Autogamy, allogamy, and pollination in some Canadian weeds

1972 ◽  
Vol 50 (8) ◽  
pp. 1767-1771 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gerald A. Mulligan
Keyword(s):  
Native Species ◽  
Single Species ◽  
The Self ◽  
Flowering Period ◽  
Perennial Weeds ◽  
Short Period ◽  
Winter Annual ◽  
Annual Weeds ◽  
Allogamous Species ◽  
Insect Visitors

This paper is concerned with insect visitors to some Canadian weeds. It shows that both self-pollinating (autogamous) and cross-pollinating (allogamous) weeds are visited during the flowering period. It was found that self-incompatible species were visited by insects frequently, whereas self-compatible weeds were not visited or were rarely visited. The self-compatible group showed some difference, in that autogamous annual and winter annual weeds were visited less than were autogamous biennial and short-lived perennial weeds. Most of the insect visitors, to both the autogamous and allogamous species of weeds, were native species, whereas the weeds themselves were mostly introduced species. The insects, also, evidently visited more than a single species of plant over a short period of time. The implications of the insect visits to the genetic structure of the plants and their colonizing abilities are then briefly discussed.

Solar Heating of the Soil: Effect on Weed Control and on Soil-Incorporated Herbicides

Weed Science ◽  
1983 ◽  
Vol 31 (6) ◽  
pp. 819-825 ◽  
Author(s):  
Baruch Rubin ◽  
Abraham Benjamin
Keyword(s):  
Triticum Aestivum ◽  
Plant Growth ◽  
Soil Temperature ◽  
Weed Control ◽  
Solar Heating ◽  
Effective Control ◽  
Perennial Weeds ◽  
Hot Season ◽  
Winter Annual ◽  
Annual Weeds

Solar heating (SH) of the soil by mulching it with transparent polyethylene (PE) during the hot season elevated the soil temperature by 10 to 18 C above that of the non-mulched soil. SH for 4 to 5 weeks resulted in effective control of most summer and winter annual weeds, the effect lasting for more than 5 months after PE removal.Melilotus sulcatusDesf.,Astragalus boeticusL. and bull mallow (Malva nicaeensisAll. # MALNI) were not controlled by SH. Perennial weeds which propagate from vegetative parts were only partially controlled with short SH, but mulching for 8 to 10 weeks improved control. Mulching the soil with perforated or shaded transparent PE or black PE resulted in a smaller increase of soil temperature and thus less efficient weed control. A combination of SH with soil-incorporated EPTC (S-ethyl dipropylthiocarbamate) or vernolate (S-propyl dipropylthiocarbamate) did not improve the weed control over SH alone, but significantly enhanced the disappearance of the herbicides from the soil. SH inhibited the disappearance of fluridone {1-methyl-3-phenyl-5-[3-(trifluoromethyl) phenyl]-4(1H)-pyridinone} but did not change the residual phytotoxicity of bromacil (5-bromo-3-sec-butyl-6-methyluracil). SH treatment improved plant growth and increased the yield of wheat (Triticum aestivumL. ‘895′) and turnip (Brassica rapaL. ‘Purple top’), but not of parsley (Petroselinum sativumHoffm.).

Fall and Spring Preplant Herbicide Applications Influence Spring Emergence of Glyphosate-Resistant Horseweed (Conyza canadensis)

2010 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 11-19 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vince M. Davis ◽  
Greg R. Kruger ◽  
Bryan G. Young ◽  
William G. Johnson
Keyword(s):  
Early Spring ◽  
Late Spring ◽  
Conyza Canadensis ◽  
No Till ◽  
Early Fall ◽  
Winter Annual ◽  
Winter Annual Weeds ◽  
Annual Weeds ◽  
Spring Emergence ◽  
Residual Control

