Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T09:42:58.541Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Understanding the Long-Term Weed Community Dynamics in Organic and Conventional Crop Rotations Using the Principal Response Curve Method

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 January 2019

Dilshan Benaragama ,
Julia L. Leeson  and
Steve J. Shirtliffe
Dilshan Benaragama*
Affiliation:
Senior Lecturer, Department of Plant Sciences, Rajarata University of Sri Lanka, Pulliankulama, Anuradhapura, Sri Lanka
Julia L. Leeson
Affiliation:
Weed Biologist, Agriculture Agri-Food Canada, Saskatoon, SK, Canada
Steve J. Shirtliffe
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Plant Sciences, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada
*
Author for correspondence: Dilshan Benaragama, Department of Plant Sciences, Rajarata University of Sri Lanka, Pulliankulama, Anuradhapura, Sri Lanka. (Email: [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Weeds have acquired evolutionary adaptations to the diverse crop and weed management strategies used in cropping systems. Therefore, changes in crop production practices such as conventional to organic systems, tillage-based to no-till systems, and diversity in crop rotations can result in differences in weed community composition that have management implications. A study was carried out to understand the weed community dynamics in a long-term alternative cropping systems study at Scott, SK, Canada. Long-term (18-yr) weed community composition data in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) in ORG (organic), RED (reduced-input, no-till), and HIGH (high-input, conventional tillage) systems with three levels of crop rotation diversity, LOW (low diversity), DAG (diversified annual grains), and DAP (diversified annuals and perennials), were used to study the effect of different cropping systems and the effect of environment (random temporal effects) on residual weed community composition using the principal response curve (PRC) technique. The interaction between cropping systems and year-to-year random environmental changes was found to be the predominant factor causing fluctuations in weed community composition. Furthermore, the single most predominant factor influencing the weed composition was year-to-year random changes. Organic systems clearly differed from the two conventional systems in most years and had more diverse weed communities compared with the two conventional systems. The two conventional systems exhibited similar weed composition in most years. In this study, the use of the PRC method allowed capture of the real temporal dynamics reflected in the cropping systems by time interaction. This study further concludes that moving from a tillage-based, high-input conventional system to a no-till, reduced-input system did not cause significant changes in the weed community composition throughout the time period, but diversity in organic systems was high, probably due to increased occurrence of some difficult to control species.

Keywords

John L. Lindquist, University of NebraskaCrop rotationno-tillorganicprincipal response curveweed communityweed diversity.
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 67 , Issue 2 , March 2019 , pp. 195 - 204
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2019 

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

Andersson, TN, Milberg, P (1998) Weed flora and the relative importance of site, crop, crop rotation, and nitrogen. Weed Sci 46:30–38 Google Scholar
Beckie, HJ, Johnson, EN, Leeson, JY, Shirriff, SW, Kapiniak, A (2014) Selection and evolution of acetyl-CoA carboxylase (ACC)-inhibitor resistance in wild oat (Avena fatua L.) in a long-term alternative cropping systems study. Can J Plant Sci 94:727–731 Google Scholar
Belyea, LR, Lancaster, J (1999) Assembly rules within a contingent ecology. Oikos 86:402–416 Google Scholar
Benaragama, D, Shirtliffe, SJ, Gossen, BD, Brandt, SA, Lemke, R, Johnson, EN, Zentner, RP, Olfert, O, Leeson, J, Moulin, A, Stevenson, C (2016) Long-term weed dynamics and crop yields under diverse crop rotations in organic and conventional cropping systems in the Canadian prairies. Field Crops Res 196:357–367 Google Scholar
Blackshaw, RE (2005) Tillage intensity affects weed communities in agroecosystems. Pages 209–221 in Inderjit S, ed. Invasive Plants: Ecological and Agricultural Aspects. Basel, Switzerland: Birkhäuser Google Scholar
Booth, BD, Swanton, CJ (2002) Assembly theory applied to weed communities. Weed Sci 50: 2–13 Google Scholar
Brandt, SA, Thomas, AG, Olfert, OO, Leeson, JY, Ulrich, D, Weiss, R (2010) Design, rationale and methodological considerations for a long term alternative cropping experiment in the Canadian plain region. Euro J Agron 32:73–79 Google Scholar
Buhler, DD (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, Harrison, K (1991) Long-term tillage effects on seed banks in three Ohio soils. Weed Sci 39:186–194 Google Scholar
Chase, JM (2007) Drought mediates the importance of stochastic community assembly. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:17430–17434 Google Scholar
Chase, JM, Liebold, M (2003) Ecological Niches: Linking Classical and Contemporary Approaches. Chicago: University of Chicago Press Google Scholar
Clements, DR, Weise, SF, Swanton, CJ (1994) Integrated weed management and weed species diversity. Phytoprotection 75:1–18 Google Scholar
Dale, MRT, Thomas, AG, John, EA (1992) Environmental factors including management practices as correlates of weed community composition in spring seeded crops. Can J Bot 70:1931–1939 Google Scholar
De Caceres, M, Legendre, P (2009) Associations between species and groups of sites: indices and statistical inference. Ecology 90:3566–3574 Google Scholar
Derksen, DA, Lafond, GP, Thomas, AD, Loeppky, HA, Swanton, CJ (1993) Impact of agronomic practices on weed communities: tillage systems. Weed Sci 41:409–417 Google Scholar
Dhuyvetter, KC, Thompson, CR, Norwood, CA, Halvorson, AD (1996) Economics of dryland cropping systems in the Great Plains: a review. J Prod Agric 9:216–222 Google Scholar
Diamond, JM (1975) Assembly of species communities. Pages 342–444 in Cody ML, Diamond JM, eds. Ecology and Evolution of Communities. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press/Harvard University Press Google Scholar
Dufrêne, M, Legendre, P (1997) Species assemblages and indicator species: the need for a flexible asymmetrical approach. Ecol Monogr 67:345–366 Google Scholar
Froud-Williams, RJ (1987) Changes in weed flora with different tillage and agronomic management systems. Pages 213–236 in Altieri MA, Liebman M, eds. Weed Management in Agro-ecosystems: Ecological Approaches. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press Google Scholar
Fried, G, Norton, L, Reboud, X (2008) Environmental and management factors determining weed species composition and diversity in France. Agric Ecosyst Environ 128:68–76 Google Scholar
Ghersa, CM, Roush, ML, Radosevich, SR, Cordray, S (1994) Co-evolution of agro-ecosystems and weed management. BioScience 44:85–94 Google Scholar
Harker, KN, O’Donovan, JT, Turkington, TK, Blackshaw, RE, Lupwayi, NZ, Smith, EG, Johnson, EN, Pageau, D, Shirtliffe, SJ, Gulden, RH, Rowsell, J (2016) Diverse rotations and optimal cultural practices control wild oat (Avena fatua). Weed Sci 64:170–180 Google Scholar
Hobbs, RJ, Humphries, SE (1995) An integrated approach to the ecology and management of plant invasions. Conserv Biol 9:761–770 Google Scholar
Hyvönen, T, Ketoja, E, Salonen, J, Jalli, H, Tiainen, J (2003) Weed species diversity and community composition in organic and conventional cropping of spring cereals. Agric Ecosyst Environ 97:131–149 Google Scholar
Kenkel, NC, Derksen, DA, Thomas, AG, Watson, PR (2002) Review: multivariate analysis in weed science research. Weed Sci 50:281–292 Google Scholar
Kindt, R, Coe, R (2005) Tree Diversity Analysis. A Manual and Software for Common Statistical Methods for Ecological and Biodiversity Studies. Nairobi, Kenya: World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF). http://www.worldagroforestry.org/treesandmarkets/tree_diversity_analysis.asp. Accessed: July 15, 2015Google Scholar
Lafond, GP, Loeppky, H, Derksen, DA (1992) The effects of tillage systems and crop rotations on soil water conservation seedling establishment and crop yield. Can J Plant Sci 72:103–125 Google Scholar
Lafond, GP, Zentner, RP, Geramia, R, Derksen, DA (1993) The effects of tillage systems on the economic performance of spring wheat, winter wheat, flax and field pea production in East-Central Saskatchewan. Can J Plant Sci 73:47–54 Google Scholar
Légère, A, Stevenson, FC, Benoit, DL (2005) Diversity and assembly of weed communities: contrasting responses across cropping systems. Weed Res 45:303–315 Google Scholar
Leps, J, Smilauer, P (2003) Multivariate Analysis of Ecological Data Using CANOCO. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Google Scholar
Menalled, FD, Gross, KL, Hammond, M (2001) Weed aboveground and seed bank community responses to agricultural management systems. Ecol Appl 11:1586–1601 Google Scholar
Moonen, AC, Barberi, P (2004) Size and composition of the weed seed bank after 7 years of different cover‐crop‐maize management systems. Weed Res 44:163–177 Google Scholar
Moyer, JR, Roman, ES, Lindwall, CW, Blackshaw, RE (1994). Weed management in conservation tillage systems for wheat production in North and South America. Crop Prot 13:243–259 Google Scholar
O’Donovan, JT, Blackshaw, RE, Harker, KN, Clayton, GW, Moyer, JR, Dosdall, LM, Maurice, DC, Turkington, TK (2007) Integrated approaches to managing weeds in spring-sown crops in western Canada. Crop Prot 26:390–398 Google Scholar
Oerke, EC (2006) Crop losses to pests. J Agric Sci 144:31–43 Google Scholar
Pakeman, RJ (2004) Consistency of plant species and trait responses to grazing along a productivity gradient: a multi-site analysis. J Ecol 92:893–905 Google Scholar
Palik, BJ, Kastendick, D (2010) Response of seasonal pond plant communities to upland forest harvest in northern Minnesota forests, USA. For Ecol Manag 260:628–637 Google Scholar
Poulin, M, Andersen, R, Rochefort, L (2013) A new approach for tracking vegetation change after restoration: a case study with peatlands. Restoration Ecol 21:363–371 Google Scholar
R Development Core Team (2015) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org. Accessed: November 14, 2015Google Scholar
Roschewitz, I, Gabriel, D, Tscharntke, T, Thies, C (2005) The effects of landscape complexity on arable weed species diversity in organic and conventional farming. J Appl Ecol 42:873–882 Google Scholar
Rotchés-Ribalta, R, Armengot, L, Mäder, P, Mayer, J, Sans, FX 2017. Long-term management affects the community composition of arable soil seedbanks. Weed Sci 65:73–82 Google Scholar
Ryan, MR, Smith, RG, Mirsky, SB, Mortensen, DA, Seidel, R (2010) Management filters and species traits: weed community assembly in long-term organic and conventional systems. Weed Sci 58:265–277 Google Scholar
Ryan, MR, Smith, RG, Mortensen, DA, Teasdale, JR, Curran, WS, Seidel, R Shumway, DL (2009) Weed–crop competition relationships differ between organic and conventional cropping systems. Weed Res 49:572–580 Google Scholar
SAS Institute (2011) SAS User’s Guide. Version 9.3. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Google Scholar
Smith, RG, Gross, KL (2007) Assembly of weed communities along a crop diversity gradient. J Appl Ecol 44:1046–1056 Google Scholar
Smith, RG, Mortensen, DA, Ryan, MR (2010) A new hypothesis for the functional role of diversity in mediating resource pools and weed–crop competition in agroecosystems. Weed Res 50:37–48 Google Scholar
Sosnoskie, LM, Herms, CP, Cardina, J (2006) Weed seed bank community composition in a 35-yr-old tillage and rotation experiment. Weed Sci 54:263–273 Google Scholar
Swanton, CJ, Clements, DR, Derksen, DA (1993) Weed succession under conservation tillage: a hierarchical framework for research and management. Weed Technol 7:286–297 Google Scholar
Ter Braak, CJ, Prentice, IC (1988) A theory of gradient analysis. Adv Ecol Res 18:271–317 Google Scholar
Ter Braak, CJ, Smilauer, P (2002) CANOCO Reference Manual and CanoDraw for Windows User’s Guide: Software for Canonical Community Ordination. Version 4.5. http/www.canoco.com. Accessed: April 11, 2015Google Scholar
Thomas, AG, Dale, MRT (1991) Weed community structure in spring-seeded crops in Manitoba Can J Plant Sci 71:1069–1080 Google Scholar
Van den Brink, PJ, Ter Braak, CJF (1999) Principal response curves: analysis of time-dependent multivariate responses of biological community to stress. Environ Toxicol Chem 18:138–148 Google Scholar
Vandvik, V, Heegaard, E, Måren, EI, Aarrestad, P (2005) Managing heterogeneity: the importance of grazing and environmental variation on post-fire succession in heathlands. J Appl Ecol 42:139–149 Google Scholar
Zanin, G, Otto, S, Riello, L, Borin, M (1997) Ecological interpretation of weed flora dynamics under tillage systems. Agric Ecosyst Environ 66:177–188 Google Scholar
Zentner, RP, Wall, DD, Nagy, CN, Smith, EG, Young, DL, Miller, PR, Campbell, CA, McConkey, BG, Brandt, SA, Lafond, GP, Johnston, AM (2002) Economics of crop diversification and soil tillage opportunities in the Canadian prairies. Agron J 94:216–230 Google Scholar