Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-cjp7w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-05T01:59:07.111Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Modeling the effect of farmers' decisions on the population dynamics of winter wild oat in an agricultural landscape

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

J. L. Gonzalez-Andujar ,
R. E. Plant  and
C. Fernandez-Quintanilla
R. E. Plant
Affiliation:
Departments of Agronomy and Range Science and Biological and Agricultural Engineering, University of California, Davis, CA 95616
C. Fernandez-Quintanilla
Affiliation:
Centro de Ciencias Medioambientales (CSIC), Serrano 115 b, 28006 Madrid, Spain
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Understanding spatial distribution has become increasingly important in weed science. Seed dispersal, both between and within agricultural fields, is an important component of weed spatial distribution. Analysis of the effect of dispersal between fields has been relatively neglected in theoretical studies of weed population dynamics. In this paper, we present a simple landscape-level model of the influence of seed dispersal on winter wild oat population dynamics between fields. In the model, two fields are interconnected, with seeds being carried from one field to another as would occur when seeds are carried by field equipment or in irrigation water. The model is intended to characterize the effect of field-level weed management decisions on landscape-level weed population dynamics. Three scenarios were studied. The first employed no control measures in either field. The second employed annual application of herbicides in field 1 with field 2 receiving no treatment. In the third scenario, an herbicide application took place in field 1 only if the weed population in that field exceeded an action threshold. In the first scenario, the net result of the immigration and emigration processes determined the increase or decrease of the stable plant population. In the second scenario, weeds in the controlled field (field 1) were not driven to extinction as might be expected. The weed populations grew for practically all the dispersal parameter space. Each change in the parameter's values produced a new stable equilibrium. This situation might correspond to a multiplicity of stable states. The uncontrolled field (field 2) experienced an indirect control effect due to the use of control measures in field 1. In the third scenario, we observed an interesting behavior of the populations in both fields. The population in field 1 was not driven under the economic threshold, and both fields showed complex dynamics within defined combinations of migration and emigration values.

Keywords

Sterile oatAvena sterilis L.Agricultural landscapeweed managementthresholdcomplex dynamicsdispersalspatial weed modelmultiplicity of stable states
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 49 , Issue 3 , June 2001 , pp. 414 - 422
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

