Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T15:47:35.475Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Relative influence of crop rotation, tillage, and weed management on weed associations in spring barley cropping systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Anne Légère  and
Nathalie Samson
Nathalie Samson
Affiliation:
226, Chemin des Granites, Lac Beauport QC, Canada G0A 2C0
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Generalizations concerning the effects of management practices on weed community dynamics often lack robustness, most likely because of the concomitant effects of agronomic and environmental factors. However, such generalizations, when valid, provide useful grounds for predictions and are thus desirable. This study attempted to evaluate the relative importance of crop rotation, tillage, and weed management as factors affecting weed communities and tested the hypothesis of an association between management practices and weeds from certain life cycle groups. Principal component analysis (PCA) of weed density data from a 4-yr field study conducted on a Kamouraska clay and a Saint-André gravelly sandy loam at La Pocatière QC, Canada, identified groups of weed species, while an analysis of variance (ANOVA) of PCA scores associated these groups with management factors. A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) of regression coefficients describing time courses of density for each species confirmed treatment effects. Species segregated roughly according to life cycles. Interactions among weed management intensity, tillage, and crop rotation mostly explained species dominance in the various cropping systems. A first group of species, mostly annual dicots, largely dominated in minimum weed management treatments; their relative importance in each rotation varied with their level of susceptibility to postemergence herbicides. A second group included annuals and perennials, whose commonality seemed to be their tolerance to herbicides; these species also had a particular affinity for chisel and no-till treatments. A third group was formed by perennial species, each with a different response to tillage. The tenuous correspondence between commonly used classification schemes and management factors suggests that other aspects of weed biology (e.g., seed size, dispersal, production, germination requirements, and seedbank longevity) should be considered when trying to explain and predict the presence and dominance of certain weed species with regard to management practices.

Keywords

Catchweed bedstraw, Galium aparine L. GALAPcommon chick-weed, Stellaria media (L.) Cyrillo STEMEcommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. CHEALcorn spurry, Spergula arvensis L. SPRARdandelion, Taraxacum officinale Weber in Wiggers TAROFfield horsetail, Equisetum arvense L. EQUARfield pennycress, Thlaspi arvense L. THLARquackgrass, Elytrigia repens (L.) Nevski AGRREred clover, Trifolium pratense L. TRFPRshepherdspurse, Capsella bursapastoris (L.) Medik CAPBPsmall forget-me-not, Myosotis laxa Lemh. MYOLAsmooth brome, Bromus inermis Leyss. BROINspring barley, Hordeum vulgare L. HORVXResidual weed communitiesconservation tillagereduced tillagechisel plow tillageno-tillcrop rotationweed management intensitylife cycleprincipal component analysisGALAPSTEMECHEALSPRARTAROFEQUARTHLARAGRRETRFPRCAPBPMYOLABROINHORVXPHLPRTRFREPOLCOOXAST
Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 47 , Issue 1 , February 1999 , pp. 112 - 122
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.)

Footnotes

For the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Government of Canada © Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada 1998

References

Literature Cited

Allen, O. B., Burton, J. M., and Holt, J. D. 1983. Analysis of repeated measurements using polynomial regression. J. Anim. Sci. 57: 765–770.Google Scholar
Bazzaz, F. A. 1996. Plant-plant interactions and successions change. Pages 128–146 in Plants in Changing Environments. Cambridge, Great Britain: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D. 1992. Populations dynamics and control of annual weeds in corn (Zea mays) as influenced by tillage systems. Weed Sci. 40: 241–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buhler, D. D. 1995. Influence of tillage systems on weed population dynamics and management in corn and soybean in the Central USA. Crop Sci. 35: 1247–1258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dale, M.R.T., Thomas, A. G., and John, E. A. 1992. Environmental factors including management practices as correlates of weed community composition in spring seeded crops. Can. J. Bot. 70: 1931–1939.Google Scholar
Derksen, D. A. 1996. Weed community ecology: tedious sampling or relevant science? A Canadian perspective. Phytoprotection 77: 29–39.CrossRefGoogle 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
Derksen, D. A., Thomas, A. G., Lafond, G. P., Loeppky, H. A., and Swanton, C. J. 1994. Impact of agronomic practices on weed communities: fallow within tillage systems. Weed Sci. 42: 184–194.Google Scholar
Derksen, D. A., Thomas, A. G., Lafond, G. P., Loeppky, H. A., and Swanton, C. J. 1995. Impact of post-emergence herbicides on weed community diversity within conservation-tillage systems. Weed Res. 35: 311–320.Google Scholar
Entz, M. H., Bullied, W. J., and Katepa-Mupondwa, F. 1995. Rotational benefits of forage crops in Canadian prairie cropping systems. J. Prod. Agric. 8: 521–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitter, A. H. and Peat, H. J. 1994. The ecological flora database. J. Ecol. 82: 415–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Froud-Williams, R. J. 1986. Changes in weed flora with different tillage and agronomic management systems. Pages 213–236 in Altieri, M. A. and Liebman, M., eds. Weed Management in Agroecosystems: Ecological Approaches. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Grime, J. P., Hodgson, J. G., and Hunt, R. 1988. Comparative Plant Ecology: A Functional Approach to Common British Species. London: Unwin Hyman. 742 p.Google Scholar
Haas, H. and Streibig, J. C. 1982. Changing patterns of weed distribution as a result of herbicide use and other agronomic factors. Pages 57–79 in LeBaron, H. M. and Gressel, J., eds. Herbicide Resistance in Plants. New York: J. Wiley.Google Scholar
House, G. J. and Brust, G. E. 1989. Ecology of low-input, no-tillage agroecosystems. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 27: 331–145.Google Scholar
Hume, L. 1982. The long-term effects of fertilizer application and three rotations on weed communities in wheat (after 21–22 years at Indian Head, Saskatchewan). Can. J. Plant Sci. 62: 741–750 Google Scholar
Hume, L. 1988. Long-term effects of 2,4-D applications on plants. II. Herbicide avoidance by Chenopodium album and Thlaspi arvense. Can. J. Bot. 66: 230–235.Google Scholar
Légère, A., Samson, N., Rioux, R., Angers, D. A., and Simard, R. R. 1997. Response of spring barley to crop rotation, conservation tillage and weed management intensity. Agron. J. 89: 628–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liebman, M., Drummond, F. A., Corson, S., and Zhang, J. 1996. Tillage and rotation effects on weed dynamics in potato production systems. Agron. J. 88: 18–26.Google Scholar
Liebman, M. and Dyck, E. 1993. Crop rotation and intercropping strategics for weed management. Ecol. Appl. 3: 92–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCloskey, M., Firbank, L. G., Watkinson, A. R., and Webb, D. J. 1996. The dynamics of experimental arable weed communities under different management practices. J. Veg. Sci. 7: 799–808.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pallut, B. 1993. Population dynamics and competition of weeds depending on crop rotation and mechanical control measures in cereals. Pages 1197–1204 in Brighton Crop Protection Conference—Weeds. Farnham, Great Britain: British Crop Protection Council.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1982. SAS User's Guide. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute.Google Scholar
Shimwell, D. W. 1971. The physiognomic, functional and structural bases of vegetation description. Pages 63–120 in The Description and Classification of Vegetation. Seattle: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
Stevenson, F. C., Légère, A., Simard, R. R., Angers, D. A., Pageau, D., and Lafond, J. 1998. Manure, tillage and crop rotation: effects on residual weed interference in spring barley cropping systems. Agron. J. 90: 496–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swanton, C. J., Clements, D. R., and Derksen, D. A. 1993. Weed succession under conservation tillage: a hierarchical framework for research and management. Weed Technol. 7: 286–297.Google Scholar
Tabachnick, B. G. and Fidell, L. S. 1996. Using Multivariate Statistics. 3rd ed. New York: HarperCollins. 880 p.Google Scholar
Triplett, G. B. 1985. Principles of weed control for reduced-tillage corn production. Pages 26–40 in Wiese, A. F., ed. Weed Control Limited Tillage Systems. Lawrence, KS: Weed Science Society of America.Google Scholar
von Ende, C. N. 1993. Repeated-measures analysis: growth and other time-dependent measures. Pages 113–137 in Scheiner, S. M. and Gurevitch, J., eds. Design and Analysis of Ecological Experiments. New York: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
Watson, P. W., Derksen, D. A., Thomas, A. G., Légère, A., Turnbull, G. C. Van Acker, R., and Kenkel, N. C. 1998. Towards an Understanding of the Nature and Role of Plant Functional Types in Weed Ecology. Annual Meeting, Canadian Botanical Association, Saskatoon. p. 36. [Abstract]Google Scholar
Wrucke, M. A. and Arnold, W. E. 1985. Weed species distribution as influenced by tillage and herbicides. Weed Sci. 33: 853–856.Google Scholar