Browsing by Author "Davis, Adam S."
Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
Results Per Page
Sort Options
- Seed-shattering phenology at soybean harvest of economically important weeds in multiple regions of the United States. Part 1: Broadleaf speciesSchwartz-Lazaro, Lauren M.; Shergill, Lovreet S.; Evans, Jeffrey A.; Bagavathiannan, Muthukumar V.; Beam, Shawn C.; Bish, Mandy D.; Bond, Jason A.; Bradley, Kevin W.; Curran, William S.; Davis, Adam S.; Everman, Wesley J.; Flessner, Michael L.; Haring, Steven C.; Jordan, Nicholas R.; Korres, Nicholas E.; Lindquist, John L.; Norsworthy, Jason K.; Sanders, Tameka L.; Steckel, Larry E.; VanGessel, Mark J.; Young, Blake; Mirsky, Steven B. (2021-01)Potential effectiveness of harvest weed seed control (HWSC) systems depends upon seed shatter of the target weed species at crop maturity, enabling its collection and processing at crop harvest. However, seed retention likely is influenced by agroecological and environmental factors. In 2016 and 2017, we assessed seed-shatter phenology in 13 economically important broadleaf weed species in soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] from crop physiological maturity to 4 wk after physiological maturity at multiple sites spread across 14 states in the southern, northern, and mid-Atlantic United States. Greater proportions of seeds were retained by weeds in southern latitudes and shatter rate increased at northern latitudes. Amaranthus spp. seed shatter was low (0% to 2%), whereas shatter varied widely in common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia L.) (2% to 90%) over the weeks following soybean physiological maturity. Overall, the broadleaf species studied shattered less than 10% of their seeds by soybean harvest. Our results suggest that some of the broadleaf species with greater seed retention rates in the weeks following soybean physiological maturity may be good candidates for HWSC.
- Seed-shattering phenology at soybean harvest of economically important weeds in multiple regions of the United States. Part 2: Grass speciesSchwartz-Lazaro, Lauren M.; Shergill, Lovreet S.; Evans, Jeffrey A.; Bagavathiannan, Muthukumar V.; Beam, Shawn C.; Bish, Mandy D.; Bond, Jason A.; Bradley, Kevin W.; Curran, William S.; Davis, Adam S.; Everman, Wesley J.; Flessner, Michael L.; Haring, Steven C.; Jordan, Nicholas R.; Korres, Nicholas E.; Lindquist, John L.; Norsworthy, Jason K.; Sanders, Tameka L.; Steckel, Larry E.; VanGessel, Mark J.; Young, Blake; Mirsky, Steven B. (2021-01)Seed shatter is an important weediness trait on which the efficacy of harvest weed seed control (HWSC) depends. The level of seed shatter in a species is likely influenced by agroecological and environmental factors. In 2016 and 2017, we assessed seed shatter of eight economically important grass weed species in soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] from crop physiological maturity to 4 wk after maturity at multiple sites spread across 11 states in the southern, northern, and mid-Atlantic United States. From soybean maturity to 4 wk after maturity, cumulative percent seed shatter was lowest in the southern U.S. regions and increased moving north through the states. At soybean maturity, the percent of seed shatter ranged from 1% to 70%. That range had shifted to 5% to 100% (mean: 42%) by 25 d after soybean maturity. There were considerable differences in seed-shatter onset and rate of progression between sites and years in some species that could impact their susceptibility to HWSC. Our results suggest that many summer annual grass species are likely not ideal candidates for HWSC, although HWSC could substantially reduce their seed output during certain years.
- Transdisciplinary weed research: new leverage on challenging weed problems?Jordan, N.; Schut, Marc; Grahan, S.; Barney, Jacob; Childs, D. Z.; Christensen, Svend; Cousens, R. D.; Davis, Adam S.; Eizenberg, Hanan; Ervin, D. E.; Fernandez-Quintanilla, Cesar; Harrison, L. J.; Harsch, M. A.; Heijting, Sanne; Liebman, M.; Loddo, Donato; Mirsky, Steven B.; Riemens, Marleen; Neve, Paul; Peltzer, Duane A.; Renton, Michael; Williams, Michael; Recasens, Jordi; Sonderskov, Mette (2016-10)Transdisciplinary weed research (TWR) is a promising path to more effective management of challenging weed problems. We define TWR as an integrated process of inquiry and action that addresses complex weed problems in the context of broader efforts to improve economic, environmental and social aspects of ecosystem sustainability. TWR seeks to integrate scholarly and practical knowledge across many stakeholder groups (e.g. scientists, private sector, farmers and extension officers) and levels (e.g. local, regional and landscape). Furthermore, TWR features democratic and iterative processes of decision-making and collective action that aims to align the interests, viewpoints and agendas of a wide range of stakeholders. The fundamental rationale for TWR is that many challenging weed problems (e.g. herbicide resistance or extensive plant invasions in natural areas) are better addressed systemically, as a part of broad-based efforts to advance ecosystem sustainability, rather than as isolated problems. Addressing challenging weed problems systemically can offer important new leverage on such problems, by creating new opportunities to manage their root causes and by improving complementarity between weed management and other activities. While promising, this approach is complicated by the multidimensional, multilevel, diversely defined and unpredictable nature of ecosystem sustainability. In practice, TWR can be undertaken as a cyclic process of (i) initial problem formulation, (ii) 'broadening' of the problem formulation and recruitment of stakeholder participants, (iii) deliberation, negotiation and design of an action agenda for systemic change, (iv) implementation action, (v) monitoring and assessment of outcomes and (vi) reformulation of the problem situation and renegotiation of further actions. Notably, 'purposive' disciplines (design, humanities and arts) have central, critical and recurrent roles in this process, as do integrative analyses of relevant multidimensional and multilevel factors, via multiple natural and social science disciplines. We exemplify this process in prospect and retrospect. Importantly TWR is not a replacement for current weed research; rather, the intent is to powerfully leverage current efforts.