Aibar, J. 1988. Biologia y control de la avena loca Avena fatua y Avena sterilis ssp. ludoviciana en Aragon. Ph.D. dissertation. Universidad Politecnica de Madrid. Madrid, Spain. 206 p.Google Scholar
Auld, B. A. and Tisdell, C. A. 1985. Biological weed control—equilibria models. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 13:1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auld, B. A., Menz, K. M., and Monaghen, N. M. 1979. Dynamics of weed spread: implications for policies of public control. Prot. Ecol. 1:141–148.Google Scholar
Ballaré, C. L., Scopel, A. L., Ghersa, C. M., and Sánchez, R. A. 1987a. The demographic of Datura ferox (L.) in soybean crops. Weed Res. 27:91–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ballaré, C. L., Scopel, A. L., Ghersa, C. M., and Sánchez, R. A. 1987b. The population ecology of Datura ferox in soybean crops. A simulation approach incorporating seed dispersal. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 19:177–188.Google Scholar
Cardina, J., Johnson, G. A., and Sparrow, D. H. 1997. The nature and consequence of weed spatial distribution. Weed Sci. 45:364–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, S., Heisel, T., and Paice, M. 1999. Simulation of long term Alopecurus myosuroides population using three patch spraying strategies. Pages 977–987 In Stafford, J. W., ed. Precision Agriculture 99. Sheffield Academic Press.Google Scholar
Cousens, R. 1995. Can we determine the intrinsic dynamics of real plant populations. Funct. Ecol. 9:15–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crawley, M. J. and May, R. M. 1987. Population dynamics and plant community structure: competition between annuals and perennials. J. Theor. Biol. 125:475–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crone, E. E. and Taylor, D. R. 1996. Complex dynamics in experimental populations of an annual plant, Cardamine pensylvanica . Ecology 77:289–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donald, W. W. and Ogg, A. G. Jr. 1991. Biology and control of jointed goatgrass (Aegilopis cylindrica), a review. Weed Technol. 5:3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernandez-Quintanilla, C., Navarrete, L., Torner, C., and Gonzalez-Andujar, J. L. 1987. Influence of herbicide treatments on the population dynamics of Avena sterilis in winter wheat crops. Weed Res. 27:375–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghersa, C. M. and Roush, M. L. 1993. Searching for solutions to weed problems: do we study competition or dispersion? Bioscience 43:104–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonzalez-Andujar, J. L. 1997. A matrix model for the dynamic population and vertical distribution of weed seedbanks. Ecol. Model. 97:117–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonzalez-Andujar, J. L. and Fernandez-Quintanilla, C. 1991. Modelling the population dynamics of Avena sterilis under dry-land cereal cropping systems. J. Appl. Ecol. 28:16–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonzalez-Andújar, J. L. and Fernandez-Quintanilla, C. 1993. Strategies for the control of Avena sterilis in winter wheat production systems in central Spain. Crop Prot. 12:617–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonzalez-Andujar, J. L. and Hughes, G. 1997. Efecto de las dinámicas poblaciones complejas sobre el control de las malas hierbas. Actas Congr. Soc. Esp. Malherbología 155–158.Google Scholar
Gonzalez-Andujar, J. L. and Hughes, G. 2000. Complex weed population dynamics. Funct. Ecol. 14:524–526.Google Scholar
Gonzalez-Andujar, J. L. and Perry, J. N. 1993. The effect of dispersal between chaotic and non-chaotic populations within a metapopulation. Oikos 66:555–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonzalez-Andujar, J. L. and Perry, J. N. 1995. Models for the herbicidal control of the seed bank of Avena sterilis: the effect of spatial and temporal heterogeneity and of dispersal. J. Appl. Ecol. 32:578–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonzalez-Andujar, J. L., Perry, J. N., and Moss, S. R. 1999. Modeling the effect of spatial pattern and cultivation on the metapopulation dynamics of Alopecurus Myosuroides . Weed Sci. 47:697–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard, C. L., Mortimer, A. M., Gould, P., Putwain, P. D., Cousens, R., and Cussans, G. W. 1991. The dispersal of weeds: seed movement in arable agriculture. Pages 821–828 In Proc. Brit. Crop Prot. Conf. Weeds. Google Scholar
Hughes, G. and Gonzalez-Andujar, J. L. 1997. Crop protection: simple rules with complex outcomes. Nature 387:241–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, N. 1992. Weed demography and population dynamics: implications for threshold management. Weed Technol. 6:184–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kareiva, P. 1994. Space—the final frontier for ecological theory. Ecology 75:1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maxwell, B. D. and Ghersa, C. 1992. The influence of weed seed dispersion versus the effect of competition on crop yield. Weed Technol. 6:196–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
May, R. M. 1977. Thresholds and breakpoints in ecosystems with a multiplicity of stable states. Nature 269:471–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, F., Albrecht, H., and Pfadenhaver, J. 1998. The transport of seeds by soil-working implements. Aspects Appl. Biol. 51:83–89.Google Scholar
McCanny, S. J. and Cavers, P. B. 1988. Spread of proso millet (Panicum miliaceum L.) in Ontario, Canada. II. Dispersal by combines. Weed Res. 28:67–72.Google Scholar
Menz, K. M., Coote, B. G., and Auld, B. A. 1980–1981. Spatial aspects of weed control. Agric. Syst. 6:67–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mortimer, A. M. 1990. The biology of weeds. Pages 1–42 In Hance, R. J. and Holly, K., eds. Weed Control Handbook Principles. Blackwell Scientific Publications.Google Scholar
Mt. Pleasant, J. and Schlather, K. 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
Muenscher, W. C. 1935. Weeds. New York: MacMillan. 35 p.Google Scholar
Petzold, K. 1956. Combine-harvesting and weeds. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 1:178–181.Google Scholar
Rew, L. J. and Cussans, G. W. 1997. Horizontal movement of seeds following tine and plough cultivation: implications for spatial dynamics of weed infestations. Weed Res. 37:247–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swanton, C. J. and Weise, S. F. 1991. Integrated weed management: the rational and approach. Weed Technol. 5:657–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thill, D. C. and Mallory-Smith, C. A. 1997. The nature and consequence of weed spread in cropping system. Weed Sci. 45:337–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thrall, P. H., Pacala, S. W., and Silander, J. A. 1989. Oscillatory dynamics in population of an annual weed specie Abutilon theophrasti . J. Ecol. 77:1135–1149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torner, C., Gonzalez-Andujar, J. L., and Fernandez-Quintanilla, C. 1991. Wild oat (Avena sterilis L.) competition with winter barley: plant density effect. Weed Res. 31:301–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallinga, J. and van Oijen, M. 1997. Level of threshold weed density does not affect the long-term frequency of weed control. Crop Prot. 16:273–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watkinson, A. R. 1980. Density-dependence in single species populations of plants. J. Theor. Biol. 83:345–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar