Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T20:12:05.487Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Crop rotation and tillage system effects on weed seedbanks

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

John Cardina ,
Catherine P. Herms  and
Douglas J. Doohan
Catherine P. Herms
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture and Crop Science, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, Wooster, OH 44691
Douglas J. Doohan
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture and Crop Science, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, Wooster, OH 44691
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We characterized the size and species composition of the weed seedbank after 35 yr of continuous crop rotation and tillage system treatments at two locations in Ohio. Spring seedbanks were monitored during 1997, 1998, and 1999 in continuous corn (CCC), corn–soybean (CS), and corn–oats–hay (COH) rotations in moldboard plow (MP), chisel plow (CP), and no-tillage (NT) plots where the same herbicide was used for a given crop each growing season. There were 47 species at Wooster and 45 species at Hoytville, with 37 species occurring at both locations in all 3 yr. Crop rotation was a more important determinant of seed density than was tillage system. Seed density was highest in NT and generally declined as tillage intensity increased. Seeds accumulated near the surface (0 to 5 cm) in NT but were uniformly distributed with depth in other tillage systems. At both locations there was a significant interaction between tillage and rotation for estimates of the total seed density. Seed density was highest in NT-CCC, with 26,850 seeds m−2 at Wooster and 8,680 seeds m−2 at Hoytville. At Wooster total seed density in CCC plots was 45 and 60% lower than in COH plots for CP and MP. In NT the total seed density was 40% greater in CCC than in COH. At Hoytville total seed density in CCC plots was 72% lower than in COH plots that were CP or MP, whereas seed density was 45% higher in CCC than in COH plots that were in an NT system. There were more significant differences in seedbank density for any given species for crop rotation than for tillage treatments. Seed densities of three broadleaves (shepherd's-purse, Pennsylvania smartweed, and corn speedwell) at Wooster and four broadleaves (yellow woodsorrel, redroot pigweed, Pennsylvania smartweed, and spotted spurge) at Hoytville were more abundant in COH (140 to 630 seeds m−2) than in CS (10 to 270 seeds m−2) or CCC (< 1 to 60 seeds m−2), regardless of the tillage system. At both locations Pennsylvania smartweed seeds were more abundant in COH (260 and 630 seeds m−2) than in other rotations (10 to 20 seeds m−2). Relative importance (RI) values, based on relative density and relative frequency of each species, were lower in CS than in CCC for common lambsquarters and five other weeds at Wooster; RI of giant foxtail was 80% lower in COH than in CCC at Hoytville. The data show how species composition and abundance change in response to crop and soil management. The results can help to determine how complex plant communities are “assembled” from a pool of species by specific constraints or filters.

Keywords

Redroot pigweed, Amaranthus retroflexus L. AMAREshepherd's-purse, Capsella bursa-pastoris (L.) Medicus CAPSAcommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. CHEALspotted spurge, Euphorbia maculata L. EPHMAyellow woodsorrel, Oxalis stricta L. OXASTPennsylvania smartweed, Polygonum pensylvanicum L. POLPYgiant foxtail, Setaria faberi L. SETFAcorn speedwell, Veronica arvensis L. VERARoats, Avena sativa L.soybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr.corn, Zea mays L.No-tillagechisel plowmoldboard plowweed shifts
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 50 , Issue 4 , August 2002 , pp. 448 - 460
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

Ball, D. A. 1992. Weed seedbank response to tillage, herbicides, and crop rotation sequence. Weed Sci. 40:654–659.Google Scholar
Ball, D. A. and Miller, S. D. 1990. Weed seed population response to tillage and herbicide use in three irrigated cropping sequences. Weed Sci. 38:511–517.Google Scholar
Barberi, P., Cozzani, A., Macchia, M., and Bonari, E. 1998. Size and composition of the weed seedbank under different management systems for continuous maize cropping. Weed Res. 38:319–334.Google Scholar
Belyea, L. R. and Lancaster, J. 1999. Assembly rules within a contingent ecology. Oikos 86:402–416.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D. 1995. Influence of tillage system on weed population dynamics and management in corn and soybean in the central USA. Crop Sci. 35:1247–1258.Google Scholar
Cardina, J., Regnier, E., and Harrison, K. 1991. Long-term tillage effects on seedbanks in three Ohio soils. Weed Sci. 39:186–194.Google Scholar
Cardina, J. and Sparrow, D. H. 1996. A comparison of methods to predict weed seedling populations from the soil seedbank. Weed Sci. 44:46–51.Google Scholar
Derksen, D. A., Thomas, A. G., Laford, G. P., Loeppky, H. A., and Swanton, C. J. 1994. Impact of agronomic practices on weed communities: fallow within tillage systems. Weed Sci. 42:184–194.Google Scholar
Dick, W. A. and Daniel, C. T. 1987. Soil chemical and biological properties as affected by conservation tillage: environmental implications. Pages 124–147 In Logan, T. J., Davidson, J. M., Baker, J. L., and Overcash, M. R., eds. Effects of Conservation Tillage on Groundwater Quality. Chelsea, MI: Lewis Publishers.Google Scholar
Dick, W. A. and Van Doren, D. M. Jr. 1985. Continuous tillage and rotation combinations effects on corn, soybean, and oat yields. Agron. J. 77:459–465.Google Scholar
Dick, W. A., Van Doren, D. M. Jr., Triplett, G. B. Jr., and Henry, J. E. 1986. Influence of long-term tillage and rotation combinations on crop yields and selected soil parameters. II. Results obtained for a Typic Fragiudalf soil. Ohio State Univ. Res. Bull. 1181:34 p.Google Scholar
Dorado, J., Del Monte, J. P., and Lopez-Fando, C. 1999. Weed seedbank response to crop rotation and tillage in semiarid agroecosystems. Weed Sci. 47:67–73.Google Scholar
Doucet, C., Weaver, S. E., Hamill, A. S., and Zhang, J. 1999. Separating the effects of crop rotation from management on weed density and diversity. Weed Sci. 47:729–735.Google Scholar
Drake, J. A., Zimmermann, C. R., Prurcker, T., and Rojo, C. 1999. On the nature of the assembly trajectory. Pages 233–250 In Weir, E. and Keddy, P. A., eds. Ecological Assembly Rules: Perspectives, Advances, Retreats. Cambridge, Great Britain: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Forcella, F., Wilson, R. G., Renner, K. A., Dekker, J., Harvey, R. G., Alm, D. A., Buhler, D. D., and Cardina, J. 1992. Weed seedbanks of the U.S. Corn Belt: magnitude, variation, emergence, and application. Weed Sci. 40:636–644.Google Scholar
Huynh, H. and Feldt, L. S. 1970. Conditions under which mean square ratios in repeated measurements designs have exact F-distributions. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 65:1582–1589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kremer, R. J. 1993. Management of weed seed banks with microorganisms. Ecol. Appl. 3:42–52.Google Scholar
Liebman, M. and Dyck, E. 1993. Crop rotation and intercropping strategies for weed management. Ecol. Appl. 3:92–122.Google Scholar
Loux, M. M. and Berry, M. A. 1991. Use of a grower survey for estimating weed problems. Weed Technol. 5:460–466.Google Scholar
Martin, R. J. and Felton, W. L. 1993. Effect of crop rotation, tillage practice, and herbicides on the population dynamics of wild oats in wheat. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 33:159–165.Google Scholar
Schreiber, M. 1992. Influence of tillage, crop rotation, and weed management on giant foxtail (Setaria faberi) population dynamics and corn yield. Weed Sci. 40:645–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steel, R.G.D. and Torrie, J. H. 1980. Principles and Procedures of Statistics: A Biometrical Approach. New York: Mcgraw-Hill. pp. 544–545.Google Scholar
Thompson, K. and Grime, J. P. 1979. Seasonal variation in the seed banks of herbaceous species in ten contrasting habitats. J. Appl. Ecol. 67:893–921.Google Scholar
Triplett, G. B. Jr. and Lytle, G. D. 1972. Control and ecology of weeds in continuous corn without tillage. Weed Sci. 20:453–457.Google Scholar
Wicks, G. A., Burnside, O. C., and Felton, W. L. 1994. Weed control in conservation tillage systems. Pages 211–244 In Unger, P. W., ed. Managing Agricultural Residues. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers.Google 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.Google Scholar
Zanin, G., Otto, S., Riello, L., and Borin, M. 1997. Ecological interpretation of weed flora dynamics under different tillage systems. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 66:177–188.Google Scholar