Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-wjfd9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T14:57:25.717Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of tillage and Zea mays on Chenopodium album seedling emergence and density

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Erivelton S. Roman ,
Stephen D. Murphy  and
Clarence J. Swanton
Erivelton S. Roman
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada N1G2W1
Stephen D. Murphy
Affiliation:
Department of Environmental and Resource Studies, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2L 3G1
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We studied the effect of tillage systems (no-till, chisel, and moldboard plow) and the presence or absence of Zea mays L. (corn) on soil temperature, moisture, and, subsequently, the emergence phenology and density of Chenopodium album L. (common lambsquarters) at two sites (Elora and Woodstock) from 1993 to 1995. The tillage system affected the phenology of C. album seedling emergence only in 1995. In that year, more days were required to reach 80% cumulative seedling emergence in no-till than in the chisel or moldboard plow treatments. The delay in obtaining 80% cumulative emergence was attributed to a dry period from days 159 to 177 at Elora and from days 155 and 176 at Woodstock. The presence or absence of Z. mays did not affect soil temperatures, soil moisture, or C. album seedling emergence phenologies. Chenopodium album seedling density was influenced by tillage and environmental conditions. Large variations in seedling density were attributed to environmental conditions. The presence or absence of Z. mays did not affect C. album seedling density.

Keywords

Chenopodium album L. CHEAL, common lambsquartersZea mays L. ‘Pioneer 3902,’ cornPhenologysoil temperaturesoil moisturemodelingCHEAL

Information

Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 47 , Issue 5 , October 1999 , pp. 551 - 556
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

Addae, P. C., Collins-George, N., and Pearson, C. J. 1991. Over-riding effects of temperature and soil strength of weed seedlings under minimum and conventional tillage. Field Crops Res. 28:103–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alm, D. M., Stoller, E. W., and Wax, L. M. 1993. An index model for predicting seed germination and emergence rates. Weed Technol. 7:560–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harder, C., Hill, R., and Byers, R. A. 1989. Comparison of logistic and Weibull functions: the effect of temperature on cumulative germination of alfalfa. Crop Sci. 29:142–146.Google Scholar
Ball, D. A. and Miller, S. D. 1990. Weed seed population responses to tillage and herbicide use in three irrigated cropping sequences. Weed Sci. 38:511–517.Google Scholar
Blevins, R. L., and Frye, W. W. 1993. Conservation tillage: an ecological approach to soil management. Adv. Agron. 51:33–78.Google Scholar
Bosnic, A. C. and Swanton, C. J. 1997. Influence of barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) time of emergence and density on corn (Zea mays), Weed Sci. 45:276–282.Google Scholar
Bowmeester, H. J. and Karssen, C. M. 1989. Environmental factors influencing the expression of dormancy patterns in weed seeds. Ann. Bot. 63:113–120.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. 1992. Population dynamics and control of annual weeds in corn (Zea mays) as influenced by tillage systems. Weed Sci. 40:241–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buhler, D. and Daniel, T. C. 1988. Influence of tillage systems on giant foxtail, Setaria faberi, and velvetleaf, Abutilon theophrasti, density and control in corn, Zea mays . Weed Sci. 36:642–647.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D. and Mester, T. C. 1991. Effect of tillage systems on the emergence depth of giant (Setaria faberi) and green foxtail (Setaria viridis). Weed Sci. 39:200–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buhler, D. D., Mester, T. C., and Kohler, K. A. 1996. The effect of maize residues on emergence of Setaria, Abutilon theophrasti, Amaranthus retroflexus and Chenopodium album . Weed Res. 36:153–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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. 38:158–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardina, J., Regnier, E., and Harrison, K. 1991. Long-term tillage effects on seed banks in three Ohio soils. Weed Sci. 39:186–194.Google Scholar
Chikoye, D., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1995. Influence of common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) time of emergence and density on white bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Weed Sci. 43:375–380.Google Scholar
Clements, D. R., Benoit, D. L., Murphy, S. D., and Swanton, C. J. 1996. Tillage effects on weed seed return and seedbank composition. Weed Sci. 44:314–322.Google Scholar
Dieleman, A., Hamil, A. S., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1995. Empirical models for pigweed (Amaranthus spp.) interference on soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 43:612–618.Google Scholar
Dumur, D., Pilbeam, C. J., and Craigon, J. 1990. Use of the Weibull function to calculate cardinal temperatures in faba bean. J. Exp. Bot. 41:1423–1430.Google Scholar
Egley, G. H. and Williams, R. D. 1991. Emergence periodicity of six summer annual weed species. Weed Sci. 39:595–600.Google Scholar
Ervio, L-R. and Salonen, J. 1987. Changes in weed population of spring cereals in Finland. Ann. Agric. Fenn. 26:201–226.Google Scholar
Forcella, F., Eradat-Oskoui, K., and Wagner, S. W. 1993. Applications of weed seedbank ecology to low-input crop management. Ecol. Appl. 3:74–83.Google Scholar
Frick, B. and Thomas, A. G. 1992. Weed survey in different tillage systems in southern Ontario field crops. Can. J. Plant Sci. 72:1337–1347.Google Scholar
Gill, K. S. and Prihar, S. S. 1983. Cultivation and evaporation effects on the drying patterns of sandy loam soil. Soil Sci. 135:367–377.Google Scholar
Hall, M., Swanton, C. J., and Anderson, G. W. 1992. The critical period of weed control in corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 40:441–447.Google Scholar
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
Harvey, S. J. and Forcella, F. 1993. Vernal seedling emergence model for common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album). Weed Sci. 41:309–316.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, M. D., Wyse, D. L., and Lueschen, W. E. 1989. The influence of herbicide formulation on weed control in four tillage systems. Weed Sci. 37:239–249.Google Scholar
King, C. A. and Oliver, L. R. 1994. A model for predicting large crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis) emergence as influenced by temperature and water potential. Weed Sci. 42:561–567.Google Scholar
Knezevic, S. Z., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1994. Interference of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) in corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 42:568–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahli, S. S. and O'Sullivan, P. A. 1990. Soil temperature, moisture and penetrometer resistance under zero and conventional tillage in Central Alberta. Soil Till. Res. 7:167–172.Google Scholar
Mohler, C. L. and Calloway, M. B. 1992. Effects of tillage and mulch on the emergence and survival of weeds in corn. J. Appl. Ecol. 29:21–34.Google Scholar
Mortensen, D. A. and Coble, H. D. 1991. Two approaches to weed control decision-aid software. Weed Technol. 5:445–452.Google Scholar
Mulugueta, D. and Stoltenberg, D. E. 1997. Increased weed emergence and seed bank depletion by soil disturbance in a no-tillage system. Weed Sci. 45:234–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, S. D., Yakubu, Y., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1996. Effects of planting pattern and inter-row cultivation on competition between corn (Zea mays) and late emerging weeds. Weed Sci. 44:856–870.Google Scholar
Oke, T. R. 1987. Boundary Layer Climates. 2nd ed. New York: Methuen, pp. 42–57, 229–236.Google Scholar
Oryokot, J.O.E., Hunt, L. A., Murphy, S., and Swanton, C. J. 1997a. Simulation of pigweed (Amaranthus spp.) seedling emergence in different tillage systems. Weed Sci. 45:684–690.Google Scholar
Oryokot, J.O.E., Murphy, S. D., and Swanton, C. J. 1997b. Effect of tillage and corn on pigweed (Amaranthus spp.) seedling emergence and density. Weed Sci. 45:120–126.Google Scholar
Ralston, M. P. and Jenrich, R. I. 1978. DUD, a derivative-free algorithm for non-linear least squares, Technometrics 20:7–14.Google Scholar
Roberts, H. A. and Boddrell, J. E. 1985. Seed survival and seasonal pattern of seedling emergence in some leguminosae. Ann. Appl. Biol. 106:125–132.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1990. SAS User's Guide. Version 6.06. Gary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute.Google Scholar
Steiner, J. L. 1989. Tillage and surface residue effects on evaporation from soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 53:911–916.Google Scholar
Stoller, E. W. and Wax, P. M. 1973. Periodicity of germination and emergence of some annual weeds. Weed Sci. 21:574–580.Google Scholar
Swanton, C. J. and Murphy, S. D., 1996. Weed science beyond the weeds: the role of integrated weed management (IWM) in agroecosystem health. Weed Sci. 44:437–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swinton, S. M. and King, R. P. 1994. A bioeconomic model for weed management in corn and soybeans. Agric. Syst. 44:313–335.Google Scholar
Thomas, A. G. and Frick, B. 1993. Influence or tillage systems on weed abundance in southwestern Ontario. Weed Technol. 7:699–705.Google Scholar
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
Zhai, R., Kachanoski, R. G., and Voroney, R. P. 1990. Tillage effects on spatial and temporal variation of soil water. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 54:186–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar