Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T06:50:57.494Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A hydrothermal model to predict Russian thistle (Salsola tragus) seedling emergence in the dryland of the Pacific Northwest (USA)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 November 2023

Fernando H. Oreja*
Affiliation:
Postdoctoral Research Associate, Oregon State University, Columbia Basin Agricultural Research Center, Adams, OR, USA
Nicholas G. Genna
Affiliation:
Postdoctoral Scholar, Oregon State University, Columbia Basin Agricultural Research Center, Adams, OR, USA
Jose L. Gonzalez-Andujar
Affiliation:
Professor of Research, Spanish National Research Council, Institute for Sustainable Agriculture, Cordoba, Spain
Stewart B. Wuest
Affiliation:
Research Soil Scientist, USDA-ARS, Columbia Plateau Conservation Research Center, Adams, OR, USA
Judit Barroso
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Oregon State University, Columbia Basin Agricultural Research Center, Adams, OR, USA
*
Corresponding author: Fernando H. Oreja; Email: orejaf@agro.uba.ar
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Russian thistle (Salsola tragus L.) is among the most troublesome weeds in cropland and ruderal semiarid areas of the Pacific Northwest (PNW). Predicting S. tragus emergence timing plays a critical role in scheduling weed management measures. The objective of this research was to develop and validate a predictive model of the seedling emergence pattern of S. tragus under field conditions in the PNW to increase the efficacy of control measures targeting this species. The relationship between cumulative seedling emergence and cumulative hydrothermal time under field conditions was modeled using the Weibull function. This model is the first to use hydrothermal time units (HTT) to predict S. tragus emergence and showed a very good fit to the experimental data. According to this model, seedling emergence starts at 5 HTT, and 50% and 90% emergence is completed at 56 HTT and 177 HTT, respectively. For model validation, independent field experiments were carried out. Cumulative seedling emergence was accurately predicted by the model, supporting the idea that this model is robust enough to be used as a predictive tool for S. tragus seedling emergence. Our model can serve as the basis for the development of decision support systems, helping farmers make the best decisions to control S. tragus populations in no-till fallow and spring wheat systems.

Type
Research Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Weed Science Society of America

Introduction

Russian thistle (Salsola tragus L.; syn.: Salsola kali) is among the most troublesome weeds in cropland and ruderal semiarid areas in the Pacific Northwest (PNW) (Beckie and Francis Reference Beckie and Francis2009). In dryland, this summer annual species is one of the most abundant broadleaf weeds in crops such as spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) (Young Reference Young1988), camelina [Camelina sativa (L.) Crantz] (Schillinger Reference Schillinger2019), pulses, canola (Brassica napus L.), and mustard (Brassica spp.) (Nakka et al. Reference Nakka, Jugulam, Peterson and Asif2019). In spring wheat, yield losses can range from 11% to 50%, depending on the amount of rainfall (Young Reference Young1988). This summer annual species emerges from March to May (Schillinger Reference Schillinger2007), coinciding with the planting dates of spring crops or even preceding them in the region (Ogg and Dawson Reference Ogg and Dawson1984). Salsola tragus is less problematic in winter crops, because they are already established when S. tragus emerges, reducing weed competitiveness, weed growth, and wheat yield losses (Fahad et al. Reference Fahad, Hussain, Chauhan, Saud, Wu, Hassan, Tanveer, Jan and Huang2015). Weeds that escape herbicide applications or emerge late may not be a problem for current crops but can become a severe weed problem during and after harvest (Young and Whitesides Reference Young and Whitesides1987), as they consume water and nutrients needed for the next crop. Furthermore, S. tragus control after wheat harvest in the PNW can be complicated and expensive. At that time, herbicides may be less effective due to factors like reduced active ingredient per biomass, thicker cuticles and higher wax accumulation than in younger plants (Harbour et al. Reference Harbour, Messersmith and Ramsdale2003; Kirkwood Reference Kirkwood1999), or inadequate environmental conditions (high temperatures, low precipitation and air humidity) (Oreja et al. Reference Oreja, Lyon, Gourlie, Wetzel and Barroso2023). Therefore, the accurate daily prediction of seedling emergence is crucial for making successful management decisions regarding this weed.

For annual plants, successful establishment is critical to guarantee reproductive success (Forcella et al. Reference Forcella, Arnold, Sanchez and Ghersa2000) and determines the intensity of the weed–crop interaction. A long emergence period with several flushes guarantees some individuals will escape from postemergence applications and mechanical controls, as well as from the effect of some residual herbicides. The late-emerging individuals are not the most important in terms of causing yield loss, but they will contribute to replenishing the seedbank for future seasons (Grundy Reference Grundy2003; Soltani et al. Reference Soltani, Vyn and Sikkema2009). Therefore, predicting S. tragus emergence is critical to optimizing in-crop herbicide applications to reduce yield loss in the present season as well as potentially reduce the number of late-emerging individuals that replenish the seedbank.

Seedling emergence is the final step of several processes involving seed dormancy release, germination, and preemergence seedling growth (Forcella et al. Reference Forcella, Arnold, Sanchez and Ghersa2000). Once S. tragus seeds are fully mature, they require an afterripening period to avoid germination in fall and so being killed by frost in winter. Following the afterripening period, if environmental conditions are favorable, seeds will germinate (Thorne et al. Reference Thorne, Young and Yenish2007). Temperature and water availability are the most important factors driving seed germination (Soltani et al. Reference Soltani, Baskin and Gonzalez-Andujar2022). Empirical models based on accumulation of either thermal or hydrothermal time have been developed for many weed species to predict the time course of seedling emergence in crop fields. These models consider that seeds need to accumulate a certain amount of growing degree days independent of soil water availability (thermal models) or including information about soil water potential (hydrothermal models).

Effective weed management relies on applying control measures at the right time. Postemergence herbicides are most effective when applied at an early seedling stage before the plant becomes tolerant. This goal can be accomplished with the aid of predictive models of weed emergence. The objective of this research was to develop a predictive model of the seedling emergence pattern of S. tragus in the dryland PNW that can provide precise information to farmers and crop advisors in order to increase the efficacy of control measures targeting this species.

Materials and Methods

Site Description

Four field experiments were established at the Columbia Basin Agriculture Research Center (CBARC) (45.7196°N, 118.6235°W) in two consecutive years (2020 and 2021). The soil at CBARC was a Walla Walla silt loam (coarse-silty, mixed, superactive, mesic Typic Haploxerolls; 8% clay, 27% sand, and 65% silt) with 2.3% organic matter and a pH of 5.4. Average precipitation at CBARC is 420 mm yr−1.

Model Development Experiment

In 2020, one experiment (hereafter referred as Site A) was established in a completely randomized block design with four replications. Each replication had 10 plots, each measuring 3 m by 4.5 m. Four hundred S. tragus seeds were sprinkled in the center of each plot on March 23, with 200 seeds (86% viability) spread in two separate 1 m2 areas within each plot. Seeds came from S. tragus plants collected on October 2019 from a grower’s field south of Ione, OR (45.3867°N, −119.8436°W). Seeds were stored in paper bags at room temperature (20 to 25 C) until use. Seed germination was tested in germination chambers at constant temperature (25 C) and 12-h interval of light and darkness, arranged in five replicates with 25 seeds per replicate each year. Initially, petri dishes were set up with a filter paper and water was added as required later. Germination was recorded regularly until no further seeds germinated (the incubation period did not exceed 15 d). After S. tragus seeds were sprinkled, spring wheat (‘Ryan’) was planted on March 24 in the experimental area using a no-till drill (Great Plains 606NT, Salinas, KS, USA) with 25 cm of interrow space at a seeding rate of 120 kg ha−1. The experimental area was fenced to prevent tumbleweed S. tragus plants from blowing across the research plots. Spring wheat fertilization was conducted following standard recommendations for the region (Wysocki et al. Reference Wysocki, Lutcher, Horneck, Hart and Petrie2007). The number of emerged seedlings was recorded every 15 d from April 7 until July 29. Data from the 10 plots per replicate were averaged, and the cumulative emergence percentage was calculated at the end of the season.

Model Validation Experiments

Also, in 2020 but in a no-till fallow field, one experiment (hereafter referred to as Site B) was conducted in a completely randomized block with four replications. Plot size was 3 m by 4.5 m. Salsola tragus seeds (from the same seed lot as those used in Site A) were sprinkled in the center of each plot in two 1 m2 areas on March 5. In 2021, two experiments were conducted in fallow and spring wheat following the same experimental design and plot size as Sites A and B. Again, S. tragus seeds were sprinkled in the center of each plot in two 1 m2 areas on March 13 in the fallow site (hereafter referred to as Site C) and on March 10 in the spring wheat site (hereafter referred to as Site D), at a seeding rate of 400 seeds (56% viability) per plot (200 seeds in each 1 m2 area). Seeds came from S. tragus plants collected on October 2020 from a different grower’s field south of Ione, OR (45.4409°N, 119.8791°W). After S. tragus seeds were sprinkled, spring wheat (Ryan) was planted in Site C on March 11 using the same no-till drill described for Site A at a seeding rate of 120 kg ha−1. Sites B, C, and D were fenced to prevent S. tragus plants from rolling across the experiments and dispersing seeds across the experimental area. Fertilization of spring wheat in Site D was conducted following standard recommendations for the region (Wysocki et al. Reference Wysocki, Lutcher, Horneck, Hart and Petrie2007). The number of emerged seedlings was recorded every 15 d in 2020, from March 31 to July 4 in site B, and weekly in 2021, from March 23 to July 13 in sites C and D, until no further seedlings were observed.

Soil Environmental Measures

Daily soil temperature and moisture were measured with 24 sensors per site located in a range of shallow soil depths varying from 0 up to 2.5 cm. Temperature was measured with calibrated thermistors, and water potential was measured with Decagon MPS6 water potential sensors (Meter Group, 2365 NE Hopkins Ct., Pullman, Washington 99163, US). Four sets of sensors (north, south, east, west) were established in each experimental site, with each set having two thermistors and four MPS6 sensors.

Soil temperature and water potential were used to calculate the hydrothermal time (θ HT ), expressed as C · kPa · d (degrees Celsius × kilopascal × days), being a function of hydro time (θ H = Ψ – Ψ b ) (kPa) and thermal time (θ T = TTb ) (C), where Ψ is daily average soil water potential, Ψ b is base water potential for seed germination expressed in kPa, T is daily average temperature at the soil surface, and Tb is base temperature for seed germination expressed in C, according to Equation 1:

([1]) $${{\rm{\theta }}_{{{HT}}}} = {\rm{\;}}{{\rm{\theta }}_{{H}}} \cdot {{\rm{\theta }}_{{T}}}$$

where θ H = 1 when Ψ > Ψ b , otherwise θ H = 0; and θ T = TTb when T > Tb , otherwise θ T = 0. The Ψ b and Tb considered for S. tragus were −1,000 kPa (Yousefi et al. Reference Yousefi, Rashidi, Moradi and Mastinu2020) and 4 C (Dwyer and Wolde-Yohannis Reference Dwyer and Wolde-Yohannis1972), respectively.

The cumulative hydrothermal time (HTT) was estimated from March 28 according to Equation 2, where d is the time period in days when HTT was computed:

([2]) $${\rm{HTT}} = \sum ({{\rm{\theta }}_{{{HT}}}})\;{\rm{*}}\;d$$

Model Development

To describe the pattern of seedling emergence, percent of cumulative emergence, E, was related to the cumulative hydrothermal time (HTT) with a Weibull model (Gonzalez-Andujar et al. Reference Gonzalez-Andujar, Chantre, Morvillo, Blanco and Forcella2016; Martinson et al. Reference Martinson, Durgan, Forcella, Wiersma, Spokas and Archer2007):

([3]) $$E = k\{ 1 - {\rm{exp[}} - b({\rm{HTT}} - p)]\} $$

where k is the maximum emergence fraction, b is the slope (emergence rate), and p is the inflection point on the x axis. Model performance was assessed by calculating the root mean-square error (RMSE), sum of the residuals (SRES), and sum of the absolute residuals (SARES) (Bastida et al. Reference Bastida, Lezaun and Gonzalez-Andujar2021). These measures are defined by Equations 4 to 6, where x i and y i are the observed and predicted cumulative percentage emergence, respectively:

([4]) $${\rm{RMSE}} = {\rm{\;}}\sqrt {\left( {{1 \over n}} \right)\mathop \sum \nolimits_{i = 1}^n {{\left( {{x_i} - {y_i}} \right)}^2}} $$
([5]) $${\rm{SRES}} = \mathop \sum \nolimits_{i = 1}^n \left( {{x_i} - {y_i}} \right)$$
([6]) $${\rm{SARES}} = \mathop \sum \limits_{i = 1}^n {\rm{ABS\;}}\left( {{x_i} - {y_i}} \right)$$

ABS is absolute value of the number within parentheses and n is the number of observations. A scale of RMSE meaning is (Royo-Esnal et al. Reference Royo-Esnal, Torra, Antoni Conesa, Forcella and Recasens2010): < 5 = excellent prediction, 5 to 10 = very good prediction, 10 to 15 = good prediction, and >15 = insufficient prediction. The SRES and SARES determine how errors in the model cancel out. If SRES is small compared with SARES, errors in the model will tend to cancel out. If SRES and SARES are large and SRES is positive, the model will tend to underestimate the observed value. However, if SRES is negative and large in comparison to SARES, then the model will tend to overestimate the observed value. Model parameters and goodness of fit were estimated by nonlinear least-squares regression using GraphPad Prism 6.0 (GraphPad Software, San Diego, CA, USA).

Model Validation

The model was validated using independent data from the described sites (B, C, and D) by comparing the observed seedling emergence and the predicted seedling emergence according to HTT, based on soil temperature and water potential measured on the sites and modeled by the Weibull function. Finally, the accuracy of the model was assessed by comparing the predicted and observed values through linear regression.

Results and Discussion

This work establishes for the first time a model for accurate prediction of S. tragus field emergence in the inland PNW. Our model can serve as the basis for the development of decision support systems, helping farmers to make the best decisions to control this troublesome weed in the future (Gonzalez-Andujar Reference Gonzalez-Andujar, Chantre and Gonzalez-Andujar2020).

The relationship between S. tragus cumulative emergence and cumulative hydrothermal time was well described by the Weibull model (Figure 1; Table 1). This model showed no significant bias, as indicated by SRES and SARES values (Table 1). The Weibull model has been widely used to model weed emergence due to its flexibility (Gonzalez-Andujar et al. Reference Gonzalez-Andujar, Chantre, Morvillo, Blanco and Forcella2016). Leguizamón et al. (Reference Leguizamón, Rodriguez, Rainero, Perez, Perez, Zorza and Fernández-Quintanilla2009) found a good fit of this model to describe the emergence of six summer annual grass weeds in maize (Zea mays L.) and soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.].

Figure 1. Observed (solid circles) and predicted (solid line) cumulative emergence (%) of Salsola tragus as a function of hydrothermal time (HTT) unit accumulation. Predictions are the result of the fit Weibull model to the experimental data set. Error bars on symbols are the SDs from the four replications. RMSE, root mean-square error.

Table 1. Weibull model parameters (Equation 1) (SEs in parentheses), root mean-square error (RMSE), coefficient of determination (R2), sum of the residuals (SRES), and sum of the absolute residuals (SARES) from the model performance.

Our model was based on 7,212 S. tragus seedlings, counting an average of 1,803 seedlings per replication. It was validated with independent data sets and was in good agreement with the observed seedling emergence pattern in Site B (R2 = 0.96), Site D (R2 = 0.95), and Site C (R2 = 0.81) (Figure 2). According to the model, the onset of emergence takes place at 5 HTT, and 50% and 90% emergence is reached at 56 and 177 HTT, respectively, indicating a rapid establishment of S. tragus in comparison with other species infesting cereals. Bastida et al. (Reference Bastida, Lezaun and Gonzalez-Andujar2021) found that 50% and 90% emergence of shortspike canarygrass (Phalaris brachystachys Link) in wheat takes place at 108 and 160 HTT, respectively.

Figure 2. Validation of the Weibull model for Salsola tragus in Site B (fallow 2020), Site C (spring wheat 2021), and Site D (fallow 2021).

The present model can be used to design herbicide programs for wheat–fallow rotations that target high proportions of S. tragus seedlings in fallow fields with fewer herbicide applications than the current standard practice (three or four applications) (Kumar et al. Reference Kumar, Spring, Jha, Lyon and Burke2017). Decreasing the number of herbicide applications will reduce the herbicide-resistance pressure and the risk of selecting for new herbicide-resistant populations (Neve et al. Reference Neve, Vila-Aiub and Roux2009), as well as environmental pollution (Rashid et al. Reference Rashid, Husnain, Riazuddin, Ashraf, Ozturk and Ahmad2010) and costs. Additionally, S. tragus has a short seed longevity. Burnside (Reference Burnside, Wilson, Weisberg and Hubbard1996) and Ogg and Dawson (Reference Ogg and Dawson1984) indicated that >99% of the seeds germinate in the first year; hence, the predictive model could help reduce the seedbank faster, by increasing the herbicide efficacy, than if the species had longer seed longevity. However, the annual emergence of S. tragus seedlings in calendar days can vary significantly among sites depending on environmental conditions, which can impact the effectiveness of residual herbicides in no-till fallow systems (Lyon et al. Reference Lyon, Barroso, Thorne, Gourlie and Lutcher2021). Particularly, the period between the 50% and 90% germination (more than 120 HTT units) can be wide for cool and/or dry seasons. Therefore, the model can estimate the proportion of emerged seedlings and assist in management decisions.

On the other hand, in spring wheat, no-till growers apply glyphosate before planting wheat to control emerged weeds, but in the case of S. tragus, most seedlings emerge after planting, thus escaping the herbicide application. Most S. tragus seedlings will emerge with the crop and compete for resources during and after the wheat harvest. To control S. tragus seedlings that emerge after seeding in spring wheat, this model can be used to apply selective herbicides in crop at the optimal HTT to minimize the number of plants competing with the crop and plants present at harvest (Young and Whitesides Reference Young and Whitesides1987). Salsola tragus can regrow after harvest, producing hundreds or thousands of seeds per plant. Consequently, reducing S. tragus plants present at harvest will reduce the number of seeds re-entering the soil seedbank (Oreja et al. Reference Oreja, Lyon, Gourlie, Wetzel and Barroso2023).

In recent years, there has been an increase in social demand for more sustainable management of agrosystems. In response, farmers are putting more emphasis on improving the efficiency of herbicide applications. In this study, our hydrothermal model describes the emergence of S. tragus with an accuracy of 81% to 96%, as demonstrated by validation tests at three different sites representing different field conditions (fallow vs. spring wheat) over two years. Future research should focus on wider model validation under different weather and soil management conditions (e.g., conventional tillage, where seeds are buried at deeper soil layers) to fine-tune the timing of control measures targeting this species (Egea-Cobrero et al. Reference Egea-Cobrero, Bradley, Calha, Davis, Dorado, Forcella, Lindquist, Sprague and Gonzalez-Andujar2020).

Acknowledgments

This material is based upon work supported by the Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service under Agreement No. 58-2074-2-003 (as part of the Pacific Northwest Herbicide Resistance Initiative) as well as by the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture through the research project No. ORE00339 (Integrated and Cooperative Russian Thistle (Sasola tragus) Management in the Semi-Arid Pacific Northwest).

The authors thank Jennifer Gourlie for helping in the establishment and development of the experiments and Kyle Harrison for conducting some of the farming in the experiments. We also thank John Rietmann and Keith Morter (two growers of Morrow County, OR) for allowing us to collect S. tragus plants from their fields to conduct this study. The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Footnotes

Associate Editor: Bhagirath Chauhan, The University of Queensland

References

Bastida, F, Lezaun, JA, Gonzalez-Andujar, JL (2021) A predictive model for the time course of seedling emergence of Phalaris brachystachys (short-spiked canary grass) in wheat fields. Span J Agric Res 19(3):e10SC02 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckie, HJ, Francis, A (2009) The biology of Canadian weeds. 65. Salsola tragus L. (Updated). Can J Plant Sci 89:775789 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnside, OC, Wilson, RG, Weisberg, S, Hubbard, KG (1996) Seed longevity of 41 weed species buried 17 years in eastern and western Nebraska. Weed Sci 44:7486 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dwyer, DD, Wolde-Yohannis, K (1972) Germination, emergence, water use, and production of Russian thistle (Salsola kali L.) Agron J 64:5255 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Egea-Cobrero, V, Bradley, K, Calha, I, Davis, AS, Dorado, J, Forcella, F, Lindquist, JL, Sprague, CL, Gonzalez-Andujar, JL (2020) Validation of predictive empirical weed emergence models of Abutilon theophrasti Medik. based on intercontinental data. Weed Res 6:297302 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fahad, S, Hussain, S, Chauhan, BS, Saud, S, Wu, C, Hassan, S, Tanveer, M, Jan, A, Huang, J (2015) Weed growth and crop yield loss in wheat as influenced by row spacing and weed emergence times. Crop Prot 71:101108 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forcella, F, Arnold, RLB, Sanchez, R, Ghersa, CM (2000) Modeling seedling emergence. Field Crops Res 67:123139 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonzalez-Andujar, JL (2020) Introduction to decision support systems. Pages 2538 in Chantre, G, Gonzalez-Andujar, JL, eds. Decision Support Systems for Weed Management. Cham, Switzerland: Springer CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonzalez-Andujar, JL, Chantre, GR, Morvillo, C, Blanco, AM, Forcella, F (2016) Predicting field weed emergence with empirical models and soft computing techniques. Weed Res 56:415423 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grundy, AC (2003) Predicting weed emergence: a review of approaches and future challenges. Weed Res 43:111 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harbour, JD, Messersmith, CG, Ramsdale, BK (2003) Surfactants affect herbicides on kochia (Kochia scoparia) and Russian thistle (Salsola iberica). Weed Sci 51:430434 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirkwood, R (1999) Recent developments in our understanding of the plant cuticle as a barrier to the foliar uptake of pesticides. Pestic Sci 55:6977 3.0.CO;2-H>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kumar, V, Spring, JF, Jha, P, Lyon, DJ, Burke, IC (2017) Glyphosate-resistant Russian-thistle (Salsola tragus) identified in Montana and Washington. Weed Technol 31:238251 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leguizamón, ES, Rodriguez, N, Rainero, H, Perez, M, Perez, L, Zorza, E, Fernández-Quintanilla, C (2009) Modelling the emergence pattern of six summer annual weed grasses under no tillage systems in Argentina. Weed Res 49:98106 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyon, DJ, Barroso, J, Thorne, ME, Gourlie, J, Lutcher, LK (2021) Russian thistle (Salsola tragus