Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T08:54:34.820Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tillage Effects on Weed Seed Return and Seedbank Composition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

David R. Clements ,
Diane L. Benoit ,
Stephen D. Murphy  and
Clarence J. Swanton
David R. Clements
Affiliation:
Dep. Biology, Trinity Western University, Langley, BC, Canada, V2Y 1Y1, Weed Sci., Agric. Canada Res. Stn., Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, QUE, Canada J3B 3E6
Diane L. Benoit
Affiliation:
Dep. Crop Sci., Univ. Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada N1G 2W1
Stephen D. Murphy
Affiliation:
Dep. Crop Sci., Univ. Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada N1G 2W1
Clarence J. Swanton
Affiliation:
Dep. Crop Sci., Univ. Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada N1G 2W1
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Weed seed return and seedbank composition, with particular reference to common lambsquarters, were studied in four tillage systems established on a site near Fingal, Ontario. The tillage treatments were moldboard plow, chisel plow, ridge-till, and no-till. The cropping system was a cornsoybean rotation. Tillage effects on weed population composition were assessed after all weed control measures had been implemented. More than 60% of the weed seedbank was concentrated in the upper 5 cm of soil in chisel plow and no-till. The seedbank of the moldboard plow system was more uniformly distributed over depth and larger than the other systems. Common lambsquarters comprised more than 50% of the seedbank in all systems except ridge-till, but only dominated the aboveground weed population in chisel plow. Seedbank populations of common lambsquarters with moldboard plowing were greater than those with ridge-till and no-till, and chisel plow seedbank populations were greater than those in ridge-till. Chisel and moldboard plow systems generally had higher aboveground plant populations of common lambsquarters than the other two systems. Seed production per plant by common lambsquarters was equivalent among the four systems, but estimated seed production per unit area was higher in moldboard plow and chisel plow systems than in the other systems. Populations of common lambsquarters and similar species may produce more seeds and persist in moldboard plow and chisel plow systems; these weeds may produce fewer seeds per unit area and be easier to manage in no-till and ridge-till systems.

Keywords

Common lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. ♯ CHEALcorn, Zea mays L.soybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr.Conservation tillageno-tillridge-tillseedbank profileweed spectrumCHEAL
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 44 , Issue 2 , June 1996 , pp. 314 - 322
Copyright
Copyright © 1996 by the 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. Ball, D.A. 1992. Weed seedbank response to tillage, herbicides, and crop rotation sequence. Weed Sci. 40: 654–659,CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Bandeen, J. D., Stephenson, G. R., and Cowett, E. R. 1982. Discovery and distribution of herbicide-tolerant weeds in North America. Pages 9–30 in LeBaron, H. M. and Gressel, J., eds. Herbicide Resistance in Plants John Wiley & Sons, Toronto, ON.Google Scholar
3. Benoit, D. L., Swanton, C. J., Chandler, K., and Derksen, D. A. 1991. Changes in weed populations and seed bank through two cycles of a maize-soyabean rotation in Ontario, Canada. Proc. Brit. Crop Prot. Conf.—Weeds-1991. 1: 403–410.Google Scholar
4. Buhler, D. D., Gunsolus, J. L., and Ralston, D. F. 1992. Integrated weed management techniques to reduce herbicide inputs in soybean Agron. J. 84: 973–978.Google Scholar
5. Cardina, J., Regnier, E., and Harrison, K. 1991. Long-term tillage effects on seed banks in three Ohio soils. Weed Sci. 39: 186–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Chu, C. C., Ludford, P. M., Ozbun, J. L., and Sweet, R. D. 1978. Effects of temperature and competition on the establishment and growth of redroot pigweed and common lambsquarters. Crop. Sci. 18: 308–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Clements, D. R., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1994. Integrated weed management and weed species diversity. Phytoprotection 75: 1–18.Google Scholar
8. 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
9. Derksen, D. A., Lafond, G. P., Thomas, A. G., Loeppky, H. A., and Swanton, C. J. 1993. Impact of agronomic practices on weed communities: tillage systems. Weed Sci. 41: 409–417.Google Scholar
10. Dick, W. A. and Daniel, T. C. 1987. Soil chemical and biological properties as affected by conservation tillage: Environmental implications. Pages 125–147 in Logan, T. J., Davidson, J. M., Baker, J. L., and Overcash, M. R., eds. Effects of Conservation Tillage on Groundwater Quality. Lewis Publishers, Inc., Chelsea, MI.Google Scholar
11. Eadie, A. G., Swanton, C. J., Shaw, J. E., and Anderson, G. W. 1992. Banded herbicide applications and cultivation in a modified no-till corn (Zea mays) system. Weed Technol. 6: 535–542.Google Scholar
12. Harrison, S. K. 1990. Interference and seed production by common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 38: 113–118.Google Scholar
13. Harvey, S. J. and Forcella, F. 1993. Vernal seedling emergence model for common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album). Weed Sci. 41: 309–316.Google Scholar
14. Hayhoe, H. N., Dwyer, L. M., Balchin, D., and Culley, J.L.B. 1993. Tillage effects on corn emergence rates. Soil Till. Res. 26: 45–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Forcella, F. and Lindstrom, M. J. 1988. Weed seed populations in ridge and conventional tillage. Weed Sci. 36: 500–503.Google Scholar
16. Frick, B. and Thomas, A. G. 1992. Weed surveys in different tillage systems in southeastern Ontario field crops. Can. J. Plant Sci. 72: 1337–1347.Google Scholar
17. Froud-Williams, R. J. 1988. Changes in weed flora with different tillage and agronomic management systems. Pages 213–236 in Elder, M. A. and Liebman, M., eds. Weed Management in Agroecosystems: Ecological Approaches. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.Google Scholar
18. Gebhardt, M. R., Daniel, T. C., Schweizer, E. E., and Allmaras, R. R. 1985. Conservation tillage. Science 230: 625–630.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19. Jan, P. and Faivre-Dupaigre, R. 1977. Incidence des facon culturales sur la flore aventice. Proc. EWRS Symposium on Different Methods of Weed Control and Their Integrations, Uppsala 1: 57–64.Google Scholar
20. Holm, L. G., Plucknett, D. L., Pancho, J. V., and Herberger, J. P. 1977. The world's worst weeds. East-West Center Book, Univ. Press of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii. 609 p.Google Scholar
21. Kapusta, G. and Krausz, R. F. 1993. Weed control and yield are equal in conventional, reduced-, and no-tillage soybean (Glycine max) after 11 years. Weed Technol. 7: 443–451.Google Scholar
22. Lewis, J. 1973. Longevity of crop and weed seeds: survival after 20 years in soil. Weed Res. 13: 179–191.Google Scholar
23. Mohler, C. L. 1991. Effects of tillage and mulch on weed biomass and sweet corn yields. Weed Technol. 5: 545–552.Google Scholar
24. Mohler, C. L. 1993. A model of the effects of tillage on emergence of weed seedlings. Ecol. Appl. 3: 53–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25. Mohler, C. L. and Callaway, M. B. 1992. Effects of tillage and mulch on the emergence and survival of weeds in sweet corn. J. Appl. Ecol. 29: 21–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26. Norris, R. F. 1992. Case history for weed competition/population ecology: Barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) in sugarbeets (Beta vulgaris). Weed Technol. 6: 220–227.Google Scholar
27. Roberts, H. A. and Stokes, F. G. 1965. Studies on the weeds of vegetable crops. V. Final observations on an experiment with different primary cultivations. J. Appl. Ecol. 2: 307–315.Google Scholar
28. Swanton, C. J., Clements, D. R., and Derksen, D. A. 1993. Weed succession under conservation tillage: a hierarchical framework for research and management. Weed Technol. 7: 286–297.Google Scholar
29. Teasdale, J. R., Beste, C. E., and Potts, W. E. 1991. Response of weeds to tillage and cover crop residue. Weed Sci. 39: 195–199.Google Scholar
30. Thomas, A. G. and Frick, B. L. 1993. Influence of tillage systems on weed abundance in Southwestern Ontario. Weed Technol. 7: 699–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31. Toole, E. H. and Brown, E. 1946. Final results of the Durvel buried seed experiment. J. Agric. Res. 72: 201–210.Google Scholar
32. Weaver, S. E. 1991. Size-dependent economic thresholds for three broadleaf weed species in soybeans. 5: 674–679.Google Scholar
33. Weaver, S. E., Tan, C. S., and Brain, P. 1988. Effect of temperature and soil moisture on time of emergence of tomatoes and four weed species. Can. J. Plant Sci. 68: 877–886.Google Scholar
34. Wiese, A. M. and Binning, L. K. 1987. Calculating the threshold temperature of development for weeds. Weed Sci. 35: 177–179.Google Scholar
35. Wilson, R. G. 1988. Biology of weed seeds in the soil. Pages 28–39 in Altieri, M. A., and Liebman, M. eds. Weed Management in Agroecosystems: Ecological Approaches. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.Google Scholar
36. Yenish, J. P., Doll, J. P., and Buhler, D. D. 1992. Effects of tillage on vertical distribution and viability of weed seed in soil. Weed Sci. 40: 429–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar