Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T05:33:35.809Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

GIS Analysis of Spatial Clustering and Temporal Change in Weeds of Grass Seed Crops

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

George W. Mueller-Warrant ,
Gerald W. Whittaker  and
William C. Young III
George W. Mueller-Warrant*
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Service, USDA, National Forage Seed Products Research Center, 3450 SW Campus Way, Corvallis, OR 97331–8539
Gerald W. Whittaker
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Service, USDA, National Forage Seed Products Research Center, 3450 SW Campus Way, Corvallis, OR 97331–8539
William C. Young III
Affiliation:
Crop and Soil Science Department, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Ten years of Oregon Seed Certification Service (OSCS) preharvest field inspections converted from a nonspatial database to a geographic information system (GIS) were analyzed for patterns in spatial distribution of occurrence and severity of the 36 most common weeds of grass seed crops. This was done under the assumptions that those patterns would be primarily consequences of interactions among farming practices, soil properties, and biological traits of the weeds, and that improved understanding of the interactions would benefit the grass seed industry. Kriging, Ripley's K-function, and both Moran's I spatial autocorrelation and Getis-Ord General G high/low clustering using the multiple fixed distance band option all produced roughly similar classifications of weeds possessing strongest and weakest spatial clustering patterns. When Moran's I and General G analyses of maximum weed severity observed within individual fields over the life of stands were conducted using the inverse distance weighting option, however, results were highly sensitive to the presence of a small number of overlapping fields in the 10-yr record. Addition of any offset in the range from 6 to 6,437 m to measured distances between field centroids in inverse distance weighting matrices removed this sensitivity, and produced results closely matching those for the multiple fixed distance band method. Clustering was significant for maximum severity within fields over the 10-yr period for all 43 weeds and in 78% of single-year analyses. The remaining 22% of single-year cases showed random rather than dispersed distribution patterns. In decreasing order, weeds with strongest inverse-distance spatial autocorrelation were German velvetgrass, field bindweed, roughstalk bluegrass, annual bluegrass, orchardgrass, common velvetgrass, Italian ryegrass, Agrostis spp., and perennial ryegrass. Of these nine weeds, distance for peak spatial autocorrelation ranged from 2 km for Agrostis spp. to 34 km for common velvetgrass. Weeds with stronger spatial autocorrelation had greater range between distance of peak spatial autocorrelation and maximum range of significance. Z-scores for General G high/low clustering were substantially lower than corresponding values for Moran's I spatial autocorrelation, although the same two weeds (German velvetgrass and field bindweed) showed strongest clustering using both measures. Simultaneous patterns in Moran's I and General G implied that management practices relatively ineffective in controlling weeds usually played a greater role in causing weeds to cluster than highly effective practices, although both types of practices impacted Italian ryegrass distribution. Distance of peak high/low clustering among perennial weeds was smallest (1 to 3 km) for Canada thistle, field bindweed, Agrostis spp., and western wildcucumber, likely indicating that these weeds occurred in patchy infestations extending across neighboring fields. Although both wild carrot and field bindweed doubled in average severity over the period from 1994 to 2003, wild carrot was the only weed clearly undergoing an increase in spatial autocorrelation. Soil chemical and physical properties and dummy variables for soil type and crop explained small but significant portions of total variance in redundancy and canonical correspondence analysis of weed occurrence and severity. Fitch-Morgoliash tree diagrams and Redundancy Analysis (RDA) and Canonical Correspondence Analysis (CCA) ordinations revealed substantial differences among soil types in weed occurrence and severity. Gi∗ local hot-spot clustering combined with feature class to raster conversion protected grower expectations of confidentiality while describing dominant spatial features of weed distribution patterns in maps released to the public.

Keywords

Annual bluegrass, Poa annua L. POAANCanada thistle, Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop. CIRARcommon velvetgrass, Holcus lanatus L. HOLLAfield bindweed, Convolvulus arvensis L. CONARGerman velvetgrass, Holcus mollis L. HOLMOItalian ryegrass, Lolium multiflorum Lam. LOLMUorchardgrass, Dactylis glomerata L. DACGLperennial ryegrass, Lolium perenne L. LOLPEroughstalk bluegrass, Poa trivialis L. POATRwestern wildcucumber, Marah oreganus (T. & G.) T. J. Howell ECNORwild carrot, Daucus carota L. DAUCAMoran's I spatial autocorrelationGetis-Ord General G high/low clusteringGetis-Ord Gi∗ hot spot analysiskriging
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 56 , Issue 5 , October 2008 , pp. 647 - 669
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

Box, G. E. P. 1988. Signal-to-noise ratios, performance criteria, and transformations. Technometrics. 30:1–40.Google Scholar
Brownie, C. and Gumpertz, M. L. 1997. Validity of spatial analyses for large field trials. J. Agric. Biol. Environ. Stat. 2:1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardina, J., Sparrow, D. H., and McCoy, E. L. 1995. Analysis of spatial distribution of common lambsquarter (Chenopodium album) in no-till soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 43:258–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clay, S. A., Kreutner, B., Clay, D. E., Reese, C., Kleinjan, J., and Forcella, F. 2006. Spatial distribution, temporal stability, and yield loss estimates for annual grasses and common ragweed (Ambrosia artimisiifolia) in a corn/soybean production field over nine years. Weed Sci. 54:380–390.Google Scholar
Colbach, N., Forcella, F., and Johnson, G. A. 2000. Spatial and temporal stability of weed populations over five years. Weed Sci. 48:366–377.Google Scholar
Cole, C. M., Affeldt, R. P., Brewster, B. D., Colquhoun, J. B., and Mallory-Smith, C. A. 2006. Wild carrot control in tall fescue with chlorsulfuron. 2005 Seed Production Research at Oregon State University, USDA–ARS Cooperating. Pages 6–7. Young, W. C. III Ext/CrS 125. http://cropsandsoil.oregonstate.edu/seed-ext/Pub/2005/3.pdf. Accessed July 30, 2008.Google Scholar
Cousens, R. D., Brown, R. W., McBratney, A. B., Whelan, B., and Moerkerk, M. 2002. Sampling strategy is important for producing weed maps: a case study using kriging. Weed Sci. 50:542–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dale, M. R. T. 1999. Spatial Pattern Analysis in Plant Ecology. Cambridge, U.K. Cambridge University Press. 326.Google Scholar
Dieleman, J. A., Buhler, D. D., Cambardella, C. A., and Moorman, T. B. 2000a. Identifying associations among site properties and weed species abundance. I. Multivariate analysis. Weed Sci. 48:567–575.Google Scholar
Dieleman, J. A., Mortensen, D. A., Buhler, D. D., and Furguson, R. B. 2000b. Identifying associations among site properties and weed species abundance. II. Hypothesis generation. Weed Sci. 48:576–587.Google Scholar
Dille, J. A. 2002. How good is your weed map? A comparison of spatial interpolators. Weed Sci. 51:44–55.Google Scholar
Donald, W. W. 1994. Geostatistics for mapping weeds, with a Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) patch as a case study. Weed Sci. 42:648–657.Google Scholar
Fitch, W. M. and Margoliash, E. 1967. The construction of phylogenetic trees—a generally applicable method utilizing estimates of the mutation distance obtained from cytochrome c sequences. Science. 155:279–284.Google Scholar
González-Andújar, J. L., Martínez-Cob, A., López-Granados, F., and García-Torres, L. 2001. Spatial distribution and mapping of crenate broomrape infestations in continuous broad bean cropping. Weed Sci. 49:773–779.Google Scholar
Isaaks, E. H. and Srivastava, R. M. 1989. An Introduction to Applied Geostatistics. New York Oxford University Press. 561.Google Scholar
Johnson, G. A., Mortensen, D. A., and Gotway, C. A. 1996. Spatial and temporal analysis of weed seedling populations using geostatistics. Weed Sci. 44:704–710.Google Scholar
Jurado-Expósito, M., López-Granados, F., García-Torres, L., García-Ferrer, A., de la Orden, M. S., and Atenciano, S. 2003. Multi-species weed spatial variability and site-specific management maps in cultivated sunflower. Weed Sci. 51:319–328.Google Scholar
Kenkel, N. C., Derksen, D. A., Thomas, A. G., and Watson, P. R. 2002. Multivariate analysis in weed science research. Weed Sci. 50:281–292.Google Scholar
Lass, L. W. and Callihan, R. H. 1997. The effect of phenological stage on detectability of yellow hawkweed (Hieracium pratense) and oxeye daisy (Chrysanthemum leucanthemum) with remote multispectral digital imagery. Weed Technol. 11:248–256.Google Scholar
Lass, L. W., Carson, H. W., and Callihan, R. H. 1996. Detection of yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis) and common St. Johnswort (Hypericum perforatum) with multispectral digital imagery. Weed Technol. 10:466–474.Google Scholar
Lee, W. O. 1966. Effect of annual applications of diuron on seed yields of perennial grasses in Oregon. United States Department of Agriculture Technical Bulletin No. 1358. 23.Google Scholar
Lee, W. O. 1973. Clean grass seed crops established with activated carbon bands and herbicides. Weed Sci. 21:537–541.Google Scholar
Lee, W. O. 1981. Control of annual bluegrass (Poa annua) in perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne) seed fields. Weed Sci. 29:444–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McElroy, J. S., Yelverton, F. H., Burton, M. G., and Brownie, C. 2005. Habitat delineation of green and false-green kyllinga in turfgrass systems and interrelationship of elevation and edaphic factors. Weed Sci. 53:620–630.Google Scholar
Medlin, C. R., Shaw, D. R., Gerard, P. D., and LaMastus, F. E. 2000. Using remote sensing to detect weed infestations in Glycine max . Weed Sci. 48:393–398.Google Scholar
Mitchell, A. 2005. The ESRI Guide to GIS Analysis, Volume 2: Spatial Measurements and Statistics. Redlands, CA ESRI Press. 238.Google Scholar
Mueller-Warrant, G. W. 1990. Control of roughstalk bluegrass (Poa trivialis) with fenoxaprop in perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne) grown for seed. Weed Tech. 4:250–257.Google Scholar
Mueller-Warrant, G. W. 1999. Duration of control from pre-emergence herbicides for use in nonburned grass seed crops. Weed Technol. 13:439–449.Google Scholar
Mueller-Warrant, G. W., Mellbye, M. E., and Aldrich-Markham, S. 1991. Pronamide improves weed control in new grass plantings protected by activated charcoal. J. Appl. Seed Prod. 9:16–26.Google Scholar
Mueller-Warrant, G. W. and Neidlinger, T. J. 1994. Oxyfluorfen controls seedling grasses in established perennial grasses grown for seed. J. Appl. Seed Prod. 12:14–25.Google Scholar
Mueller-Warrant, G. W. and Rosato, S. C. 2002. Weed control for stand duration perennial ryegrass seed production: I. Residue removed. Agron. J. 94:1181–1191.Google Scholar
Mueller-Warrant, G. W. and Rosato, S. C. 2005. Weed control for tall fescue seed production and stand duration without burning. Crop Sci. 45:2614–2628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mueller-Warrant, G. W., Young, W. C. III, Chastain, T. G., and Rosato, S. C. 2007. Residue management and herbicides for downy brome (Bromus tectorum) control in Kentucky bluegrass grown for seed. Weed Tech. 21:411–420.Google Scholar
R Development Core Team 2007. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.r-project.org. Accessed July 30, 2008.Google Scholar
Schabenberger, O. and Gotway, C. A. 2005. Statistical Methods for Spatial Data Analysis. Boca Raton, FL Chapman and Hall/CRC.Google Scholar
Steel, R. G. D., Torrie, J. H., and Dickey, D. A. 1997. Principles and Procedures of Statistics: A Biometrical Approach. New York McGraw-Hill. 666.Google Scholar
Unwin, D. J. 1996. GIS, spatial analysis and spatial statistics. Prog. Human Geogr. 20:540–551.Google Scholar
Wiles, L. and Brodahl, M. 2004. Exploratory data analysis to identify factors influencing spatial distributions of weed seed banks. Weed Sci. 52:936–947.Google Scholar
Wiles, L. and Schweizer, E. 2002. Spatial dependence of weed seed banks and strategies for sampling. Weed Sci. 50:595–606.Google Scholar
Wyse-Pester, D. Y., Wiles, L. J., and Westra, P. 2002. Infestation and spatial dependence of weed seedling and mature weed populations in corn. Weed Sci. 50:54–63.Google Scholar