Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T18:16:24.817Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Vineyard Weed Seedbank Composition Responds to Glyphosate and Cultivation after Three Years

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

K. Steenwerth ,
K. Baumgartner ,
K. Belina  and
L. Veilleux
K. Steenwerth*
Affiliation:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Crops Pathology and Genetics Research Unit, c/o Department of Viticulture and Enology, RMI North, Room 1151, 595 Hilgard Lane, Davis, CA 95616
K. Baumgartner
Affiliation:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Crops Pathology and Genetics Research Unit, c/o Department of Plant Pathology, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616
K. Belina
Affiliation:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Crops Pathology and Genetics Research Unit, c/o Department of Viticulture and Enology, RMI North, Room 1151, 595 Hilgard Lane, Davis, CA 95616
L. Veilleux
Affiliation:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Crops Pathology and Genetics Research Unit, c/o Department of Plant Pathology, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: ksteenwerth@ucdavis.edu, ksteenwerth@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This research compared effects of the weed control practice, soil cultivation, and the conventional practice, glyphosate application on weed seedbank, in a vineyard system. The experiment was conducted in a commercial wine-grape vineyard in the Napa Valley of northern California from 2003 to 2005. The annual treatments were “winter–spring glyphosate,” “spring cultivation,” “fall–spring cultivation,” and “fall cultivation–spring glyphosate,” and were applied “in-row,” under the vine. Composition of the weed seedbank collected in 2002 before treatment establishment did not differ among treatments. After 3 yr of weed treatments, detrended correspondence analysis indicated that the composition of spring cultivation and winter–spring glyphosate tended to differ from each other, but the remaining two treatments showed little differentiation. As determined by linear discriminant analysis, the specific weed species were associated with seedbanks of certain treatments. These were Carolina geranium, annual bluegrass, brome grasses, California burclover, and scarlet pimpernel, which do not pose problems with regard to physical aspects of grape production. Although ‘Zorro’ rattail fescue was ubiquitous among treatments, its distribution between depths in the cultivated treatments indicated that tillage provided some homogenization of seedbank along the vertical soil profile. The seedlings from the seedbank study were not congruent with those measured aboveground in the field, suggesting that both treatment and microclimatic effects in the field may have influenced germination, and thus, aboveground composition.

Keywords

Glyphosateannual bluegrass, Poa annua L.brome grasses, Bromus spp.California burclover, Medicago polymorpha L.Carolina geranium, Geranium carolinianum L.scarlet pimpernel, Anagallis arvensis L.‘Zorro’ rattail fescue, Vulpia myuros var. hirsuta HackGrapevinesperennial agriculturetillagedisturbanceno-till
Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 58 , Issue 3 , September 2010 , pp. 310 - 316
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

Agamalian, H. S. 1992. Vegetation management guidelines. Pages 326–330. in Flaherty, D. L., Christensen, L. P., Lanini, W. T., Marois, J. J., Phillips, P. A., and Wilson, L. T. eds. Grape Pest Management. 2nd ed. Oakland, CA: University of California, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Publication No. 3343.Google Scholar
Anderson, R. L., Tanaka, D. L., Black, A. L., and Schweizer, E. E. 1998. Weed community and species response to crop rotation tillage, and nitrogen fertility. Weed Technol. 12:531–536.Google Scholar
Anonymous, , 2008. Washington's 2008 Apple Production Higher, 2008 Grape Production Lower. Washington, DC: United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Washington/Publications/Current_News_Release/appgrape.pdf. Accessed: September 25, 2009.Google Scholar
Anonymous, , 2009. Grape Crush Report, Final 2008 Crop. Washington, DC: United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/California/Publications/Grape_Crush/Final/2008/200803gcbnarr.pdf. Accessed: September 25, 2009.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, K., Steenwerth, K. L., and Veilleux, L. 2007. Effects of organic and conventional practices on weed control in a perennial cropping system. Weed Sci. 55:352–358.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, K., Steenwerth, K. L., and Veilleux, L. 2008. Cover crop systems affect weed communities in a California vineyard. Weed Sci. 56:596–605.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D., Doll, J. D., Proost, R. T., and Visocky, M. R. 1995. Integrating mechanical weeding with reduced herbicide use in conservation tillage corn production. Agronomy J. 87:507–512.Google Scholar
Chauhan, B. S., Gill, G. S., and Preston, C. 2006. Tillage system effects on weed ecology, herbicide activity and persistence: a review. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 46:1557–1570.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
Davis, A. S., Renner, K. A., and Gross, K. L. 2005. Weed seedbank and community shifts in a long-term cropping systems experiment. Weed Sci. 53:296–306.Google Scholar
du Croix Sissons, M. J., Van Acker, R. C., Derksen, D. A., and Thomas, A. G. 2000. Depth of seedling recruitment of five weed species measured in situ in conventional- and zero-tillage fields. Weed Sci. 48:327–332.Google Scholar
Dyer, W. E. 1995. Exploiting weed seed dormancy and germination requirements through agronomic practices. Weed Sci. 43:498–503.Google Scholar
Forcella, F., Wilson, W. G., and Dekker, J. 1996. Weed seedbank emergence across the corn belt. Weed Sci. 45:67–76.Google Scholar
Gago, P., Cabaleiro, C., and Garcia, J. 2007. Preliminary study of the effect of soil management systems on the adventitious flora of a vineyard in northwestern Spain. Crop Prot. 26:584–591.Google Scholar
Klonsky, K. 2004. Organic agricultural production in California. Pages 241–256. in Siebert, J. ed. California Agriculture: Dimensions and Issues. Oakland, CA: Giannini Foundation, University of California Press.Google Scholar
Légère, A. and Samson, N. 2004. Tillage and weed management effects on weeds in barley–red clover cropping systems. Weed Sci. 52:881–885.Google Scholar
Légère, A., Stevenson, F. C., Benoit, L. D., and Samson, N. 2005. Seedbank–plant relationships for 19 weed taxa in spring barley–red clover cropping systems. Weed Sci. 53:640–650.Google Scholar
Lěps, J. and Smilaüer, P. 2003. Multivariate Analysis of Ecological Data Using CANOCO. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Moonen, A. C. and Barberi, P. 2004. Size and composition of the weed seedbank after 7 years of different cover-crop–maize management systems. Weed Res. 44:163–177.Google Scholar
Schweizer, E. E. and Zimdahl, R. L. 1984a. Weed seed decline in irrigated soil after 6 years of continuous corn (Zea mays) and herbicides. Weed Sci. 32:76–83.Google Scholar
Schweizer, E. E. and Zimdahl, R. L. 1984b. Weed seed decline in irrigated soil after rotation of crops and herbicides. Weed Sci. 32:84–89.Google Scholar
Shrestha, A., Knezevic, S. Z., Roy, R. C., Ball-Coelho, B. R., and Swanton, C. J. 2002. Effect of tillage, cover crop and crop rotation on the composition of weed flora in a sandy soil. Weed Res. 42:76–87.Google Scholar
Smith, R. G. and Gross, K. L. 2006. Rapid changes in the germinable fraction of the weed seed bank in crop rotations. Weed Sci. 54:1094–1100.Google Scholar
Soriano, A., Zeiger, E., Servey, E., and Suero, A. 1968. The effect of cultivation on the vertical distribution of seeds in the soil. J. Appl. Ecol. 5:253–257.Google Scholar
Sosnoskie, L. M., Herms, C. P., and Cardina, J. 2006. Weed seedbank community composition in a 35-yr-old tillage and rotation experiment. Weed Sci. 54:263–273.Google Scholar
Thompson, K. J., Bakker, J., and Bekker, R. 1997. The Soil Seed Banks of North West Europe: Methodology, Density and Longevity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 20.Google Scholar
Zimdahl, R. L. 1999. Fundamentals of Weed Science. San Diego: Academic Press. 71–107. 118–192–194.Google Scholar