Seedbank Persistence of Palmer Amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and Waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus) across Diverse Geographical Regions in the United States
Knowledge of the effects of burial depth and burial duration on seed viability and, consequently, seedbank persistence of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri S. Watson) and waterhemp [Amaranthus tuberculatus (Moq.) J. D. Sauer] ecotypes can be used for the development of efficient weed management pr...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Weed science 2018-07, Vol.66 (4), p.446-456 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 456 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 4 |
| container_start_page | 446 |
| container_title | Weed science |
| container_volume | 66 |
| creator | Korres, Nicholas E Norsworthy, Jason K Young, Bryan G Reynolds, Daniel B Johnson, William G Conley, Shawn P Smeda, Reid J Mueller, Thomas C Spaunhorst, Douglas J Gage, Karla L Loux, Mark Kruger, Greg R Bagavathiannan, Muthukumar V |
| description | Knowledge of the effects of burial depth and burial duration on seed viability and, consequently, seedbank persistence of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri S. Watson) and waterhemp [Amaranthus tuberculatus (Moq.) J. D. Sauer] ecotypes can be used for the development of efficient weed management programs. This is of particular interest, given the great fecundity of both species and, consequently, their high seedbank replenishment potential. Seeds of both species collected from five different locations across the United States were investigated in seven states (sites) with different soil and climatic conditions. Seeds were placed at two depths (0 and 15cm) for 3 yr. Each year, seeds were retrieved, and seed damage (shrunken, malformed, or broken) plus losses (deteriorated and futile germination) and viability were evaluated. Greater seed damage plus loss averaged across seed origin, burial depth, and year was recorded for lots tested at Illinois (51.3% and 51.8%) followed by Tennessee (40.5% and 45.1%) and Missouri (39.2% and 42%) for A. palmeri and A. tuberculatus, respectively. The site differences for seed persistence were probably due to higher volumetric water content at these sites. Rates of seed demise were directly proportional to burial depth (α=0.001), whereas the percentage of viable seeds recovered after 36 mo on the soil surface ranged from 4.1% to 4.3% compared with 5% to 5.3% at the 15-cm depth for A. palmeri and A. tuberculatus, respectively. Seed viability loss was greater in the seeds placed on the soil surface compared with the buried seeds. The greatest influences on seed viability were burial conditions and time and site-specific soil conditions, more so than geographical location. Thus, management of these weed species should focus on reducing seed shattering, enhancing seed removal from the soil surface, or adjusting tillage systems. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1017/wsc.2018.27 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2073256833</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><cupid>10_1017_wsc_2018_27</cupid><jstor_id>26505863</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>26505863</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-b458t-448a1082d792bea50fd8d70d9eefe2d4bfb7a517dcf15fc86f696558b1d2d7463</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkV1rFDEUhgdRcK1eeS0EvGmRWZNMPmYuS9UqFCzW4uWQTE52s84kY5JR_DH-V7PdqiiiVwnkyfNyzltVjwleE0zk8y9pWFNM2jWVd6oV4RzXVPLubrXCmDU1kYzfrx6ktMOYCEq6VfXtCsBo5T-iS4jJpQx-ABQsulTjBBGdTioqn7fo-MdtSWi-eXMnSHmDPqgMcQvT_BuSFw1xWEaVl1S4IYaU0Av3uYQAOoewiWreukGN6B1sXPAJOY_yFtC1dxkMuspFmx5W96waEzy6PY-q61cv35-9ri_enr85O72oNeNtrhlrFcEtNbKjGhTH1rRGYtMBWKCGaaul4kSawRJuh1ZY0QnOW01M-cNEc1QdH7xzDJ8WSLmfXBpgHJWHsKSeNpgTgTva_R8lvBGUNQwX9Okf6C4s0ZdBeoplQ7lom6ZQzw7UzY4i2H6Orizya09wv2-1L632-1Z7Kgv95EDvUg7xJ0oFx7wVe1t9a1OTjs5s4Ffo330nB167EDz8M_s7qMu9GA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2073256833</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Seedbank Persistence of Palmer Amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and Waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus) across Diverse Geographical Regions in the United States</title><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><source>Cambridge University Press Journals Complete</source><creator>Korres, Nicholas E ; Norsworthy, Jason K ; Young, Bryan G ; Reynolds, Daniel B ; Johnson, William G ; Conley, Shawn P ; Smeda, Reid J ; Mueller, Thomas C ; Spaunhorst, Douglas J ; Gage, Karla L ; Loux, Mark ; Kruger, Greg R ; Bagavathiannan, Muthukumar V</creator><creatorcontrib>Korres, Nicholas E ; Norsworthy, Jason K ; Young, Bryan G ; Reynolds, Daniel B ; Johnson, William G ; Conley, Shawn P ; Smeda, Reid J ; Mueller, Thomas C ; Spaunhorst, Douglas J ; Gage, Karla L ; Loux, Mark ; Kruger, Greg R ; Bagavathiannan, Muthukumar V</creatorcontrib><description>Knowledge of the effects of burial depth and burial duration on seed viability and, consequently, seedbank persistence of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri S. Watson) and waterhemp [Amaranthus tuberculatus (Moq.) J. D. Sauer] ecotypes can be used for the development of efficient weed management programs. This is of particular interest, given the great fecundity of both species and, consequently, their high seedbank replenishment potential. Seeds of both species collected from five different locations across the United States were investigated in seven states (sites) with different soil and climatic conditions. Seeds were placed at two depths (0 and 15cm) for 3 yr. Each year, seeds were retrieved, and seed damage (shrunken, malformed, or broken) plus losses (deteriorated and futile germination) and viability were evaluated. Greater seed damage plus loss averaged across seed origin, burial depth, and year was recorded for lots tested at Illinois (51.3% and 51.8%) followed by Tennessee (40.5% and 45.1%) and Missouri (39.2% and 42%) for A. palmeri and A. tuberculatus, respectively. The site differences for seed persistence were probably due to higher volumetric water content at these sites. Rates of seed demise were directly proportional to burial depth (α=0.001), whereas the percentage of viable seeds recovered after 36 mo on the soil surface ranged from 4.1% to 4.3% compared with 5% to 5.3% at the 15-cm depth for A. palmeri and A. tuberculatus, respectively. Seed viability loss was greater in the seeds placed on the soil surface compared with the buried seeds. The greatest influences on seed viability were burial conditions and time and site-specific soil conditions, more so than geographical location. Thus, management of these weed species should focus on reducing seed shattering, enhancing seed removal from the soil surface, or adjusting tillage systems.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0043-1745</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1550-2759</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1550-2759</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1017/wsc.2018.27</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York, USA: The Weed Science Society of America</publisher><subject>Agricultural production ; Amaranth ; Amaranthus palmeri ; Amaranthus tuberculatus ; Burial depth ; Buried seeds ; Climatic conditions ; climatic factors ; Damage assessment ; Ecotypes ; Environmental conditions ; Fecundity ; Geographical distribution ; Germination ; Illinois ; Missouri ; Moisture content ; Predation ; Replenishment ; Seed banks ; seed damage ; seed longevity ; seed shattering ; seed viability ; seedbank dynamics ; Seeds ; soil ; Soil conditions ; Soil investigations ; soil quality ; Soil surfaces ; soil temperature ; Soils ; Species ; Tennessee ; tetrazolium test ; Tillage ; Viability ; volumetric water content ; Water content ; Weed Biology and Ecology ; Weed control ; Weeds</subject><ispartof>Weed science, 2018-07, Vol.66 (4), p.446-456</ispartof><rights>Weed Science Society of America, 2018. This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.</rights><rights>Weed Science Society of America, 2018</rights><rights>Weed Science Society of America, 2018 This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (the “License”) (http://creativecommons. org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-b458t-448a1082d792bea50fd8d70d9eefe2d4bfb7a517dcf15fc86f696558b1d2d7463</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-b458t-448a1082d792bea50fd8d70d9eefe2d4bfb7a517dcf15fc86f696558b1d2d7463</cites><orcidid>000-0001-8328-4990</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/26505863$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0043174518000279/type/journal_article$$EHTML$$P50$$Gcambridge$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>164,314,777,781,800,27905,27906,55609,57998,58231</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Korres, Nicholas E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Norsworthy, Jason K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Young, Bryan G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Reynolds, Daniel B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Johnson, William G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Conley, Shawn P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smeda, Reid J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mueller, Thomas C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Spaunhorst, Douglas J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gage, Karla L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Loux, Mark</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kruger, Greg R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bagavathiannan, Muthukumar V</creatorcontrib><title>Seedbank Persistence of Palmer Amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and Waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus) across Diverse Geographical Regions in the United States</title><title>Weed science</title><addtitle>Weed Sci</addtitle><description>Knowledge of the effects of burial depth and burial duration on seed viability and, consequently, seedbank persistence of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri S. Watson) and waterhemp [Amaranthus tuberculatus (Moq.) J. D. Sauer] ecotypes can be used for the development of efficient weed management programs. This is of particular interest, given the great fecundity of both species and, consequently, their high seedbank replenishment potential. Seeds of both species collected from five different locations across the United States were investigated in seven states (sites) with different soil and climatic conditions. Seeds were placed at two depths (0 and 15cm) for 3 yr. Each year, seeds were retrieved, and seed damage (shrunken, malformed, or broken) plus losses (deteriorated and futile germination) and viability were evaluated. Greater seed damage plus loss averaged across seed origin, burial depth, and year was recorded for lots tested at Illinois (51.3% and 51.8%) followed by Tennessee (40.5% and 45.1%) and Missouri (39.2% and 42%) for A. palmeri and A. tuberculatus, respectively. The site differences for seed persistence were probably due to higher volumetric water content at these sites. Rates of seed demise were directly proportional to burial depth (α=0.001), whereas the percentage of viable seeds recovered after 36 mo on the soil surface ranged from 4.1% to 4.3% compared with 5% to 5.3% at the 15-cm depth for A. palmeri and A. tuberculatus, respectively. Seed viability loss was greater in the seeds placed on the soil surface compared with the buried seeds. The greatest influences on seed viability were burial conditions and time and site-specific soil conditions, more so than geographical location. Thus, management of these weed species should focus on reducing seed shattering, enhancing seed removal from the soil surface, or adjusting tillage systems.</description><subject>Agricultural production</subject><subject>Amaranth</subject><subject>Amaranthus palmeri</subject><subject>Amaranthus tuberculatus</subject><subject>Burial depth</subject><subject>Buried seeds</subject><subject>Climatic conditions</subject><subject>climatic factors</subject><subject>Damage assessment</subject><subject>Ecotypes</subject><subject>Environmental conditions</subject><subject>Fecundity</subject><subject>Geographical distribution</subject><subject>Germination</subject><subject>Illinois</subject><subject>Missouri</subject><subject>Moisture content</subject><subject>Predation</subject><subject>Replenishment</subject><subject>Seed banks</subject><subject>seed damage</subject><subject>seed longevity</subject><subject>seed shattering</subject><subject>seed viability</subject><subject>seedbank dynamics</subject><subject>Seeds</subject><subject>soil</subject><subject>Soil conditions</subject><subject>Soil investigations</subject><subject>soil quality</subject><subject>Soil surfaces</subject><subject>soil temperature</subject><subject>Soils</subject><subject>Species</subject><subject>Tennessee</subject><subject>tetrazolium test</subject><subject>Tillage</subject><subject>Viability</subject><subject>volumetric water content</subject><subject>Water content</subject><subject>Weed Biology and Ecology</subject><subject>Weed control</subject><subject>Weeds</subject><issn>0043-1745</issn><issn>1550-2759</issn><issn>1550-2759</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>IKXGN</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkV1rFDEUhgdRcK1eeS0EvGmRWZNMPmYuS9UqFCzW4uWQTE52s84kY5JR_DH-V7PdqiiiVwnkyfNyzltVjwleE0zk8y9pWFNM2jWVd6oV4RzXVPLubrXCmDU1kYzfrx6ktMOYCEq6VfXtCsBo5T-iS4jJpQx-ABQsulTjBBGdTioqn7fo-MdtSWi-eXMnSHmDPqgMcQvT_BuSFw1xWEaVl1S4IYaU0Av3uYQAOoewiWreukGN6B1sXPAJOY_yFtC1dxkMuspFmx5W96waEzy6PY-q61cv35-9ri_enr85O72oNeNtrhlrFcEtNbKjGhTH1rRGYtMBWKCGaaul4kSawRJuh1ZY0QnOW01M-cNEc1QdH7xzDJ8WSLmfXBpgHJWHsKSeNpgTgTva_R8lvBGUNQwX9Okf6C4s0ZdBeoplQ7lom6ZQzw7UzY4i2H6Orizya09wv2-1L632-1Z7Kgv95EDvUg7xJ0oFx7wVe1t9a1OTjs5s4Ffo330nB167EDz8M_s7qMu9GA</recordid><startdate>20180701</startdate><enddate>20180701</enddate><creator>Korres, Nicholas E</creator><creator>Norsworthy, Jason K</creator><creator>Young, Bryan G</creator><creator>Reynolds, Daniel B</creator><creator>Johnson, William G</creator><creator>Conley, Shawn P</creator><creator>Smeda, Reid J</creator><creator>Mueller, Thomas C</creator><creator>Spaunhorst, Douglas J</creator><creator>Gage, Karla L</creator><creator>Loux, Mark</creator><creator>Kruger, Greg R</creator><creator>Bagavathiannan, Muthukumar V</creator><general>The Weed Science Society of America</general><general>Cambridge University Press</general><general>Weed Science Society of America</general><scope>IKXGN</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PADUT</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7S9</scope><scope>L.6</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/000-0001-8328-4990</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20180701</creationdate><title>Seedbank Persistence of Palmer Amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and Waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus) across Diverse Geographical Regions in the United States</title><author>Korres, Nicholas E ; Norsworthy, Jason K ; Young, Bryan G ; Reynolds, Daniel B ; Johnson, William G ; Conley, Shawn P ; Smeda, Reid J ; Mueller, Thomas C ; Spaunhorst, Douglas J ; Gage, Karla L ; Loux, Mark ; Kruger, Greg R ; Bagavathiannan, Muthukumar V</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b458t-448a1082d792bea50fd8d70d9eefe2d4bfb7a517dcf15fc86f696558b1d2d7463</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Agricultural production</topic><topic>Amaranth</topic><topic>Amaranthus palmeri</topic><topic>Amaranthus tuberculatus</topic><topic>Burial depth</topic><topic>Buried seeds</topic><topic>Climatic conditions</topic><topic>climatic factors</topic><topic>Damage assessment</topic><topic>Ecotypes</topic><topic>Environmental conditions</topic><topic>Fecundity</topic><topic>Geographical distribution</topic><topic>Germination</topic><topic>Illinois</topic><topic>Missouri</topic><topic>Moisture content</topic><topic>Predation</topic><topic>Replenishment</topic><topic>Seed banks</topic><topic>seed damage</topic><topic>seed longevity</topic><topic>seed shattering</topic><topic>seed viability</topic><topic>seedbank dynamics</topic><topic>Seeds</topic><topic>soil</topic><topic>Soil conditions</topic><topic>Soil investigations</topic><topic>soil quality</topic><topic>Soil surfaces</topic><topic>soil temperature</topic><topic>Soils</topic><topic>Species</topic><topic>Tennessee</topic><topic>tetrazolium test</topic><topic>Tillage</topic><topic>Viability</topic><topic>volumetric water content</topic><topic>Water content</topic><topic>Weed Biology and Ecology</topic><topic>Weed control</topic><topic>Weeds</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Korres, Nicholas E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Norsworthy, Jason K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Young, Bryan G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Reynolds, Daniel B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Johnson, William G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Conley, Shawn P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smeda, Reid J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mueller, Thomas C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Spaunhorst, Douglas J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gage, Karla L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Loux, Mark</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kruger, Greg R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bagavathiannan, Muthukumar V</creatorcontrib><collection>Cambridge Journals Open Access</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection (ProQuest)</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Research Library China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>AGRICOLA</collection><collection>AGRICOLA - Academic</collection><jtitle>Weed science</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Korres, Nicholas E</au><au>Norsworthy, Jason K</au><au>Young, Bryan G</au><au>Reynolds, Daniel B</au><au>Johnson, William G</au><au>Conley, Shawn P</au><au>Smeda, Reid J</au><au>Mueller, Thomas C</au><au>Spaunhorst, Douglas J</au><au>Gage, Karla L</au><au>Loux, Mark</au><au>Kruger, Greg R</au><au>Bagavathiannan, Muthukumar V</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Seedbank Persistence of Palmer Amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and Waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus) across Diverse Geographical Regions in the United States</atitle><jtitle>Weed science</jtitle><addtitle>Weed Sci</addtitle><date>2018-07-01</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>66</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>446</spage><epage>456</epage><pages>446-456</pages><issn>0043-1745</issn><issn>1550-2759</issn><eissn>1550-2759</eissn><abstract>Knowledge of the effects of burial depth and burial duration on seed viability and, consequently, seedbank persistence of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri S. Watson) and waterhemp [Amaranthus tuberculatus (Moq.) J. D. Sauer] ecotypes can be used for the development of efficient weed management programs. This is of particular interest, given the great fecundity of both species and, consequently, their high seedbank replenishment potential. Seeds of both species collected from five different locations across the United States were investigated in seven states (sites) with different soil and climatic conditions. Seeds were placed at two depths (0 and 15cm) for 3 yr. Each year, seeds were retrieved, and seed damage (shrunken, malformed, or broken) plus losses (deteriorated and futile germination) and viability were evaluated. Greater seed damage plus loss averaged across seed origin, burial depth, and year was recorded for lots tested at Illinois (51.3% and 51.8%) followed by Tennessee (40.5% and 45.1%) and Missouri (39.2% and 42%) for A. palmeri and A. tuberculatus, respectively. The site differences for seed persistence were probably due to higher volumetric water content at these sites. Rates of seed demise were directly proportional to burial depth (α=0.001), whereas the percentage of viable seeds recovered after 36 mo on the soil surface ranged from 4.1% to 4.3% compared with 5% to 5.3% at the 15-cm depth for A. palmeri and A. tuberculatus, respectively. Seed viability loss was greater in the seeds placed on the soil surface compared with the buried seeds. The greatest influences on seed viability were burial conditions and time and site-specific soil conditions, more so than geographical location. Thus, management of these weed species should focus on reducing seed shattering, enhancing seed removal from the soil surface, or adjusting tillage systems.</abstract><cop>New York, USA</cop><pub>The Weed Science Society of America</pub><doi>10.1017/wsc.2018.27</doi><tpages>11</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/000-0001-8328-4990</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0043-1745 |
| ispartof | Weed science, 2018-07, Vol.66 (4), p.446-456 |
| issn | 0043-1745 1550-2759 1550-2759 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2073256833 |
| source | Jstor Complete Legacy; Cambridge University Press Journals Complete |
| subjects | Agricultural production Amaranth Amaranthus palmeri Amaranthus tuberculatus Burial depth Buried seeds Climatic conditions climatic factors Damage assessment Ecotypes Environmental conditions Fecundity Geographical distribution Germination Illinois Missouri Moisture content Predation Replenishment Seed banks seed damage seed longevity seed shattering seed viability seedbank dynamics Seeds soil Soil conditions Soil investigations soil quality Soil surfaces soil temperature Soils Species Tennessee tetrazolium test Tillage Viability volumetric water content Water content Weed Biology and Ecology Weed control Weeds |
| title | Seedbank Persistence of Palmer Amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and Waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus) across Diverse Geographical Regions in the United States |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-20T13%3A52%3A18IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Seedbank%20Persistence%20of%20Palmer%20Amaranth%20(Amaranthus%20palmeri)%20and%20Waterhemp%20(Amaranthus%20tuberculatus)%20across%20Diverse%20Geographical%20Regions%20in%20the%20United%20States&rft.jtitle=Weed%20science&rft.au=Korres,%20Nicholas%20E&rft.date=2018-07-01&rft.volume=66&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=446&rft.epage=456&rft.pages=446-456&rft.issn=0043-1745&rft.eissn=1550-2759&rft_id=info:doi/10.1017/wsc.2018.27&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E26505863%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2073256833&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_cupid=10_1017_wsc_2018_27&rft_jstor_id=26505863&rfr_iscdi=true |