Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T17:36:44.240Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tillage systems and seed dormancy effects on common waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus) seedling emergence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Ramon G. Leon  and
Micheal D. K. Owen
Micheal D. K. Owen
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Understanding weed seedling emergence patterns is important for successful implementation of many weed management strategies. Identifying the sources of variation of emergence patterns could greatly improve our ability to predict emergence timing. Differences in seed dormancy levels between populations or biotypes are usually not considered when studying seedling emergence of many weed species despite evidence that dormancy levels can affect weed seedling emergence patterns. We studied the importance of seed dormancy on seedling emergence patterns of common waterhemp using three biotypes (Ames, Everly, and Ohio) that differed in dormancy regulation and level (5, 26, and 87% germination, respectively) and three tillage systems (no-tillage, chisel plow, and moldboard plow) in 2004 and 2005. Seedling emergence was at least four times greater under no-tillage than under chisel or moldboard plow conditions. Fewer seedlings emerged in moldboard plow than in other tillage systems. Furthermore, seedling emergence occurred in no-tillage over a longer period than in chisel and moldboard plow. In no-tillage the largest emergence events occurred at the end of June, whereas in other tillage systems most emergence occurred during May and the first week of June. Among biotypes, differences in number of emerged seedlings were more evident than differences in emergence timing. For Everly and Ohio biotypes, the number of emerged seedlings was the same between chisel and moldboard plow plots. For the Ames biotype, in 2004, the number of emerged seedlings was 25-fold higher in chisel plow than in moldboard plow, and the emergence pattern in no-tillage was longer and peaked later than in the other tillage systems. However, these results were not observed in 2005. Overall, we did not observe consistent differences in seedling emergence patterns among biotypes, which suggested that under field conditions, other factors can compensate for differences in seed dormancy levels.

Keywords

Common waterhemp, Amaranthus tuberculatus (Moq.) SauerConventional tillagechisel plowgerminationmoldboard plowno-tillageseed bank
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 54 , Issue 6 , December 2006 , pp. 1037 - 1044
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

Andersson, L. and Milberg, P. 1998. Variation in seed dormancy among mother plants, populations and years of seed collection. Seed Sci. Res. 8:29–38.Google Scholar
Benech-Arnold, R. L., Sanchez, R. A., Forcella, F., Kruk, B. C., and Ghersa, C. M. 2000. Environmental control of dormancy in weed seed banks in soil. Field Crop. Res. 67:105–122.Google Scholar
Dyer, W. 1995. Exploiting weed seed dormancy and germination requirements through agronomic practices. Weed Sci. 43:498–503.Google Scholar
Felix, J. and Owen, M. D. K. 1999. Weed population dynamics in land removed from the conservation reserve program. Weed Sci. 47:511–517.Google Scholar
Forcella, F. 1993. Seedling emergence model for velvetleaf. Agron. J. 85:929–933.Google Scholar
Forcella, F., Benech-Arnold, R. L., Sanchez, R., and Ghersa, C. M. 2000. Modeling seedling emergence. Field Crop. Res. 67:123–139.Google Scholar
Gross, K. 1990. A comparison of methods for estimating seed numbers in the soil. J. Ecol. 78:1079–1093.Google Scholar
Hartzler, R. G., Buhler, D. D., and Stoltenberg, D. E. 1999. Emergence characteristics of four annual weed species. Weed Sci. 47:578–584.Google Scholar
Hoffman, M. L., Owen, M. D. K., and Buhler, D. D. 1998. Effects of crop and weed management on density and vertical distribution of weed seeds in soil. Agron. J. 90:793–799.Google Scholar
Kruk, B. C. and Benech-Arnold, R. L. 1996. Functional and quantitative analysis of seed thermal responses in prostrate knotweed (Polygonum aviculare) and common purslane (Portulaca oleracea). Weed Sci. 46:83–90.Google Scholar
Leon, R. G., Bassham, D. C., and Owen, M. D. K. 2006. Germination and proteome analyses reveal intra-specific variation in seed dormancy regulation in common waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus). Weed Sci. 54:305–315.Google Scholar
Leon, R. G., Knapp, A. D., and Owen, M. D. K. 2004. Effect of temperature on the germination of common waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus), giant foxtail (Setaria faberi), and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti). Weed Sci. 52:67–73.Google Scholar
Leon, R. G. and Owen, M. D. K. 2003. Regulation of weed seed dormancy through light and temperature interactions. Weed Sci. 51:752–758.Google Scholar
Leon, R. G. and Owen, M. D. K. 2004. Artificial and natural seed banks differ in seedling emergence patterns. Weed Sci. 52:531–537.Google Scholar
Mohler, C. L. and Galford, A. E. 1997. Weed seedling emergence and seed survival: separating the effects of seed position and soil modification by tillage. Weed Res. 37:147–155.Google Scholar
Moore, R. P. ed. 1985. Handbook on Tetrazolium Testing. 1st ed. Zurich, Switzerland: International Seed Testing Association. Pp. 9–32.Google Scholar
Mulugeta, D. and Stoltenberg, D. E. 1997. Increased weed emergence and seed bank depletion by soil disturbance in a no-tillage system. Weed Sci. 45:234–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pillai, K. C. S. 1955. Some new test criteria in multivariate analysis. Ann. Math. Stat. 26:117–121.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1999. SAS User's Guide. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1028 p.Google Scholar
Sawma, J. T. and Mohler, C. L. 2002. Evaluating seed viability by an unimbibed seed crush test in comparison with the tetrazolium test. Weed Technol. 16:781–786.Google Scholar
Thompson, K., Ceriani, R. M., Bakker, J. P., and Bekker, R. M. 2003. Are seed dormancy and persistence in soil related? Seed Sci. Res. 13:97–100.Google Scholar
Vleeshouwers, L. M. and Kropff, M. J. 2000. Modeling field emergence patterns in arable weeds. New Phytol. 148:445–457.Google Scholar
Webster, T. M., Cardina, J., and Norquay, H. M. 1998. Tillage and seed depth effects on velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) emergence. Weed Sci. 46:76–82.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