Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T02:01:49.491Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of tillage and corn on pigweed (Amaranthus spp.) seedling emergence and density

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Joseph O. E. Oryokot ,
Stephen D. Murphy  and
Clarence J. Swanton
Joseph O. E. Oryokot
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Sciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada
Stephen D. Murphy
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Sciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We studied the effect of no-till, chisel, and moldboard plow and the presence or absence of corn on soil temperature, moisture and, subsequently, the emergence phenology and density of pigweed seedlings at 2 sites from 1993 to 1995 inclusively. Tillage significantly affected the phenology of pigweed seedling emergence only during a June drought at one site in 1994. Soil temperature and moisture, measured at 2.5-cm depths, also were unaffected by tillage. Weed phenology is usually earlier in no-till because more seeds are located closer to the surface (< 5 cm deep) in no-till, thereby reducing the delay in penetrating through the soil, and because soil temperatures and moisture are nearer the germination and emergence optima. However, pigweed seedlings are already physiologically restricted to germination depths of less than 2.5 cm regardless of tillage; therefore, this prior constraint eliminated any potential differences in emergence phenologies caused by tillage. The presence or absence of corn also did not affect soil temperatures, soil moisture, or pigweed seedling emergence phenologies. Pigweed seedling density was significantly higher in no-till; this may have been caused by increased numbers of seeds near the soil surface in no-till. The presence or absence of corn did not affect pigweed seedling density; the lack of a significant effect probably reflects high variances in density. Although necessary for most weed species, tillage may be a less important factor to consider in predicting pigweed population dynamics and subsequent management recommendations.

Keywords

Phenologysoil temperaturesoil moistureAMAPOAMAREGreen pigweed, Amaranthus powellii S. Wats AMAPOredroot pigweed, Amaranthus retroflexus L. AMARE
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 45 , Issue 1 , February 1997 , pp. 120 - 126
Copyright
Copyright © 1997 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.)

