Annual/Termination Reports:

[10/01/2012] [12/26/2013] [01/08/2015] [10/15/2015]

Report Information

Participants

Brief Summary of Minutes

Accomplishments

Short-term outcomes: The immediate benefits of the NC1191 weed phenology project will be to improve our ability to predict the timing of weed seedling emergence and seed production. This will aid farmers in developing cost-effective management plans for timing weed control efforts on their farm.<br /> <br /> Outputs: We will generate regional-scale data on the phenology of summer and winter annual weeds of the north central region. These data will be used to update and improve models of weed seedling emergence.<br /> <br /> Activities: Our team has cooperators in IL, KS, MO, MT, ND, NE, OH, OR, and SD, all working on the same weed phenology field study. We have collected one year of data on the timing of seedling emergence, flowering and seed maturation for common lambsquarters, velvetleaf, field pennycress and marestail. We intend to collect two more years of data on these species, after which this information will be used to test the current parameterization of Hopkins Bioclimatic Law (HBL). By improving HBL, we will be able to develop more accurate predictions of weed phenology in support of weed management.<br /> <br /> Activity 1.2 - spring: collect/bury winter annual weed seeds (cohort II), monitor winter annual weed flowering and seed development (cohort I) and summer annual seedling emergence (cohort I); fall: collect/bury summer annual seeds (cohort II), monitor winter annual weed seedling emergence (cohort II) and summer annual flowering and seed development (cohort I). <br /> <br /> Activity 1.2 Milestones: statistical modeling activities to improve HBL and create HBL.2 finished by end of Year 2. Preparation of related manuscript for peer-reviewed journal.<br />

Publications

Wortman, S. E., A. S. Davis, B. J. Schutte, J. L. Lindquist, J. Cardina, J. Felix, C. L. Sprague, J. A. Dille, A.H.M. Ramirez, G. Reicks, and S. A. Clay. 2012. Local conditions, not regional gradients, drive demographic variation of Ambrosia trifida and Helianthus annuus across northern U.S. maize belt. Weed Science 60:440-450. <br /> <br /> Ramirez, A. H. M., J. A. Dille, S. A. Clay, A. S. Davis, J. Felix, F. D. Menalled, R. G. Smith, C. L. Sprague, E. Hill. In review. Plant-soil feedback response of giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida) and common sunflower (Helianthus annuus). Weed Science.<br /> <br /> Davis, A. S., S. Clay, J. Cardina, A. Dille, F. Forcella, C. Sprague. In review. Overwinter burial environment explains departures from regional hydrothermal model of giant ragweed seedling emergence in U.S. Midwest. Weed Science.

Impact Statements

1. We have developed several publications from this work, one in print (Wortman et al. 2012), and two in review (Ramirez et al.; Davis et al.).
2. We are in the process of developing a grant proposal for the USDA-NIFA-AFRI competitive grants program, using our regional project structure to study the link between herbicide resistance in weeds and agricultural trophic webs.

Back to top

Report Information

Participants

Buhler, Doug (buhler@anr.msu.edu)  Michigan State University;
Clay, Sharon (Sharon.clay@sdstate.edu)  South Dakota State University;
Erazo-Barradas, Mauricio (m.erazo-barradas@sdstate.edu)  South Dakota State University;
Felix, Joel (joel.felix@oregonstate.edu)  Oregon State University;
Forcella, Frank (Frank.Forcella@ars.usda.gov)  USDA-ARS-Morris;
Gramig, Greta (greta.gramig@ndsu.edu)  North Dakota State University;
Lindquist, John (jlindquist1@unl.edu)  University of Nebraska-Lincoln;
Scursoni, Julio (scursoni@agro.uba.ar)  University of Buenos Aires;
Sprague, Christy (sprague1@msu.edu)  Michigan State University;

