Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-r6qrq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T23:57:24.868Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of crop rotation, tillage, and management inputs on weed seed production

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

George O. Kegode ,
Frank Forcella  and
Sharon Clay
Frank Forcella
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, North Central Soil Conservation Research Laboratory, Morris, MN 56267
Sharon Clay
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Science, South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD 57007
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Approaches to crop production that successfully reduce weed seed production can benefit farming systems by reducing management inputs and costs. A 5-yr rotation study was conducted in order to determine the effects that interactions between crop rotation, tillage, and amount of herbicide and fertilizer (management inputs) have on annual grass and broad-leaved weed seed production and fecundity. There were 10 crop rotation and tillage system combinations and three levels of management inputs (high, medium, and low). Green and yellow foxtail were the major weed species, and together they yielded between 76 and 93% of collected weed seeds. From 1990 to 1994, average grass weed seed productions were 7.3 by 103, 3.7 by 103 6.1 by 103 and 5.7 by 103 seeds m−-2, whereas average broad-leaved weed seed productions were 0.4 by 103, 0.4 by 103, 1.4 by 103, and 0.4 by 103 seeds m−-2 in crop rotations using conventional tillage (moldboard plow), conservation tillage, no tillage, and ridge tillage, respectively. Crop rotations using conventional or ridge tillage consistently produced more grass and broad-leaved weed seeds, especially in low-input plots. There was little difference in weed seed production among input levels for crop rotations using conservation tillage. Comparing rotations that began and ended with a corn crop revealed that by increasing crop diversity within a rotation while simultaneously reducing the amount of tillage, significantly fewer grass and broad-leaved weed seeds were produced. Among the rotations, grass and broad-leaved weed fecundity were highly variable, but fecundity declined from 1990 to 1994 within each rotation, with a concomitant increase in grass and broad-leaved weed density over the same period. Crop rotation in combination with reduced tillage is an effective way of limiting grass and broad-leaved weed seed production, regardless of the level of management input applied.

Keywords

Corn, Zea mays L. ‘Pioneer 3769’soybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr. ‘Pioneer 9171’wheat, Triticum aestivum L. ‘Butte 86,’ ‘Guard’alfalfa, Medicago sativa L. ‘Coyote 999’intermediate wheatgrass, Elytrigia intermedia (Host) Nevski subsp. ‘Oake’orchardgrass, Dactylis glomerata L. ‘Benchmark’creeping foxtail, Alopecurus arundinaceus Poiret ‘Retain’switchgrass, Panicum virgatum L. ‘Sunburst’big bluestem, Andropogon gerardii Vitam var. gerardii ‘Bonilla’green foxtail, Setaria viridis (L.) Beauv.yellow foxtail, Setaria glauca (L.) Beauv.Crop rotation, tillage, management inputs, grass weeds, broad-leaved weeds, weed density, seed production, fecundity, SETLU, SETVI, AMBEL, CHEAL, POLPY.
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 47 , Issue 2 , April 1999 , pp. 175 - 183
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.)

Footnotes

Current address: Plant Sciences Department, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58105–5051; George_Kegode@ndsu.nodak.edu

References

Literature Cited

Barbour, J. C. and Forcella, F. 1993. Predicting seed production by foxtails (Setaria spp.). N. Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. Proc. 48: 100.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D. 1995. Influence of tillage systems on weed population dynamics and management in corn and soybean in the Central USA. Crop Sci. 35: 1247–1258.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D., Hartzler, R. G., and Forcella, F. 1997. Implications of weed seedbank dynamics to weed management. Weed Sci. 45: 329–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Cardina, J., Regnier, E., and Sparrow, D. 1995. Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) competition and economic thresholds in conventional and no-tillage corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 43: 81–87.Google Scholar
Carlson, H. L. and Hill, J. E. 1986. Wild oat (Avena fatua) competition with spring wheat: effects of nitrogen fertilization. Weed Sci. 34: 29–33.Google Scholar
Chung, I. and Miller, D. A. 1995. Natural herbicide potential of alfalfa residue on selected weed species. Agron. J. 87: 920–925.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Di Tomaso, J. M. 1995. Approaches for improving crop competitiveness through the manipulation of fertilization strategies. Weed Sci. 43: 491–497.Google Scholar
Fausey, J. C., Kells, J. J., Swinton, S. M., and Renner, K. A. 1997. Giant foxtail (Setaria faberi) interference in nonirrigated corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 45: 256–260.Google Scholar
Forcella, F. 1992. Prediction of weed seedling densities from buried seed reserves. Weed Res. 32: 29–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forcella, F., Durgan, B. R., and Buhler, D. D. 1996a. Management of weed seedbanks. Pages 21–26 in Kudsk, P., ed. Second International Weed Control Congress. Copenhagen, Denmark, June 25–28, 1996.Google Scholar
Forcella, F., King, R. P., Swinton, S. M., Buhler, D. D., and Gonsolus, J. L. 1996b. Multi-year validation of a decision aid for integrated weed management in row crops. Weed Sci. 44: 650–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forcella, F. and Lindstrom, M. J. 1988. Weed seed populations in ridge and conventional tillage. Weed Sci. 36: 500–503.Google Scholar
Forcella, F., Peterson, D. H., and Barbour, J. C. 1996c. Timing and measurement of weed seed shed in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 10: 535–543.Google Scholar
Gantzer, C. J., Anderson, S. H., Thompson, A. L., and Brown, J. R. 1991. Evaluation of soil loss after 100 years of soil and crop management. Agron. J. 83: 74–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartzler, R. G. 1996. Velvetleaf (Abutilon theopbrasti) population dynamics following a single year's seed rain. Weed Technol. 10: 581–586.Google Scholar
Liebman, M. and Dyck, E. 1993. Crop rotation and intercropping strategies for weed management. Ecol. Appl. 3: 92–122.Google Scholar
Mannering, J. V., Scherz, D. L., and Julian, B. A. 1987. Overview of conservation tillage. Pages 3–17 in Logan, T. J., et al., eds. Effects of Conservation Tillage on Groundwater Quality: Nitrates and Pesticides. Chelsea, MI: Lewis.Google Scholar
Miller, D. A. 1996. Allelopathy in forage crop systems. Agron. J. 88: 854–859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, C. C., Westerman, R. L., Brown, J. R., and Peck, T. R. 1991. Overview of long term agronomic research. Agron. J. 83: 24–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, R. F. 1992. Relationship between inflorescence size and seed production in barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli). Weed Sci. 40: 74–78.Google Scholar
Norris, R. F. 1996a. Morphological and phenological variation in barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) in California. Weed Sci. 44: 804–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, R. F. 1996b. Weed population dynamics: seed production. Pages 15–20 in Kudsk, P., ed. Second International Weed Control Congress. Copenhagen, Denmark, June 25–28, 1996.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1990. SAS Procedures Guide. Version 6. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute.Google Scholar
Schreiber, M. M. 1992. Influence of tillage, crop rotation, and weed management on giant foxtail (Seteria faberi) population dynamics and corn yield. Weed Sci. 40: 645–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schweizer, E. E. and Zimdahl, R. L. 1984. Weed seed decline in irrigated soil after six years of continuous corn (Zea mays) and herbicides. Weed Sci. 32: 76–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steinsiek, J. W., Oliver, L. R., and Collins, F. C. 1982. Allelopathic potential of wheat (Triticum aestivum) straw on selected weed species. Weed Sci. 30: 495–497.Google Scholar
Stevens, O. A. 1957. Weights of seeds and numbers per plant. Weeds. 5: 46–55.Google Scholar
Swinton, S. M. and King, R. P. 1994. A bioeconomic model for weed management in corn and soybeans. Agric. Syst. 44: 313–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weston, L. A. 1996. Utilization of allelopathy for weed management in agroecosystems. Agron. J. 88: 860–866.Google Scholar
Wicks, G. A., Martin, D. A., and Mahnken, G. W. 1995. Cultural practices in wheat (Triticum aestivum) on weeds in subsequent fallow and sorghum (Sorghum bicolor). Weed Sci. 43: 434–444.Google Scholar
Zanin, G. and Sattin, M. 1987. Threshold level and seed production of velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti Medicus) in maize. Weed Res. 28: 347–352.Google Scholar