References

Literature Cited

Addae, P. C., Collis-George, N., and Pearson, C. J. 1991. Over-riding effects of temperature and soil strength of wheat seedlings under minimum and conventional tillage. Field Crops Res. 28: 103–116.Google Scholar
Blevins, R. L. and Frye, W. W. 1993. Conservation tillage: an ecological approach to soil management. Adv. Agron. 51: 33–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buhler, D. D. 1992. Populations dynamics and control of annual weeds in corn (Zea mays) as influenced by tillage. Weed Sci. 40: 241–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buhler, D. D. and Oplinger, E. S. 1990. Influence of tillage systems on annual weed densities and control in solid-seeded soybean (Glysine max). Weed Sci. 38: 158–165.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D., Mester, T. C., and Kohler, K. A. 1996. The effect of maize residues and tillage on emergence of Setaria faberi, Abutilon theophrasti, Amarantbus retroflexus, and Chenopodium album . Weed Res. 36: 153–165.Google Scholar
Cardina, J., Regnier, E., and Harrison, K. 1991. Long-term tillage effects on seed banks in three Ohio soils. Weed Sci. 39: 186–194.Google Scholar
Chikoye, D., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1995. Influence of common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) time of emergence and density on white bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Weed Sci. 43: 375–380.Google Scholar
Clements, D. R., Benoit, D. L., Murphy, S. D., and Swanton, C. J. 1996. Tillage effects of weed seed return and seedbank composition. Weed Sci. 44: 314–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dale, M.R.T., Thomas, A. G., and John, E. A. 1992. Environmental factors and management factors as correlates in spring seeded crops. Can. J. Bot. 70: 1931–1939.Google Scholar
Derksen, D. A., Thomas, A. G., Lafond, G. P., Loeppky, H. A., and Swanton, C. J. 1994. Impact of agronomic practices on weed communities: fallow within tillage. Weed Sci. 42: 184–194.Google Scholar
Derksen, D. A., Thomas, A. G., Lafond, G. P., Loeppky, H. A., and Swanton, C. J. 1995. Impact of postemergence herbicides on weed community diversity within conservation-tillage systems. Weed Res. 35: 311–320.Google Scholar
Dieleman, A., Hamill, A. S., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1995. Empirical models for pigweed (Amaranthus spp.) interference in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Res. 43: 612–618.Google Scholar
Ervio, L. R. and Salonen, J. 1987. Changes in the weed population of spring cereals in Finland. Ann. Agric. Fenn. 26: 201–226.Google Scholar
Forcella, F., Eradat-Oskoui, K., and Wagner, S. W. 1993. Application of weed seedbank ecology to low-input crop management. Ecol. Appl. 3: 74–83.Google Scholar
Forcella, F., Wilson, R. G., Renner, K. A., Dekker, J., Harvey, R. G., Alm, D. A., Buhler, D. D., and Cardina, J. 1992. Weed seedbank of the U.S. Corn Belt: magnitude, variation, emergence and application. Weed Sci. 40: 636–644.Google Scholar
Gallaher, R. N. 1978. Benefits of killed rye for a mulch in no-tillage cropping systems. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 31: 127–133.Google Scholar
Gill, K. S. and Prihar, S. S. 1983. Cultivation and evaporativity effects on the drying patterns of sandy loam soil. Soil Sci. 135: 367–377.Google Scholar
Hall, M., Swanton, C. J., and Anderson, G. W. 1992. The critical period of weed control in corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 40: 441–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, M. D. and Lowery, B. 1985. Effect of three conservation tillage practices on soil temperature and thermal properties. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 49: 1547–1552.Google Scholar
Knezevic, S. Z., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1994. Interference of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) in corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 42: 568–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kropff, M. J., Weaver, S. E., and Smits, M. A. 1992. Use of ecophysiological models for crop weed interference: relations amongst weed density, relative time of emergence, relative leaf area and yield loss. Weed Sci. 40: 296–301.Google Scholar
Mahli, S. S. and O'Sullivan, P. A. 1990. Soil temperature, moisture and penetrometer resistance under zero and conventional tillage in Central Alberta. Soil Tillage Res. 7: 167–172.Google Scholar
Mielke, L. N., Doran, J. W., and Richards, K. A. 1986. Physical environment near the surface of plowed and no-tilled soils. Soil Tillage Res. 7: 355–366.Google Scholar
Mohler, C. L. 1993. A model of the effects of tillage on emergence of weed seedlings. Ecol. Appl. 3: 53–73.Google Scholar
Mohler, C. L. and Calloway, M. B. 1992. Effects of tillage and mulch on the emergence and survival of weeds in corn. J. Appl. Ecol. 29: 21–34.Google Scholar
Murphy, S. D., Yakubu, Y., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1996. Effect of planting patterns and interrow cultivation on competition between corn (Zea mays) and late emerging weeds. Weed Sci. 44: 856–870.Google Scholar
Ogg, A. G. Jr. and Dawson, J. H. 1984. Times of emergence of eight weed species. Weed Sci. 32: 327–335.Google Scholar
Oke, T. R. 1987. Boundary layer climates, 2nd ed. Methuen, New York. pp. 42–57 and 229–236.Google Scholar
Oryokot, J.O.E. 1996. Modelling seedling emergence of pigweed populations in corn. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Guelph, Guelph, ON. 145 p.Google Scholar
Robinson, E. L., Longdale, G. W., and Stuedmann, J. A. 1984. Effect of three weed control regimes on no-till and tilled soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 32: 17–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1990. SAS User's Guide. Version 6.06. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute.Google Scholar
Steiner, J. L. 1989. Tillage and surface residue effects on evaporation from soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 53: 911–916.Google Scholar
Swanton, C. J. and Murphy, S. D. 1996. Weed science beyond the weeds: the role of integrated weed management (IWM) in agroecosystem health. Weed Sci. 44: 437–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swanton, C. J. and Weise, S. F. 1991. Integrated weed management: the rationale and approach. Weed Technol. 5: 657–663.Google Scholar
Thomas, A. G. and Frick, B. L. 1993. Influence of tillage systems on weed abundance in southwestern Ontario. Weed Technol. 7: 699–705.Google Scholar
Todd, R. W., Klocke, N. L., Herget, G. W., and Parkhurst, A. M. 1991. Evaporation from soil influenced by crop shading, crop residue and regime. Trans. ASAE 34: 461–466.Google Scholar
Van Acker, R. C., Swanton, C. J., and Weise, S. F. 1993. The critical period of weed control in soybean (Glycine max L. Merr.). Weed Sci. 41: 194–200.Google Scholar
Weaver, S. E. 1984. Differential growth and competitive ability of Amaranthus retroflexus, A. powellii and A. hybridus . Can. J. Plant Sci. 64: 715–724.Google Scholar
Weaver, S. E. and McWilliams, E. L. 1980. The biology of Canadian weeds. 44. Amaranthus retroflexus L., A. powellii S. Wats., and A. hybridus L. Can. J. Plant Sci. 60: 1215–1244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webb, D. M., Smith, C. W., and Schulz-Schaeffer, J. 1987. Amaranth seedling emergence as affected by seedling depth and temperature on a thermogradient plate. Agron. J. 79: 23–26.Google Scholar
Weise, A. F. and Davis, R. G. 1967. Weed emergence from two soils at various moistures, temperatures, and depth. Weeds 15: 118–121.Google Scholar
Yenish, J. P., Doll, J. D., and Buhler, D. D. 1992. Effects of tillage on vertical distribution and viability of weed seed in soil. Weed Sci. 40: 429–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhai, R., Kachanoski, R. G., and Voroney, R. P. 1990. Tillage effects on the spatial and temporal variation of soil water. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 54: 186–192.Google Scholar