Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-pnlb5 Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2025-10-29T23:16:21.037Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed Seedbanks of the U.S. Corn Belt: Magnitude, Variation, Emergence, and Application

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Frank Forcella ,
Robert G. Wilson ,
Karen A. Renner ,
Jack Dekker ,
Robert G. Harvey ,
David A. Alm ,
Douglas D. Buhler  and
John Cardina
Frank Forcella
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, Morris MN 56267
Robert G. Wilson
Affiliation:
Univ. of Nebraska Panhandle Res. & Ext. Cen., Scottsbluff, NE
Karen A. Renner
Affiliation:
Michigan St. Univ., E. Lansing, MI
Jack Dekker
Affiliation:
Dep. of Agronomy, Iowa State Univ., Ames, IA
Robert G. Harvey
Affiliation:
Dep. of Agronomy, Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison, WI
David A. Alm
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, Urbana, IL
Douglas D. Buhler
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, St. Paul, MN
John Cardina
Affiliation:
Dep. of Agronomy, Ohio State Univ., Wooster, OH
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Seedbanks and seedling emergence of annual weeds were examined in arable fields at eight locations in the Corn Belt. Seed densities were estimated by direct seed extraction from each of several soil cores in each sampled plot. Average total seedbank densities ranged from 600 to 162 000 viable seed m-2 among locations. Coefficients of variation (CV) typically exceeded 50%. CV for seed densities of individual species usually exceeded 100%, indicating strongly aggregated distributions. CV were lower for species with dense seed populations than those with sparse seed populations. Variance of total seedbank densities was unstable when < 10 cores were examined per plot, but stabilized at all locations when ≥ 15 cores were analyzed, despite a 12-fold difference in plot size and 270-fold difference in seed density among locations. Percentage viable seed that emerged as seedlings in field plots ranged from < 1% for yellow rocket to 30% for giant foxtail. Redroot pigweed and common lambsquarters were the most frequently encountered species. Emergence percentages of these species were related inversely to rainfall or air temperatures in April or May, presumably because anoxia and/or high temperatures induced secondary dormancy in nondormant seed. From 50 to 90% of total seed in the seedbank were dead. This information can be employed by bioeconomic weed management models, which currently use coarse estimates of emergence percentages to customize recommendations for weed control.

Keywords

Common lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. #3 CHEALgiant foxtail, Setaria faberi Herrm. # SETFAredroot pigweed, Amaranthus retroflexus L. # AMAREyellow rocket, Barbarea vulgaris R. Br. # BARVUBuried seedseedling emergencesoil seed reservebioeconomic weed management models

Information

Type
Special Topics
Information
Weed Science , Volume 40 , Issue 4 , December 1992 , pp. 636 - 644
Copyright
Copyright © 1992 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

1. Ball, D. A. and Miller, S. D. 1989. A comparison of techniques for estimation of arable soil seedbanks and their relationship to weed flora. Weed Res. 29:365–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Benoit, D. L., Kenkel, N. C., and Cavers, P. B. 1989. Factors influencing the precision of soil seedbank estimates. Can. J. Bot. 67:2833–2840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Burnside, O. C., Moomaw, R. S., Roeth, F. W., Wicks, G. A., and Wilson, R. G. 1986. Weed seed demise in soil in weed-free corn (Zea mays) production across Nebraska. Weed Sci. 34:248–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Forcella, F. 1984. A species-area curve for buried viable seed. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 35:645–652.Google Scholar
5. Forcella, F. 1992. Prediction of weed seedling densities from buried seed reserves. Weed Res. 32:29–38.Google Scholar
6. Forcella, F., Oskoui, K. E., and Wagner, S. W. 1993. Application of weed seedbank ecology to low-input crop management. Ecological Applications 3:74–83.Google Scholar
7. Goyeau, H. and Fablet, G. 1982. Etude du stock semences de mauvaises herbes dans le sol: le probleme de l'echantillonnage. Agronomie 2:542–551.Google Scholar
8. Gross, K. L. 1990. A comparison of methods for estimating seed numbers in the soil. J. Ecol. 78:1079–1093.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Gross, K. L. and Renner, K. A. 1989. A new method for estimating seed numbers in the soil. Weed Sci. 37:836–839.Google Scholar
10. Karssen, C. M. 1980/81. Patterns of change in dormancy during burial of seeds in soil. Israel J. Bot. 29:65–73.Google Scholar
11. Kershaw, K. A. 1973. Quantitative and Dynamic Plant Ecology. American Elsevier Publ. Co., New York. 308 pp.Google Scholar
12. King, R. P., Lybecker, D. W., Schweizer, E. E., and Zimdahl, R. L. 1986. Bioeconomic modeling to simulate weed control strategies for continuous corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 34:972–979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Lybecker, D. W., Schweizer, E. E., and King, R. P. 1991. Weed management decisions in corn based on bioeconomic modeling. Weed Sci. 39:124–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Mortimer, A. M., Suttom, J. J., and Gould, P. 1989. On robust weed population models. Weed Res. 29:229–238.Google Scholar
15. Schweizer, E. E. and Zimdahl, R. L. 1984. Weed seed decline in irrigated soil after rotation of crops and herbicides. Weed Sci. 32:84–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Swinton, S. M. 1991. A bioeconomic model for weed management in corn and soybean. Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. Minnesota, St. Paul.Google Scholar
17. Symons, S. J., Naylor, J. M., Simpson, G. M., and Adkins, S. W. 1986. Secondary dormancy in Avena fatua: Induction and characteristics in genetically pure dormant lines. Physiol. Plant. 68:27–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Wilson, R. G., Kerr, E. D., and Nelson, L. A. 1985. Potential for using weed seed content in the soil to predict future weed problems. Weed Sci. 33:171–175.Google Scholar