Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T19:20:07.176Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed seedbank response to crop rotation and tillage in semiarid agroecosystems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

J. Dorado ,
J. P. Del Monte  and
C. López-Fando
J. P. Del Monte
Affiliation:
Dpto de Producción Vegetal: Botánica y Protección Vegetal, E.T.S.I.A., U.P.M., Ciudad Universitaria, E-28040 Madrid, Spain
C. López-Fando
Affiliation:
Centro de Ciencias Medioambientales (CSIC), Serrano 115 dpdo, E-28006 Madrid, Spain
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In a semiarid Mediterranean site in central Spain, field experiments were conducted on a Calcic Haploxeralf (noncalcic brown soil), which had been managed with three crop rotations and two tillage systems (no-tillage and conventional tillage) since 1987. The crop rotations consisted of barley→vetch, barley→sunflower, and a barley monoculture. The study took place in two growing seasons (1992–1994) to assess the effects of management practices on the weed seedbank. During this period, spring weed control was not carried out in winter crops. In the no-tillage system, there was a significant increase in the number of seeds of different weed species: anacyclus, common purslane, corn poppy, knotted hedge-parsley, mouse-ear cress, spring whitlowgrass, tumble pigweed, venus-comb, and Veronica triphyllos. Conversely, the presence of prostrate knotweed and wild radish was highest in plots under conventional tillage. These results suggest large differences in the weed seedbank as a consequence of different soil conditions among tillage systems, but also the necessity of spring weed control when a no-tillage system is used. With regard to crop rotations, the number of seeds of knotted hedge-parsley, mouse-ear cress, and spring whitlowgrass was greater in the plots under the barley→vetch rotation. Common lambsquarters dominated in the plots under the barley→sunflower rotation, whereas venus-comb was the most frequent weed in the barley monoculture. Larger and more diverse weed populations developed in the barley→vetch rotation rather than in the barley→sunflower rotation or the barley monoculture.

Keywords

Anacyclus, Anacyclus clavatus (Desf.) Pers. ANYCLcommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. CHEALcommon purslane, Portulaca oleracea L. POROLcorn poppy, Papaver rhoeas L. PAPRHknotted hedge-parsley, Torilis nodosa (L.) Gaertn TOINOmouse-ear cress, Arabidopsis thaliana (L.) Heynh. ARBTHprostrate knotweed, Polygonum aviculare L. POLAVspring whitlowgrass, Draba verna L. ERPVEtumble pigweed, Amaranthus albus L. AMAALvenus-comb, Scandix pecten-veneris L. SCAPVVeronica triphyllos L. VERTRwild radish, Raphanus raphanistrum L. RAPRAbarley, Hordeum vulgare L. ‘Aramir’sunflower, Helianthus annuus L. ‘Toledo 2’vetch, Vicia sativa L.Soil seedbankconservation tillagecereal cropsANYCLCHEALPOROLPAPRHTOINOARBTHPOLAVERPVEAMAALSCAPVVERTRRAPRA
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 47 , Issue 1 , February 1999 , pp. 67 - 73
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 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

Allmaras, R. R. and Dowdy, R. H. 1985. Conservation tillage systems and their adoption in the United States. Soil Tillage Res. 5: 197–222.Google Scholar
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. 1989. A comparison of techniques for estimation of arable soil seed banks and their relationship to weed flora. Weed Res. 29: 365–373.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
Blackshaw, R. E., Larney, F. O., Lindwall, C. W., and Kozub, G. C. 1994. Crop rotation and tillage effects on weed populations on the semiarid Canadian prairies. Weed Technol. 8: 231–237.Google Scholar
Brandt, C. A. and Richard, W. H. 1994. Alien taxa in the North American shrub-steppe four decades after cessation of livestock grazing and cultivation agriculture. Biol. Conserv. 68: 95–105.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D. 1992. Population dynamics and control of annual weeds in corn (Zea mays) as influenced by tillage systems. Weed Sci. 40: 241–248.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D., Stoltenberg, D. E., Becker, R. L., and Gunsolus, J. L. 1994. Perennial weed populations after 14 years of variable tillage and cropping practices. Weed Sci. 42: 205–209.Google Scholar
Cardina, J., Regnier, E., and Harrison, K. 1991. Long-term tillage effects on seed banks 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
Carretero, J. L. 1977. Estimación del contenido de semillas de malas hierbas de un suelo agrícola como predicción de su flora adventicia. An. Inst. Bot. Cavanilles 34: 267–278.Google Scholar
Chancellor, R. J. 1985. Changes in the weed flora of an arable field cultivated for 20 years. J. Appl. Ecol. 22: 491–501.Google Scholar
Chancellor, R. J. and Froud-Williams, R. J. 1986. Weed problems of the next decade in Britain. Crop Prot. 5: 66–72.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
Derksen, D. A., Lafond, G. P., Thomas, A. G., Loeppky, H. A., and Swanton, C. J. 1993. Impact of agronomic practices on weed communities: tillage systems. Weed Sci. 41: 409–417.Google Scholar
Dick, W. A. and Daniel, T. C. 1987. Soil chemical and biological properties as affected by conservation tillage: environmental implications. Pages 125–147 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
Froud-Williams, R. J., Chancellor, R. J., and Drennan, D.S.H. 1984. The effects of seed burial and soil disturbance on emergence and survival of arable weeds in relation to minimal cultivation. J. Appl. Ecol. 21: 629–641.Google Scholar
Kropac, Z. 1966. Estimation of weed seeds in arable soil. Pedobiologia 6: 105–128.Google Scholar
Liebman, M. and Dyck, E. 1993. Crop rotation and intercropping strategies for weed management. Ecol. Appl. 3: 92–122 Google Scholar
López-Fando, C. and Almendros, G. 1995. Interactive effects of tillage and crop rotations on yield and chemical properties of semiarid soils in Central Spain. Soil Tillage Res. 36: 45–57.Google Scholar
López-Fando, C. and Bello, A. 1995. Variability in soil nematode population due to tillage and crop rotation in semi arid Mediterranean agro-systems. Soil Tillage Res. 36: 59–72.Google Scholar
Macchia, M., Cozzani, A., and Bonari, E. 1996. Effetto della lavorazione principale sulla struttura e la dinamica della ‘seed bank’ in un avvicendamento frumento tenero (Triticum aestivum L.)-soia (Glycine max (L.) Merr.). Riv. Agron. 30: 136–141.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
Mohler, C. L. and Callaway, M. B. 1992. Effects of tillage and mulch on weed seed production and seed banks in sweet corn. J. Appl. Ecol. 32: 627–639.Google Scholar
Morris, P. J. and Parrish, D. J. 1992. Effects of sunflower residues and tillage on winter wheat. Field Crops Res. 29: 317–327.Google Scholar
Oryokot, J., Murphy, S. D., and Swanton, C. J. 1997. Effect of tillage and corn on pigweed (Amaranthus spp.) seedling emergence and density. Weed Sci. 45: 120–126.Google Scholar
Pita, J. M. and Durán, J. M. 1986. Germinación en el género Amaranthus L.: II. Papel del fitocromo en A. retroflexus L. Itea 63: 61–69.Google Scholar
Ross, M. A. and Lembi, C. A. 1985. Applied Weed Science. Minneapolis, MN: Burgess Publishing, pp 121–124.Google Scholar
Soil Survey Staff. 1975. Soil Taxonomy. A Basic System of Soil Classification for Making and Interpreting Soil Survey. Agricultural Handbook 436. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, pp 315–318.Google Scholar
Steel, R.G.D. and Torrie, J. H. 1985. Principles and Procedures of Statistics. A Biometrical Approach. New York: McGraw-Hill, pp 247–250.Google Scholar
Thomas, A. G. and Frick, L. B. 1993. Influence of tillage systems on weed abundance in South Western Ontario. Weed Technol. 7: 699–705.Google Scholar
Weaver, S. E. and McWilliams, E. L. 1990. The biology of Canadian weeds. 44 Amaranthus retroflexus L., A. powelii S. Wats, and A. hybridus L. Can. J. Plant Sci. 60: 1215–1234.Google Scholar
Wilson, P. J. 1991. “The Wild-Flower Project”: the conservation of endangered plants of arable fields. Pestic. Outlook 2: 30–34.Google Scholar
Zadoks, J. C., Change, T. T., and Konzak, C. R. 1974. A decimal code for the growth stages of cereals. Weed Res. 14: 415–421.Google Scholar