Brief Summary of Minutes

Accomplishments

Short-term outcomes: The immediate benefits of the NC1191 weed phenology project will be to improve our ability to predict the timing of weed seedling emergence and seed production. This will aid farmers in developing cost-effective management plans for timing weed control efforts on their farm.<br /> <br /> <br /> Outputs: We will generate regional-scale data on the phenology of summer and winter annual weeds of the north central region. These data will be used to update and improve models of weed seedling emergence. <br /> <br /> <br /> Activities: Phenology of common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album L.), field pennycress (Thlaspi arvense L.) and horseweed (Conyza canadensis L.), and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti L.) was recorded from a common garden experiments in the home locations (KS, MI, NE, ND, MN, OR, SD) of each participant during late summer/fall of 2012 and spring of 2013. For each weed species, seeds from common and local accessions were planted. Experimental units consisted of 1 m2 quadrats with two types of measurements taken within: seedling emergence, and monitoring of flowering and seed maturation within the quadrat as a whole. Each 1 m2 quadrat contained four evenly spaced rows (0.25 m between rows) of a given experimental species seeded at 30 seeds row-1.(populations will ultimately be thinned to 2-4 plants per row, for a total of 12 plants per quadrat; see below). Phenology measurements included seedling emergence over time, floral initiation (onset of anthesis), and species-specific measures of seed maturation. Weed seedling emergence was recorded non-destructively twice a week until there were at least 2-4 plants per row. Seedlings were thinned to leave 2-4 plants per row, to achieve a total quadrat population of 12 plants. Floral initiation and seed maturation for each marked individual in each plot was recorded. The group plans to collect similar phenology for one additional year (2014), at which time we will have a large comprehensive dataset from which to test the current parameterization of Hopkins Bioclimatic Law (HBL). By improving HBL, we will be able to develop more accurate predictions of weed phenology in support of weed management.<br /> <br /> <br /> Milestones: We will collect four years of weed phenology data that are required to improve modeling approaches for more accurate weed phenology predictions. This year we collected the third of four planned datasets documenting the phenological responses of four weed species at the home locations of each participant. Data were summarized by each participant and presented at the annual meeting to inform the group of progress on the project and to note any pitfalls or concerns about future data collection. <br />

Publications

Sharon A. Clay, Adam Davis, Anita Dille, John Lindquist, A. Ramirez, Christy Sprague, Graig Reicks, and Frank Forcella (2013) Common Sunflower Seedling Emergence across the U.S. Midwest. Weed Science In-Press.<br /> <br /> <br /> Adam S. Davis, Sharon Clay, John Cardina, Anita Dille, Frank Forcella, John Lindquist, and Christy Sprague (2013) Seed Burial Physical Environment Explains Departures from Regional Hydrothermal Model of Giant Ragweed (Ambrosia trifida) Seedling Emergence in U.S. Midwest. Weed Science: July-September 2013, Vol. 61, No. 3, pp. 415-421.<br />

Impact Statements

1. Ideas and professional connections fostered by the 2012 annual meeting of this regional group led to the development of a USDA-NIFA-AFRI proposal to study links between herbicide resistance in weeds and agricultural trophic webs that was submitted by one of the guest participants in the 2012 meeting, Jonathan Lundgren. The proposal was ranked highly, but did not receive funding due to a lack of funds.
2. Two publications resulting from this groups previous project were published in Weed Science.

Back to top

Report Information

Participants

Brief Summary of Minutes

Please see attached "Copy of Minutes" file for NC1191's full annual report.

Accomplishments

Publications

Impact Statements

Back to top

Report Information

Participants

Buhler, Doug (buhler@msu.edu) Michigan State University; Clay, Sharon (Sharon.clay@sdstate.edu) South Dakota State University; Dille, Anita (dieleman@k-state.edu) Kansas State University; Felix, Joel (joel.felix@oregonstate.edu) Oregon State University; Gramig, Greta (greta.gramig@ndsu.edu) North Dakota State University; Lindquist, John (jlindquist1@unl.edu) University of Nebraska-Lincoln; Rew, Lisa (lrew@montana.edu) Montana State University; Sprague, Christy (sprague1@msu.edu) Michigan State University; Renner, Karen (renner@msu.edu) Michigan State University

Brief Summary of Minutes

Discussion of completion of the current project:


We are in our final year of the current 5-year research project. The final report is due in December 2015 (no decision on who will lead the report writing but all present were willing to participate). All data collection has been completed and the raw data sent to Frank Forcella. Frank is the sole person analyzing the data after Adam Davis stepped down. Unfortunately it was not known how data analysis is progressing, although Greta believed a manuscript was in progress based on the field pennycress data.


Action: Sharon is going to contact Frank to determine what progress has been made, and if he needed any assistance from the group.


John suggested a meeting to discuss data analysis may be necessary this fall depending on the outcome of Sharon’s discussion with Frank.


Discussion on how to move forward:


September 15th is the deadline for submitting our intent: there are three options, which include continuing as a research, changing to a discussion group, or disbanding. Consequently, most of the meeting time was dedicated to discussing which of these approaches we should take. There was no support amongst those present of disbanding the group.


Overall people were supportive of and interested in remaining a research group but concerns over the reduction or lack of institutional support to perform field research was a major concern of several of the attendees. Several members reiterated that they believe these multistate collaborations have been very beneficial to them professionally, and to weed science as a discipline and would like to maintain connection with colleagues in some format. While there was general interest in performing experiments to evaluate the effect of climate change (increased temperature and reduced moisture) and nitrogen deposition on weed and crop performance at the 2014 annual meeting there was general concern that this would take more resources than available to members. No alternative research projects were proposed this year. Anita floated the idea of revaluating weed loss with respect to Zimdahl’s Fundamentals of Weed Loss, or WeedSoft. There was support for this, which developed into a broader discussion on the benefits of becoming a discussion group.


Karen Renner summarized the research conducted by the NE group that she is part of. This group has been having similar issues to us, with decreased participation by many original members and a decrease in institutional support. They too are evaluating the values of becoming a discussion group and there may be interest in the two groups coming together in the future. There was general support for becoming a discussion group because that would allow us to read new research and discuss emerging concepts in a more interdisciplinary manner, as well as generate new research ideas. Several members did not want to rule out the possibility of returning to being a research group in the future.


The idea of having virtual meetings at intervals throughout the year to discuss new research papers or concepts, as well as one in person meeting per year was generally considered a good idea. It was suggested a poll should be taken to see what time of year it would be best for people to meet in person, and if tacking the multistate meeting onto a regional or national meeting, or having a separate meeting would be best.


No-one in the group knew much about the procedure to change to a discussion group, or what the reporting requirements were. Doug Buhler couldn’t attend the 8-11 am meeting but had agreed to talk with Christy and a few others at 12 MT time to receive a report on the annual meeting, and provide advise on procedural matters. Anita will report on this meeting.


In summary: There was some interest in remaining, or being able to return to a research group status after a couple years, but the general consensus was to become a discussion group. However, no-one offered to lead the new group, though several people (Anita, John and Lisa with help from Greta if time allows) offered to help develop the new discussion framework and write the proposal.

Accomplishments

Activities: This year marked the completion of of four years of data collection on the phenology of common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album L.), field pennycress (Thlaspi arvense L.) horseweed (Conyza canadensis L.), and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti L.). This common garden experiment was conducted in KS, MI, NE, ND, MN, OR, SD. For each weed species, seeds from common and local accessions were planted. Experimental units consisted of 1 m2 quadrats with two types of measurements taken within: seedling emergence, and monitoring of flowering and seed maturation within the quadrat as a whole. Each 1 m2 quadrat contained four evenly spaced rows (0.25 m between rows) of a given experimental species seeded at 30 seeds row-1 (populations were ultimately thinned to 2-4 plants per row, for a total of 12 plants per quadrat). Phenology measurements included seedling emergence over time, floral initiation (onset of anthesis), and species-specific measures of seed maturation. Weed seedling emergence was recorded non-destructively twice a week until there were at least 2-4 plants per row, then thinned to the target density of 2-4 plants per row. Floral initiation and seed maturation for each marked individual in each plot was recorded. Results from this experiment have been compiled and are currently being analyzed by Dr. Frank Forcella’s group. We expect results will allow us to develop more accurate predictions of weed phenology in support of weed management. <br /> <br /> <br /> Given that our common research protocols had been met, much of the discussion at the 2015 meeting revolved around whether to continue as a research committee or change to a discussion group once our five year cycle is completed. There was interest in remaining a research group, but also concern about resources to carry out common research protocols. It was subsequently decided that the group would apply for a new discussion group following the completion of the current cycle.<br /> <br /> Milestones: We have collected three full cycles of weed phenology data that are required to improve modeling approaches for more accurate weed phenology predictions. Data were summarized by each participant and presented at the annual meetings. The data have been compiled for all locations and are currently being analyzed in preparation for one or more manuscripts on the topic. <br /> <br /> Outputs: A regional-scale data set on the phenology of summer annual and winter annual weeds of the north central region have been generated. These data will be used to update and improve weed seedling emergence models.<br />

Publications

Impact Statements

1. The information gained from this project will help improve our ability to predict weed seedling emergence and seed production of four difficult to manage weeds within and beyond the North Central region of the US. Understanding weed seedling emergence and seed production of these important weed species will help growers to make informed decisions on the timing of cost-effective weed management strategies on their farm.

Back to top