersal predation of giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida L.) seed in no-tillage corn. Weed Sci. 51:955–964.Google Scholar
Harrison, S. K., Regnier, E. E., Schmoll, J. T., and Webb, J. 2001. Competition and fecundity of Ambrosia trifida in Zea mays. Weed Sci. 49:224–229.Google Scholar
Hodkinson, D. J., Askew, A. P., Thompson, K., Hodgson, J. G., Bakker, J. P., and Bekker, R. M. 1998. Ecological correlates of seed size in the British flora. Funct. Ecol. 12:762–766.Google Scholar
Leck, M. A. 1989. Wetland SEED BANKS. Pages 283–305. in Leck, M.A., Parker, V.T., and Simpson, R.L. eds. Ecology of Soil Seed Banks. New York: Academic Press. 462.Google Scholar
Littell, R. C., Milliken, G. A., Stroup, W. W., Wolfinger, R. D., and Schabenberger, O. 2006. SAS for Mixed Models, 2nd ed. Cary, NC SAS Institute. 525–566. 192–194.Google Scholar
Luschei, E. C. and Jackson, R. D. 2005. Research methodologies and statistical approaches for multitactic systems. Weed Sci. 53:393–403.Google Scholar
Mohler, C. L. 1993. A model of the effects of tillage on emergence of weed seedlings. Ecol. Appl. 3:53–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohler, C. L. and Galford, A. E. 1997. Weed seedling emergence and seed survival: separating the effects of seed position and soil modification by tillage. Weed Res. 37:147–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nordby, D., Williams, M., and Chee-Sanford, J. 2005. Seed bank persistence of a declining giant ragweed population: initial results of a long-term study. Abstr. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. 45:178.Google Scholar
Rybncek, O. and Jager, S. 2001. Ambrosia (ragweed) in Europe. Allergy Clin. Immunol. Int. 13:60–66.Google Scholar
Sako, Y., Fujimura, K., Daoust, T., Regnier, E. E., Harrison, S. K., and McDonald, M. 2001. A computer imaging technique to classify polymorphic seeds of giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida). Weed Sci. 49:738–745.Google Scholar
SAS 2005. The GLIMMIX Procedure. http://support.sas.com/rnd/app/da/glimmix.html.Google Scholar
Schutte, B. J., Regnier, E. E., and Harrison, S. K. 2004. Primary seed dormancy in Ambrosia trifida L. (giant ragweed). Proc. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 59:119.Google Scholar
Schutte, B., Regnier, E., and Harrison, K. 2006. Maternal plant as sources of emergence variation within giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida L.) populations. Abstr. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. 46:34.Google Scholar
Sprague, C. L., Wax, L. M., Hartzler, R. G., and Harrison, S. K. 2004. Variations in emergence patterns of giant ragweed biotypes from Ohio, Illinois, and Iowa. Abstr. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. 44:60.Google Scholar
Stoller, E. W. and Wax, L. M. 1973. Dormancy changes and fate of some annual weed seeds in the soil. Weed Sci. 22:151–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stoller, E. W. and Wax, L. M. 1974. Periodicity of germination and emergence of some annual weeds. Weed Sci. 21:574–580.Google Scholar
Rybncek, O. and Jager, S. 2001. Ambrosia (ragweed) in Europe. Allergy Clin. Immunol. Int. 13:60–66.Google Scholar
Van Mourik, T. A., Stomph, T. J., and Murdoch, A. J. 2005. Why high seed densities in buried mesh bags may overestimate depletion rates of soil seed banks. J. Appl. Ecol. 42:299–305.Google Scholar
Washitani, I. and Nishiyama, S. 1992. Effects of seed size and seedling emergence time on the fitness components of Ambrosia trifida and A. artemisiifolia var. elatior in competition with grass perennials. Plant Species Biol. 7:11–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, R. W. 2001. Giant ragweed. Ann. Allergy Asthma Immunol. 87:A4.Google Scholar
Webster, T. M., Loux, M. M., Regnier, E. E., and Harrison, S. K. 1994. Giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida) canopy architecture and interference studies in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 8:559–564.Google Scholar
Willenborg, C. J., Wildeman, J. C., Miller, A. K., Rossnagel, B. G., and Shirtliffe, S. J. 2005. Oat germination characteristics differ among genotypes, seed sizes, and osmotic potentials. Crop Sci. 45:2023–2029.Google Scholar
Zhang, J., Hamill, A. S., Gardiner, I. O., and Weaver, S. E. 1998. Dependence of weed flora on the active soil seed bank. Weed Res. 38:143–152.Google Scholar