Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-5kfdg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-03T07:34:59.022Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of Water on Recovery of Weed Seedlings FollowingBurial

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Charles L. Mohler ,
Javaid Iqbal ,
Jianying Shen  and
Antonio DiTommaso
Charles L. Mohler*
Affiliation:
Section of Soil and Crop Sciences, School of Integrative Plant Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853
Javaid Iqbal
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, Ghazi University, Dera Ghazi Khan 32200 Punjab Pakistan
Jianying Shen
Affiliation:
Department of Environmental Resources, Shanghai Jiatong University, Shanghai, China 200240
Antonio DiTommaso
Affiliation:
Section of Soil and Crop Sciences, School of Integrative Plant Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853
*
Corresponding author’ E-mail:clm11@cornell.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Recovery of common agricultural weeds after burial by soil was studied infour greenhouse and three field experiments. Species studied includedvelvetleaf, Powell amaranth, common lambsquarters, barnyardgrass, and giantfoxtail. Seedlings were bent over before burial to simulate the effect ofthe impact of soil thrown by a cultivator. Altogether, more than 35,000seedlings were marked and observed for recovery. No seedlings recovered from4 cm of burial. Recovery from complete burial under 2 cm of soil ranged from0 to 24% depending on the experiment, species, and watering treatment, butrecovery greater than 5% was rare. Large-seeded species tended to recoverfrom complete burial under 2 cm of soil better than small-seeded species.The study did not reveal a difference in recovery of grasses relative tobroadleaf weeds. Overall, seedlings tended to recover best when water wasapplied daily after burial, worst when water was applied once on the day ofburial, and to an intermediate extent when no water was applied. However,difference in recovery between the no-water and watering-once treatmentswere usually small. Also, many experiment by species combinations showed nosignificant differences among watering treatments. When even a small portionof the seedling was left exposed, recovery generally exceeded 50%. Organicweed management systems commonly use burial of weed seedlings with tineweeders and soil thrown by sweeps and hilling disks to control weeds in croprows. Recovery from burial could pose a substantial weed management problemin some circumstances, particularly for large-seeded weed species.Maximizing burial depth is important for limiting recovery. Recovery fromburial can be minimized by withholding irrigation for several days afterhilling-up operations.

Keywords

Barnyardgrass, Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) Beauv.ECHCGcommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. CHEALgiant foxtail, Setaria faberi Herrm. SETFAPowell amaranth, Amaranthus powellii S. Wats. AMAPOvelvetleaf, Abutilon theophrasti Medik. ABUTHCultivationirrigationmechanical weed managementrainfallsoil cover

Information

Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 64 , Issue 2 , June 2016 , pp. 285 - 293
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

Associate Editor for this paper: Martin M. Williams, III, USDA-ARS.

References

Literature Cited

Baerveldt, S, Ascard, JA (1999) Effect of soil cover on weeds. Biol Agric Hort 17:101–111 Google Scholar
Bond, W, Grundy, AC (2001) Non-chemical weed management in organic farming systems. Weed Res 41:383–405 Google Scholar
Caldwell, B, Mohler, CL, Ketterings, QM, DiTommaso, A (2014) Yields and profitability during and after transition in organic grain cropping systems. Agron J 106:871–880 Google Scholar
Cavers, PB, Kane, M (1990) Responses of proso millet (Panicum miliaceum) seedlings to mechanical damage and/or drought treatment. Weed Technol 4:425–432 Google Scholar
Davis, AS, Renner, KA (2007) Influence of seed depth and pathogens on fatal germination of velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) and giant foxtail (Setaria faberi ). Weed Sci 55:30–35 Google Scholar
Fogelberg, F, Dock Gustavsson, A-M (1999) Mechanical damage to annual weeds and carrots by in-row brush weeding. Weed Res 39:469–479 Google Scholar
Grime, JP, Jeffrey, DW (1965) Seedling establishment in vertical gradients of sunlight. J Ecol 53:621–642 Google Scholar
Habel, W (1954) Ober die Wirkungsweise der Eggen gegen Samenunkräuter sowie die Empfindlichkeit der Unkrautarten und ihrer Alterstadien gegen den Eggenvorgung. Ph.D dissertation. Hohenheim, Germany Universität Hohenheim Landwirtschaftlichen Hochschule, 58 pGoogle Scholar
Harris, D, Davy, AJ (1987) Seedling growth in Elymus farctus after episodes of burial with sand. Ann Bot 60:587–593 Google Scholar
Jones, PA, Blair, AM, Orson, JH, (1995) The effect of different types of physical damage to four weed species. Pages 653–658 in Proceedings of the Brighton Crop Protection Conference—Weeds. Farnham, Surrey, UK British Crop Protection Council Google Scholar
Kurstiens, DAG, Kropff, MJ (2001) The impact of uprooting and soil-covering on the effectiveness of weed harrowing. Weed Res 41:211–228 Google Scholar
Kurstiens, DAG, Perdok, UD (2000) The selective soil covering mechanism of weed harrows on sandy soil. Soil Till Res 55:193–206 Google Scholar
Martinez, ML, Moreno-Casasolai, P (1996) Effects of burial by sand on seedling growth and survival in six tropical sand dune species from the Gulf of Mexico. J Coast Res 12:406–419 Google Scholar
Maun, MA (2004) Burial of plants as a selective force in sand dunes. Pages 119–135 in Martinez, ML, Psuty, NP, eds. Coastal Dunes. Berlin: Springer Google Scholar
Maun, MA, Elberling, H, D'Ulisse, A (1996) The effects of burial by sand on survival and growth of Pitcher's thistle (Cirsium pitcheri) along Lake Huron. J Coast Conserv 2:3–12 Google Scholar
Melander, B, Rasmussen, IA, Bàrberi, P (2005) Integrating physical and cultural methods of weed control—examples from European research. Weed Sci 53:369–381 Google Scholar
Mohler, CL (2001) Mechanical management of weeds. Pages 139–209 in Liebman, L, Mohler, CL, Staver, CP. Ecological Management of Agricultural Weeds. Cambridge Cambridge University Press Google Scholar
Mohler, CL, Dykeman, C, Nelson, EB, DiTommaso, A (2012) Reduction of weed seedling emergence by pathogens following incorporation of green crop residue. Weed Res 52:467–477 Google Scholar
Mohler, CL, Teasdale, JR (1993) Response of weed emergence to rate of Vicia villosa Roth and Secale cereale L. residue. Weed Res 33:487–499 Google Scholar
Morton, CT, Buchele, VF (1960) Emergence energy of plant seedlings. Agric Eng 41:428–431, 453–455Google Scholar
Shi, L, Zhang, ZJ, Zhang, CY, Zhang, JZ (2004) Effects of sand burial on survival, growth, gas exchange and biomass allocation of Ulmus pumila seedlings in the Hunshandak Sandland, China. Ann Bot 94:553–560 Google Scholar
Thampanya, U, Vermaat, JE, Terrados, J (2002) The effect of increasing sediment accretion on the seedlings of three common Thai mangrove species. Aquat Bot 74:315–325 Google Scholar
van der Schans, D, Bleeker, P, eds (2006) Practical Weed Control in Arable Farming and Outdoor Vegetable Cultivation without Chemicals. Wageningen, The Netherlands Applied Plant Research Publ. 352. 77 pGoogle Scholar
Vissoh, PV, Gbèhounou, G, Ahanchédé, A, Kuyper, TW, Röling, NG (2004) Weeds as agricultural constraint to farmers in Benin: results of a diagnostic study. NJAS–Wageningen J Life Sci 52:305–309 Google Scholar
Yanful, M, Maun, MA (1996) Effects of burial of seeds and seedlings from different seed sizes on the emergence and growth of Strophostyles helvola . Can J Bot 74:1322–1330 Google Scholar
Zhang, J, Maun, MA (1990) Effects of sand burial on seed germination, seedling emergence, survival, and growth of Agropyron psammophilum . Can J Bot 68:304–310 Google Scholar