Horseweed (Conyza canadensis) is a common weed in no-till crop production systems. It is problematic because of the frequent occurrence of biotypes resistant to glyphosate and acetolactate synthase (ALS)-inhibiting herbicides and its ability to complete its life cycle as a winter or summer annual weed. Tactics to control horseweed while controlling other winter annual weeds routinely fail; herbicide application timing and spring emergence patterns of horseweed may be responsible. The objectives of this experiment were to (1) determine the influence of fall and spring herbicides with and without soil residual horseweed activity on spring-emerging glyphosate-resistant (GR) horseweed density and (2) evaluate the efficacy and persistence of saflufenacil on GR horseweed. Field studies were conducted in southern Indiana and Illinois from fall 2006 to summer 2007 and repeated in 2007 to 2008. Six preplant herbicide treatments were applied at four application timings: early fall, late fall, early spring, and late spring. Horseweed plants were counted every 2 wk following the first spring application until the first week of July. Horseweed almost exclusively emerged in the spring at both locations. Spring horseweed emergence was higher when 2,4-D + glyphosate was fall-applied and controlled other winter annual weeds. With fall-applied 2,4-D + glyphosate, over 90% of the peak horseweed density was observed before April 25. In contrast, only 25% of the peak horseweed density was observed in the untreated check by April 25. Starting from the initiation of horseweed emergence in late March, chlorimuron + tribenuron applied early fall or early spring, and spring-applied saflufenacil at 100 g ai/ha provided greater than 90% horseweed control for 12 wk. Early spring–applied saflufenacil at 50 g ai/ha provided 8 wk of greater than 90% residual control, and early spring–applied simazine provided 6 wk of greater than 90% control. When applied in late spring, saflufenacil was the only herbicide treatment that reduced horseweed densities by greater than 90% compared to 2,4-D + glyphosate. We concluded from this research that fall applications of nonresidual herbicides can increase the rate and density of spring emerging horseweed. In addition, spring-applied saflufenacil provides no-till producers with a new preplant herbicide for foliar and residual control of glyphosate- and ALS-resistant horseweed.

scholarly journals Rapid Least Concern: towards automating Red List assessments

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven Bachman ◽  
Barnaby Walker ◽  
Sara Barrios ◽  
Alison Copeland ◽  
Justin Moat
Keyword(s):  
Web Application ◽  
Native Species ◽  
Single Species ◽  
Iucn Red List ◽  
Red List ◽  
Global Biodiversity Information Facility ◽  
Batch Operation ◽  
Occurrence Data ◽  
Data Files ◽  
Data Requirements

The IUCN Red List of Threatened SpeciesTM (hereafter the Red List) is an important global resource for conservation that supports conservation planning, safeguarding critical habitat and monitoring biodiversity change (Rodrigues et al. 2006). However, a major shortcoming of the Red List is that most of the world's described species have not yet been assessed and published on the Red List (Bachman et al. 2019Eisenhauer et al. 2019). Conservation efforts can be better supported if the Red List is expanded to achieve greater coverage of mega-diverse groups of organisms such as plants, fungi and invertebrates. There is, therefore, an urgent need to speed up the Red List assessment and documentation workflow. One reason for this lack of species coverage is that a manual and relatively time-consuming procedure is usually employed to assess and document species. A recent update of Red List documentation standards (IUCN 2013) reduced the data requirements for publishing non-threatened or 'Least Concern' species on the Red List. The majority of the required fields for Least Concern plant species can be found in existing open-access data sources or can be easily calculated. There is an opportunity to consolidate these data and analyses into a simple application to fast-track the publication of Least Concern assessments for plants. There could be as many as 250,000 species of plants (60%) likely to be categorised as Least Concern (Bachman et al. 2019), for which automatically generated assessments could considerably reduce the outlay of time and valuable resources for Red Listing, allowing attention and resources to be dedicated to the assessment of those species most likely to be threatened. We present a web application, Rapid Least Concern, that addresses the challenge of accelerating the generation and documentation of Least Concern Red List assessments. Rapid Least Concern utilises open-source datasets, such as the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) and Plants of the World Online (POWO) through a simple web interface. Initially, the application is intended for use on plants, but it could be extended to other groups, depending on the availability of equivalent datasets for these groups. Rapid Least Concern users can assess a single species or upload a list of species that are assessed in a batch operation. The batch operation can either utilise georeferenced occurrence data from GBIF or occurrence data provided by the user. The output includes a series of CSV files and a point map file that meet the minimum data requirements for a Least Concern Red List assessment (IUCN 2013). The CSV files are compliant with the IUCN Red List SIS Connect system that transfers the data files to the IUCN database and, pending quality control checks and review, publication on the Red List. We outline the knowledge gap this application aims to fill and describe how the application works. We demonstrate a use-case for Rapid Least Concern as part of an ongoing initiative to complete a global Red List assessment of all native species for the United Kingdom Overseas Territory of Bermuda.

The effects of very deep ploughing and of subsoiling on crop yields

1956 ◽  
Vol 48 (2) ◽  
pp. 129-144 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. W. Russell
Keyword(s):  
Sugar Beet ◽  
Surface Soil ◽  
Crop Yields ◽  
Clay Soils ◽  
Deep Tillage ◽  
Perennial Weeds ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Annual Weeds ◽  
Dry Out ◽  
Complete Inversion

1. Deep tillage, namely, ploughing to a depth exceeding 12 in., or subsoiling to a depth of about 18 in., increased crop yields on about half the fields in which an experiment was made. Unfortunately, it was not possible to recognize what was the difference in soil properties between the 50% of fields that responded appreciably to deep tillage and the remainder whose yields were either unaffected or sometimes reduced by deep tillage, though, as one would expect, sands were normally less responsive to deep tillage than the heavier soils.2. On the clay soils, deep ploughing in autumn tended to give a surface soil that dried out up to several weeks earlier in the spring than land that was shallow ploughed. Subsoiling did not cause the surface soil to dry out in the same way. Only rarely did the subsoil brought up by deep ploughing give difficulty in working down to a seedbed, and probably in as high a proportion of fields the subsoil worked easier than the surface soil.3. On the clays and loams, the response of potatoes to deep tillage was more marked on fields that were heavily manured than on those lightly manured.4. Sugar beet normally gave a higher yield if its potash and phosphate was spread on the land before ploughing, even if this was in the autumn, than if it was applied in the seedbed. The exceptions to this result were for soils heavier than sandy loams if ploughing depths exceeding 12 in. were used, for the yield of beet was, on the average, depressed on these soils if the potash and phosphate was ploughed in compared with it being worked into the seedbed.5. Deep ploughing tended to give better control of many perennial weeds, and often of annual weeds than shallow ploughing. It is suggested that much of this benefit could be obtained when ploughing to 9–10 in. deep if ploughs were used that cut a furrow considerably wider than the conventional 10½–11 in. furrow, so allowing more complete inversion of the furrow slice.

Population Control: Natural versus Human

1993 ◽  
Author(s):  
Garrett Hardin
Keyword(s):  
Exponential Growth ◽  
Homo Sapiens ◽  
Population Control ◽  
Single Species ◽  
The Self ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
The Gift ◽  
Functional Equivalent ◽  
Level Of Living ◽  
Over Time

Were we able to talk with other animals, it is extremely unlikely that we should hear them debating the problem of population control. They don't need to debate: nature solves the problem for them. And what is the problem? Simply this: to keep a successful species from being too successful. To keep it from eating itself out of house and home. And the solution? Simply predation and disease, which play the role that human beings might label "providence." As far as the written record reveals, no one recognized the self-elimination of a species as a potential problem for animals until the danger had become suspected among human beings. One of the earliest descriptions of this population problem for other animals was given by the Reverend Joseph Townsend, an English geologist. His key contribution was published in 1786, twelve years before Malthus's celebrated essay (Box 25-1). Townsend was dependent upon others for the outline of his story, and there is some question as to whether the details are historically correct. But the thrust of the story must be true: a single species (goats, in this case) exploiting a resource (plants) cannot, by itself, maintain a stable equilibrium at a comfortable level of living. The animals will either die after eating up all the food, or their numbers will fluctuate painfully. (Details differ, depending on the species and the environment.) Stability and prosperity require that the gift of exponential growth be opposed by some sort of countervailing force (predatory dogs, in Townsend's example). However deplorable predators may be for individuals who happen to be captured and eaten, for the prey population as a whole predators are (over time) a blessing. With millions of different species of animals there are many different particular explanations of how they manage to persist for thousands or millions of years. The species we are most interested in is, of course, Homo sapiens. A meditation on Townsend's account led to a challenging set of questions. "If all this great earth be no more than the Island of Juan Fernandes, and if we are the goats, how can we live "the good life" without a functional equivalent of the dogs? Must we create and sustain our own dogs? Can we do so, consciously? And if we can, what manner of beast will they be?"

