Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T19:33:32.373Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed seedbank and community shifts in a long-term cropping systems experiment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Adam S. Davis ,
Karen A. Renner  and
Katherine L. Gross
Karen A. Renner
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824
Katherine L. Gross
Affiliation:
W. K. Kellogg Biological Station and Department of Plant Biology, Michigan State University, Hickory Corners, MI 49060
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Characterizing the long-term effect of agricultural management systems on weed communities will aid in developing sustainable weed management practices. Weed seedbanks and aboveground biomass were measured within a corn–soybean–wheat crop sequence from 1990 through 2002 at Hickory Corners, MI. Four management systems were compared: conventional (CONV; full rates of N fertilizer and herbicides, moldboard tillage), no till (NT; same as CONV with no primary tillage), reduced input (RI; reduced rates of N fertilizer and herbicides, moldboard tillage, mechanical weed control, wheat underseeded with red clover), and organic (ORG; same as RI but no synthetic inputs). Multivariate ordinations of weed seedbanks showed a divergence of the CONV and NT systems from the RI and ORG systems. The CONV and NT seedbanks were dominated by grass species (mainly fall panicum and large crabgrass), whereas the RI and ORG systems were dominated by common lambsquarters and common chickweed. Within a single growing season, weed seedbanks in the RI and ORG systems were positively correlated with weed biomass whereas seedbanks in the CONV and NT system had little predictive value. Weed biomass from 1990 through 2002 showed a strong association of grass weed species with the corn phase of the CONV and NT system and common lambsquarters and redroot pigweed with the corn and soybean phases of the RI and ORG systems. Weed biomass diversity measures were negatively correlated with soybean yields in RI and ORG and wheat yields in NT, RI, and ORG. It is not clear whether crops were less competitive in the NT, RI, and ORG treatments, allowing new weed species to enter the plots, or whether less effective weed management in the NT, RI, and ORG treatments resulted in increased species richness, causing reduced crop yields. Mechanistic studies are needed to elucidate the relationship between weed community diversity and crop performance.

Keywords

Common chickweed, Stellaria media (L.) Vill. STEMEcommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. CHEALfall panicum, Panicum dichotomiflorum Michx. PANDIlarge crabgrass, Digitaria sanguinalis L. DIGSAredroot pigweed, Amaranthus retroflexus L., AMAREcorn, Zea mays L. ‘Pioneer 3573’red clover, Trifolium pratense L. ‘Michigan Mammoth Red’soybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr. ‘Pioneer 9172’wheat, Triticum aestivum L. ‘Pioneer 2552’Cropping systemsdensitydiversityinterferencemultivariate analysisrichnessseedbankweed community
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 53 , Issue 3 , June 2005 , pp. 296 - 306
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

Albrecht, H. and Auerswald, K. 2003. Arable weed seedbanks and their relation to soil properties. Asp. Appl. Biol 69:11–20.Google Scholar
Anderson, R. L., Tanaka, D. L., Black, A. L., and Schweizer, E. E. 1998. Weed community and species response to crop rotation, tillage and nitrogen fertility. Weed Technol 12:531–536.Google Scholar
Ball, D. A. 1992. Weed seedbank responses to tillage, herbicides and crop rotation sequence. Weed Sci 40:654–659.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Begon, M., Harper, J. L., and Townsend, C. R. 1986. Ecology: Individuals, Populations and Communities. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates. 595 p.Google Scholar
Benech-Arnold, R. L., Sanchez, R. A., Forcella, F., Kruck, B. C., and Ghersa, C. M. 2000. Environmental control of dormancy in weed seedbanks in soil. Field Crops Res 67:105–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benoit, D. L., Derksen, D. A., and Panneton, B. 1992. Innovative approaches to seedbank studies. Weed Sci 40:660–669.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D. 1995. Influence of tillage systems on weed population dynamics and management in corn and soybean production in the central USA. Crop Sci 35:1247–2157.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D., Doll, J. D., Proost, R. T., and Visocky, M. R. 1995. Integrating mechanical weeding with reduced herbicide use in conservation tillage corn production systems. Agron. J 87:507–512.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D., Hartzler, R. G., and Forcella, F. 1997. Implications of weed seedbank dynamics to weed management. Weed Sci 45:329–336.Google Scholar
Cardina, J., Herms, C. P., and Doohan, D. J. 2002. Crop rotation and tillage effects on weed seedbanks. Weed Sci 50:448–460.CrossRefGoogle 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
Cardina, J., Sparrow, D. H., and McCoy, E. L. 1996. Spatial relationships between seedbank and seedling populations of common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) and annual grasses. Weed Sci 44:298–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardina, J., Webster, T. M., and Herms, C. P. 1998. Long-term tillage and rotation effects on soil seedbank characteristics. Asp. Appl. Biol 51:213–220.Google Scholar
Cavers, P. B. 1995. Seed banks: memory in soil. Can. J. Soil Sci 75:11–13.Google Scholar
Clements, D. R., Benoit, D. L., Murphy, S. D., and Swanton, C. J. 1996. Tillage effects on weed seed return and seedbank composition. Weed Sci 44:314–322.Google Scholar
Dekker, J. and Hargrove, M. 2002. Weedy adaptation in Setaria spp. V. Effects of gaseous environment on giant foxtail (Setaria faberii) (Poaceae) seed germination. Am. J. Bot 89:410–416.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dieleman, J. A., Mortensen, D. A., Buhler, D. D., Cambardella, C. A., and Moorman, T. B. 2000. Identifying associations between site properties and weed species abundance: I. Multivariate analysis. Weed Sci 48:567–575.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forcella, F., Wilson, R. G., and Dekker, J. et al. 1997. Weed seedbank emergence across the corn belt. Weed Sci 45:67–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gauch, H. G. Jr. 1982. Multivariate Analysis in Community Ecology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 154–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghersa, C. M. and Ghersa-Martinez, M. A. 2000. Ecological correlates of weed seed size and persistence in the soil under different tilling systems: implications for weed management. Field Crops Res 67:141–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gross, K. L. and Renner, K. A. 1989. A new method for estimating seed numbers in the soil. Weed Sci 37:836–839.Google Scholar
Jordan, N. 1993. Prospects of weed control through crop interference. Ecol. Appl 3:84–91.Google Scholar
Jordan, N. 1996. Weed prevention: priority research for alternative weed management. J. Prod. Agric 9:485–490.Google Scholar
Leon, R. G., Knapp, A. D., and Owen, M. D. K. 2004. Effect of temperature on the germination of common waterhemp, (Amaranthus tuberculatus), giant foxtail (Setaria faberi), and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti). Weed Sci 52:67–73.Google Scholar
Luschei, E. C. 2003. Comparison of the effectiveness of seedbank sampling to seedling counts in reducing the uncertainty in estimates of weed population size. Asp. Appl. Biol 69:137–142.Google Scholar
Mayor, J. P. and Dessaint, F. 1998. Influence of weed management strategies on soil seedbank diversity. Weed Res 38:95–105.Google Scholar
McCune, B. and Mefford, M. J. 1997. PC-ORD. Multivariate Analysis of Ecological Data. Version 3.0. Gleneden Beach, OR: MjM Software Design.Google Scholar
Menalled, F. D., Gross, K. L., and Hammond, M. 2001. Weed aboveground and seedbank community responses to agricultural management systems. Ecol. Appl 11:1586–1601.Google Scholar
Mitchell, R. J. 2001. Path analysis: pollination. Pages 217–234 in Scheiner, S. M. and Gurevitch, J. eds. Design and Analysis of Ecological Experiments. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mohler, C. L. 2001. Weed evolution and community structure. Pages 444–493 in Liebman, M., Mohler, C. L., and Staver, C. eds. Ecological Management of Agricultural Weeds. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moonen, A. C. and Barberi, P. 2004. Size and composition of the weed seedbank after 7 years of different cover-crop-maize management systems. Weed Res 44:163–177.Google Scholar
Mulugeta, D. and Boerboom, C. M. 1997. Seasonal abundance and spatial pattern of Setaria faberi, Chenopodium album, and Abutilon theophrasti in reduced-tillage soybeans. Weed Sci 47:95–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mulugeta, D. and Stoltenberg, D. E. 1997. Weed and seedbank management with integrated methods as influenced by tillage. Weed Sci 45:705–715.Google Scholar
Neter, J., Kutner, M. H., Nachtsheim, C. J., and Wasserman, W. 1996. Applied Linear Statistical Models. Chicago, IL: Irwin. Pp. 1096–1097.Google Scholar
Robertson, G. P., Klingensmith, K. M., Klug, M. J., Paul, E. A., Crum, J. R., and Ellis, B. G. 1997. Soil resources, microbial activity, and primary production across and agricultural ecosystem. Ecol. Appl 7:158–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roman, E. S., Murphy, S. D., and Swanton, C. J. 2000. Simulation of Chenopodium album seedling emergence. Weed Sci 48:217–224.Google Scholar
Scheiner, S. M. 2001. MANOVA: multiple response variables and multispecies interactions. Pages 99–155 in Scheiner, S. M. and Gurevitch, J. eds. Design and Analysis of Ecological Experiments. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Teasdale, J. R., Mangum, R. W., Radhakrishnan, J., and Cavigelli, M. A. 2004. Weed seedbank dynamics in three organic farming crop rotations. Agron. J 96:1429–1435.Google Scholar
Thomas, A. G. and Leeson, J. Y. 2001. Residual weed communities. Pages 1–11 in Thomas, A. G. and Brandt, S. A. eds. Scott Alternative Cropping Systems Project Review: The First Six Years. Chapter 12. Saskatoon, SK, Canada: Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.Google Scholar
Thompson, K., Bakker, J., and Bekker, R. 1997. The Soil Seed Banks of North West Europe: Methodology, Density and Longevity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 20 p.Google Scholar
Tilman, D., Reich, P. B., Knops, J., Wedin, D., Mielke, T., and Lehman, C. 2001. Diversity and productivity in a long-term grassland experiment. Science 294:843–845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tørresen, K. S. 2003. Relationship between weed seedbanks and emerged weeds in long-term tillage experiments. Asp. Appl. Biol 69:55–62.Google Scholar
Tuesca, D., Puricelli, E., and Papa, J. C. 2001. A long-term study of weed flora shifts in different tillage systems. Weed Res 41:369–382.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, L. 1999. SYSTAT® version 9.0 for Windows. Chicago, IL: SPSS.Google Scholar
Wilson, R. G., Kerr, E. D., and Nelson, L. A. 1985. Potential for using weed seed content in the soil to predict future weed problems. Weed Sci 33:171–175.Google Scholar
Zhang, J., Gardiner, I. O., and Weaver, S. E. 1998. Dependence of weed flora on the active soil seedbank. Weed Res 38:143–152.Google Scholar
Zimdahl, R. L. 2004. Weed-crop Competition: A Review. Ames, IA: Blackwell Publishing. Pp. 27–106.Google Scholar