Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T19:30:02.281Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Responses of Weed Populations to Human Manipulations of the Natural Environment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

James A. Young  and
Raymond A. Evans
James A. Young
Affiliation:
Agr. Res. Serv., U.S. Dep. of Agr., Renewable Resource Center, Univ. of Nevada, Reno, NV 89502
Raymond A. Evans
Affiliation:
Agr. Res. Serv., U.S. Dep. of Agr., Renewable Resource Center, Univ. of Nevada, Reno, NV 89502
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The occurrence, abundance, and nature of weed communities were reviewed in relation to man's manipulation of the natural environment. Manipulations of the environment necessary for agricultural production have favored secondary successional species. That many of these seral species have opportunistic genotypes has led to the development of weeds. Weeds conform to the concepts of ecologic succession, but agricultural ecosystems are very dynamic with sudden and recurrent changes. The acceleration of successional patterns has provided environments conducive to the selection of competitive genotypes among numerous weeds. Specialized breeding systems provide rapid responses to changing conditions. Weeds increase the diversity of agricultural ecosystems by utilizing environmental potential concentrated for crop production. Weeds have been the shadow of history in that they have mirrored man's activities. The introduction of weed species to new environments may be one of the greatest manipulations of the natural environment, the total consequences of which will be determined in the future.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 24 , Issue 2 , March 1976 , pp. 186 - 190
Copyright
Copyright © 1976 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

1. Allard, R.W. 1965. Genetic systems associated with colonizing ability in predominantly self-pollinated species. Pages 50–76 in Baker, H.G. and Stebbins, G.L., eds. The Genetics of Colonizing Species. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
2. Auclair, A.N. and Goff, F.G. 1971. Diversity relations of upland forest in the western Great Lakes area. Amer. Nat. 105:449–529.Google Scholar
3. Baker, H.G. 1962. Weeds – native and introduced. J. Calif. Hort. Soc. 23:97–104.Google Scholar
4. Baker, H.G. 1974. The evolution of weeds. Pages 1–24 in Johnston, R.F., Frank, P.W., and Michener, C.D., eds. Ann. Rev. of Ecol. and Systematics.Google Scholar
5. Baker, H.G. and Stebbins, G.L. 1965. The genetics of colonizing species. Academic Press, New York. 558 pp.Google Scholar
6. Bell, A.R., Nalewaja, J.D., and Schooler, A.B. 1972. Response of Kochia selections to 2,4-D, dicamba, and picloram. Weed Sci. 20:458–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Chaney, R.W. 1940. Tertiary forest and continental history. Bull. Geol. Soc. Amer. 51:469–488.Google Scholar
8. Dubos, R. 1972. A God Within. Charles Scribner and Sons, New York. 325 pp.Google Scholar
9. Flannery, K.V. 1969. Origins and ecological effects of early domestication in Iran and the Near East. Pages 73–100 in Uoko, P.J. and Dimbleby, G.W., eds. Domestication and exploitation of plants and animals. Aldine, Chicago.Google Scholar
10. Hodgson, J.M. 1964. Variations in ecotypes of Canada thistle. Weeds 12:167–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Hodgson, J.M. 1970. The response of Canada thistle ecotypes to 2,4-D, amitrole, and intensive cultivation. Weed Sci. 18:253–255.Google Scholar
12. Hole, F., Flannery, K.V., and Neely, J.A. 1969. Prehistory and human ecology of the Deh Luron Plain. Pages 1–438 in Memoirs of the museum of anthropology, Univ. of Michigan, Number 1. Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
13. Horn, H.S. 1971. The adaptive geometry of trees. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton. 144 pp.Google Scholar
14. Horn, H.S. 1974. The ecology of secondary succession. Pages 25–37 in Johnston, R.F., Frank, P.W., and Michener, C.D., eds. Ann. Rev. of Ecology and Systematics.Google Scholar
15. King, L.J. 1966. Weeds of the World: Biology and Control. L. Hill, London. 526 pp.Google Scholar
16. McKell, C.M., Robinson, J.P., and Major, J. 1962. Ecotypic variation in medusahead, an introduced grass. Ecology 43:686–698.Google Scholar
17. Martin, P.S. 1967. Prehistoric overkill. Pages 75–120 in Martin, P.S. and Wright, H.E. Jr., eds. Pleistocene extinctions, the search for a cause. Vol. 6, Proc. of VII Congress of Inter. Assoc. for Quarternary Res. Yale Univ. Press, New Haven.Google Scholar
18. May, R.M. 1973. Stability and complexity in model ecosystems. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton. 235 pp.Google Scholar
19. Mulligan, G.A., and Findlay, J.N. 1970. Reproductive systems and colonization in Canadian weeds. Can. J. Bot. 48:859–860.Google Scholar
20. Natural Academy of Sciences. 1971. Biochemical Interactions Among Plants. Nat. Acad. Sci., Washington, D.C. 134 pp.Google Scholar
21. Radosevich, S.R. and Appleby, A.P. 1973. Relative susceptibility of two common groundsel (Senecio vulgaris L.) biotypes to six s-triazines. Agron. J. 65:553–555.Google Scholar
22. Radosevich, S.R. and Appleby, A.P. 1973. Studies on the mechanism of resistance to simazine in common groundsel. Weed Sci. 21:497–500.Google Scholar
23. Renfrew, J.M. 1973. Palaeoethnobotany: The prehistoric food plants of the Near East and Europe. Columbia Univ. Press, New York. 240 pp.Google Scholar
24. Roche, B.E. and Muzik, T.J. 1964. Ecological and physiological study of Echinochlea crusgalli and the response of its biotypes to sodium 2-2 dichloropropionate. Agron. J. 56:155–160.Google Scholar
25. Salisbury, E.J. 1961. Weeds and aliens. Collins, London. 384 pp.Google Scholar
26. Santelmann, P.W. and Meade, J.A. 1961. Variation in morphological characteristics and dalapon susceptibility within the species Setaria lutescens and S. faberii . Weeds 9:406–410.Google Scholar
27. Satchell, J.E. 1974. Litter-interface of animate/inanimate matter. Pages XIV–XLIV in Dickinson, C.H. and Pugh, G.J.F., eds. Biology of Plant Litter Decomposition.Google Scholar
28. Sexsmith, J.J. 1964. Morphological and herbicidal susceptibility differences among strains of hoary cress. Weeds 12:19–21.Google Scholar
29. Whitlaker, R.H. and Feeny, P.P. 1971. Allelochemics: Chemical interactions between species. Science 171:757–770.Google Scholar
30. Whitworth, J.W. and Muzik, T.J. 1967. Differential response of selected clones of bindweed to 2,4-D. Weeds 15:275–280.Google Scholar
31. Young, J.A. and Evans, R.A. 1971. Germination of Dyer's woad. Weed Sci. 19:76–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32. Young, J.A. and Evans, R.A. 1972. Conversion of medusahead to downy brome communities with diuron. J. Range Manage. 25:40–43.Google Scholar
33. Young, J.A. and Evans, R.A. 1975. Germination of seeds of Italian ryegrass, Lolium multiflorum Lam. Agron. J. 67:386–389.Google Scholar
34. Young, J.A., Evans, R.A., and Eckert, R.E. Jr. 1969. Population dynamics of downy brome. Weed Sci. 17:20–26.Google Scholar
35. Young, J.A., Evans, R.A., and Major, J. 1972. Alien plants in the Great Basin. J. Range Manage. 25:194–201.Google Scholar