Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T18:19:06.921Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed species–area relationships as influenced by tillage

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Dawit Mulugeta ,
David E. Stoltenberg  and
Chris M. Boerboom
David E. Stoltenberg
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706
Chris M. Boerboom
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The relationship between species richness and sample area has been characterized in many natural communities but has rarely been examined in crop–weed communities. We determined the species–area relationship in short-term (≤4 yr) and long-term (>15 yr) moldboard-plowed (MP), chisel-plowed (CP), and no-tillage (NT) fields cropped to corn and in short-term MP, CP, and NT fields cropped to soybean. A total of 10 corn fields and 10 soybean fields were sampled for species richness in 14 nested sample areas that ranged from 0.0625 to 512 m2. The influence of sample area on frequency of species occurrence was also determined. Species richness was greater in long-term NT fields than in tilled or short-term NT fields. The species–area relationship in tilled and short-term NT fields was best described by an exponential function. In contrast, a power function was the best fit for the species–area relationship in long-term NT fields. The functional minimum area required to represent 75% of the total weed species in tilled and short-term NT fields was 32 m2. A functional minimum area could not be determined in long-term NT fields because species richness continued to increase over the range of sample areas. Regression functions predicted that sample areas of 1 m2 would contain less than 50% of the observed maximum species richness in these fields. Sample areas of 36 m2 in tilled and short-term NT fields and 185 m2 in long-term NT fields were predicted to measure 75% of observed maximum species richness in these fields. Pigweed species and common lambsquarters occurred at high frequencies and were detected in most sample areas. This information could be used to better define sample area requirements and improve sampling procedures for species richness of weed communities.

Keywords

Common lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. CHEALcorn, Zea mays L.pigweed species, Amaranthus spp.soybean, Glycine max (L.) MerrExponential functionfunctional minimum areapower functionsample areaspecies–area curvespecies diversityspecies frequencyspecies richness
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 49 , Issue 2 , April 2001 , pp. 217 - 223
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

Anderrson, T. N. and Milberg, P. 1998. Weed flora and relative importance of site, crop, crop rotation, and nitrogen. Weed Sci. 46:30–38.Google Scholar
Archibald, E.E.A. 1949. The specific character of plant communities. II. A quantitative approach. J. Ecol. 37:260–274.Google Scholar
Arrhenius, O. 1921. Species and area. J. Ecol. 9:95–99.Google Scholar
Buys, M. H., Maritz, J. S., Boucher, C., and VanDerWalt, J.J.A. 1994. A model for species-area relationships in plant communities. J. Veget. Sci. 5:63–66.Google Scholar
Clements, D. R., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1994. Integrated weed management and weed species diversity. Phytoprotection 75:1–18.Google Scholar
Coleman, B. D., Mares, M. A., Willig, M. A., and Hsieh, Y. 1982. Randomness, area and species-richness. Ecology 63:1121–1133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connor, E. F. and McCoy, E. D. 1979. The statistics and biology of the species-area relationship. Am. Nat. 113:791–833.Google 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 diversity within conservation-tillage systems. Weed Res. 35:311–320.Google Scholar
Forcella, F. 1984. A species-area curve for buried viable seeds. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 35:645–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gitay, H., Roxburgh, S. H., and Wilson, J. B. 1991. Species-area relations in a New Zealand tussock grassland, with implications for nature reserve design and for community structure. J. Veget. Sci. 2:113–118.Google Scholar
Gleason, A. H. 1922. On the relation between species and area. Ecology 3:158–162.Google Scholar
Harte, J., Kinzig, A., and Green, J. 1999. Self-similarity in the distribution and abundance of species. Science 284:334–336.Google Scholar
He, F. and Legendre, P. 1996. On species-area relation. Am. Nat. 148:719–737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hong, L. Y. 1993. Grazing dynamics of the species diversity in Aneurolepidium chinense steppe and Stipa grandis steppe. Acta Bot. Sin. 35:877–884.Google Scholar
Keating, K. A., Quinn, J. F., Ivie, M. A., and Ivie, L. L. 1998. Estimating the effectiveness of further sampling in species inventories. Ecol. Appl. 8:1239–1249.Google Scholar
Leps, J. and Stursa, J. 1989. Species-area curve, life history strategies, and succession: a field test of relationships. Vegetatio 83:249–258.Google Scholar
Ludwig, J. A. and Reynolds, J. F. 1988. Statistical ecology: a primer on methods and computing. New York: J. Wiley. pp. 85–103.Google Scholar
McGuinness, K. A. 1984. Equation and explanation in the study of species-area curves. Biol. Rev. 59:423–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, R. I. and White, P. S. 1987. Consideration for preserve design on the distribution of rare plants in Great Smokey Mountains National Park, USA. Environ. Manag. 10:119–124.Google Scholar
Norris, R. F. and Kogan, M. 2000. Interactions between weeds, arthropod pests, and their natural enemies in managed ecosystems. Weed Sci. 48:94–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Power, A. G. 1987. Plant community diversity, herbivore movement, and an insect-transmitted disease of maize. Ecology 68:1658–1669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Preston, F. W. 1962. The canonical distribution of commonness and rarity. Ecology 43:410–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1990. SAS/STAT Users Guide. Version 6, 4th ed. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. pp. 1135–1193.Google Scholar
Siemann, E. 1998. Experimental tests of effects of plant productivity and diversity on grassland arthropod diversity. Ecology 79:2057–2070.Google Scholar
Simberloff, D. S. 1974. Equilibrium theory of island biogeography and ecology. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 5:161–182.Google Scholar
Squire, G. R., Rodger, S., and Wright, G. 2000. Community-scale seedbank response to less intense rotation and reduced herbicide input at three sites. Ann. Appl. Biol. 136:47–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swanton, C. J. and Murphy, S. D. 1996. Weed science beyond the weeds: the role of integrated weed management (IWM) in agroecosystem health. Weed Sci. 44:437–445.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
Ullalena, B. and Hakan, F. 1999. Type and time of autumn tillage with and without herbicides at reduced rates in southern Sweden: 2. Weed flora and diversity. Soil Tillage Res. 50:283–293.Google Scholar
Williams, C. B. 1943. Area and number of species. Nature 152:264–267.Google Scholar