Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T23:48:38.162Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Biotic and abiotic factors influence horseweed emergence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Christopher L. Main ,
Lawrence E. Steckel ,
Robert M. Hayes  and
Thomas C. Mueller
Christopher L. Main
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences, University of Tennessee, West Tennessee Research and Education Center, Jackson, TN 38305-3201
Lawrence E. Steckel
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences, University of Tennessee, West Tennessee Research and Education Center, Jackson, TN 38305-3201
Robert M. Hayes
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences, University of Tennessee, West Tennessee Research and Education Center, Jackson, TN 38305-3201
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Factors affecting horseweed emergence are important for management of this weed species, particularly because of the presence of herbicide-resistant biotypes. Horseweed emergence was highly variable and not strongly correlated to soil temperature (r 2 = 0.21), air temperature (r 2 = 0.45) or rainfall (r 2 = 0.32). Horseweed emerged mainly during April and September in Tennessee when average daytime temperatures fluctuate between 10 and 15.5 C. However, some horseweed plants emerged during almost any month when temperatures ranged from 10 to 25 C and adequate moisture was available at the soil surface. Horseweed densities ranged from a low of 30 to 50 plants m−2 to a high of > 1,500 plants−2 at one location. These extremely high densities illustrate the ability of horseweed to be an effective ruderal plant that can produce stands that approach monoculture densities if not controlled. The amount of crop residue remaining after harvest from the previous field season was in the order of corn > cotton > soybean > fallow. Residue from a previous corn crop reduced horseweed emergence compared with soybean and cotton residues in a no-tillage situation. Decreased horseweed density due to crop residue presence indicates that a systems approach may help reduce horseweed populations.

Keywords

Horseweed, Conyza canadensis (L.) Cronq. ERICAcorn, Zea mays L.cotton, Gossypium hirsutum L.soybean, Glycine max (L.) MerrCrop residueglyphosate resistanceweed emergence
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 54 , Issue 6 , December 2006 , pp. 1101 - 1105
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.)

References

Literature Cited

Alm, E. M., Stoller, E. W., and Wax, L. M. 1993. An index model for predicting seed germination and emergence rates. Weed Technol. 7:560–569.Google Scholar
Bazzaz, F. A. 1990. Plant-plant interaction in successional environments. Pages 239–263 in Grace, J. B. and Tilman, D. eds. Perspectives on Plant Competition. San Diego, CA: Academic.Google Scholar
Brown, C. M. and Whitwell, T. 1998. Influence of tillage on horseweed, Conyza canadensis . Weed Technol. 2:269–277.Google Scholar
Bruce, J. A. and Kells, J. J. 1990. Horseweed (Conyza canadensis) control in no-tillage soybeans (Glycine max) with preplant and preemergence herbicides. Weed Technol. 4:642–647.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D. 1992. Population dynamics and control of annual weeds in corn (Zea mays) as influenced by tillage systems. Weed Sci. 40:241–248.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D. and Owen, M. D. K. 1997. Emergence and survival of horseweed (Conyza canadensis). Weed Sci. 45:98–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burke, I. C., Thomas, W. E., Spears, J. F., and Wilcut, J. W. 2003. Influence of environmental factors on broadleaf signalgrass (Brachiaria platyphylla) germination. Weed Sci. 51:683–689.Google Scholar
Fawcett, R. S. and Slife, F. W. 1978. Effects of field applications of nitrate on weed seed germination and dormancy. Weed Sci. 26:594–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallagher, R. S. and Cardina, J. 1998. Phytochrome-mediated Amaranthus germination I: effect of seed burial and germination temperature. Weed Sci. 46:48–52.Google Scholar
Gibson, K. D., Johnson, W. G., and Hillger, D. E. 2005. Farmer perceptions of problematic corn and soybean weeds in Indiana. Weed Technol. 19:1065–1070.Google Scholar
Heap, I. 2004. The International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. www.weedscience.com.Google Scholar
Holm, L., Doll, J., Holm, E., Pancho, J., and Herberger, J. 1997. World Weeds; Natural Histories and Distribution. New York: J. Wiley. Pp. 226–235.Google Scholar
Koger, C. H., Poston, D. H., Hayes, R. M., and Montgomery, R. F. 2004. Glyphosate-resistant horseweed (Conyza canadensis) in Mississippi. Weed Technol. 18:820–825.Google Scholar
Main, C. L., Mueller, T. C., Hayes, R. M., and Wilkerson, J. B. 2004. Response of selected horseweed (Conyza canadensis (L.) Cronq.) populations to glyphosate. J. Agric. Food Chem. 52:879–883.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mueller, T. C., Massey, J. H., Hayes, R. M., Main, C. L., and Stewart, C. N. Jr. 2003. Shikimate accumulates in both glyphosate-sensitive and glyphosate-resistant horseweed (Conyza canadensis L. Cronq). J. Agric. Food Chem. 51:680–684.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Regeher, D. L. and Bazzaz, F. A. 1979. The population dynamics of Erigeron canadensis, a successional winter annual. J. Ecol. 67:923–933.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1996. SAS User's Guide. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute.Google Scholar
Sauer, J. and Struik, G. 1964. A possible ecological relation between soil disturbance, light-flash, and seed germination. Ecology. 45:884–886.Google Scholar
Scopel, A. L., Ballare, C. L., and Sanchez, R. A. 1991. Induction of extreme light sensitivity in buried weed seeds and its role in the perception of soil cultivations. Plant Cell Environ. 14:501–508.Google Scholar
Scott, R., Shaw, D. R., and Barrentine, W. L. 1998. Glyphosate tank mixtures with SAN 582 for burndown or postemergence applications in glyphosate-tolerant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 12:23–26.Google Scholar
Shelton, D. P., Dickey, E. C., Kanable, R., Melvin, S. W., and Burr, C. A. 1991. Using the Line-Transect Method to Estimate Residue Cover. Lincoln, NE: Cooperative Extension, University of Nebraska NebGuide G90-981.Google Scholar
Stoller, E. W. and Wax, L. M. 1973. Dormancy changes and fate of some annual weed seeds in the soil. Weed Sci. 22:151–155.Google Scholar
VanGessel, M. J. 2001. Glyphosate-resistant horseweed in Delaware. Weed Sci. 49:703–705.Google Scholar
Weaver, S. E. 2001. The biology of Canadian weeds, 115: Conyza canadensis . Can. J. Plant Sci. 81:867–875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar