Posted on

how to generate weed seeds

Read Online Free Read Online (Free) relies on page scans, which are not currently available to screen readers. To access this article, please contact JSTOR User Support. We’ll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.

With a personal account, you can read up to 100 articles each month for free.

Already have an account? Log in

Subscribe to JPASS

Monthly Plan

  • Access everything in the JPASS collection
  • Read the full-text of every article
  • Download up to 10 article PDFs to save and keep

Yearly Plan

  • Access everything in the JPASS collection
  • Read the full-text of every article
  • Download up to 120 article PDFs to save and keep

Purchase Options

Purchase a PDF

How does it work?

  1. Select the purchase option.
  2. Check out using a credit card or bank account with PayPal.
  3. Read your article online and download the PDF from your email or your account.

Why register for an account?

  • Access supplemental materials and multimedia.
  • Unlimited access to purchased articles.
  • Ability to save and export citations.
  • Custom alerts when new content is added.

Freshly collected redroot pigweed seeds were buried 5 cm deep in the field in November of 3 yr in succession. Treatments applied to the soil surface included KNO3 (400 kg ha-1) in midwinter, ethephon (11 kg ha-1) in late spring, and a soil cover (polyethylene sheet for 2 wk) in late spring. Seeds were recovered within 1 yr after treatment, examined for in situ germination, and tested for viability. The 3-yr averages for viable seeds remaining by October in the year after treatment with KNO3 or soil cover, either alone or in combination, did not differ from nontreated checks and averaged 47% of the original population. Viable seeds remaining in soil treated with ethephon either alone or combined with KNO3 were reduced to 21% of the beginning population. The most effective treatments were ethephon either combined with a soil cover or with a soil cover plus KNO3 which reduced the viable seeds to an average of 8% of the original. Ethephon plus a soil cover has the potential to reduce greatly redroot pigweed seed populations in the field.

Weed Technology publishes original research and scholarship focused on understanding “how” weeds are managed. As such, it is focused on more applied aspects concerning the management of weeds.

Cambridge University Press (www.cambridge.org) is the publishing division of the University of Cambridge, one of the world’s leading research institutions and winner of 81 Nobel Prizes. Cambridge University Press is committed by its charter to disseminate knowledge as widely as possible across the globe. It publishes over 2,500 books a year for distribution in more than 200 countries. Cambridge Journals publishes over 250 peer-reviewed academic journals across a wide range of subject areas, in print and online. Many of these journals are the leading academic publications in their fields and together they form one of the most valuable and comprehensive bodies of research available today. For more information, visit http://journals.cambridge.org.

This item is part of a JSTOR Collection.
For terms and use, please refer to our Terms and Conditions
Weed Technology © 1990 Cambridge University Press
Request Permissions

Extractable and Germinable Seedbank Methods Provide Different Quantifications of Weed Communities

Seedbank sampling and quantification methods vary in their ability to describe weed diversity and density, so proper method selection is critical for studying weed communities. The germinable seedbank (GSB) method is commonly preferred over extractable seedbank method (ESB), because the latter is more time-consuming. However, these two methods have only been compared using a few weed species and a relatively small number of samples. A total of 204 weed seedbank samples were used to compare both methods for weed density, richness, evenness, and Shannon-Weiner diversity using a split-sample approach. The two methods yielded dramatically different results. The ESB had 418% higher density and 35% more species per sample but 11% less evenness than the GSB. Diversity was estimated to be only 9% higher using the extractable compared with the germinable method. While the extractable method had higher density and richness overall, this was not true for every species, with only 7 of 14 common species detected in higher amounts by the extractable method. The results indicate the two methods are not strongly correlated, limiting the possibility of generating a conversion factor between methods. Nevertheless, evenness and Shannon-Weiner diversity might allow comparisons between both methods when the emphasis is on characterizing predominant weed species. The GSB is a practical approach to compare treatments or conditions; however, the ESB is more useful to accurately quantify weed species richness, diversity, and density.