Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-21T23:45:46.683Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Wild Oat (Avena fatua) Seed Bank Dynamics in Transition to Organic Wheat Production Systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Bruce D. Maxwell ,
Richard G. Smith  and
Monica Brelsford
Bruce D. Maxwell*
Affiliation:
Department of Land Resources and Environmental Science, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 59717
Richard G. Smith
Affiliation:
Department of Land Resources and Environmental Science, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 59717
Monica Brelsford
Affiliation:
Department of Land Resources and Environmental Science, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 59717
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: bmax@montana.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Concern over the consequences of increased weed seed inputs to the soil seed bank during the transition period from conventional to organic production is one obstacle to grower adoption of reduced input and nonchemical weed management strategies. An 11-yr study was established in southwest Montana to investigate the effect of a single pulse of wild oat seeds on subsequent seed bank dynamics. In 1993, wild oat seeds were sown at five densities (0, 20, 80, 320, and 800 seeds m−2) in eight wheat–small grain cropping systems that differed in the number of crops in rotation and fallow periods. Wild oat seed banks were measured each spring from 1994 to 2004 in half of the cropping systems and from 2001 to 2004 in all eight systems. In 1994, seed bank densities in response to the pulse were as much as 11 times higher than controls that received no seeds in 1993. By 1996, after mechanical fallowing of all cropping systems, wild oat seed bank densities were not significantly different from densities in control plots regardless of the size of the initial seed pulse and remained so through 2004. These data suggest that increases in wild oat seed inputs during the organic transition period will have relatively few long-term agronomic effects on the dynamics of wild oat seed banks in these systems. In addition, wild oat seed banks may be constrained by factors other than cropping sequence when herbicides are not used, such as possible density-dependent regulation as a result of increased soil pathogen attack and seed predation.

Keywords

Wild oat, Avena fatua L. AVEFAwheat, Triticum aestivum LCrop rotationdensity dependencefeedbacksmechanical fallowreduced inputweeds
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 55 , Issue 3 , June 2007 , pp. 212 - 217
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

Agarwal, A. R., Gahlot, A., Verma, R., and Rao, P. B. 2002. Effect of weed extracts on seedling growth of some varieties of wheat. J. Environ. Biol. 23:19–23.Google Scholar
Albrecht, H. 2005. Development of arable weed seedbanks during the 6 years after the change from conventional to organic farming. Weed Res. 45:339–350.Google Scholar
Boyd, N. and Van Acker, R. 2004. Seed germination of common weed species as affected by oxygen concentration, light, and osmotic potential. Weed Sci. 52:589–596.Google Scholar
Brust, G. E. and House, G. J. 1988. Weed seed destruction by arthropods and rodents in low-input soybean agroecosystems. Am. J. Alt. Agric. 3:19–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buhler, D. D. 1999. Weed population responses to weed control practices. I. Seed bank, weed populations, and crop yields. Weed Sci. 47:416–422.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D., Kohler, K. A., and Thompson, R. L. 2001. Weed seed bank dynamics during a five-year crop rotation. Weed Technol. 15:170–176.Google Scholar
Callaway, R. M. and Ridenour, W. M. 2004. Novel weapons: invasive success and the evolution of increased competitive ability. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2:436–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cavers, P. B. and Benoit, D. L. 1989. Seed banks in arable land. Pages 309–328. in Leck, M.A., Parker, V.T., Simpson, R.L. eds. Ecology of Soil Seed Banks. San Diego, CA Academic.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
Conn, J. S. and Deck, R. E. 1995. Seed viability and dormancy of 17 weed species after 9.7 years of burial in Alaska. Weed Sci. 43:583–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cromar, H. E., Murphy, S. D., and Swanton, C. J. 1999. Influence of tillage and crop residue on postdispersal predation of weed seeds. Weed Sci. 47:184–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Czapar, G. F., Curry, M. P., and Wax, L. M. 1997. Grower acceptance of economic thresholds for weed management in Illinois. Weed Technol. 11:828–831.Google Scholar
Derksen, D. A., Anderson, R. L., Blackshaw, R. E., and Maxwell, B. 2002. Weed dynamics and management strategies for cropping systems in the northern Great Plains. Agron. J. 94:174–185.Google Scholar
Dessaint, F., Chadoeuf, R., and Barralis, G. 1997. Nine years' soil seed bank and weed vegetation relationships in an arable field without weed control. J. Appl. Ecol. 34:123–130.Google Scholar
Dorado, J., Del Monte, J. P., and Lopez-Fando, C. 1999. Weed seedbank response to crop rotation and tillage in semiarid agroecosystems. Weed Sci. 47:67–73.Google Scholar
Evans, R. M., Thill, D. C., Tapia, L., Shafii, B., and Lish, J. M. 1991. Wild oat (Avena fatua) and spring barley (Hordeum vulgare) density affect spring barley-grain yield. Weed Technol. 5:33–39.Google Scholar
Foley, M. E. 1994. Temperature and water status of seed affect after-ripening in wild oat (Avena fatua). Weed Sci. 42:200–204.Google Scholar
Gallandt, E. R. 2006. How can we target the weed seedbank? Weed Sci. 54:588–596.Google Scholar
Gallandt, E. R., Fuerst, E. P., and Kennedy, A. C. 2004. Effect of tillage, fungicide seed treatment, and soil fumigation on seed bank dynamics of wild oat (Avena fatua). Weed Sci. 52:597–604.Google Scholar
Hanson, J., Dismukes, R., Chambers, W., Greene, C., and Kremen, A. 2004. Risk and risk management in organic agriculture: views of organic farmers. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 19:218–227.Google Scholar
Holling, C. S. 1959. Some characteristics of simple types of predation and parasitism. Can. Entomol. 91:385–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holman, J. D., Bussan, A. J., Maxwell, B. D., Miller, P. R., and Mickelson, J. A. 2004. Spring wheat, canola, and sunflower response to Persian darnel (Lolium persicam) interference. Weed Technol. 18:509–520.Google Scholar
Kirkland, K. J. 1993. Spring wheat (Triticum aestivum) growth and yield as influenced by duration of wild oat (Avena fatua) competition. Weed Technol. 7:890–893.Google Scholar
Kirkland, K. J. and Hunter, J. H. 1991. Competitiveness of Canada prairie spring wheats with wild oat (Avena fatua L.). Can. J. Plant Sci. 71:1089–1092.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kivilaan, A. and Bandurski, R. S. 1981. The 100-year period for Beal seed viability experiment. Am. J. Bot. 68:1290–1292.Google Scholar
Leck, M. A. and Leck, C. F. 1998. A ten-year seed bank study of old field succession in central New Jersey. J. Torrey Bot. Soc. 125:11–32.Google Scholar
Liebman, M. and Dyck, E. 1993. Crop rotation and intercropping strategies for weed management. Ecol. Appl. 3:92–122.Google Scholar
Liebman, M. and Gallandt, E. R. 1997. Many little hammers: ecological management of crop–weed interactions. Pages 291–343. in Jackson, L.E. ed. Ecology in Agriculture. San Diego, CA Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Little, R. C., Milliken, G. A., Stroup, W. W., and Wolfinger, R. D. 1996. SAS system for mixed models. Cary, NC SAS Institute.Google Scholar
Lutman, P. J. W., Cussans, G. W., Wright, K. J., Wilson, B. J., Wright, G. M., and Lawson, H. M. 2002. The persistence of seeds of 16 weed species over six years in two arable fields. Weed Res. 42:231–241.Google Scholar
Marino, P. C., Westerman, P. R., Pinkert, C., and van der Werf, W. 2005. Influence of seed density and aggregation on post-dispersal weed seed predation in cereal fields. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 106:17–25.Google Scholar
Martini, E. A., Buyer, J. S., Bryant, D. C., Hartz, T. K., and Denison, R. F. 2004. Yield increases during the organic transition: improving soil quality or increasing experience? Field Crops Res. 86:255–266.Google Scholar
McIntyre, G. I., Cessna, A. J., and Hsiao, A. I. 1996. Seed dormancy in Avena fatua: interacting effects of nitrate, water and seed coat injury. Physiol. Plant. 97:291–302.Google Scholar
Miller, P. R. and Holmes, J. A. 2005. Cropping sequence effects of four broadleaf crops on four cereal crops in the northern Great Plains. Agron. J. 97:189–200.Google Scholar
Nazarko, O. M., Van Acker, R. C., Entz, M. H., Schoofs, A., and Martens, G. 2003. Pesticide free production of field crops: results of an on-farm pilot project. Agron. J. 95:1262–1273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Donovan, J. T., Destremy, E. A., O'Sullivan, P. A., Dew, D. A., and Sharma, A. K. 1985. Influence of the relative-time of emergence of wild oat (Avena fatua) on yield loss of barley (Hordeum vulgare) and wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Sci. 33:498–503.Google Scholar
Perez, F. J. and Ormenonunez, J. 1991. Root exudates of wild oats—allelopathic effect on spring wheat. Phytochemistry. 30:2199–2202.Google Scholar
Peters, N. C. B. 1991. Seed dormancy and seedling emergence studies in Avena fatua L. Weed Res. 31:107–116.Google Scholar
Roberts, H. A. and Feast, P. M. 1973. Emergence and longevity of seeds of annual weeds in cultivated and undisturbed soil. J. Appl. Ecol. 10:133–143.Google Scholar
Rolston, M. P. 1981. Wild oats in New Zealand: a review. N. Z. J. Exp. Agr. 9:115–121.Google Scholar
Sharma, M. P. and Vanden Born, W. H. 1978. The biology of Canadian weeds. 27. Avena fatua L. Can. J. Plant Sci. 58:141–157.Google Scholar
Smith, R. G. and Gross, K. L. 2006. Rapid change in the germinable fraction of the weed seed bank in crop rotations. Weed Sci. 54:1094–1100.Google Scholar
Swanton, C. J. and Booth, B. D. 2004. Management of weed seedbanks in the context of populations and communities. Weed Technol. 18 (Suppl. S):1496–1502.Google Scholar
Teasdale, J. R., Mangum, R. W., Radhakrishnan, J., and Cavigelli, M. A. 2004. Weed seedbank dynamics in three organic farming crop rotations. Agron. J. 96:1429–1435.Google Scholar
Toole, E. H. and Brown, E. 1946. Final results of the Duvel buried seed experiment. J. Agric. Res. 72:201–210.Google Scholar
Vatovec, C., Jordan, N., and Huerd, S. 2005. Responsiveness of certain agronomic weed species to arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 20:181–189.Google Scholar
Webster, T. M., Cardina, J., and White, A. D. 2003. Weed seed rain, soil seedbanks, and seedling recruitment in no-tillage crop rotations. Weed Sci. 51:569–575.Google Scholar
Willenborg, C. J., Rossnagel, B. G., May, W. E., Lafond, G. P., and Shirtliffe, S. J. 2005. Effects of relative time of emergence and density of wild oat (Avena fatua L.) on oat quality. Can. J. Plant Sci. 85:561–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfe, B. E. and Klironomos, J. N. 2005. Breaking new ground: soil communities and exotic plant invasion. Bioscience. 55:477–487.Google Scholar
Zhang, J., Hamill, A. S., Gardiner, I. O., and Weaver, S. E. 1998. Dependence of weed flora on the active soil seedbank. Weed Res. 38:143–152.Google Scholar