Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T16:37:32.415Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Effects of Water on Recovery of Weed Seedlings Following Burial

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Charles L. Mohler*
Affiliation:
Section of Soil and Crop Sciences, School of Integrative Plant Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853
Javaid Iqbal
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, Ghazi University, Dera Ghazi Khan 32200 Punjab Pakistan
Jianying Shen
Affiliation:
Department of Environmental Resources, Shanghai Jiatong University, Shanghai, China 200240
Antonio DiTommaso
Affiliation:
Section of Soil and Crop Sciences, School of Integrative Plant Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853
*
Corresponding author’ E-mail:clm11@cornell.edu

Abstract

Recovery of common agricultural weeds after burial by soil was studied in four greenhouse and three field experiments. Species studied included velvetleaf, Powell amaranth, common lambsquarters, barnyardgrass, and giant foxtail. Seedlings were bent over before burial to simulate the effect of the impact of soil thrown by a cultivator. Altogether, more than 35,000 seedlings were marked and observed for recovery. No seedlings recovered from 4 cm of burial. Recovery from complete burial under 2 cm of soil ranged from 0 to 24% depending on the experiment, species, and watering treatment, but recovery greater than 5% was rare. Large-seeded species tended to recover from complete burial under 2 cm of soil better than small-seeded species. The study did not reveal a difference in recovery of grasses relative to broadleaf weeds. Overall, seedlings tended to recover best when water was applied daily after burial, worst when water was applied once on the day of burial, and to an intermediate extent when no water was applied. However, difference in recovery between the no-water and watering-once treatments were usually small. Also, many experiment by species combinations showed no significant differences among watering treatments. When even a small portion of the seedling was left exposed, recovery generally exceeded 50%. Organic weed management systems commonly use burial of weed seedlings with tine weeders and soil thrown by sweeps and hilling disks to control weeds in crop rows. Recovery from burial could pose a substantial weed management problem in some circumstances, particularly for large-seeded weed species. Maximizing burial depth is important for limiting recovery. Recovery from burial can be minimized by withholding irrigation for several days after hilling-up operations.

Type
Weed Management
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.)

Footnotes

Associate Editor for this paper: Martin M. Williams, III, USDA-ARS.

References

Literature Cited

Baerveldt, S, Ascard, JA (1999) Effect of soil cover on weeds. Biol Agric Hort 17:101111 Google Scholar
Bond, W, Grundy, AC (2001) Non-chemical weed management in organic farming systems. Weed Res 41:383405 Google Scholar
Caldwell, B, Mohler, CL, Ketterings, QM, DiTommaso, A (2014) Yields and profitability during and after transition in organic grain cropping systems. Agron J 106:871880 Google Scholar
Cavers, PB, Kane, M (1990) Responses of proso millet (Panicum miliaceum) seedlings to mechanical damage and/or drought treatment. Weed Technol 4:425432 Google Scholar
Davis, AS, Renner, KA (2007) Influence of seed depth and pathogens on fatal germination of velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) and giant foxtail (Setaria faberi ). Weed Sci 55:3035 Google Scholar
Fogelberg, F, Dock Gustavsson, A-M (1999) Mechanical damage to annual weeds and carrots by in-row brush weeding. Weed Res 39:469479 Google Scholar
Grime, JP, Jeffrey, DW (1965) Seedling establishment in vertical gradients of sunlight. J Ecol 53:621642 Google Scholar
Habel, W (1954) Ober die Wirkungsweise der Eggen gegen Samenunkräuter sowie die Empfindlichkeit der Unkrautarten und ihrer Alterstadien gegen den Eggenvorgung. Ph.D dissertation. Hohenheim, Germany Universität Hohenheim Landwirtschaftlichen Hochschule, 58 pGoogle Scholar
Harris, D, Davy, AJ (1987) Seedling growth in Elymus farctus after episodes of burial with sand. Ann Bot 60:587593 Google Scholar
Jones, PA, Blair, AM, Orson, JH, (1995) The effect of different types of physical damage to four weed species. Pages 653658 in Proceedings of the Brighton Crop Protection Conference—Weeds. Farnham, Surrey, UK British Crop Protection Council Google Scholar
Kurstiens, DAG, Kropff, MJ (2001) The impact of uprooting and soil-covering on the effectiveness of weed harrowing. Weed Res 41:211228 Google Scholar
Kurstiens, DAG, Perdok, UD (2000) The selective soil covering mechanism of weed harrows on sandy soil. Soil Till Res 55:193206 Google Scholar
Martinez, ML, Moreno-Casasolai, P (1996) Effects of burial by sand on seedling growth and survival in six tropical sand dune species from the Gulf of Mexico. J Coast Res 12:406419 Google Scholar
Maun, MA (2004) Burial of plants as a selective force in sand dunes. Pages 119135 in Martinez, ML, Psuty, NP, eds. Coastal Dunes. Berlin: Springer Google Scholar
Maun, MA, Elberling, H, D'Ulisse, A (1996) The effects of burial by sand on survival and growth of Pitcher's thistle (Cirsium pitcheri) along Lake Huron. J Coast Conserv 2:312 Google Scholar
Melander, B, Rasmussen, IA, Bàrberi, P (2005) Integrating physical and cultural methods of weed control—examples from European research. Weed Sci 53:369381 Google Scholar
Mohler, CL (2001) Mechanical management of weeds. Pages 139209 in Liebman, L, Mohler, CL, Staver, CP. Ecological Management of Agricultural Weeds. Cambridge Cambridge University Press Google Scholar
Mohler, CL, Dykeman, C, Nelson, EB, DiTommaso, A (2012) Reduction of weed seedling emergence by pathogens following incorporation of green crop residue. Weed Res 52:467477 Google Scholar
Mohler, CL, Teasdale, JR (1993) Response of weed emergence to rate of Vicia villosa Roth and Secale cereale L. residue. Weed Res 33:487499 Google Scholar
Morton, CT, Buchele, VF (1960) Emergence energy of plant seedlings. Agric Eng 41:428431, 453–455Google Scholar
Shi, L, Zhang, ZJ, Zhang, CY, Zhang, JZ (2004) Effects of sand burial on survival, growth, gas exchange and biomass allocation of Ulmus pumila seedlings in the Hunshandak Sandland, China. Ann Bot 94:553560 Google Scholar
Thampanya, U, Vermaat, JE, Terrados, J (2002) The effect of increasing sediment accretion on the seedlings of three common Thai mangrove species. Aquat Bot 74:315325 Google Scholar
van der Schans, D, Bleeker, P, eds (2006) Practical Weed Control in Arable Farming and Outdoor Vegetable Cultivation without Chemicals. Wageningen, The Netherlands Applied Plant Research Publ. 352. 77 pGoogle Scholar
Vissoh, PV, Gbèhounou, G, Ahanchédé, A, Kuyper, TW, Röling, NG (2004) Weeds as agricultural constraint to farmers in Benin: results of a diagnostic study. NJAS–Wageningen J Life Sci 52:305309 Google Scholar
Yanful, M, Maun, MA (1996) Effects of burial of seeds and seedlings from different seed sizes on the emergence and growth of Strophostyles helvola . Can J Bot 74:13221330 Google Scholar
Zhang, J, Maun, MA (1990) Effects of sand burial on seed germination, seedling emergence, survival, and growth of Agropyron psammophilum . Can J Bot 68:304310 Google Scholar