Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T18:23:08.737Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Effect of Seed Bank Augmentation on Herbicide Efficacy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Kerry L. Taylor
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011
Robert G. Hartzler*
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected].

Abstract

Seeds of giant foxtail (Setaria faberi, 4,000 seeds/m2) or velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, 3,000 seeds/m2) were added to the seed bank to determine the effect of increases in weed density on herbicide efficacy in corn (Zea mays). A herbicide program consisting of SAN 582 applied preemergence followed by a postemergence application of dicamba plus atrazine was evaluated at four levels (0.0, 0.3, 0.7 and 1.0 times the label rates). At a site with low initial weed densities, the addition of velvetleaf or giant foxtail seed to the seed bank did not influence herbicide efficacy at the 1.0× rate at 9 wk after planting (WAP). Giant foxtail densities were greater 9 WAP in augmented areas than in the native seed bank plots at both the 0.3× and 0.7× rates, whereas with velvetleaf, higher densities in augmented plots were seen only at the 0.3× rate. In areas with high native weed densities, addition of seed of either species resulted in an increase in final weed densities at all herbicide rates.

Type
Research Article
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

Anonymous. 1998. Vary rates to improve herbicide results. Dealer Applicator. 28 (2): 5862.Google Scholar
Cousens, R. 1987. Theory and reality of weed control thresholds. Plant Prot. Q. 2: 1320.Google Scholar
Dieleman, J. A. and Mortensen, D. A. 1999. Influence of velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) and common sunflower (Helianthus annuus) density variation on weed management outcomes. Weed Sci. 47: 8189.Google Scholar
Eaton, B. J., Russ, O. G., and Feltner, K. C. 1976. Competition of velvetleaf, prickly sida, and venice mallow in soybeans. Weed Sci. 24: 224228.Google Scholar
Forcella, F., Wilson, R. G., Renner, K. A., Dekker, J., Harvey, R. G., Alm, D. A., Buhler, D. D., and Cardina, J. 1992. Weed seedbanks of the U.S. corn belt: magnitude, variation, emergence, and application. Weed Sci. 40: 636644.Google Scholar
Harper, J. L. 1977. Reproduction and growth. In Population Biology of Plants. London: Academic Press. pp. 647678.Google Scholar
Hartzler, R. G. 1996. Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) population dynamics following a single year's seed rain. Weed Technol. 10: 581586.Google Scholar
Hartzler, R. G. and Buhler, D. D. 1996. Influence of seed vintage on emergence characteristics of four annual weed species. Proc. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 51: 3031.Google Scholar
Hartzler, R. G. and Roth, G. W. 1993. Effect of prior year's weed control on herbicide effectiveness in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 7: 611614.Google Scholar
Johnson, G. A., Cardina, J., and Mortensen, D. A. 1997. Site specific weed management: current and future directions. In Pierce, F. J. and Sadler, E. J., eds. The State of Site-Specific Management for Agriculture. Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy. pp. 131147.Google Scholar
Knake, E. L. and Slife, F. W. 1969. Effect of giant foxtail removal from corn and soybeans. Weed Sci. 17: 281283.Google Scholar
Murdoch, A. J. and Ellis, R. H. 1992. Longevity, viability, and dormancy. In Fenner, M., ed. Seeds: The Ecology of Regeneration in Plant Communities. Wallingford, Oxford, UK: CAB International. pp. 193229.Google Scholar
Pacala, S. W. and Silander, J. A. 1987. Neighbourhood interference among velvetleaf, Abutilon theophrasti, and pigweed, Amaranthus retroflexus . Oikos. 48: 217224.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Anlysis Systems. 1990. SAS User's Guide. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute.Google Scholar
Schreiber, M. M. 1965. Effect of date of planting and stage of cutting on seed production of giant foxtail. Weeds. 13: 6062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suwanketnikom, K. and Sattayanikom, R. 1991. Efficacy of s-triazines as influenced by adsorption and mobility of various soils. Kasetsart J.: Nat. Sci. Thail. 25: 477483.Google Scholar
Tredaway, J. A., Mueller, T. C., Hayes, R. M., Hart, W. E., and Wilkerson, J. B. 1998. Site-specific technology for weed management practices in row crops. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 38:72.Google Scholar
Warwick, S. I. and Black, L. D. 1988. The biology of Canadian weeds. 90. Abutilon theophrasti . Can. J. Plant Sci. 68: 10691085.Google Scholar
Winkle, M. E., Leavitt, J.R.C., and Burnside, O. C. 1981. Effects of weed density on herbicide absorption and bioactivity. Weed Sci. 29: 405409.Google Scholar
Zanin, G. and Sattin, M. 1988. Threshold level and seed production of velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti Medicus) in maize. Weed Res. 28: 347352.Google Scholar