Weed seed bank dynamics: soil organic carbon dynamics ......residue, tillage and weed management: A Review Vivek, RK Naresh, DK Sachan, Shivangi and Richa Tiwari Abstract Weeds are

~ 1035 ~

International Journal of Chemical Studies 2018; 6(6): 1035-1047

P-ISSN: 2349–8528 E-ISSN: 2321–4902

IJCS 2018; 6(6): 1035-1047

© 2018 IJCS

Received: 25-09-2018

Accepted: 30-10-2018

Vivek

Department of Agronomy Sardar

Vallabhbhai Patel University of

Agriculture & Technology,

Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, India

RK Naresh





DK Sachan

KVK Ghaziabad Sardar




Shivangi





Richa Tiwari





Correspondence

Vivek





Weed seed bank dynamics: soil organic carbon

dynamics and weed seed bank modulation through

residue, tillage and weed management: A Review

Vivek, RK Naresh, DK Sachan, Shivangi and Richa Tiwari

Abstract Weeds are unwanted plants playing a very important role in different eco-systems and many of them cause

enormous direct and indirect losses. The losses include interference with cultivation of crops, loss of bio-

diversity, loss of potentially productive lands, loss of grazing areas and livestock production, erosion following

fires in heavily invaded areas, choking of navigational and irrigation canals and reduction of available water in

water bodies. Weed management takes away nearly one third of total cost of production of field crops. In India,

the manual method of weed control is quite popular and effective. Of late, labour has become non-availability

and costly, due to intensification, diversification of agriculture and urbanization. The usage of herbicides in

India and elsewhere in the world is increasing due to possible benefits to farmers and continuous use of the

same group of herbicides over a period of time on a same piece of land leads to ecological imbalance in terms

of weed shift and environmental pollution. The complexity of these situations has resulted in a need to develop

a holistic sustainable eco-friendly weed management programme throughout the farming period.

Weed infestation is one of the major biotic constraints in crop production. Field crops are infested with diverse

type of weed flora, weed density and weed diversity as it is grown under diverse agro-climatic conditions,

different cropping sequence, and tillage intensities and weed management strategies. The yield losses due to

weeds vary depending on the weed species, their density and environmental factors. Knowledge about how the

type, timing, and arrangement of cultural practices influence weed species composition is important for

understanding the ecological results of control strategies and designing alternative crop management systems.

Studies of soil weed seed banks are of relatively recent origin considering their importance as sources of

diversity and continued occupation of many types of habitats, including agro-ecosystems. The management of

weed seed banks is based on knowledge and modification of the behaviour of seeds within the soil seed bank

matrix. The behaviour of seeds defines the phenotypic composition of the floral community of a field. Selection

and adaptation over time have led to the highly successful weed populations that exploit resources unused by

crops. The weed species infesting agricultural seed banks are those populations that have found successful trait

compromises within and between the five roles of seeds: dispersal and colonization, persistence, embryonic

food supply, display of genetic diversity, and as a means of species multiplication.

Tillage system was more important determinant of weed seed density than the weed management practices.

Movement pattern of weed seeds by all tillage treatments differ significantly over three weeding management

practices at 0-5 cm soil core. Zero tillage system promoted infestation of some broadleaf weeds. The lowest

weed mass was determined for the conventional tillage plots, compared to minimum tillage, and especially

zeros tillage plots. Because herbicide and cultivation efficacy is generally density independent, seedling density

following these weed control practices will be proportional to the density of germinal seeds in the seed bank.

Most farmers would therefore benefit from management practices that reduce seed inputs, increase seed losses,

and reduce the probability that remaining seeds establish. Germination, predation, and decay are the primary

sources of loss to the seed bank that may respond to management. Although seeds would seem to be an ideal

carbon source for soil microorganisms. To reduce seed bank inputs and increase losses is to reduce the size of

the effective seed bank through manipulation of residues and disturbance to reduce the probability of

establishment. Incorporation of green manures generally reduces weed establishment, whereas larger-seeded or

transplanted crops may better tolerate the residue-mediated changes in the chemical, biological, and physical

properties of the soil surface environment. Evidence from no-till systems further support the changes in soil

surface conditions may regulate the abundance of “safe sites” for weed establishment, thereby modulating the

size of the effective seed bank. Crop residues on the soil surface reduce weed seedling establishment in no-till

systems, but tillage eliminates this effect. This provides useful information to improve methods for maintaining

plant population balance.

Keywords: seed bank, tillage, weed diversity, crop residues, soil health

Introduction

Weeds are a major problem in most cropping systems, and their control is essential for

successful crop production. The goal of weed control is not only to prevent crop yield loss, but

also to minimize weed seed reserves in the soil,

~ 1036 ~

International Journal of Chemical Studies

because the soil seed bank is the primary source of new

infestations of annual weeds and represents the majority of

the weed species composition. The majority of seeds entering

the seed bank come from annual weeds growing in the fields.

The size of the seed bank reflects past and present field

management (Auffret, Cousins, 2011) [2]. Weed seed bank

analysis provides knowledge on the effect of agricultural

management practices on weed community dynamics. Such

knowledge is difficult to acquire from short-term studies

based on actual weed flora, whose composition is subjected to

considerable variation in time and space (Birthisel et al.,

2015) [7]. Weed communities are also affected by crop type

and sequence. Agricultural crops with different growth cycles

(winter or spring) affect weed spread, germination and

growth.

Excessive tillage in conventional agricultural systems triggers

soil movement that leads to more soil erosion and

environmental degradation.

One of the regenerative strategies of plants involved in the

natural regeneration process and secondary ecological

succession of weeds is the formation of persistent seed banks

in the soil (Grime, 2006) [27], in which the largest contribution

is made by the species that produce the largest amounts of the

smallest seeds. Resorting to seed bank input is the last

strategy for survival of a species. On the other hand, there are

weed seeds which remain in the ground only a few months of

the year. These seeds form the transient weed seed bank.

These transient seed banks are composed of species which

germinate collectively when there are adequate environmental

conditions. The literature defines the soil as an integral

component of an agro-system, which is subject to different

management practices. Tillage, which can affect the physical

properties of the soil (Álvaro- Fuentes et al., 2008) [1], is one

of the oldest agricultural practices and its objectives range

from preparing a good “seed bed” for cultivation, to the

elimination of emerging weeds. In general, tillage acts on the

soil seed bank promoting germination in some cases and

contributing to their burial in others (Trichard et al., 2013;

Chauhan et al., 2012) [53, 12]. With stubble mulch, weeds are

controlled during fallow with a sweep plough, which consists

of V-shaped blades that sever plant roots at a tillage depth of

5 to 8 cm. Each operation buries only 10% of crop residues

because of low soil disturbance, contrasting with tillage by a

tandem-disk harrow or mould-board plough that buries 60 to

100% of crop residues. Crop residue management is further

improved with no-till systems, where herbicides replace

tillage for weed control during fallow. Conventional tillage

systems may reduce weed infestation (Gajri et al., 1999) [24]

but accelerate the degradation of soil resources. Early season

weeds are effectively controlled by conventional tillage

(Steckel et al., 2007) [50]; however, the problem of weed

infestation is aggravated during later crop growth stages in

these tillage systems. Conservation agriculture (CA) involves

minimal soil disturbance, permanent soil cover and planned

crop rotations (Thierfelder et al., 2012) [52]. Reduced tillage is

the most important component of CA as minimal soil

disturbance and permanent residue cover, the two pillars of

CA, can only be achieved through reduced tillage. CA thus

helps reducing the input expenses for land preparation, and

soil and water conservation. Therefore, soil aggregates, and

the associated growth patterns of seeds may play an important

role in the distribution of seed banks and the maintenance of

species during periods without seed production.

Unfortunately, there is a lack of research available with

reference to the dynamics of seed/aggregate associations

which may also influence weed emergence, the study of said

dynamics could provide useful information for the design of

future weed management practices to prevent weed seed

germination (Reuss et al., 2001) [45].

Nonetheless, CA alters the weed flora and infestation levels

(Primot et al., 2006) [44]. For instance, CA increases the weed

infestation during initial years of infestation. Moreover,

perennial weeds tend to dominate in CA (Mashingaidze et al.,

2012) [33]. This indicates that in CA the weed flora changes

from easy to control annual broad leaf and grasses to

obnoxious perennial weeds such as couch grass (Cynodon

dactylon L.) and mexican clover (Richardia scabra L.)

(Mashingaidze et al., 2012) [33]. Chemical weed control has

been an effective weed management option in CA. However,

indiscriminate use of herbicides has resulted in the

development of herbicide resistant weed biotypes (Farooq et

al., 2011a); and has also disturbed the ecological balance

(Owen et al., 2007) [43] and human health (Morais et al., 2012)

[38]. Considering the challenge of herbicide resistance in

weeds, Farooq et al. (2011a) proposed careful and wise use of

herbicides with more emphasis on weed seed bank

modulation options, and recognized weed seed bank

modulation as the 4th pillar of CA. The purpose of this study

was thus to assess whether and to what extent can represent a

useful parameter for weed seed bank dynamics: soil organic

carbon dynamics and weed seed bank modulation strategy

based on seed dormancy and longevity which makes it one of

the most important weeds management module.

The species composition and density of weed seed in soil vary

greatly and are closely linked to the cropping history of the

land. Seed composition is influenced by farming practices,

and varies from field to field (Buhler et al. 1996b) [1] and

among areas within fields (Mortensen et al. 1993). Reports of

seed bank size in agricultural land range from near zero to as

much as 1 million seed m-2 (Fenner 1985) [23]. Generally, seed

banks are composed of many species, with a few dominant

species comprising 70 to 90% of the total seed bank (Wilson

1988) [58]. These species are the primary pests in agronomic

systems because of resistance to control measures and

adaptation to the cropping system. A second group of species,

comprising 10 to 20% of the seed bank, are generally those

adapted to the geographic area but not to current production

practices. The final group accounts for a small percentage of

the total seed and includes recalcitrant seeds from previous

seed banks, newly introduced seeds of the previous crop

(Wilson et al. 1985) [57]. This group undergoes constant

change due to seed dispersal by humans, other animals, wind,

and water.

Montanyá et al. (2016) revealed that the germinable seed

bank density was recorded as lower in NT system and D2 (7–

15 cm); and the richness of species was significantly affected

in the same manner as density [Fig.1b]. In systems that do not

require different long term management, as is the case of NT

plots, the weed control was carried out by means of consistent

use of pre and post emergence herbicides. Therefore these NT

systems in the D2 soil layer contributed to the reduction of

weed seed community and its richness of species. When

considering the richness of species present in both crop

systems, the lowest richness values were recorded in cereal

rotation system and D2 (7–15 cm). Ryan et al. (2010) [46] also

found, in the short term, that continuous use of tillage

management determined the trajectory of weed community

change. Additionally, the results of the work reported here

confirmed that the proportion of weed seedling density

obtained in the germinal study mirrored the weed abundance

~ 1037 ~


emergence occurred in the field, and it was not affected by

seed soil layer depth.

The cumulative effects of crop systems showed a significant

effect on persistent weed seed density and diversity indices

[Fig.1c]. The first 7 cm of soil (D1) with cereal rotation

system showed greatest density of seeds and richness of

species. On the other hand, the comparison of tillage systems

within crop systems showed significant effects on the weed

seed bank. MT and NT rotated plots showed the highest

values of seed density and species richness respectively in

persistent weed seed bank. Ward et al. (2012) [55], who

observed that tillage systems can play a buffering role in

environmental fluctuation, suggesting that conservation tillage

systems with high weed density can better, respond to

environmental changes.

Mei et al. (2018) [34] found that no-tillage increased the

number of weed species and weed density in most of the

crops, while stubble retention decreased weed density in

maize and tended to suppress weeds in both no-tillage

treatments (no-tillage and no-tillage + stubble retention). No-

tillage led to an increase in the number of weed species in the

weed seed bank and tended to increase seed density during the

spring growth of winter wheat, but it decreased seed density

during post-vetch fallow. Stubble retention tended to reduce

seed density during the spring growth of winter wheat and

post-vetch fallow [Fig.2a, 2b & 2c].

(a) (b) (c)

Fig 1(a): Weed seed cycle

Fig 1(b): Depth x Tillage system and Depth x Crop system interactions on Transient seed bank parameters: Seedlings m-2 density and Dmg

index (richness of species) [Source: Montanyá et al., 2016]

Fig 1(c): Depth x Crop system and Crop x Tillage systems interactions on Persistent seed bank parameters: Seeds m-2 density and Dmg index

(richness of species) [Source: Montanyá et al., 2016]

(a) (b) (c)

Fig 2(a): Number of weed species during the growth period of winter wheat (a), common vetch (b) and maize (c), and the total number of

species across the whole season (d) under conventional tillage (T), no-tillage (NT), conventional tillage + stubble retention (TS) and no-tillage +

stubble retention (NTS) treatments [Source: Mei et al., 2018] [34]

Fig 2(b): Weed density during the growth period of winter wheat (a), common vetch (b) and maize (c), and weed density averaged over the

whole season (d) under conventional tillage (T), no-tillage (NT), conventional tillage + stubble retention (TS) and no-tillage + stubble retention

(NTS) treatments [Source: Mei et al., 2018] [34]

Fig (2c): Seed density of weeds in the weed seed bank during the spring growth of winter wheat and post-vetch fallow under conventional

tillage (T), no-tillage (NT), conventional tillage + stubble retention (TS) and no-tillage + stubble retention (NTS) [Source: Mei et al., 2018] [34]

Shahzad et al. (2016) [48] reported that tillage practices and

wheat-based cropping systems had significant effect on weed

diversity during both years of the study [Fig. 3a]. Cotton-

wheat cropping system under zero tillage (ZT) had the

maximum while sorghum-wheat cropping system under deep

tillage (DT) had the minimum weed diversity during both

years of the study [Fig.3a]. Weed seeds present in the upper

soil layer (up to 10 cm) are distributed within the upper 20 cm

of soil after tillage (Buhler et al., 2001) [10]. This indicates that

tillage practices play an important role in the distribution of

the weed flora, weed seeds and propagations in soil, because

soil disturbance regimes are related to seed distribution and

viability (Lutman et al., 2002) [32], seedling emergence and

survival (Mohler and Callaway, 1992) [37].

Cromar et al. (1999) [27] revealed that the percent seed

predation in no-till averaged 43% in the fall and fell to 24% in

the spring, whereas predation levels in the chisel and

mouldboard plough treatments were not different between

seasons, averaging 22 and 43% in the fall and 24 and 31% in

the spring, respectively [Fig.3b]. Bàrberi and Lo Cascio,

(2001) [5] showed that total weed seedling density was higher

in no tillage, minimum tillage (i.e rotary harrowing at 15 cm

depth), and chisel ploughing (at 45 cm depth) in the 0-15, 15-

30, and 30-45 cm soil layers respectively [Fig.3c]. Density in

~ 1038 ~


the whole (0-45 cm) layer did not significantly differ among

tillage systems, but in no tillage more than 60 percent of total

seedlings emerged from the surface layer, compared to an

average 43 percent in the other tillage systems. Crop rotation

did not influence either weed seed bank size or seedling

distribution among soil layers, and had a small influence on

major species abundance. The weed seed bank was dominated

(> 66 percent of total density) by Conyza canadensis and

Amaranthus retroflexus, which thrived with chisel ploughing

and no tillage, respectively.

(a) (b) (c)

Fig 3(a): Impact of different cropping systems on weed diversity under conservation and conventional practices [Source: Shahzad et al., 2016] [48]

Fig 3(b): Comparison between average fall and spring seed predation in different tillage practices [Source: Cromar et al., 1999] [27]

Fig 3(c): Percent weed seedling distribution over soil layers in mouldboard ploughing at 45 cm depth (P 45), chisel ploughing at 45 cm depth

(CP 45), rotary harrowing at 15 cm depth (RH 15), and no tillage (NT) after 12 consecutive years’ application of the different tillage systems

[Source: Bàrberi and Lo Cascio, 2001] [5]

Santin-Montanya et al. (2018) [47] also found that the

significant difference between tillage systems was found in

2012, with ZT presenting highest total weed abundance (136

plants m−2). In the following years of zero-tillage we observed

the decrease of weed abundance emerged in the field [Fig.4a].

The abundance of Portulaca oleracea in 2012 showed lower

relative abundance in CT compared to ZT. Over the next two

years, in the ZT system, this weed abundance decreased (from

106 plants m−2 to 6 plants m−2, the lowest value, in 2013 and

17 plants m−2, in 2014). The abundance of Amaranthus

blitoides did not change significantly in the ZT systems,

although this species showed a tendency to diminish in terms

of relative density when the soil was not tilled. However, in

the CT system the abundance of Amaranthus blitoides

increased (from 7 plants m−2, in 2012, to 46 and 54 plants

m−2, in 2013 and 2014 respectively) [Fig.4a].

Colbach et al. (2014) [16] observed that approximately 33% of

the beads were retrieved and used to establish bead

distributions from which model parameters were estimated.

Cross-validation showed that prediction quality was

satisfactorily (modelling efficiency = 0.85, minimum rMSEP

= 0.11) with most of the error associated with using a harrow

in compacted soil. Subsequently, the new model was

integrated into the existing weed dynamics model FLORSYS,

and simulations were run to predict weed emergence and

dynamics for different tillage practices [Fig.4b].

(a) (b)

Fig. 4(a): Year × Tillage system’ interactions (a, b, and c) and ‘Weed seed bank test × Tillage systems’ interactions (d, e, and f) on Total weed

abundance and abundance of Portulaca oleracea and Amaranthus blitoides emerged in the field, and in the weed seed bank [Source: Santin-

Montanya et al., 2018] [47].

Fig. 4(b): Proposed conceptual model for weed seed movements during tillage [Source: Colbach et al., 2014] [16]

Colbach et al. (2014) [16] also found that the soil structure,

tillage with a tine or a harrow resulted in the same seed

distribution: seeds initially located on soil surface were buried

between 2 and 10 cm (for a tillage depth of 10 cm) whereas

initially buried seeds were placed slightly deeper, between 3

and 10 cm [Fig. 5a]. When using discs, the final seed

distribution did not change for seeds initially on surface but

initially buried seeds were displaced closer to soil surface,

between 3 and 8 cm. Tillage depth had the greatest effect.

When tine depth was decreased from 10 to 5 cm, seeds

remained closer to soil surface, e.g. seeds initially on soil

surface were buried between 0 and 5 cm, compared to 2 and

10 for the deeper operation [Fig.5a]. The soil content in fine

earth also influenced seed profile: in case of compacted soil

~ 1039 ~


structure, the top layer (0–1 cm) was devoid of seeds after

tillage, and generally seeds were buried 1 cm deeper than in

fine-earth soil [Fig.5a]. Moreover, surface seed bank, total

emergence was highest for shallow operations (harrow, discs)

and lowest for deep operations (chisel, mould-board plough).

For the latter, the spring emergence flush was particularly

reduced whereas the difference in autumn emergence was

smaller. Emergence was also lower in compact soil than fine-

earth structure, with similar differences for autumn and spring

flushes [Fig.5b].

(a) (b)

Fig.5 (a): Effect of tillage tool (A), tillage depth (B) and final soil structure (B) on seed distribution after tillage for seeds initially on soil surface

or initially close to future tillage depth [Source: Colbach et al., 2014] [16].

Fig. 5(b): Effect of tillage strategy on total weed emergence after a single tillage operation [Source: Colbach et al., 2014] [16].

Chen et al. (2017) reported that the weed seeds, 82.5% in

MTR, 75.3% in WDSR, and 81.7% in DDSR, were

distributed in soil 0- to 10-cm deep [Fig.6a]. As soil depth

increased, the seed banks of total weeds, broadleaf weeds,

grasses, and sedges all significantly decreased under the

different rice planting systems, except for sedges under

WDSR. The DDSR tended to maintain larger seed banks of

sedges and grasses, as well as some upland weeds, such as

Digitaria sanguinalis (L) and Eleusine indica. The WDSR

system contained the smallest weed seed bank overall but

tended to have larger seed banks of several weeds, such as

Ammannia arenaria and Lindernia procumbens. Weedy rice

and Cyperus difformis L. tended to maintain larger seed banks

in DSR fields. The MTR fields tended to have larger seed

banks of broadleaf weeds and some traditional rice weeds,

with significantly lower richness of weed species in the seed

bank [Fig.6b &6c].

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 6(a): Number of rice’s companion weed species observed in soil samples with different soil depths of different fields with different rice planting

systems. DDSR: dry direct-seeded rice, WDSR: Water direct-seeded rice and MTR: machine-transplanted rice [Source: Chen et al., 2017].

Fig. 6(b): Number of seeds per m2 soil for different weed groups within different soil depths (1 = 0–5 cm, 2 = 5–10 cm, 3 = 10–15 cm, and 4 = 15–20

cm) of fields under dry direct-seeded rice (DDSR), water direct seeded rice (WDSR), and machine-transplanted rice (MTR) planting system [Source:

Chen et al., 2017].

