Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-03T16:52:17.411Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed species diversity in spring barley varies with crop rotation and tillage, but not with nutrient source

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

F. Craig Stevenson ,
Anne Légère ,
Régis R. Simard ,
Denis A. Angers ,
Denis Pageau  and
Jean Lafond
F. Craig Stevenson
Affiliation:
Department of Soil Science, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada S7N 5A8
Anne Légère*
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Research Centre, Saskatoon, SK S7N 0X2; on leave from the Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Research Centre, Sainte-Foy, QC, Canada G1V 2J3
Régis R. Simard
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Research Centre, Sainte-Foy, QC, Canada G1V 2J3
Denis A. Angers
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Research Centre, Sainte-Foy, QC, Canada G1V 2J3
Denis Pageau
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Research Centre, Normandin, QC, Canada G8M 4K3
Jean Lafond
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Research Centre, Normandin, QC, Canada G8M 4K3
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The development of sustainable farming systems depends on our ability to predict and manage the response of weed communities to changes in cropping practices. A study was established at Normandin, Québec, Canada, to investigate the influence of liquid dairy manure and mineral fertilizer, as well as chisel and moldboard plow tillage systems, in a spring barley monoculture and a 3-yr spring barley-forage rotation that included red clover and timothy. Weed species richness (Margalef's DMG), evenness (Shannon's E), and diversity (Shannon's H') were examined in these treatments from 1992 to 1995. Nutrient source had no effect on any of the three diversity indices. Evenness values were extremely low in all years, suggesting dominance of a few weed species in most treatments. Weed species richness and diversity generally were greater in the barley-forage rotation compared with the monoculture. Tillage effects on richness and diversity varied with crop rotation. Margalef's DMG and Shannon's H' were greater in 1993 and 1995, but they were lower in 1994 when chisel was compared with moldboard plowing in the monoculture. In 1994, chickweed density was about five times greater in the chisel-plowed monoculture compared with other treatment combinations of rotation and tillage. In 1995, only one species with a density of six plants m−2 occurred in the moldboard-plowed monoculture compared with three to six species and densities of 51 to 832 plants m−2 in the other rotation by tillage treatments. Climatic conditions and herbicide use patterns in the different crop rotation treatments may have contributed to the more dynamic nature of weed species diversity in the barley monoculture. Reduced frequency of tillage and herbicide application; management of the forage stands, especially with regard to their termination; and improved soil resource availability likely explained the increased but more stable diversity of the weed communities in the barley-forage rotation.

Keywords

Common chickweed, Stellaria media (L.) Vill.red clover, Trifolium pratense L. ‘Prosper’spring barley, Hordeum vulgare L. ‘Chapais’timothy, Phleum pratense L. ‘Champ.’Weed species diversitycrop management practicesspecies richnessspecies evennessShannon's H'Shannon's EMargalef's DMGSTEMETRFPRHORVXPHLPR
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 45 , Issue 6 , December 1997 , pp. 798 - 806
Copyright
Copyright © 1997 by the 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

Arshad, M. A., Gill, K. S., and Coy, G. R. 1995. Barley, canola, and weed growth with decreasing tillage in a cold, semiarid climate. Agron. J. 87: 49–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ball, D. A. 1992. Weed seedbank response to tillage, herbicides, and crop rotation sequence. Weed Sci. 40: 654–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E., Lamey, F. O., Lindwall, C. W., and Kozub, G. C. 1994. Crop rotation and tillage effects on weed populations on the semi-arid Canadian prairies. Weed Technol. 8: 231–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buhler, D. D., Stoltenberg, D. E., Becker, R. L., and Gunsolus, J. L. 1994. Perennial weed populations after 14 years of variable tillage and cropping practices. Weed Sci. 42: 205–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bullock, D. G. 1992. Crop rotation. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 11: 309–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Covarelli, G. and Tei, F. 1988. Effet de la rotation culturale sur la flore adventice du maïs. A.N.P.P. Annales no. 3, volume 2, Pages 477–484 in VIII ième Colloque international sur la biologie, l'écologie et la systématique des mauvaises herbes; Sept. 14–16, 1988, Dijon, France. Paris, France: Association Nationale pour la Protection des Plantes (Commission mauvaises herbes—COLUMA).Google Scholar
Derksen, D. A., Lafond, G. P., Thomas, A. G., Loeppky, H. A., and Swanton, C. J. 1993. Impact of agronomic practices on weed communities: tillage systems. Weed Sci. 41: 409–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derksen, D.A., Thomas, A. G., Lafond, G. P., Loeppky, H. A., and Swanton, C. J. 1995. Impact of post-emergence herbicides on weed community diversiry within conservation-tillage systems. Weed Res. 35: 311–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frick, B. and Thomas, A. G. 1992. Weed surveys in different tillage systems in southwestern Ontario field crops. Can. J. Plant Sci. 72: 1337–1347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Froud-Williams, R. J., Chancellor, R. J., and Drennan, D.S.H. 1983. Influence of cultivation regime upon buried weed seeds in arable cropping systems. J. Appl. Ecol. 20: 199–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holzner, W. 1978. Weed species and weed communities. Vegetatio 38: 13–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jørnsgård, B., Rasmussen, K., Hill, J., and Christiansen, J. L. 1996. Influence on competition between cereals and their natural weed populations. Weed Res. 36: 461–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Légère, A., Samson, N., and Rioux, R. 1993. Perennial weeds in conservation tillage systems: more of an issue than in conventional tillage systems? Pages 747–752 in Brighton Crop Protection Conference— Weeds (1993): Proc. Farnham, Great Britain: British Crop Prot. Council.Google Scholar
Légère, A., Schreiber, M. M., Hickman, M. V., and Samson, N. 1996. Residual weed populations: innocent bystanders or potential time bombs? Pages 1261–1266 in Proc. Second Int. Weed Cont. Congress, June 25–28, 1996, Copenhagen, Denmark. Flakkebjerg, DK-4200 Slagelse, Denmark: Department of Weed Control and Pesticide Ecology.Google Scholar
Liebman, M., Drummond, F. A., Corson, S., and Zhang, J. 1996. Tillage and rotation crop effects on weed dynamics in potato production systems. Agron. J. 88: 18–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liebman, M. and Dyck, E. 1993. Crop rotation and intercropping strategies for weed management. Ecol. Appl. 3: 92–122.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Loeppky, H. A. and Derksen, D. A. 1994. Quackgrass suppression through crop rotation in conservation tillage systems. Can. J. Plant Sci. 74: 193–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magurran, A. E. 1988. Ecological diversity and its measurement. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 179 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCloskey, M., Firbank, L. G., Watkinson, A. R., and Webb, D. J. 1996. The dynamics of experimental arable weed communities under different management practices. J. Veg. Sci. 7: 799–808.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLean, R. A., Sanders, W. L., and Stroup, W. W. 1991. A unified approach to mixed linear models. Am. Stat. 45: 54–64.Google Scholar
Mt. Pleasant, J. and Schlater, K. J. 1994. Incidence of weed seed in cow (Bos sp.) manure and its importance as a weed source for cropland. Weed Technol. 8: 304–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schreiber, M. M. 1992. Influence of tillage, crop rotation, weed management on giant foxtail (Setaria faberi) population dynamics. Weed Sci. 40: 645–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siemens, L. B. 1963. Cropping Systems: An Evaluative Review of Literature. Technical Bulletin No. 1. Winnepcg, Manitoba, Canada: University of Manitoba. 89 p.Google Scholar
Stevenson, F. C., Légère, A., Simard, R. R., Angers, D. A., Pageau, D., and Lafond, J. 1997. Manure, tillage, and rotation effects on the variability of crop-weed interactions in spring barley cropping systems. Agron. J. In press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tabachnick, B. G. and Fidell, L. S. 1996. Principal components and factor analysis. Pages 635–707 in Using Multivariate Statistics. 3rd ed. New York: HarperCollins. 880 p.Google Scholar
Thomas, A. G., Frick, B., Derksen, D. A., Brandt, S. A., and Zentner, R. P. 1996. Crop rotations and weed community dynamics on the Canadian prairies. Pages 227–232 in Proc. of the Second Int. Weed Cont. Congress, June 25–28, 1996, Copenhagen, Denmark. Flakkebjerg, DK-4200 Slagelse, Denmark: Department of Weed Control and Pesticide Ecology.Google Scholar
Topham, P. B. and Lawson, H. M. 1982. Measurement of weed species diversity in crop/weed competition studies. Weed Res. 22: 285–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turkington, R., Kenkel, N. C., and Franko, G. D. 1980. The biology of Canadian weeds. 42. Stellaria media (L.) Vill. Can. J. Plant Sci. 60: 981–992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yenish, J. P., Doll, J. D., and Buhler, D. D. 1992. Effects of tillage on vertical distribution and viability of weed seed in soil. Weed Sci. 40: 429–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimdahl, R. L. 1993. Weed biology: Reproduction and dispersal. Pages 59–89 in Fundamentals of Weed Science. San Diego: Academic Press. 450 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar