Translator Disclaimer
1 March 2016 Giant Ragweed ( Ambrosia trifida) Seed Production and Retention in Soybean and Field Margins
Jared J. Goplen, Craig C. Sheaffer, Roger L. Becker, Jeffrey A. Coulter, Fritz R. Breitenbach, Lisa M. Behnken, Gregg A. Johnson, Jeffrey L. Gunsolus
Author Affiliations +
Abstract

As herbicide-resistant weed populations become increasingly problematic in crop production, alternative strategies of weed control are necessary. Giant ragweed, one of the most competitive agricultural weeds in row crops, has evolved resistance to multiple herbicide biochemical sites of action within the plant, necessitating the development of new and integrated methods of weed control. This study assessed the quantity and duration of seed retention of giant ragweed grown in soybean fields and adjacent field margins. Seed retention of giant ragweed was monitored weekly during the 2012 to 2014 harvest seasons using seed collection traps. Giant ragweed plants produced an average of 1,818 seeds per plant, with 66% being potentially viable. Giant ragweed on average began shattering hard (potentially viable) and soft (nonviable) seeds September 12 and continued through October at an average rate of 0.75 and 0.44% of total seeds per day during September and October, respectively. Giant ragweed seeds remained on the plants well into the Minnesota soybean harvest season, with an average of 80% of the total seeds being retained on October 11, when Minnesota soybean harvest was approximately 75% completed in the years of the study. These results suggest that there is a sufficient amount of time to remove escaped giant ragweed from production fields and field margins before the seeds shatter by managing weed seed dispersal before or at crop harvest. Controlling weed seed dispersal has potential to manage herbicide-resistant giant ragweed by limiting replenishment of the weed seed bank.

Nomenclature: Giant ragweed, Ambrosia trifida L. AMBTR; soybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr.

Conforme las poblaciones de malezas resistentes a herbicidas se hacen incrementalmente más problemáticas en la producción de cultivos, estrategias alternativas de control de malezas se hacen cada vez más necesarias. Ambrosia trifida, una de las malezas agrícolas más competitivas en cultivos en hileras, ha evolucionado resistencia a múltiples sitios bioquímicos de acción de herbicidas dentro de la planta, lo que ha hecho necesario el desarrollo de métodos nuevos e integrados de control de malezas. Este estudio evaluó la cantidad y duración de la retención de semilla de A. trifida creciendo en campos de soja y márgenes de campos adyacentes. La retención de semilla de A. trifida fue monitoreada semanalmente durante las temporadas de cosecha desde 2012 a 2014 usando trampas de colección de semilla. Las plantas de A. trifida produjeron un promedio de 1,818 semillas por planta, con una viabilidad potencial de 66%. En promedio, A. trifida inició la dispersión de semilla dura (potencialmente viable) y suave (no-viable) el 12 de Septiembre y continuó durante Octubre, con una tasa promedio de 0.75 y 0.44% del total de semillas por día, durante Septiembre y Octubre, respectivamente. Las semillas de A. trifida permanecieron en las plantas hasta la temporada de cosecha de soja en Minnesota, con un promedio de 80% del total de las semillas estando retenidas al 11 de Octubre, cuando la cosecha de soja en Minnesota había sido completada al 75%, en los años de este estudio. Estos resultados sugieren que existe una cantidad de tiempo suficiente para remover A. trifida que haya escapado al control en campos de producción y en márgenes de campos antes de que la semilla sea liberada de la planta, mediante el manejo de la dispersión de semilla de malezas antes o durante la cosecha. El controlar la dispersión de semillas de malezas tiene el potencial de manejar A. trifida resiste

As weeds throughout the midwestern United States continue to develop resistance to herbicides, there is a greater need for alternative weed control strategies, including nonchemical approaches such as crop rotation and harvest weed seed control (HWSC) (Shaner and Beckie 2014). Uncontrolled weeds in crop fields eventually produce seeds that shatter to the soil surface and repopulate the seed bank. Seed banks allow weeds to persist through cropping phases and extend weed infestations (Fenner 1995). During the normal harvest of grain crops, retained weed seeds enter the harvester, are separated from the grain, and distributed over the field by the chaff-spreading system of the harvester (Barroso et al. 2006; Blanco-Moreno et al. 2004; Rew et al. 1996; Shirtliffe and Entz 2005; Walsh and Powles 2007). Mechanisms targeting escaped weed seeds in the chaff fraction, such as HWSC systems, have been developed to either remove seeds via chaff carts or destroy seeds through seed destructors at crop harvest (Shirliffe and Entz 2005; Walsh et al. 2012; Walsh and Newman 2007; Walsh and Powles 2007). HWSC systems are reported to be from 60 to 99% effective in destroying seeds of various weed species (Walsh et al. 2013).

For HWSC systems to be effective, weeds need to retain seeds until crop harvest. There is evidence that a high level of seed retention occurs for many weeds, but seed retention can also be influenced by the growing environment (Shirtliffe et al. 2000, Taghizadeh et al. 2012). For example, in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) production fields in western Australia, rigid ryegrass (Lolium rigidum Gaudin L.), wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum L.), brome grass (Bromus spp. Roth L.), and wild oat (Avena fatua L.) retain 85, 99, 77, and 84% of seeds until crop maturity, respectively (Walsh and Powles 2014). Seed retention of annual ryegrass (Lolium rigidum Gaudin L.) in Spanish wheat fields was even greater, with 96% seed retention at crop maturity (Blanco-Moreno et al. 2004).

Giant ragweed is one of the most competitive weeds infesting corn (Zea mays L.) and soybean across the midwestern United States, and has developed resistance to both acetolactate synthase (ALS) inhibitors and glyphosate (Heap 2015; Stoller et al. 1987; Webster et al. 1994). Giant ragweed seed inputs into the soil seed bank must be limited to prevent future infestations of giant ragweed, and may require a zero-weed threshold to prevent weed persistence (Norsworthy et al. 2014). A zero-weed threshold may require nonchemical strategies such as hand weeding before seeds shatter or HWSC to prevent seed bank replenishment. However, these systems require that weeds be controlled before seed production or that weeds retain seeds until crop harvest. There is no information on giant ragweed seed production and retention as a factor in late-season weed control strategies for the growing conditions and cropping systems of the midwestern United States. The objectives of this research were to determine: (1) the quantity of seeds produced during the growing season and (2) the level of seed retention through crop harvest in midwestern soybean and field margins.

Materials and Methods

Site Details

Experiments were conducted at the Rosemount Research and Outreach Center near Rosemount, MN (44.71°N, 93.12°W) in 2012 to 2014 and near Rochester, MN (43.91°N, 92.56°W) in 2014 (Table 1). The soil at Rosemount was a Waukegan silt loam (fine-silty over sandy or sandy-skeletal, mixed, superactive, mesic Typic Hapludolls) and at Rochester was a Port Byron silt loam (fine-silty, mixed, superactive, mesic Typic Hapludolls). Weather data, including daily minimum and maximum air temperature, precipitation, wind speed, and frost dates, were obtained from the National Weather Service station nearest each site. Growing degree days (GDD) were calculated using Equation 1, where Tmax is the maximum daily temperature, Tmin is the minimum daily temperature, b0 is the base temperature (10 C), and S1 and S2 are months indicated in Table 1.

i0890-037X-30-1-246-e01.gif
Giant ragweed seed retention was monitored weekly during September and October each year. Both research sites had known populations of glyphosate-resistant giant ragweed. Additionally, giant ragweed at the Rochester, MN site had resistance to ALS inhibitors. Resident populations of giant ragweed plants were randomly selected each year in mid-July from a conventionally managed soybean field at both locations to monitor seed retention. Soybean were seeded at 345,947 seeds ha−1 in 76-cm rows with commercially available varieties. At Rosemount, giant ragweed plants were also randomly selected each year in mid-July from field margins that were not actively managed for weeds, and the primary vegetation providing competition was smooth bromegrass (Bromus inermis L.) and giant ragweed. Giant ragweed in both field locations was allowed to compete naturally with all vegetation in the surrounding area. When traps were set up, any vegetation in the area surrounding the monitored giant ragweed plants was flattened to prevent interference with and to prevent stray seeds from falling into the seed trap.

Table 1.

Growing-season details for each year and field location that seed retention of giant ragweed was assessed for approximately 60 d surrounding soybean harvest at Rosemount and Rochester, MN in 2012–2014. Weather information was obtained from National Weather Service station nearest each site.a

i0890-037X-30-1-246-t01.tif

Seed Trap Construction

Conical seed traps adapted from the gauze trap design outlined in Page et al. (2002) were installed around stems of individual giant ragweed plants to collect giant ragweed seeds. Seed traps consisted of a plastic frame formed into a 0.9-m-diam circle supporting mesh fabric funnelling to a drained plastic collection bottle (1 L) in the middle to capture and protect seeds from predators. Traps were placed around giant ragweed plants just below the lowest seed-producing branch, were sealed around the base of the plant using tape, and supported with fence posts.

Seed Collection

Seeds were collected weekly for 8 wk starting the first week of September through the last week of October, representing the typical time period from giant ragweed seed development to the end of soybean harvest. Traps were set up around 10 randomly selected giant ragweed plants in each field location at least 7 d before the monitoring period, which coincided with the seed filling period. Collected seeds were dried at room temperature (18 C) for at least 7 d before analysis. Seeds were separated from foreign material using an aspirator. Apparent viability of giant ragweed seeds was determined as previously described (Ball and Miller 1989; Cardina and Sparrow 1996; Forcella 1992). To determine apparent viability, gentle pressure was applied to each seed using a forceps and seeds resisting pressure were considered potentially viable, whereas seeds being penetrated or crushed were considered nonviable. Although there are alternative methods for determining viability, apparent viability was considered adequate for the objectives of this study. Seeds from each category were counted and weighed to determine total number and average mass of seeds shattered each week.

Plant development was monitored periodically through the growing season beginning in July in 2013 and 2014 to relate giant ragweed plant development with seed production and retention. Plant height, number of primary and secondary branches, number of nodes on the primary stem, leaf number, and stages of reproductive growth were documented for the monitored plants. At the end of the monitoring period (end of October), plants were clipped at ground level, bagged, and stripped of all seeds to separate seeds from the stems. Stems were dried in a forced-air oven at 60 C for 5 d to determine stem dry weight and moisture at the time of plant harvest. Since the majority of leaves were lost at the time of plant harvest, stem dry matter alone was used as a proxy for total plant dry matter. Seeds were dried and processed as previously described.

Statistical Analysis

Plant development and seed production of giant ragweed by site-year and field location are summarized in Table 2. To determine the effects of each site-year and field location on each plant characteristic (Table 2), an ANOVA was performed treating each site-year, field location, and their interaction as random effects. There were significant interactions between site-year and field location, so results in Table 2 represent the analysis of treating each site-year and field location combination as a unique environment. Additionally, simple and multiple linear regression analyses were performed to determine if plant development and plant physical characteristics were related to total seed production. However, total plant dry matter was the only characteristic found to be correlated with total seed production (r2 = 0.31, P < 0.001). As a result of finding this association, total plant dry matter was included as a covariate in analysis of covariance, treating each site-year and field location combination and the covariate as random effects.

Table 2.

Summary of giant ragweed seed production and plant characteristics in soybean and field margin locations in each site-year from 2012 to 2014 at Rosemount and Rochester, MN. P-values are shown for each site-year and field location combination (n = 10). Average columns are a weighted average of field location across all site-years.

i0890-037X-30-1-246-t02.tif

To normalize seed retention data, the number of viable and nonviable seeds retained each week was converted to a percentage of the total viable and nonviable seeds produced per plant, respectively. The relationship between percent seeds remaining and day of year was linear, and a best-fit linear regression equation (Equation 2) was fit to the normalized data (Walsh and Powles 2014), where Y is the proportion of seed retention, A is 100% seed retention, B is the rate of seed shed (% d−1), and x is days after the start of seed shattering, which was predicted to be September 12 for hard (potentially viable) and soft (nonviable) seeds.

i0890-037X-30-1-246-e02.gif
To determine the effects of weather and plant development on seed retention, correlation analyses were performed to relate seed retention to all plant development and physical characteristics monitored as well as precipitation, wind speed, first frost date, and GDD (10 C). Multiple linear regression analyses were also performed to determine if a combination of weather factors affected seed retention. Although there were several weak correlations between seed retention and weather patterns, none were significant. All statistical analyses were performed using R version 3.1.3 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Wien, Austria).

Results and Discussion

Plant Development

Floral initiation of selected giant ragweed plants occurred near the end of July, but was typically delayed by several days in the more competitive field margins. Despite differences in floral initiation, pollination tended to be more uniform, and occurred in the third week of August, which was expected as giant ragweed is a short-day plant (Bassett and Crompton 1982; Mann 1942). Despite the observed variation in floral development and plant structure, there were no associations among giant ragweed reproductive development, branching characteristics, and leaf number on seed production or retention.

There were significant effects of site-year and field location interactions on giant ragweed development (Table 2). Across all site-years and field locations, giant ragweed plants in soybean typically produced more biomass and seeds, whereas plants in field margins grew taller and had lower reproductive ratios (Table 2). These differences are typical of competition effects and are likely due to increased densities of neighboring giant ragweed and smooth bromegrass in field margins during the growing season. Consequently, giant ragweed plants in field margins may be competing for light, which causes plants to be etiolated with fewer branches, less stem biomass, and fewer leaves per plant (Jurik 1991). The result is fewer plant resources available to be allocated to seed development as reflected by the lower reproductive ratios observed in field margins (Table 2). The reproductive ratio, calculated as the percentage of hard seed biomass relative to the total stem and nonviable seed biomass, was 22% for giant ragweed plants in field margins and 29% for plants in soybean, indicating that a larger proportion of plant biomass typically goes into seed production in a soybean field (Table 2).

Seed Production

Giant ragweed seed production varied by site-year and field location, but was largely dependent on plant size. Giant ragweed consistently produced substantial amounts of seeds each year, and demonstrated a high potential for weed seed contribution to the seed bank. Giant ragweed plants produced an average of 1,796 seeds per plant with 64% being potentially viable in 2012, 1,115 seeds per plant with 77% being potentially viable in 2013, and 2,302 seeds per plant with 59% being potentially viable in 2014 (Table 2). These results are similar to those previously reported, in that giant ragweed typically produces 500 to 5,000 seeds per plant (Baysinger and Sims 1992; Brabham et al. 2011). The percentage of potentially viable seeds was also similar to that reported by Vitolo and Stiles (1987), who found 65% of seeds being viable from giant ragweed grown in a soybean field. However, Harrison et al. (2001) reported only 50% giant ragweed seed viability in a cornfield. In addition to variation by site-year, seed production also varied by field location; plants in soybean produced 72% more seeds on average than plants in field margins (Table 2). The greater seed production in soybean was a result of an increase in both hard (potentially viable) and soft (nonviable) seeds. However, field location generally affected plant size, which had a direct effect on total seed production (Table 2). Over all site-years and field locations, seed production was positively correlated with aboveground plant dry matter (r2 = 0.31, P < 0.001), and was determined to be a significant covariate in predicting total seed production (P < 0.001). Giant ragweed plants in field margins typically weighed less and were at higher densities than plants in soybean, typically resulting in fewer seeds being produced on plants in field margins, which is in line with what Jurik (1991) reported (Table 2). Similarly, Harrison et al. (2001) found that giant ragweed emerging 4 wk after corn and therefore subjected to greater competition had lower overall fecundity than giant ragweed emerging simultaneously with corn.

Rate of Seed Shatter

In each site-year, giant ragweed began shattering seeds the first week of September and continued through October. It was not surprising that giant ragweed began shattering seeds at relatively the same date each year despite weather differences (Table 1), since giant ragweed is a short-day plant (Bassett and Crompton 1982; Mann 1942).

Giant ragweed seed shattering occurred at a linear rate over time, with a considerable amount of plant-to-plant variation. There was no effect of field location on rate of seed retention. On average, potentially viable and nonviable seeds shattered from plants at a rate of 0.75 and 0.44% of seeds per day, respectively, beginning on September 12 (Figure 1). Harrison et al. (2001) also observed a linear rate of seed shatter over time for giant ragweed in corn, despite it being delayed in plants with delayed emergence. Similar results have been observed for other weed species in Australia, including annual ryegrass, wild radish, bromegrass, and wild oat (Walsh and Powles 2014).

Figure 1.

Hard (potentially viable) and soft (nonviable) seed retention of giant ragweed across all site-years and field locations in 2012 to 2014. Seeds began shattering on September 12 on average. Lines represent a best-fit linear model for hard (y = 100 − 0.754x) and soft seed (y = 100 − 0.435x) retention.

i0890-037X-30-1-246-f01.tif

The primary focus of this study was to monitor giant ragweed seed shattering through the harvest period. Consequently, seed retention was only monitored through the end of October, since soybean is typically harvested by this time in the midwestern United States. When comparing giant ragweed seed retention with typical soybean harvest dates in 2012–2014, potentially viable giant ragweed seed retention was on average 75.3% on the date when 75% of soybean were harvested in Minnesota as inferred from crop progress reports (Table 1) (USDA-NASS 2014). Despite a large percentage of the seeds being retained until soybean harvest, there was large variation in the seed retention of individual plants in various site-years and field locations (Figure 1), potentially due to variation in genetic background, rate of plant development, and specific environmental conditions (Shirtliffe et al. 2000).

Weather Effects

Although individual weather events likely did affect seed retention, no correlations were observed among weather data, plant developmental characteristics, and seed retention. There was a linear association between GDD accumulation after September 1 and seed retention (r2 = 0.49, P < 0.001), indicating that increased GDD (10 C) accumulation in September and October increases seed shattering. Although it was expected that seed shatter would increase after the first frost date, there were no associations between first frost dates or the number of accumulated freezing days with rates of seed shatter, likely because giant ragweed reached physiological maturity before the first frost in each year. It was expected that wind and precipitation events would increase seed shattering because of an increase in self threshing among branches on a given plant. However, when wind and precipitation events were determined alone or in combination via multiple linear regressions, they did not appear to play a significant role in influencing seed shatter (r2 ≤ 0.05, P ≤ 0.001).

Aside from weather, other factors also likely influenced the rate of giant ragweed seed shatter. For example, there was evidence of birds, rodents, insects, and plant pathogens interacting with giant ragweed plants, and likely influencing rates of seed shatter. Several studies have found that 2 to 19% of giant ragweed seeds are infested by various insects (Amatangelo 1974; Harrison et al. 2001; Vitolo and Stiles 1987), and that taller, isolated giant ragweed plants attract and experience the most granivory from seed-feeding insects, which could have affected seed shatter (Abul-Fatih et al. 1979). Nearly all plants had stem-boring damage from insects, but there was no correlation with the rate of seed shatter. Complex combinations of weather, biological factors, and other environmental factors appear to ultimately influence giant ragweed seed retention.

Conclusions

Giant ragweed plants escaping early-season weed control strategies produce substantial amounts of seeds, providing the opportunity for escaped weeds to proliferate. Results from this study indicate that when adhering to a zero-weed threshold, there is a substantial window of time before seed development to remove giant ragweed plants from production fields and adjacent field margins to prevent seed bank replenishment. Giant ragweed seed production and retention were not directly affected by field location. Rather, field location primarily influenced the amount of competition with giant ragweed plants, which ultimately reduced total seed production but did not affect seed retention patterns, indicating that field margins may be managed similarly to soybean fields to prevent seed bank replenishment. Giant ragweed plants did show high seed retention rates through the harvest months in both soybean and field margins. Hard (potentially viable) seeds tended to shatter from plants at a higher rate than soft (nonviable) seeds, which both began shattering on September 12 on average and continued through October. Therefore, earlier harvest dates for soybean would provide increased potential to capture giant ragweed seeds if implementing HWSC mechanisms at harvest. Even with an average harvest date in Minnesota of October 8 (USDA-NASS 2010), 80% of the hard (potentially viable) seeds are retained on giant ragweed, indicating that there is potential to capture giant ragweed seeds at crop harvest.

These results indicate that there is potential for HWSC to be effective against giant ragweed. Because of the nature of harvesting equipment for crops common to the midwestern United States, HWSC mechanisms may only be effective in soybean, as the harvesting equipment has greater potential to feed weed biomass into the harvester than corn-harvesting equipment. The overall variation in seed retention of giant ragweed (Figure 1) suggests that it is highly likely that implementing HWSC would select for giant ragweed plants that shatter seeds earlier. However, if HWSC is used as part of an integrated weed management plan, these strategies have potential to control herbicide-resistant giant ragweed. Overall, these results indicate that harvesting equipment is likely a primary mechanism of giant ragweed seed spread, since the majority (> 63%) of giant ragweed seeds are retained on plants through the end of October. To proactively manage giant ragweed, it will be important to consider the role that harvesting equipment has on mechanically spreading giant ragweed seeds both within fields and across agricultural regions, and how this spread can be minimized, especially when dealing with herbicide-resistant biotypes.

Acknowledgments

This research was funded by the Monsanto Graduate Fellowship, the Torske Klubben Fellowship, and the Rapid Agricultural Response Fund of the Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station. The authors also express appreciation to staff and students for their assistance, in particular Doug Miller and Brad Kincaid.

Literature Cited

1.

HA Abul-Fati FA Bazzaz R Hunt (1979) The biology of Ambrosia trifida L. III. Growth and biomass allocation. New Phytol 83:829–838 Google Scholar

2.

J Amatangelo (1974) Infestation of seeds of Ambrosia trifida, giant ragweed, by larval insects. Bios 45:15–18 Google Scholar

3.

DA Ball SD Miller (1989) A comparison of techniques for estimation of arable soil seedbanks and their relationship to weed flora. Weed Res 29:365–373 Google Scholar

4.

J Barroso L Navarrete MJ Sánchez del Arco C Fernandez-Quintanilla PJW Lutman NH Perry RI Hull (2006) Dispersal of Avena fatua and Avena sterilis patches by natural dissemination, soil tillage and combine harvesters. Weed Res 46:118–128 Google Scholar

5.

IJ Bassett CW Crompton (1982) The biology of Canadian weeds. 55. Ambrosia trifida L. Can J Plant Sci 62:1002–1010 Google Scholar

6.

JA Baysinger BD Sims (1992) Giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida) control in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol 6:13–18 Google Scholar

7.

JM Blanco-Moreno L Chamorro RM Masalles J Recasens FX Sans (2004) Spatial distribution of Lolium rigidum seedlings following seed dispersal by combine harvesters. Weed Res 44:375–387 Google Scholar

8.

CB Brabham CK Gerber WG Johnson (2011) Fate of glyphosate-resistant giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida) in the presence and absence of glyphosate. Weed Sci 59:506–511 Google Scholar

9.

J Cardina DH Sparrow (1996) A comparison of methods to predict weed seedling populations from the soil seedbank. Weed Sci 44:46–51 Google Scholar

10.

M Fenner (1995) Ecology of seed banks. Pages 507–528 in J Kigeland G Galili eds. Seed Development and Germination. New York: Marcel Dekker Google Scholar

11.

F Forcella (1992) Prediction of weed seedling densities from buried seed reserves. Weed Res 32:29–38 Google Scholar

12.

SK Harrison EE Regnier JT Schmoll JE Webb (2001) Competition and fecundity of giant ragweed in corn. Weed Sci 49:224–229 Google Scholar

13.

I Heap (2015) The International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds.  http://www.weedscience.org. Accessed March 16, 2015 Google Scholar

14.

TW Jurik (1991) Population distributions of plant size and light environment of giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida L.) at three densities. Oecologia 87:539–550 Google Scholar

15.

LK Mann (1942) Effects of photoperiod on sex expression in Ambrosia trifida. Bot Gaz 103:780–787 Google Scholar

16.

JK Norsworthy G Griffith T Griffin M Bagavathiannan EE Gbur (2014) In-field movement of glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and its impact on cotton lint yield: evidence supporting a zero-threshold strategy. Weed Sci 62:237–249 Google Scholar

17.

MJ Page L Newlands J Eales (2002) Effectiveness of three seed-trap designs. Aust J Bot 50:587–594 Google Scholar

18.

LJ Rew RJ Froud-Williams ND Boatman (1996) Dispersal of Bromus sterilis and Anthriscus sylvestris seed within arable field margins. Agric Ecosyst Environ 59:107–114 Google Scholar

19.

DL Shaner HJ Beckie (2014) The future of weed control and technology. Pest Manag Sci 70:1329–1339 Google Scholar

20.

SJ Shirtliffe MH Entz (2005) Chaff collection reduces seed dispersal of wild oat (Avena fatua) by a combine harvester. Weed Sci 53:465–470 Google Scholar

21.

SJ Shirtliffe MH Entz RC Van Acker (2000) Avena fatua development and seed shatter as related to thermal time. Weed Sci 48:555–560 Google Scholar

22.

EW Stoller SK Harrison LM Wax EE Regnier ED Nafziger (1987) Weed interference in soybeans (Glycine max). Rev Weed Sci 3:155–181 Google Scholar

23.

MS Taghizadeh ME Nicolas RD Cousens (2012) Effects of relative emergence time and water deficit on the timing of fruit dispersal in Raphanus raphanistrum L. Crop Pasture Sci 63:1018–1025 Google Scholar

24.

[USDA-NASS] U.S. Department of Agriculture National Agriculture Statistics Service (2010) Field Crops Usual Planting and Harvesting Dates (October 2010). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. p  Google Scholar

25.

[USDA-NASS] U.S. Department of Agriculture National Agriculture Statistics Service (2014) Minnesota Crop Progress.  http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Minnesota/Publications/Crop_Progress_&_Condition/. Accessed December 14, 2014 Google Scholar

26.

DB Vitolo EW Stiles (1987) The effect of density of Ambrosia trifida L. on seed predation by Euaresta festiva (Loew) (Dipera: Tephritidae). J N Y Entomol Soc 95:491–494 Google Scholar

27.

MJ Walsh RB Harrington SB Powles (2012) Harrington seed destructor: a new nonchemical weed control tool for global grain crops. Crop Sci 52:1343–1347 Google Scholar

28.

MJ Walsh P Newman (2007) Burning narrow windrows for weed seed destruction. Field Crop Res 104:24–30 Google Scholar

29.

MJ Walsh P Newman SB Powles (2013) Targeting weed seeds in-crop: a new weed control paradigm for global agriculture. Weed Technol 27:431–436 Google Scholar

30.

MJ Walsh SB Powles (2007) Management strategies for herbicide-resistant weed populations in Australian dryland crop production systems. Weed Technol 21:332–338 Google Scholar

31.

MJ Walsh SB Powles (2014) High seed retention at maturity of annual weeds infesting crop fields highlights the potential for harvest weed seed control. Weed Technol 28:486–493 Google Scholar

32.

TM Webster MM Loux EE Regnier SK Harrison (1994) Giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida) canopy architecture and interference studies in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol 8:559–564 Google Scholar
Jared J. Goplen, Craig C. Sheaffer, Roger L. Becker, Jeffrey A. Coulter, Fritz R. Breitenbach, Lisa M. Behnken, Gregg A. Johnson, and Jeffrey L. Gunsolus "Giant Ragweed ( Ambrosia trifida) Seed Production and Retention in Soybean and Field Margins," Weed Technology 30(1), 246-253, (1 March 2016). https://doi.org/10.1614/WT-D-15-00116.1
Received: 23 July 2015; Accepted: 1 October 2015; Published: 1 March 2016
JOURNAL ARTICLE
8 PAGES


SHARE
ARTICLE IMPACT
Back to Top