Fig. 6(c): Canonical correspondence analysis (CCA) showing different rice planting systems [Source: Chen et al., 2017].

Brar and Walia (2007) [4] reported that CT favoured the

germination of grassy weeds in wheat compared with ZT in a

rice-wheat system across different geographical locations of

Punjab, while the reverse was true in respect to broad-leaved

weeds [Fig.7a]. Some weed seeds require scarification and

disturbance for germination and emergence, which may be

enhanced by the types of implements used in soil tillage

systems than by conservation tillage. The timing of weed

emergence also seems to be species dependent. Chauhan and

Johnson, (2009) [13] revealed that the different tillage practices

disturb the vertical distribution of weed seeds in the soil, in

various ways. Its depend largely on a good understanding of

the dynamics of the weed seed bank in the soil. Moreover,

ZT, there is little opportunity for the freshly-rained weed

seeds to move downwards in the soil and hence remains

mostly on the surface, with the highest concentration in the 0–

2 cm soil layer, and no fresh weed seed is observed below 5

cm soil depth [Fig.7b].

Under conventional system, weeds seeds are distributed

throughout the tillage layer with the highest concentration of

weed seeds in the 2–5 cm soil layer. Mould-board plough

buries most weed seeds in the tillage layer, whereas chisel

plough leaves the weed seeds closer to the soil surface.

Similarly, depending on the soil type, 60– 90% of weed seeds

are located in the top 5 cm of the soil in reduced or no-till

systems (Swanton et al., 2000) [51]. Chauhan and Abugho,

~ 1040 ~


(2012) [12] reported that 6 t ha-1 crop residues reduced the

emergence of jungle rice, crowfoot grass and rice flat sedge

by 80–95% but only reduce the emergence of barnyard grass

by up to 35% [Fig.7c]. The effectiveness of crop residue to

reduce weed emergence also depends upon the nature of weed

species to be controlled.

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 7(a): Effect of tillage on the relative density of grasses and broadleaved weeds [Source: Brar and Walia, 2007] [4]

Fig. 7(b): Effect of tillage systems on the vertical distribution of weed seeds [Source: Chauhan and Johnson, 2009] [13].

Fig. (7c): Effect of rice residues on weed germination [Source: Chauhan and Abugho 2012) [12]

Ngwira et al. (2012) [41] revealed that SOC and SON in ZT

fields were 44 and 41 % (4 years ZT) and 75 and 77 % (5

years ZT) higher, respectively, than CT plots. MB-C and MB-

N in ZT fields were 16 and 44 % (4 years ZT) and 20 and 38

% (5 years ZT) higher, respectively, than CT plots [Fig.8b].

However, MB-C and MB-N in ZT fields were 27 and 25 % (2

years ZT) and 17 and 9 % (3 years ZT) lower than in CT

plots. The proportion of the total organic C as microbial

biomass C was relatively higher under CT than ZT treatments.

The higher SOC and MB-C content in the ZT fields resulted

in 10, 62, 57 % higher C mineralization rate in ZT plots of 3,

4 and 5 years of loamy sand soils and 35 %higher C

mineralization rate in ZT plot of 2 years than CT of sandy

loam soils in undisturbed soils.

(a) (b)

Fig. 8(a): Organic carbon content in the soil as influenced by tillage and residue recycling practices [Source: Singh et al., 2015]

Fig. 8(b): Carbon mineralization rates of the undisturbed soils sampled from farmers’ fields under conventional tillage and zero tillage (2–5

years old) [Source: Ngwira et al., 2012] [41]

Ghimire et al. (2008) [25] also found that the benefit of crop

residue recycling is higher when used as mulch on ZT soil

than its incorporation under CT system. However, crop

residue treatment in ZT soils showed significantly higher

amount of SOC than other treatment combinations in the top

15 cm soil depths [Table 1]. Crop residue served as a source

of carbon especially in upper soil layers. Zero-tillage practice

minimizes exposure of SOC from oxidation, and thus

ensuring higher SOC content in surface soils of ZT with crop

residue application.

Table 1: Effects of tillage and residue treatments on the SOC content [Source: Ghimire et al., 2008] [25]

Mishra and Singh (2012a) [36] observed that the impact of

tillage vis-à-vis weed infestation in the crop field is

influenced by the previous cropping systems. Continuous ZT

increased the population density of awnless barnyard grass

and rice flat sedge in rice, but rotational tillage systems

significantly reduced the seed density of these weeds [Table

2]. Continuous ZT with effective weed management using

recommended herbicide + hand weeding was more

remunerative and energy efficient

~ 1041 ~


Table 2: Weed seed bank (no/ number per 500 g soil) in top 20 cm of soil as affected by tillage sequences in a DSR– wheat in a Vertisol of

central India [Source: Mishra and Singh 2012a] [36]

Riaz et al. (2018) observed that the wetting and drying

interval was maintained keeping in view the prevailing

edaphic and climatic conditions. Rewetting (irrigation) was

used to done, when the water level go beyond the treatments

depth (15 and 20 cm) in the PVC tubes from field surface

level [Fig. 9a]. Whereas, rice field was kept irrigated at

constant level of 5 cm above the soil surface throughout the

flowering stage, to avoid any water stress. However,

glyphosate (72 SL) was applied in ZT plots

20 days before sowing to eradicate already established weeds

to make it comparable with CT where weeds were eradicated

during cultivation. Under conventional tillage, weed free plots

showed maximum leaf area index, and leaf area duration [Fig.

9b & 9c]. Among the herbicides application, pendimethalin

followed by BS+B gave highest opportunity under both AWD

regimes.

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 9(a): Illustration of alternate drying and wetting regimes management for direct seeded rice [Source: Riaz et al., 2018].

Fig. 9(b): Influence of weed management treatments on leaf area index in aerobic rice grown under varying tillage system and alternate wetting

and drying regimes [Source: Riaz et al., 2018].

Fig. 9(c): Influence of weed management treatments on leaf area duration (days) in aerobic rice grown under varying tillage system and alternate

wetting and drying regimes [Source: Riaz et al., 2018].

Muminov et al. (2018) [40] revealed that the total weed

biomass was much higher in the no-herbicides treatments

(H0T, H0T0) than that of herbicides ones (HT, HT0) in both

rotations. The highest weed biomass appeared in H0T

treatment. However, the weed biomass in GS was much

higher than that of WM under the same treatment. For

instance, weed biomass in GS was 18.8% higher than that of

WM in H0T treatment. Herbicides application led to more

than 40% reduction in weed biomass in both rotations

[Fig.10a]. The change of weed density was very similar to

weed biomass. Weed density of GS rotation was much higher

than that of WM rotation under the same treatment. In H0T

treatment of GS rotation, the weed density reached to 130

plants m2, which was the maximum density among the four

treatments [Fig.10a]. Although herbicides could temporarily

control weeds, the weeds still germinate in the later stage and

long term application of chemical herbicides has caused

serious environmental and food pollutions worldwide (Liu et

al., 2016; Meng et al., 2016) [31, 35]. As far as germinal seeds

was related it was found that in 0–5 cm soil layer, the total

germinal weed seed densities of the four treatments varied

from 4,766 to 15,800 No. m-2, with H0T0 having the highest

seed density in the WM rotation; In the GS rotation, seed

bank varied from 3,100 to 5,966 No. m-2, with HT0 having the

highest seed density. The total seed bank in WM was 137%

larger than that of GS [Fig.10b]. However, in 5–20 cm soil

layer, the seed bank varied from 1,933 to 4,400 No. m-2 in the

WM rotation [Fig.10b]. Similarly, in 0–20 cm soil layer, the

treatments without herbicide (H0T0, H0T) had higher SOM

content in GS than that in WM. H0T had the highest SOM in

GS, while the highest SOM was noted in H0T0 in WM

[Fig.10c]. In 20–40 cm soil layer, SOM in GS was generally

higher than that in WM; SOM under herbicide-free treatments

(H0T and H0T0) was higher than that of the herbicide

treatments (HT and HT0), the highest SOM appeared in H0T

treatment, while the lowest SOM was noticed in HT0

[Fig.10c].

~ 1042 ~


(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 10(a): The total weeds biomass (A) and weed density (B) in wheat–maize (WM) and garlic– soybean (GS) rotation systems with different

weed and tillage managements [Source: Muminov et al., 2018] [40].

Fig. 10(b): Total germinal seeds in the soil level of 0–5 cm (A) and 5–20 cm (B) in wheat–maize (WM) and garlic–soybean (GS) rotation

systems with different weed and tillage managements [Source: Muminov et al., 2018] [40].

Fig. 10 (c): Soil organic matter of the soil level of 0–20 cm (A) and 20–40 cm (B) in wheat–maize (WM) and garlic–soybean (GS) rotation

systems with different weed and tillage managements [Source: Muminov et al., 2018] [40].

Gruber and Claupein, (2009) [29] also found that the most

effective way to control C. arvense was the integration of

grass–clover which retained the number of thistle on a low

level, an effect which lasted at least for the following 2 years,

even if the number of thistle shoots increased in these crops

again. The next effective treatment to grass–clover was the

stubble tillage by a skimmer plough. A remarkably high

density of C. arvense occurred when faba bean (Vicia faba)

was grown. Both seedlings and shoots form thistle re-growth

was observed in winter wheat. The phase of biennial grass–

clover clearly reduced the number of thistle shoots, which

quickly increased however 2 years later [Fig.11a]. This crop

rotation would include spring and winter crops, and was in

this case focused on cereals with relatively high competition

ability. Secondly, a stimulation of weed seeds to germinate by

stubble tillage (stale seedbed) was not observed, as also found

by Verschwele (2009) [54], so that the efficiency of stale

seedbed techniques has to be reassessed. Finally it can be

assumed that the effect of the plough for primary tillage

overlaid a possible effect of stubble tillage as soil inversion by

a mould-board plough shifts seeds and weed seedlings into

deeper layers of the soil profile (Gruber and Claupein, 2006)

[28].

Deep plough, shallow plough or the use of a double-layer

plough for primary tillage in combination with stubble tillage

by a skimmer plough resulted in the lowest density of C.

arvense. Particularly the double-layer plough in combination

with stubble tillage resulted in a very low thistle density after

7 years (0.4 plants m-2). In contrast the highest infestation of

the thistle was observed in the chisel plough treatment with

stubble tillage and in the shallow plough treatment without

stubble tillage (23 or 20 plants m-2) [Fig.11b]. However, the

soil seed bank showed the highest number of total weed seeds

in the chisel plough treatment [about 37,000 seeds m-2,

Fig.11c]. The number of C. arvense seeds among all seeds

was also highest in the chisel plough treatment and reached

ca. 5500 seeds m-2.

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 11(a): Thistle shoots in autumn over 7 years in a crop rotation as affected by primary tillage and stubble tillage (Pd: deep plough; DLP:

double-layer plough; Ps: shallow plough; ChP: chisel plough [Source: Gruber and Claupein, 2009] [29]

Fig. 11(b): C. arvense biomass (DM, dry matter) in oat after 5 years of different primary tillage and stubble tillage (Pd: deep plough; DLP:

double-layer plough; Ps: shallow plough; ChP: chisel plough [Source: Gruber and Claupein, 2009] [29]

Fig. 11(c): Size of the soil seed bank (number of seeds m-2) (treatments with stubble tillage) for the total amount of seeds (‘‘all seeds’’) and

Canada thistle (C. arvense) seeds [Source: Gruber and Claupein, 2009] [29]

Opena et al. (2014) [42] reported that seedling emergence in

both populations of E. glabrescens was reduced by seed burial

depth. Estimates from the three parameter sigmoid model

indicated that 50% seedling emergence (T50) was achieved at

5.7 d in the IR population and 6.0 d in the NE population

[Fig.12a]. Fifty percent of the seeds that were buried from 0.5

to 4 cm for the IR population and from 0.5 to 2 cm for the NE

population emerged at the same time as seeds that were sown

on the soil surface. On the other hand, the time needed for

50% emergence was delayed by 13 d at 4-cm depth in the IR

population, and by 9 d at 2-cm depth in the NE population,

compared with seeds sown on the surface [Fig.12a].

In both populations, the cumulative seedling emergence at 24

DAS declined with increasing burial depth [Fig.12b]. The

maximum emergence (91 and 79% for the IR and NE

populations, respectively) was observed at the soil surface.

Seedling emergence in the NE population declined more

rapidly with increasing burial depth, compared with that in the

~ 1043 ~


IR population. At 0.5-cm burial depth, seedling emergence

decreased by 63% in the NE population and 30% in the IR

population. No emergence was observed at 4-cm depth in the

NE population and at 8-cm depth in the IR population

[Fig.12b].

Greater germination on the soil surface in E. glabrescens is

consistent with stimulation of germination by light. Reduced

emergence with increase in burial depth in E. glabrescens

could be due to the absence of light to signal germination or a

limitation on soil gas diffusion, or both (Benvenuti and

Macchia, 1995) [6]. Seeds buried more than 2 mm below the

soil surface receives less than 1% of incident light (Egley,

1986) [19]. Another possible reason for reduced emergence

with increasing depth could be physical limitations of the

seedling, i.e., insufficient seed reserves to enable it to reach

the soil surface (Bolfrey et al., 2011) [8].

Seedling emergence in the NE populations decreased with

increasing rates of residues [Fig.12c].

Maximum seedling emergence in E. glabrescens was 93 and

84% in the IR and NE populations, respectively, when no

residue was applied. The NE population was more affected

than the IR population by increasing amount of residue.

Emergence in the NE population increased significantly with

the addition of 4 t ha-1 residues, although there was still no

reduction in emergence in the IR population at this level. The

addition of 5 t ha-1 of rice residue caused a 55% and 9%

reduction in maximum emergence in the NE and IR

populations, respectively, compared with when no residue was

added. Weed suppression by mulch is attributed to various

physical and chemical factors. The physical factors include

lower soil temperatures, shading, and physical obstruction

provided by the mulch itself (Crutchfield et al., 1985) [30].

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 12(a): Seedling emergence in two populations (IR and NE) of Echinochloa glabrescens, in response to burial depth (cm) when grown in

screen house conditions for 24 d [Source: Opena et al., 2014] [42]

Fig. 12(b): Cumulative seedling emergence in two populations (IR and NE) of Echinochloa glabrescens, in response to burial depth (cm) when

grown in screen-house conditions after 24 d [Source: Opena et al., 2014] [42]

Fig. 12(c): Seedling emergence in two populations (IR and NE) of Echinochloa glabrescens, in response to residue amount (t ha-1) when grown

in screen-house conditions after 24 d [Source: Opena et al., 2014] [42]

Zhang et al. (2015) [58] revealed that all fertilizer treatments

showed improvements in harvestable above-ground biomass

production over the control [Fig.13a]. Addition of extra

mineral nutrients resulted in significantly higher plant

biomass production compared to the standard application rate.

The control treatment without any fertilizer had the lowest

maize biomass production. Moreover, total soil organic

carbon compared with the control the combination of manure

with mineral fertilizers resulted in the highest rate of soil

organic carbon accumulation [Fig.13a]. Mineral fertilizer

applications (NPK and 2NPK) had a significant positive effect

on soil organic carbon stocks compared to the control.

With mineral fertilizer application (NPK and 2NPK), maize-

derived soil organic carbon accumulated to 3.2–3.5 t C ha−1

over the first 10 years and reached 8.2 t C ha−1 in 2012; a rate

of change of 0.30 t C ha−1. After 10 years, about 11% of

original soil organic carbon had been replaced with maize-

derived carbon in the control, whereas this was 15–16% in the

NPK and 2NPK treatments [Fig.13b). After 27 years of maize

double-cropping, 26% of soil organic carbon had been

replaced by maize-derived carbon in the control, and this

value was 34–35% in the mineral fertilizer treatments. In the

NPKM treatment, manure-derived soil organic carbon

comprised about 30% of total soil organic carbon and original

soil organic carbon accounted for 43%, with the remainder

derived from maize.

Zhang et al. (2015) [58] derived the proportional contributions

of below-ground crop biomass return and external manure

amendment to the total soil organic carbon stock. The average

retention of maize-derived carbon plus manure-derived

carbon during the early period of the trial (up to 11 years) was

relatively high (10%) compared to the later period (22 to 27

years, 5.1–6.3%). About 11% of maize-derived carbon was

converted to soil organic carbon, which was double the

retention of manure-derived carbon (4.4–5.1%) [Fig.11c].

~ 1044 ~


(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 13 (a): Annual harvestable above-ground biomass (t C ha−1) (a) and soil organic carbon (SOC) stock (t C ha−1) [Source: Zhang et al., 2015]

[58]

Fig. 13(b): Changes in stock of original, maize-derived, and manure-derived soil organic carbon (SOC) (t C ha−1) [Source: Zhang et al., 2015]

[58]

Fig. 13(c): Relationship between maize-derived soil organic carbon (SOC) and cumulative maize carbon input [Source: Zhang et al., 2015] [58]

Follett et al. (2015) [22] also found that C4–C stocks for the 0-

to 120-cm depth under NT had increased by 6.0 Mg ha−1 [Fig.

14a]. In contrast the only significant decrease of SOC under

CT was within the 60- to 90-cm layer [Fig.14b]. The C4–C

stocks under CT increased in the 0- to 7.6, 7.6- to 15, and 90-

to 120-cm depth increments but only by a total of 1.9 Mg ha−1

for the entire 0- to 120-cm depth. Under CT, the C3–C stocks

decreased significantly at all depths except the 0- to 7.6 cm

increment and had decreased significantly within the 0- to 120

cm depth by a total of 10.9 Mg ha−1 compared with a decrease

of only 2.2 Mg ha−1 under NT. In addition, the retention of

C4–C stocks was greater under NT than under CT.

Comparisons of NT with CT show higher amounts SOC and

C3–C (0–120-cm depth) under NT than CT [Fig. 14a & 14b].

Auskalniene et al. (2018) observed that the highest number

(14700) of weed seeds m-2 was extracted from the soil

samples taken from the no tillage plots. Similar seed counts

(14233) were found in the minimum tillage plots, while the

seed counts in the conventional tillage plots were significantly

lower.

However, the differences between the tillage systems

remained – in less disturbed soil there was a significantly

higher weed seed number, compared to conventional tillage

[Fig.14c].

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 14 (a): Comparison of the mass of soil organic C (SOC), C4–C, and C3–C for continuous corn under no-till (NT) [Source: Follett et al.,

2015] [22]

Fig. 14 (b): Comparison of the mass of soil organic C (SOC), C4–C, and C3–C for continuous corn under conventional tillage (CT) [Source:

Follett et al., 2015] [22]

Fig. 14 (c): Changes in the number of weed seeds in 0–10 cm soil layer as influenced by the different tillage systems [Source: Auskalniene et

al., 2018]

Clements et al. (1996) [15] reported that the soil disturbing

mechanisms associated with various tillage systems affects

the vertical distribution of weed seeds in the soil profile

differently [Fig.15a]. Mouldboard plough results in the burial

of most weed seed in the tillage layer, whereas chisel

ploughing leaves most weed seed closer to the soil surface.

Similarly in reduced or no-till systems, 60 to 90% (depending

on the soil type) of the weed seeds are located in the top two

inches of the soil. These seeds are thus at a relatively shallow

emergence depth and with suitable moisture and temperature

may more readily germinate and emerge than those buried

deeper with the other tillage systems. Dahal and Karki, (2014)

[18] revealed that interaction effects on weed number was

observed between tillage and weed management; residue and

weed management; fertilizer and weed management; tillage,

fertilizer and weed management; tillage, residue, fertilizer and

weed management at 30 DAS of maize. At 90 DAS of maize,

it was observed between tillage and residue; tillage, residue

and weed management; tillage, residue and fertilizer

management. Interaction effects on dry weight of weeds was

observed between residues and weed management; fertilizer

and weed management; tillage, residue and weed

management; tillage, fertilizer and weed management at 30

DAS. At 60 DAS of maize, it was observed between tillage,

fertilize and weed management; residue, fertilizer and weed

management [Fig.15c].

~ 1045 ~


(a) (b) (c)

Fig.15 (a): The vertical distribution of weed seeds in the soil profile at depths of 0-2, 2-4, and 4-6 inches [Source: Clements et al., 1996] [15]

Fig.15 (b): Seed germination (%) and initial viability as well as post-burial viability [Source: Grace et al., 2016] [26]

Fig.15 (c): Interaction effect on number of weeds m-2 between (a) tillage and weed management (b) residue and weed management at 30 DAS

of maize [Source: Dahal and Karki, 2014] [18]

Conclusion

Although weeds are a challenge in the current cropping

systems in India, there are many opportunities to develop

sustainable and effective weed management programmes.

Weed management research is lacking under conditions of

CA. Major efforts should be made to get profound

understanding of weed, weed seed bank dynamics, soil

organic carbon dynamics and Weed seed bank modulation to

tillage intensities, reside retention and micro climatic

conditions on long term basis. The study indicates that the

potential to manage weed populations by fitting the tillage

system to the appropriate crop if continuous tillage is not

possible. Total weed density was significantly lower with a

mouldboard primary soil tillage system than with reduced

tillage systems. When compared to mouldboard ploughing,

disk ploughing and shallow loosening treatments increased

weed density. Tillage system was more important than crop

rotations in affecting the composition of the weed flora, weed

density and weed biomass.

There is limited information available on the persistence of

weed seed banks under Indian conditions, especially in CA

systems. These could be rotation of establishment methods,

tillage systems, crops or herbicides. Greater herbicide efficacy

may be achieved when crops and herbicides are rotated.

However, information on the role of different rotations in

suppressing the build-up of weed populations in different

cropping systems is very limited. Both agronomic

management and with appropriate traits are needed to achieve

maximum potential under CA system. Much research and

many adoptive evaluations carried out during the past decade

have provided management options. We are making good

progress in managing weeds using integrated approaches.

However, additional research is needed in weed management,

including (1) monitoring shifts in weed flora, (2) developing

management strategies for emerging problems of weedy, (3)

identifying new herbicides/tank mixtures with wide-spectrum

weed control ability, (4) identifying vulnerabilities in weed

life cycles through analysis of weed population dynamics

under CA technologies, and (5) developing integrated

strategies to minimize/avoid/ delay the development of

herbicide resistance in weed populations. Organic weed

control method could increase SOM, soil moisture and

earthworms which are beneficial to the soil productivity. Crop

rotation was tested to be successful and environmentally

friendly in weed control. The current study highlights the

importance of agricultural practices including crop sequences

or disturbance levels in determining the characteristics of

weed populations. This provides useful information to

improve methods for maintaining plant population balance.

References

1. Alvaro-Fuentes J, Arrue JL, Gracia R, Lopez MV.

Tillage and cropping intensification effects on soil

aggregation: temporal dynamics and controlling factors

under semi arid conditions. Geoderma. 2008; 145:390-

396.

2. Auffret AG, Cousins SAO. Past and present management

influences the seed bank and seed rain in a rural

landscape mosaic. J. Appl. Eco. 2011; 48(5):1278-1285.

3. Aukalnien O, Kadziene G, Janusauskaite D, Suproniene,

S. Changes in weed seed bank and flora as affected by

soil tillage systems. Zemdirbyste-Agri. 2018; 105(3):221-

226.

4. Brar AS, Walia US. Studies on composition of weed flora

of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) in relation to different

tillage practices under rice– wheat cropping system.

Indian J Weed Sci. 2007; 39:190-196.

5. Barberi P, Lo Cascio B. Long-term tillage and crop

rotation effects on weed seed bank size and

composition. Weed Res. 2001; 41:325-340.

6. Benvenuti S, Macchia M. Hypoxia effect on buried weed

seed germination. Weed Res. 1995; 35:343-351.

7. Birthisel SK, Gallandt ER, Jabbour R, Drummond FA.

Habitat and time are more important predictors of weed

seed predation than space on a diversified vegetable farm

in Maine, USA. Weed Sci. 2015; 63(4):916-927.

8. Bolfrey-Arku GE-K, Chauhan BS, Johnson DE. Seed

germination ecology of itchgrass (Rottboellia

cochinchinensis). Weed Sci. 2011; 59:182-187.

9. Buhler DD, Mester TC, Kohler KA. Effect of tillage and

maize residue on the emergence of four annual weed

species. Weed Res. 1996; 40:153-165.

10. Buhler DD, Kohler KA, Thompson RL. Weed seed bank

dynamics during a five-year crop rotation. Weed

Technol. 2001; 15:170-176.

11. Chauhan BS, Singh RG, Mahajan G. Ecology and

management of weeds under conservation agriculture. A

review. Crop Prot. 2012; 38:57-65.

12. Chauhan BS, Abugho SB. Interaction of rice residue and

pre herbicides on emergence and biomass of four weed

species. Weed Tech. 2012; 26:627-632.

13. Chauhan BS, Johnson DE. Influence of tillage systems on

weed seedling emergence pattern in rainfed rice. Soil

Tillage Res. 2009; 106:15-21.

~ 1046 ~


14. Chen G, Liu Q, Zhang Y, Li J, Dong L. Comparison of

Weed Seed banks in Different Rice Planting Systems.

Agron. J. 2014; 109(2):620-628.

15. Clements DR, Benoit DL, Murphy SD, Swanton CJ.

Tillage effects on weed seed return and seed bank

composition. Weed Sci. 1996; 44:314-322.

16. Colbach N, Busset H, Roger-Estrade J, Caneill J.

Predictive modeling of weed seed movement in response

to superficial tillage tools. Soil Tillage Res. 2014; 138:1-

8.

17. Cromar HE, Murphy SD, Swanton CJ. Influence of

tillage and crop residue on post dispersal predation of

weed seeds. Weed Sci. 1999; 47:184-194.

18. Dahal S, Karki TB. Conservation Agriculture Based

Practices Affect the Weed Dynamics in Spring Maize.

World J Agri. Res. 2014; 2(6A):25-33.

19. Egley GH. Stimulation of weed seed germination in soil.

Rev. Weed Sci. 1986; 2:67-89.

20. Farooq M, Nawaz A. Weed dynamics and productivity of

wheat in conventional and conservation rice-based

cropping systems. Soil Tillage Res. 2014; 141:1-9.

21. Farooq M, Flower KC, Jabran K, Wahid A, Siddique

KHM. Crop yield and weed management in rain-fed

conservation agriculture. Soil Tillage Res. 2011;

117:172-183.

22. Follett RF, Jantalia CP, Halvorson AD. Soil Carbon

Dynamics for Irrigated Corn under Two Tillage Systems.

Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2015; 77:951-963.

23. Fenner M. Chapter 4. In Seed Ecology. New York, NY:

Chapman Hall, 1985, 87-104.

24. Gajri PR, Gill KS, Singh R, Gill BS. Effects of pre-

planting tillage on crop yields and weed biomass in a

rice- wheat system on a sandy loam soil in Punjab. Soil

Tillage Res. 1999; 52:83-89.

25. Ghimire R, Shah SC, Dahal KR, Duxbury JM, Lauren

JG. Soil organic carbon sequestration by tillage and crop

residue management in rice-wheat cropping system of

Nepal. J Institute Agri. Ani. Sci. 2008; 29:21-26.

26. Grace JL, Tjelmeland AD, Smith FS, Mitchell SL,

Hanzak SR, Reilley JL et al. Effects of Depth and

Duration of Burial on Tanglehead (Heteropogon

contortus) Seed Viability and Germination in Southern

Texa. Ecol Restoration. 2016; 34(1):7-10.

27. Grime JP. Trait convergence and trait divergence in

herbaceous plant communities: mechanisms and

consequences. J Veg. Sci. 2006; 17:255-260.

28. Gruber S, Claupein W. Effect of soil tillage intensity on

seed bank dynamics of oilseed rape compared with

plastic pellets as reference material. In: Gerhards, R.,

Belz, R.G. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 23rd German

Conference on Weed Biology and Weed Control,

Stuttgart-Hohenheim, Germany, March 7–9,. J Plant Dis.

