Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T05:44:48.506Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Can Weeds Overtopping Soybean or Adzuki Bean Be Mechanically Pulled to Reduce Their Seed Input?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2019

Marie-Josée Simard Open the ORCID record for Marie-Josée Simard [Opens in a new window] ,
Eric R. Page  and
Robert E. Nurse
Marie-Josée Simard*
Affiliation:
Research Scientist, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu Research and Development Centre, Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, QC, Canada
Eric R. Page
Affiliation:
Research Scientist, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Harrow Research and Development Centre, Harrow, ON, Canada
Robert E. Nurse
Affiliation:
Research Scientist, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Harrow Research and Development Centre, Harrow, ON, Canada
*
Author for correspondence: Marie-Josée Simard, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu Research and Development Centre, Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, QC J3B 3E6, Canada. (Email: marie-josee.simard@canada.ca)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Tall weeds escaping early weed management, such as weeds resistant to one or multiple herbicides, are an increasing concern. When weeds reach a certain size, few options other than hand weeding will limit the production and dispersal of seeds. The objective of this project was to evaluate the efficacy of the Bourquin Organic Weed Puller® (a rotating series of wheels that grab and pull) at removing tall weeds before they shed seeds in soybean and adzuki bean. Trials were set up in Canada at the Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada research farms at Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu (SJR), QC (2 yr), and Harrow (HAR), ON (1 yr), on a loamy and a sandy soil, respectively. The experimental design included crops of different potential heights (different soybean cultivars and adzuki bean), two weed species per location (common lambsquarters [both locations] and common ragweed or redroot pigweed at HAR), and two pulling dates. The set-up also included weedy and herbicide-treated control plots. Weeds overtopping the crop canopy by at least 10 cm were tagged and characterized. Damage from the weed puller was rated as 1, pulled (desired effect); 2, cut; 3, folded; 4, stripped; and 5, intact. The seed production of damaged and intact weeds was also recorded. Less than one-third of common ragweed or redroot pigweed plants were pulled during any treatment combination. The highest pulling rates were observed for common lambsquarters at SJR (43%), but very few were pulled at HAR (3.1% max). Pulling rates were not high enough to potentially control seed inputs from herbicide-resistant populations, and successfully pulled common lambsquarters left on the ground produced thousands of viable seeds.

Keywords

Bradley Hanson, University of California, DavisCommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. CHEALcommon ragweed, Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. AMBELredroot pigweed, Amaranthus retroflexus L. AMAREadzuki bean, Vigna angularis (Willd.) Ohwi & Ohashisoybean, Glycine max (L.) MerrSeed viability, weed seed management
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 33 , Issue 1 , February 2019 , pp. 159 - 165
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2019. 

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

Cite this article: Simard M-J, Page ER, Nurse RE (2019) Can weeds overtopping soybean or adzuki bean be mechanically pulled to reduce their seed input? Weed Technol 33:159–165. doi: 10.1017/wet.2018.104

References

Agren, GI, Franklin, O (2003) Root: shoot ratios, optimization and nitrogen productivity. Ann Bot 92:795–800 Google Scholar
[AOSA/SCST] Association of Official Seed Analysts and the Society of Commercial Seed Technologists (2010) Tetrazolium Testing Handbook. 2010 ed. Fort Collins, CO: AOSA/SCST Google Scholar
Basset, IJ, Crompton, RW (1975) The biology of Canadian weeds. 11. Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. and A. psilostachya DC. Can J Plant Sci 55:463–476 10.4141/cjps75-072Google Scholar
Basset, IJ, Crompton, RW (1978) The biology of Canadian weeds. 32. Chenopodium album L. Can J Plant Sci 58:1061–1072 Google Scholar
Bharati, MP (1984) Soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr.) Morphological and Yield Characters as Influenced by Management Practices. Ph.D dissertation. Ames, IA: Iowa State University. Retrospective Theses and Dissertations 8148. http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd/8148. Accessed: April 13, 2018Google Scholar
Carter, MR, Gregorich, EG (2008) Soil Sampling and Methods of Analysis. 2nd ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. 1224 pGoogle Scholar
Clark, MS, Ferris, H, Klonsky, K, Lanini, WT, van Bruggen, AHC, Zalom, FG (1998) Agronomic, economic, and environmental comparison of pest management in conventional and alternative tomato and corn systems in northern California. Agric Ecosyst Environ 68:51–71 10.1016/S0167-8809(97)00130-8Google Scholar
Costea, M, Weaver, SM, Tardif, FJ (2004) The biology of Canadian weeds. 44. Amaranthus retroflexus L., A. powellii S. Watson and A. hybridus L. (update). Can J Plant Sci 84:631–668 Google Scholar
Curran, W (2004) Weed Management in Organic Cropping Systems. Agronomy Facts 64. CAT UC187. University Park, PA: PennState Extension. 4 p. Google Scholar
Davis, AS (2008) Weed seed pools concurrent with corn and soybean harvest. Weed Sci 56:503–508 Google Scholar
Duke, SO (2011) Why have no new herbicide modes of action appeared in recent years? Pest Manag Sci 68:505–512 10.1002/ps.2333Google Scholar
Ennos, AR (1989) The mechanics of anchorage in seedlings of sunflower, Helianthus annuus L. New Phytol 113:185–192 Google Scholar
Ennos, AR, Fitter, AH (1992) Comparative functional morphology of the anchorage systems of annual dicots. Funct Ecol 6:71–78 Google Scholar
Evans, JA, Tranel, PJ, Hager, AG, Schutte, B, Wu, C, Chatham, LA, Davis, AS (2016) Managing the evolution of herbicide resistance. Pest Manag Sci 72:74–80 10.1002/ps.4009Google Scholar
Fennimore, SA, Slaughter, DC, Siemens, MC, Leon, RG, Saber, MN (2016) Technology for automation of weed control in specialty crops. Weed Technol 30:823–837 10.1614/WT-D-16-00070.1Google Scholar
Forcella, F, Peterson, DH, Barbour, JC (1996) Timing and measurement of weed seed shed in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol 10:535–543 10.1017/S0890037X00040409Google Scholar
Gallardo, M, Jackson, LE, Thompson, RB (1996) Shoot and root physiological responses to localized zones of soil moisture in cultivated and wild lettuce (Lactuca spp.). Plant Cell Environ 19:1169–1178 Google Scholar
Griffin, JL, Boudreaux, JM, Miller, DK (2010) Herbicides as harvest aids. Weed Sci 58:355–358.Google Scholar
Heap, IM (2018) The International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. http://www.weedscience.org. Accessed: April 13, 2018Google Scholar
Hill, EC, Renner, KA, VanGessel, MJ, Bellinder, RR, Scott, BA (2016) Late-season weed management to stop viable weed seed production. Weed Sci 64:112–118 Google Scholar
Knezevic, SZ, Evans, SP, Blankenship, EE, Van Acker, RC, Lindquist, JL (2002) Critical period for weed control: the concept and data analysis. Weed Sci 50:773–786 Google Scholar
Kurstjens, DAG, Perdok, UD, Goense, D (2000) Selective uprooting by weed harrowing on sandy soils. Weed Res 40:431–447 Google Scholar
Lancashire, PD, Bleiholder, H, Langelϋddecke, P, Stauss, R, Van den Boom, T, Weber, E, Witzenberger, A (1991) A uniform decimal code for growth stages of crops and weeds. Ann Appl Biol 119:561–601 Google Scholar
Poorter, H, Niklas, KJ, Reich, PB, Oleksyn, J, Poot, P, Mommer, L (2012) Biomass allocation to leaves, stems and roots: meta-analyses of interspecific variation and environmental control. New Phytol 193:30–50 Google Scholar
Shaner, DL (2014) Lessons learned from the history of herbicide resistance. Weed Sci 62:427–431 Google Scholar
Simard, M-J, Benoit, DL (2012) Potential pollen and seed production of early- and late-emerging ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia L.) plants in corn and soybean. Weed Technol 26:510–516 Google Scholar
Simard, M-J, Rouane, S, Leroux, GD (2011) Herbicide rate, glyphosate/glufosinate sequence and corn/soybean rotation effects on weed seed banks. Weed Sci 59:416–423 Google Scholar
Sosnoskie, LM, Culpepper, AS (2014) Glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) increases herbicide use, tillage, and hand weeding in Georgia cotton. Weed Sci 62:393–402 Google Scholar
Tidemann, BD, Hall, LM, Harker, KN, Beckie, HJ (2017) Factors affecting weed seed devitalization with the Harrington Seed Destructor. Weed Sci 65:650–658 Google Scholar
Walsh, MJ, Harrington, RB, Powles, SB (2012) Harrington Seed Destructor: a new nonchemical weed control tool for global grain crops. Crop Sci 52:1343–1347 Google Scholar
Wilcox, JR, Sedimaya, T (1981) Interrelationships among height, lodging and yield in determinate and indeterminate soybeans. Euphytica 30:323–326 Google Scholar
Zimdahl, RL (1988) The concept and application of the critical weed-free period. Pages 145–155 in Altieri MA, Liebmann M, eds. Weed Management in Agroecosystems: Ecological Approaches. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press Google Scholar