L.) control with soil-active herbicides in no-till fallow. Weed Technol 35:547553 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martinson, K, Durgan, B, Forcella, F, Wiersma, J, Spokas, K, Archer, D (2007) An emergence model for wild oat (Avena fatua). Weed Sci 55:584591 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nakka, S, Jugulam, M, Peterson, D, Asif, M (2019) Herbicide resistance: development of wheat production systems and current status of resistant weeds in wheat cropping systems. Crop J 7:750760 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neve, P, Vila-Aiub, MM, Roux, F (2009) Evolutionary thinking in agricultural weed management. New Phytol 184:783793 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ogg, AG, Dawson, JH (1984) Time of emergence of eight weed species. Weed Sci 32:327335 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oreja, FH, Lyon, DJ, Gourlie, J, Wetzel, HC, Barroso, J (2023) Russian thistle (Salsola tragus) post-harvest control and plant dispersal. Weed Technol 37:19 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rashid, B, Husnain, T, Riazuddin, S (2010) Herbicides and pesticides as potential pollutants: a global problem. Pages 427447 in Ashraf, M, Ozturk, M, Ahmad, M, eds. Plant adaptation and phytoremediation. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Royo-Esnal, A, Torra, J, Antoni Conesa, J, Forcella, F, Recasens, J (2010) Modeling the emergence of three arable bedstraw (Galium) species. Weed Sci 58:1015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schillinger, WF (2007) Ecology and control of Russian thistle (Salsola iberica) after spring wheat harvest. Weed Sci 55:381385 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schillinger, WF (2019) Camelina: long-term cropping systems research in a dry Mediterranean climate. Field Crops Res 235:8794 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soltani, E, Baskin, CC, Gonzalez-Andujar, JL (2022) An overview of environmental cues that affect germination of seeds. Seeds 1:146151 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soltani, N, Vyn, JD, Sikkema, PH (2009) Control of common waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus var. rudis) in corn and soybean with sequential herbicide applications. Can J Plant Sci 89:127132 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thorne, ME, Young, FL, Yenish, JP (2007) Cropping systems alter weed seed banks in Pacific Northwest semi-arid wheat regions. Crop Prot 26:11211134 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wysocki, DJ, Lutcher, LK, Horneck, DA, Hart, JM, Petrie, SE (2007) Winter Wheat and Spring Grains in Continuous Cropping Systems (Low Precipitation Zone): Fertilizer Guide. Corvallis: Oregon State University Extension Service. 81 pGoogle Scholar
Young, FL (1988) Effect of Russian thistle (Salsola iberica) interference on spring wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Sci 36:594598 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, FL, Whitesides, RE (1987) Efficacy of postharvest herbicides on Russian thistle (Salsola iberica) control and seed germination. Weed Sci 35:554559 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yousefi, AR, Rashidi, S, Moradi, P, Mastinu, A (2020) Germination and seedling growth responses of Zygophyllum fabago, Salsola kali L. and Atriplex canescens to PEG-induced drought stress. Environments 7:107 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1. Observed (solid circles) and predicted (solid line) cumulative emergence (%) of Salsola tragus as a function of hydrothermal time (HTT) unit accumulation. Predictions are the result of the fit Weibull model to the experimental data set. Error bars on symbols are the SDs from the four replications. RMSE, root mean-square error.

Figure 1

Table 1. Weibull model parameters (Equation 1) (SEs in parentheses), root mean-square error (RMSE), coefficient of determination (R2), sum of the residuals (SRES), and sum of the absolute residuals (SARES) from the model performance.

Figure 2

Figure 2. Validation of the Weibull model for Salsola tragus in Site B (fallow 2020), Site C (spring wheat 2021), and Site D (fallow 2021).