Weeds and Alfalfa Hay Quality

Weed Science ◽  
1973 ◽  
Vol 21 (5) ◽  
pp. 400-401 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. P. Cords
Keyword(s):  
Medicago Sativa ◽  
Protein Content ◽  
Direct Effect ◽  
Dormant Period ◽  
Alfalfa Hay ◽  
Winter Annual ◽  
Winter Annual Weeds ◽  
Annual Weeds

Established stands of alfalfa (Medicago sativa L. ‘Lahontan’) at six field locations were treated with soil-active herbicides during the dormant period for the control of winter annual weeds. Weeds and alfalfa were hand separated at the first harvest. This forage, which varied widely in weed content, was analyzed for protein. The percentage of protein correlated negatively with weed content in all cases. Analyses of covariance revealed that the direct effect of the herbicides on protein content was either small or absent and that the primary cause of the negative correlations was weed content.

Cranial variation in Gryposaurus and biostratigraphy of hadrosaurines (Ornithischia: Hadrosauridae) from the Dinosaur Park Formation of Alberta, Canada

2020 ◽  
Vol 57 (6) ◽  
pp. 765-779
Author(s):  
Talia M. Lowi-Merri ◽  
David C. Evans
Keyword(s):  
Morphometric Analysis ◽  
Individual Variation ◽  
Single Species ◽  
Skull Morphology ◽  
Geometric Morphometric ◽  
Cranial Variation ◽  
Short Period ◽  
Alternative Hypotheses ◽  
Geometric Morphometric Analysis ◽  
Dinosaur Park Formation

The Dinosaur Park Formation (Campanian) of Alberta documents one of the most diverse assemblages of hadrosaurine dinosaurs. Historically, two species of the genus Gryposaurus Lambe, 1914 have been recognized in the Dinosaur Park Formation, Gryposaurus notabilis Lambe, 1914 and Gryposaurus incurvimanus Parks, 1919, which are differentiated primarily on their nasal arch morphology. These two species have recently been suggested to represent either variable morphs within G. notabilis (e.g., ontogeny) or two distinct taxa within an evolving Gryposaurus lineage (e.g., anagenesis). These alternative hypotheses have never been adequately tested via detailed morphological comparisons, morphometrics, or biostratigraphy. A geometric morphometric analysis of hadrosaurine skulls from the Dinosaur Park Formation was performed to assess the influence of ontogeny on skull morphology. Gryposaurus incurvimanus skulls were found to be distinctly smaller, and morphologically divergent from those of G. notabilis, with larger G. notabilis skulls having higher nasal arches set farther back on the skull, a size-correlated pattern consistent with ontogenetic nasal retraction documented in other hadrosaurids. Stratigraphic data were used to map this morphology through time, to evaluate the anagenesis hypothesis. The stratigraphic distributions of the two species showed considerable overlap, rejecting anagensis and indicating that the sampled individuals lived over a short period of time (<0.5 Myr). Overall, our results suggest that the hypothesis that G. incurvimanus and G. notabilis represent different ontogenetic stages within a single species cannot be rejected. This study improves our understanding of the extent of potential individual variation within a single Gryposaurus species, which will be useful in assessing the validity of other hadrosaurines.

Influence of Winter Annual Weed Removal Timings on Soybean Cyst Nematode Population Density and Plant Biomass

Weed Science ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 58 (4) ◽  
pp. 381-386 ◽  
Author(s):  
Valerie A. Mock ◽  
J. Earl Creech ◽  
Virginia R. Ferris ◽  
Steven G. Hallett ◽  
William G. Johnson
Keyword(s):  
Soybean Cyst Nematode ◽  
Plant Biomass ◽  
Cyst Nematode ◽  
Population Increase ◽  
Population Densities ◽  
Soybean Production ◽  
Winter Annual ◽  
Winter Annual Weeds ◽  
Annual Weeds ◽  
Weed Removal

Soybean cyst nematode (SCN) is one of the most yield limiting pathogens in U.S. soybean production. Henbit and purple deadnettle are winter annual weeds shown to facilitate SCN reproduction after crop harvest in the eastern Corn Belt. These weeds, along with volunteer soybean that germinates in autumn after harvest, are common to postharvest soybean production fields and provide an opportunity for SCN reproduction and population increase outside of the typical soybean production season. The objective of this experiment was to determine if autumn removal of these weeds and volunteer soybean can influence the winter weed seedbank, plant biomass, and SCN population densities. Microplots were established with or without Lamium spp. and volunteer soybean, and four winter weed removal timings (none, October, December, and May). Dry weights of autumn Lamium spp. were reduced 50% in October when grown in competition with volunteer soybean. SCN juveniles were found in henbit roots at higher densities in October (42 per gram of root) than December (5 per gram of root) and were also found in the roots of volunteer soybean (14 per gram of root) in October. SCN egg population densities were 50% lower in August after the summer fallow period. The results of this experiment suggest that autumn removal of winter annual weeds and volunteer soybean did not reduce SCN populations.

Consequences of Multispecies Introductions on Island Ecosystems

2019 ◽  
Vol 50 (1) ◽  
pp. 169-190 ◽  
Author(s):  
James C. Russell ◽  
Christopher N. Kaiser-Bunbury
Keyword(s):  
Introduced Species ◽  
Native Species ◽  
Single Species ◽  
Evolutionary Relationships ◽  
Native Range ◽  
Top Down ◽  
Island Ecosystems ◽  
Bottom Up ◽  
Species Introductions ◽  
Resource Limited

The rate of non-native species introductions continues to increase, with directionality from continents to islands. It is no longer single species but entire networks of coevolved and newly interacting continental species that are establishing on islands. The consequences of multispecies introductions on the population dynamics and interactions of native and introduced species will depend on the form of trophic limitation on island ecosystems. Freed from biotic constraints in their native range, species introduced to islands no longer experience top-down limitation, instead becoming limited by and disrupting bottom-up processes that dominate on resource-limited islands. This framing of the ecological and evolutionary relationships among introduced species with one another and their ecosystem has important consequences for conservation. Whereas on continents the focus of conservation is on restoring native apex species and top-down limitation, on islands the focus must instead be on removing introduced animal and plant species to restore bottom-up limitation.

Interference of Annual Weeds in Seedling Alfalfa (Medicago sativa)

Weed Science ◽  
1988 ◽  
Vol 36 (5) ◽  
pp. 583-588 ◽  
Author(s):  
Albert J. Fischer ◽  
Jean H. Dawson ◽  
Arnold P. Appleby
Keyword(s):  
Medicago Sativa ◽  
Bromus Tectorum ◽  
Early Spring ◽  
Amaranthus Retroflexus ◽  
Downy Brome ◽  
Weed Interference ◽  
Alfalfa Hay ◽  
Winter Annual ◽  
Annual Weeds

Barnyardgrass [Echinochloa crus-galli(L.) Beauv. #4ECHCG] and pigweeds (mixture ofAmaranthus retroflexusL. # AMARE andA. powelliiS. Wats. # AMAPO) seeded separately with alfalfa (Medicago sativaL.) in mid-August suppressed alfalfa severely before frost killed them in October and November. Some alfalfa was killed, and yield of alfalfa forage was reduced in each of three harvests the following year. These weeds did not harm alfalfa seeded in mid-September. Downy brome (Bromus tectorumL. # BROTE) and tumble mustard (Sisymbrium altissimumL. # SSYAL) suppressed alfalfa seeded in August and September. They reduced alfalfa stands and reduced yield of alfalfa forage in each of three harvests the following year. Alfalfa seeded August 27 and allowed to compete with a mixture of these species for various periods was injured most by weeds that emerged with the alfalfa and remained uncontrolled until forage harvest in May. These weeds did not reduce alfalfa yields if removed by 36 days after alfalfa emergence. Thereafter, yield decreased as the period of weed interference increased. Interference was most damaging in early spring, when growth of winter annual weeds was rapid and vigorous. Weeds seeded 65 or more days after alfalfa emergence did not reduce alfalfa yields but sometimes produced enough biomass to reduce the quality of the first-cutting alfalfa hay.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document