Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-gs9qr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T07:37:28.220Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Timing and Measurement of Weed Seed Shed in Corn (Zea mays)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Frank Forcella ,
Dean H. Peterson  and
James C. Barbour
Frank Forcella
Affiliation:
North Central Soil Cons. Res. Lab., Agric. Res. Serv., U.S. Dep. Agric, 803 Iowa Avenue, Morris, MN 56267
Dean H. Peterson
Affiliation:
North Central Soil Cons. Res. Lab., Agric. Res. Serv., U.S. Dep. Agric, 803 Iowa Avenue, Morris, MN 56267
James C. Barbour
Affiliation:
West Central Exp. Stn., Univ. Minn., Morris, MN 56267
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In west central Minnesota the extent and duration of weed seed shed was measured for two years in corn that received cultivation but no herbicides. Percentage of seed production represented by viable (filled) seeds was about 79% for green foxtail, 68% for wild mustard, 49% for Pennsylvania smartweed, 48% for common lambsquarters, and 35% for redroot pigweed. Percentage viable seeds varied from 11% in 1993 to 59% in 1994 for redroot pigweed, but was more stable for other species. Seed shed commenced in late August in a cool year (1993) and early August in a warm year (1994). Average growing degree days (base 10 C) from corn planting until 25% seed shed was 983 for common lambsquarters, 984 for wild mustard, 1004 for Pennsylvania smartweed, and 1034 for both green foxtail and redroot pigweed. Brief weather events, such as wind storms, dispersed large percentages of total seed production within a single day. More than one-fifth of all viable seeds of green foxtail, redroot pigweed, and common lambsquarters were retained by the seedheads and dispersed by combines at harvest. In contrast, seeds of early-maturing species, such as wild mustard, were completely dispersed before corn harvest in the warmer year, but one-third of seeds were retained by seedheads at harvest in the cooler year. Measurement of seed shed was compared using five seed trap designs. The preferred design consisted of a 10-cm-diam plastic cup, whose bottom was replaced by a brass screen, and the entire unit attached to a small wooden stake for support. This design provided, on average, the highest estimates of seed production, least among-replication variability, highest correlation with weed population density and aboveground dry-weight, lowest assembly cost, and greatest ease for sample access and seed processing.

Keywords

Common lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. ♯3CHEALcorn, Zea mays Lgreen foxtail, Setaria viridis (L.) Beauv. ♯ SETVIPennsylvania smartweed, Polygonum pensylvanicum L. ♯ POLPYredroot pigweed, Amaranthus retroflexus L. ♯ AMAREwild mustard, Sinapis arvensis L. ♯ SINARand wild proso millet, Panicum miliaceum L. ♯ PANMIPhenologyseed dispersalseed productionseed rainseed traps

Information

Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 10 , Issue 3 , September 1996 , pp. 535 - 543
Copyright
Copyright © 1996 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. Anonymous. 1994. STATISTIX, Version 4.1. Analytical Software, Tallahassee, FL.Google Scholar
2. Biniak, B. M. and Aldrich, R. J. 1986. Reducing velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) and giant foxtail (Setaria faberi) seed production with simulated-roller herbicide applications. Weed Sci. 34:256–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Defelice, M. S., Brown, W. B., Aldrich, R. J., Sims, B. D., Judy, D. T., and Guethle, D. R. 1989. Weed control in soybeans (Glycine max) with reduced rates of postemergence herbicides. Weed Sci. 37:365–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Fogelfors, A. H. 1981. Changes in the weed flora when collecting chaff and straw during combining. Swedish Univ. Agric. Sci., Rep. 8., Uppsala. 27 p.Google Scholar
5. Forcella, F., King, R. P., Swinton, S. M., Buhler, D. D., and Gunsolus, J. L. 1996. Multi-year validation of a decision aid for integrated weed management in row crops. Weed Sci. 44: In press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Haas, H. and Streibig, J. C. 1983. Changing pattern of weed distribution as a result of herbicide use and other agronomic factors. p. 57–79 in LaBaron, H. M. and Gressel, J., eds., Herbicide Resistance in Plants. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.Google Scholar
7. Johnson, C. K. and West, N. E. 1988. Laboratory comparisons of five seed-trap designs for dry, windy environments. Can. J. Bot. 66:346–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Keeley, P. E. and Thullen, R. J. 1989. Growth and competition of black nightshade (Solanum nigrum) and palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. 37:326–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Maxwell, B. D. and Ghersa, C. 1992. The influence of weed seed dispersion verses the effect of competition on crop yield. Weed Technol. 6:196–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Mortimer, A. M., Putwain, P. D., and Howard, C. L. 1993. The abundance of brome grasses in arable agriculture—comparative population studies of four species. Brighton Crop Prot. Conf. 1993:505–514.Google Scholar
11. Regnier, E. 1995. Teaching seed bank ecology in an undergraduate laboratory exercise. Weed Technol. 9:5–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Scholtens, J. R. 1979. A practical seed trap for pine stands of coastal South Carolina. South. J. Appl. Forest. 3:112–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Thurston, J. M. 1964. Weed studies in winter wheat. Proc. Br. Weed Control Conf. 7:592–598.Google Scholar
14. Werner, P. A. 1975. A seed trap for determining patterns of seed deposition in terrestrial plants. Can. J. Bot. 53:810–813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Wilson, B. J. 1972. Studies of the fate of Avena fatua seeds in cereal stubble, as influenced by autumn treatment. Proc. Br. Weed Control Conf. 11:242–247.Google Scholar