Hostname: page-component-5447f9dfdb-bxsvz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-07-30T17:17:30.763Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Harvest weed seed control of Italian ryegrass [Lolium perenne L. ssp. multiflorum (Lam.) Husnot], common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia L.), and Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri S. Watson)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 June 2019

Shawn C. Beam Open the ORCID record for Shawn C. Beam [Opens in a new window] ,
Steven Mirsky ,
Charlie Cahoon ,
David Haak  and
Michael Flessner
Shawn C. Beam
Affiliation:
Graduate Research Assistant, School of Plant and Environmental Sciences, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA
Steven Mirsky
Affiliation:
Research Ecologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Beltsville, MD, USA
Charlie Cahoon
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
David Haak
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, School of Plant and Environmental Sciences, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA
Michael Flessner*
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, School of Plant and Environmental Sciences, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Michael Flessner, Assistant Professor, School of Plant and Environmental Sciences, Virginia Tech, 675 Old Glade Rd., Blacksburg, VA 24061. Email: flessner@vt.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Herbicide resistance is a major problem in United States and global agriculture, driving farmers to consider other methods of weed control. One of these methods is harvest weed seed control (HWSC), which has been demonstrated to be effective in Australia. HWSC studies were conducted across Virginia in 2017 and 2018, targeting Italian ryegrass in continuous winter wheat as well as common ragweed and Palmer amaranth in continuous soybean. These studies assessed the impact of HWSC (via weed seed removal) on weed populations in the next year’s crop compared with conventional harvest (weed seeds returned). HWSC reduced Italian ryegrass tillers compared with the conventional harvest at two locations in April (29% and 69%), but no difference was observed at a third location. At wheat harvest, HWSC at one location reduced Italian ryegrass seed heads (41 seed heads m−2) compared with conventional harvest (125 seed heads m−2). In soybean, before preplant herbicide applications and POST herbicide applications, HWSC reduced common ragweed densities by 22% and 26%, respectively, compared with the conventional harvest plots. By soybean harvest, no differences in common ragweed density, seed retention, or crop yield were observed, because of effectiveness of POST herbicides. No treatment differences were observed at any evaluation timing for Palmer amaranth, which is attributed to farmer weed management (i.e., effective herbicides) and low weed densities making any potential treatment differences difficult to detect. Across wheat and soybean, there were no differences observed in crop yield between treatments. Overall, HWSC was demonstrated to be a viable method to reduce Italian ryegrass and common ragweed populations.

Keywords

Michael Walsh, University of SydneyCommon ragweed, Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. AMBELItalian ryegrass, Lolium perenne L. ssp. multiflorum (Lam.) Husnot LOLMUPalmer amaranth, Amaranthus palmeri S. Watson AMAPAsoybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr.winter wheat, Triticum aestivum L.Densityintegrated weed managementseed retentionweed seed production

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 33 , Issue 4 , August 2019 , pp. 627 - 632
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Appleby, AP, Olson, PD, Colbert, DR (1976) Winter wheat yield reduction from interference by Italian ryegrass. Agron J 68:463–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Condon, K (2018) Chaff lining… too good to be true? https://ahri.uwa.edu.au/chaff-liningtoo-good-to-betrue/. Accessed: September 6, 2018Google Scholar
Ghersa, CM, Martinez-Ghersa, MA (2000) Ecological correlates of weed seed size and persistence in the soil under different tilling systems: implications for weed management. Field Crop Res 67:141–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goplen, JJ, Sheaffer, CC, Becker, RL, Coulter, JA, Breitenbach, FR, Behnken, LM, Johnson, GA, Gunsolus, JL (2016) Giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida) seed production and retention in soybean and field margins. Weed Technol 30:246–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guillemin, J, Chauvel, B (2011) Effects of the seed weight and burial depth on the seed behavior of common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia). Weed Biol Manag 11:217–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heap, I (2019) The international survey of herbicide resistant weeds. http://www.weedscience.org/. Accessed: February 21, 2019Google Scholar
Ichihara, M, Yamashita, M, Sawada, H, Kida, Y, Asai, M (2009) Influence of after-ripening environments on the germination characteristics and seed fate of Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum). Weed Biol Manag 9:217–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jha, P (2008) Biology and ecology of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri). Ph.D dissertation. Clemson, SC: Clemson University. 182 pGoogle Scholar
Lacefield, G, Collins, M, Henning, J, Phillips, T, Rasnake, M, Spitaleri, R, Girgson, D, Turner, K (2003) Annual ryegrass. Lexington, KY: Kentucky Cooperative Extension Service AGR-179. 2 pGoogle Scholar
Norsworthy, JK, Korres, NE, Walsh, MJ, Powles, SB (2016) Integrating herbicide programs with harvest weed seed control and other fall management practices for the control of glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri). Weed Sci 64:540–550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritter, RL, Menbere, H (2002) Preemergence control of Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum) in wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Technol 16:55–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rottenberg, A (1998) Sex ratio and gender stability in the dioecious plants of Israel. Bot J Linn Soc 128:137–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, LM, Norsworthy, JK, Young, BG, Bradley, KW, Kruger, GR, Davis, VM, Steckel, LE, Walsh, MJ (2016) Tall waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus) and Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) seed production and retention at soybean maturity. Weed Technol 30:284–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz-Lazaro, LM, Green, JK, Norsworthy, JK (2017a) Seed retention of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) in soybean. Weed Technol 31:617–622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz-Lazaro, LM, Norsworthy, JK, Walsh, MJ, Bagavathiannan, MV (2017b) Efficacy of integrated Harrington seed destructor on weeds of soybean and rice production systems in the southern United States. Crop Sci 57:2812–2818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stubler, H, Strek, H (2016) Invited plenary presentation: Weed control at the crossroads–which innovations are on the horizon? Pages 8–12 in Proceedings of the 7th International Weed Science Congress. Prague, Czech Republic: International Weed Science SocietyGoogle Scholar
Swanton, CJ, Weise, SF (1991) Integrated weed management: the rationale and approach. Weed Technol 5:657–663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thill, DC, Lish, JM, Callihan, RH, Bechinski, EJ (1991) Integrated weed management-a component of integrated pest management: a critical review. Weed Technol 5:648–656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tidemann, BD, Hall, LM, Harker, KN, Alexander, BCS (2016) Identifying critical control points in the wild oat (Avena fatua) life cycle and the potential effects of harvest weed-seed control. Weed Sci 64:463–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Acker, RC, Swanton, CJ, Weise, SF (1993) The critical period of weed control in soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.]. Weed Sci 41:194–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walsh, M, Newman, P, Powles, S (2013) Targeting weed seeds in-crop: a new weed control paradigm for global agriculture. Weed Technol 27:431–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walsh, M, Ouzman, M, Newman, P, Powles, S, Llewellyn, R (2017a) High levels of adoption indicate that harvest weed seed control is now an established weed control practice in Australian cropping. Weed Technol 31:341–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walsh, MJ, Aves, C, Powles, SB (2017b) Harvest weed seed control systems are similarly effective on rigid ryegrass. Weed Technol 31:178–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walsh, MJ, Broster, JC, Schwartz-Lazaro, LM, Norsworthy, JK, Davis, AS, Tidemann, BD, Beckie, HJ, Lyon, DJ, Soni, N, Neve, P, Bagavathiannan, MV (2018) Opportunities and challenges for harvest weed seed control in global cropping systems. Pest Manag Sci 74:2235–2245CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Walsh, MJ, Harrington, RB, Powles, SB (2012) Harrington seed destructor: a new nonchemical weed control tool for global grain crops. Crop Sci 52:1343–1347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walsh, MJ, Newman, P (2007) Burning narrow windrows for weed seed destruction. Field Crops Res 104:24–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walsh, MJ, Powles, SB (2007) Management strategies for herbicide-resistant weed populations in Australian dryland crop production systems. Weed Technol 21:332–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walsh, MJ, Powles, SB (2014) High seed retention at maturity of annual weeds infesting crop fields highlights the potential for harvest weed seed control. Weed Technol 28:486–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, TM (2012) Weed survey-southern states grass crops subsection. Proc South Weed Sci Soc 65:267–288Google Scholar
Webster, TM (2013) Weed survey-southern states broadleaf crops subsection. Proc South Weed Sci Soc 66:275–287Google Scholar