Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T04:20:39.945Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of tillage and interference on common cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium) and sicklepod (Senna obtusifolia) population, seed production, and seedbank

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Mohammad T. Bararpour  and
Lawrence R. Oliver
Mohammad T. Bararpour
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Common cocklebur and sicklepod are troublesome weeds in soybean in the southern United States. A field experiment was conducted from 1991 through 1995 to determine (1) the influence of tillage (no-till and tilled after initial seed deposition) and intraspecific and interspecific interference on seed production potential, emergence pattern, and soil seedbank of common cocklebur and sicklepod, and (2) the dominant species after introduction into a weed-free field. Under intraspecific interference, 1,430 and 1,392 common cocklebur achenes m−2 and 1,827 and 5,435 sicklepod seed m−2 were deposited to the seedbank after 1 and 2 yr of seed production, respectively. For both species, approximately 11% of the initial seedbank emerged under tilled conditions the first year after deposition. Under no-till conditions, only 0.7% of common cocklebur and 1.6% of sicklepod emerged. The second year after deposition, common cocklebur emergence in no-till decreased to 0.25% of the initial seedbank, while sicklepod increased to 8% of the initial seedbank and remained higher than in tilled plots. Under tilled conditions, common cocklebur became the dominant species, and sicklepod became dominant under no-till conditions. Seedbank depletion was greater for both species under tillage. Three years after initial seed deposition, sicklepod seed was 100% viable but common cocklebur achenes were not viable. Under no-till conditions, common cocklebur was depleted in the seedbank but sicklepod was not. Thus, sicklepod poses a greater long-term weed problem than common cocklebur, especially under no-till conditions.

Keywords

Soybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr.common cocklebur, Xanthium strumarium L. XANSTsicklepod, Senna obtusifolia L. SENOBNo-tillweed populationsweed emergenceseed viabilitySENOBXANST
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 46 , Issue 4 , August 1998 , pp. 424 - 431
Copyright
Copyright © 1998 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: Modress Street, Pool-Pish Plauge 8, Mr. Pourdadash House, 47149 Babol, Iran

References

Literature Cited

Ball, D. A. and Miller, S. D. 1989. A comparison of techniques for estimation of arable soil seedbanks and their relationship to weed flora. Weed Res. 29: 365–372.Google Scholar
Barrentine, W. L. and Oliver, L. R. 1977. Competition, Threshold Levels, and Control of Common Cocklebur in Soybeans. Mississippi State, MS: Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station Technical Bull. 83. 27 p.Google Scholar
Bridges, D. C. and Baumann, P. A. 1992. Weeds causing losses in the United States. Pages 75-147 in Bridges, D. C., ed. Crop Losses Due to Weeds in the United States, 1992. Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of America.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buhler, D. D. and Daniel, T. C. 1988. Influence of tillage systems on giant foxtail (Setaria faberi) and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) density and control in corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 36: 642–647.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D. and Mester, T. C. 1991. Effect of tillage systems on the emergence depth of giant (Setaria faberi) and green foxtail (Setaria viridis). Weed Sci. 39: 200–203.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D. and Oplinger, E. S. 1990. Influence of tillage systems on annual weed densities and control in solid-seeded soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 38: 158–164.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
Clements, D. R., Benoit, D. L., Murphy, S. D., and Swanton, C. J. 1996. Tillage effects on weed seed return and seedbank composition. Weed Sci. 44: 314–322.Google Scholar
Creel, J. M., Hoveland, C. S., and Buchanan, G. A. 1968. Germination, growth, and ecology of sicklepod. Weed Sci. 16: 396–400.Google Scholar
Egley, G. H. and Chandler, J. M. 1983. Longevity of weed seed after 5.5 years in the Stoneville 50–year buried-seed study. Weed Sci. 31: 264–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ethridge, R. E., Murdock, E. C., Stapleton, G. R., and Toler, J. E. 1996. Sicklepod (Senna obtusifolia) control in soybean (Glycine max) with imazaquin and metribuzin combinations. Weed Technol. 10: 78–84.Google Scholar
Fenner, M. 1985. Seed Ecology. London: Chapman and Hall, pp. 103–116.Google Scholar
Harper, J. L. 1977. The Population Biology of Plants. London: Academic Press, pp. 111–113.Google Scholar
Kremer, R. J. and Spencer, N. R. 1989. Impact of a seed-eating insect and microorganisms on velvetleaf seed viability. Weed Sci. 37: 211–216.Google Scholar
Monks, D. W. and Oliver, L. R. 1988. Interactions between soybean (Glycine max) and selected weeds. Weed Sci. 36: 770–774.Google Scholar
Mulugeta, D. and Stoltenberg, D. E. 1997. Weed and seedbank management with integrated methods as influenced by tillage. Weed Sci. 45: 706–715.Google Scholar
Oryokot, J.O.E., Hunt, L. A., Murphy, S., and Swanton, C. J. 1997. Simulation of pigweed (Amaranthus spp.) seedling emergence in different tillage systems. Weed Sci. 45: 684–690.Google Scholar
Roberts, H. A. and Neilson, J. E. 1981. Changes in the soil seed bank of four long-term crop/herbicide experiments. J. Appl. Ecol. 18: 661–668.Google Scholar
Teasdale, J. R., Beste, C. E., and Potts, W. E. 1991. Response of weeds to tillage and cover crop residue. Weed Sci. 39: 195–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Worsham, A. D. and Lewis, W. M. 1985. Weed management: key to no-tillage crop production. Pages 177-188 in Proceedings of the Southern Region No-till Conference. Athens, GA: University of Georgia.Google Scholar
Wrucke, M. A. and Arnold, W. E. 1985. Weed species distribution as influenced by tillage and herbicides. Weed Sci. 33: 853–856.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.Google Scholar