Prot. Special Issue. 2006; XX:273-280.

29. Gruber S, Claupein W. Effect of tillage intensity on weed

infestation in organic farming. Soil Tillage Res. 2009;

105:104-111.

30. Crutchfield DA, Wicks GA, Burnside OC. Effect of

winter wheat (Triticum aestivum) straw mulch level on

weed control. Weed Sci. 1985; 34:110-114.

31. Liu HT, Meng J, Bo WJ, Cheng D, Li Y, Guo LY et al.

Biodiversity management of organic farming enhances

agricultural sustainability. Sci Rep. 2016; 6(1):23816.

DOI 101038/srep23816.

32. Lutman PJW, Cussans GW, Wright KJ, Wilson BJ,

Wright GMc N, Lawson HM. The persistence of seeds of

16 weeds species over six years in two arable fields.

Weed Res. 2002; 42:231-241.

33. Mashingaidze N, Madakadze C, Twomlow S,

Nyamangara J, Hove L. Crop yield and weed growth

under conservation agriculture in semi-arid Zimbabwe.

Soil. Tillage Res. 2012; 124:102-110.

34. Mei Y, Yuxin Z, Huimin Y, Yuying S, Xiaoyan Z.

Suppression of weeds and weed seeds in the soil by

stubbles and no-tillage in an arid maize-winter wheat-

common vetch rotation on the Loess Plateau of China. J

Arid Land, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40333-018-

0063-5.

35. Meng J, Li LJ, Liu HT, Li Y, Li CH, Wu GL et al.

Biodiversity management of organic orchard enhances

both ecological and economic profitability. Peer J. 2016;

4:e2137. DOI 10.7717/peerj.2137.

36. Mishra JS, Singh VP. Tillage and weed control effects on

productivity of a dry seeded rice–wheat system on a

vertisol in central India. Soil Tillage Res. 2012; 123:11-

20.

37. Mohler CL, Callaway MB. Effects of tillage and mulch

on the emergence and survival of weeds in sweet corn. J

Appl. Ecol. 1992; 29:21-34.

38. Morais S, Dias E, Pereira ML. Carbamates: human

exposure and health effects. In: Jokanovic, M. (Ed.). The

Impact of Pesticides. WY Academy Press, Cheyenne,

2012, 21-38.

39. Mortensen DA, Johnson GA, Young LJ. Weed

distribution in agricultural fields. In P. C. Robert, R. H.

Rust, and W E. Larson, eds. Soil Specific Crop

Management. Madison. WI: Am Soc Agro, 1993, 113-123.

40. Muminov MA, Guo L, Song Y, Gu X, Cen Y, Meng J et

al. Comparisons of weed community, soil health and

economic performance between wheat-maize and garlic-

soybean rotation systems under different weed

managements. Peer J. 2018; 6:e4799. DOI 10.7717/

peerj. 4799.

41. Ngwira A, Sleutel S, De Neve S. Soil carbon dynamics as

influenced by tillage and crop residue management in

loamy sand and sandy loam soils under smallholder

farmers’ conditions in Malawi. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst.

2012. DOI 10.1007/s10705-012-9492-2

42. Opena JL, Chauhan BS, Baltazar AM. Seed Germination

Ecology of Echinochloa glabrescens and Its Implication

for Management in Rice (Oryza sativa L.). PLoS ONE.

2014; 9(3):e92261. doi:10.1371/ journal. pone.0092261

43. Owen MJ, Walsh MJ, Llewellyn RS, Powles RS. Wide

spread occurrence of multiple herbicide resistance in

Western Australian annual ryegrass (Lolium rigidum)

populations. Aust. J Agric. Res. 2007; 58:711-718.

44. Primot S, Valantin-Morison M, Makowski D. Predicting

the risk of weed infestation in winter oilseed rape crops.

Weed Res. 2006; 46:22-33.

45. Reuss SA, Buhler DD, Gunsolus JL. Effects of soil depth

and aggregate size on weed seed distribution and viability

in a silt loam soil. App. Soil Ecol. 2001; 16:209-217.

46. Ryan MR, Smith RG, Mirsky SB, Mortensen DA, Seidel

R. Management filters and species traits: weed

community assembly in long-Term organic and

conventional systems. Weed Sci. 2010; 58:265-277.

47. Santín-Montanya MI, Quesada EZ, Pasamon JLT. Weed

abundance and soil seed bank responses to tillage

systems in continuous maize crops. Arch Agron. Soil Sci.

2018; 64(12):1705-1713.

~ 1047 ~


48. Shahzada M, Farooqb M, Hussaina M. Weed spectrum in

different wheat-based cropping systems under

conservation and conventional tillage practices in Punjab,

Pakistan, Soil Tillage Res. 2016; 163:71-79.

49. Singh VP, Barman KK, Singh R, Singh PK, Sharma AR.

Weed management in conservation agriculture system.

ICAR - Directorate of Weed Res, Jabalpur, India, 2015,

60p.

50. Steckel LE, Sprague CL, Stoller EW, Wax LM, Simmons

FW. Tillage cropping system and soil depth effects on

common water-hemp (Amaranthus rudis) seed-bank

persistence. Weed Sci. 2007; 55:235-239.

51. Swanton CJ, Shrestha A, Chandler K, Deen W. An

economic assessment of weed control strategies in no-till

glyphosate-resistant soybean. Weed Tech. 2000; 14:755-

763.

52. Thierfelder C, Cheesman S, Rusinamhodzi L. Benefits

and challenges of crop rotations in maize-based

conservation agriculture (CA) cropping systems of

Southern Africa. Int. J Agric. Sustain. 2012; 1:1-17.

53. Trichard A, Alignier A, Chauvel B, Petit S. Identification

of weed community traits response to conservation

agriculture. Agric. Ecosys. Environ. 2013; 179:179-186.

54. Verschwele A. Versuche zum Falschen Saatbett bei

Winterweizen. Beitrage zur 10. Wissen schaft stagung O

kologischer Landbau. Zurich, Switzerland. 2009; 11-

13:183-186.

55. Ward PR, Flower KC, Cordingley N, Weeks C, Micin

SF. Soil water balance with cover crops and conservation

agriculture in a Mediterranean climate. Field Crops Res.

2012; 132:33-39.

56. Wilson RG. Biology of weed seeds in the soil. In M. A.

Altieri and M. Liebman, eds. Weed Management in

Agro-ecosystems: Eco- logical Approaches. Boca Raton,

FL: CRC Press, 1988, 25-39.

57. Wilson RG, Kerr ED, Nelson LA. Potential for using

weed seed content in the soil to predict future weed

problems. Weed Sci. 1985; 33:171-175.

58. Zhang W, Liu K, Wang J, Shao X, Xu M, Li J et al.

Relative contribution of maize and external manure

amendment to soil carbon sequestration in a long term

intensive maize cropping system. Sci. Rep. 2015;

5:10791 | DOI: 10.1038/srep10791.

Weed seed bank dynamics: soil organic carbon dynamics ......residue, tillage and weed management: A Review Vivek, RK Naresh, DK Sachan, Shivangi and Richa Tiwari Abstract Weeds are

Documents