Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T20:38:52.790Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Broadbalk long-term experiment at Rothamsted: what has it told us about weeds?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Stephen R. Moss ,
Jonathan Storkey ,
John W. Cussans ,
Sarah A. M. Perryman  and
Michael V. Hewitt
Jonathan Storkey
Affiliation:
Rothamsted Research, Harpenden, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom AL5 2JQ
John W. Cussans
Affiliation:
Rothamsted Research, Harpenden, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom AL5 2JQ
Sarah A. M. Perryman
Affiliation:
Rothamsted Research, Harpenden, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom AL5 2JQ
Michael V. Hewitt
Affiliation:
Rothamsted Research, Harpenden, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom AL5 2JQ
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Broadbalk experiment was started in 1843 to investigate the relative importance of different plant nutrients (N, P, K, Na, Mg) on grain yield of winter wheat. Weeds were controlled initially by hand hoeing and fallowing, but since 1964, herbicides have been applied to the whole experiment with the exception of the 18 plots on Section 8. Approximately 130 weed species have been recorded on Broadbalk and about 30 of these are currently recorded annually on Section 8. Detailed weed surveys, conducted from 1930 to 1979, provide a unique 50-yr record, but the relatively small number of frequency categories used (six) poses a limitation on the interpretation of these data for ecological studies. Weed surveys were restarted in 1991 on Section 8. The current assessment method records the presence of individual weed species in 25 random 0.1-m2 quadrats per plot, which is more appropriate for detecting long-term trends in weed frequencies and population differences between plots. A principal components analysis of the 1991–2002 survey data for 15 species showed clearly the influence of inorganic N fertilizer levels on the frequency of individual species. The frequency of one species (common chickweed) was greatly favored by increasing amounts of nitrogen fertilizer from 0 to 288 kg N ha−1, others were strongly disadvantaged (e.g., black medic and field horsetail), some were slightly disadvantaged (e.g., common vetch and parsley-piert), and some showed little response to differing N rates (e.g., blackgrass and corn poppy). Other weed investigations include studies on the effects of fallowing on the weed seed bank, seed dormancy and persistence, agroecology, and population dynamics of individual weed species. Recently, molecular approaches have been used to study the genetic diversity of weeds found on Section 8, which is one of the few arable sites in the country where herbicides have never been applied. This site also provides an invaluable reserve for seven nationally rare or uncommon species. Broadbalk continues to act as a valuable resource for weed investigations 160 yr after it was established.

Keywords

Black medic, Medicago lupulina L. MEDLUblackgrass, Alopecurus myosuroides Huds. ALOMYcommon chickweed, Stellaria media (L.) Vill. STEMEcommon vetch, Vicia sativa L. VICSAcorn poppy, Papaver rhoeas L. PAPRHfield horsetail, Equisetum arvense L. EQUARparsley-piert, Aphanes arvensis L. APHARwheat, Triticum aestivum L.Fallowingnitrogen fertilizergenetic diversity
Type
Symposium
Information
Weed Science , Volume 52 , Issue 5 , October 2004 , pp. 864 - 873
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

Bawden, F. C. 1969. The Broadbalk Wheat Experiment. Harpenden, U.K.: Rothamsted Experimental Station Rep. for 1968, Part 2. 215 p.Google Scholar
Brenchley, W. E. 1913. The weeds of arable land III. Ann. Bot 27:141–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brenchley, W. E. 1915. Weeds on arable land and their suppression. J. R. Agric. Soc. Engl 76:14–37.Google Scholar
Brenchley, W. E. 1917. The effect of weeds upon cereal crops. New Phytol 16:53–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brenchley, W. E. 1918. Buried weed seeds. J. Agric. Sci 9:1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brenchley, W. E. 1924–1925. Spraying for weed eradication. J. Bath West South. Counties Soc 14:1–20.Google Scholar
Brenchley, W. E. and Warington, K. 1930. The weed seed populations of arable soil. I. Numerical estimation of viable seeds and observations on their natural dormancy. J. Ecol 18:235–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brenchley, W. E. and Warington, K. 1933. The weed seed populations of arable soil. II. Influence of crop, soil and methods of cultivation upon the relative abundance of viable seeds. J. Ecol 21:103–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brenchley, W. E. and Warington, K. 1936. The weed seed populations of arable soil. III. The re-establishment of weed species after reduction by fallowing. J. Ecol 24:479–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brenchley, W. E. and Warington, K. 1945. The influence of periodic fallowing on the prevalence of viable weed seeds in arable soil. Ann. Appl. Biol 32:285–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cavan, G., Potier, V., and Moss, S. 2000. Genetic diversity of weeds growing in continuous wheat. Weed Res 40:301–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chancellor, R. J. 1966. The Identification of Weed Seedlings of Farm and Garden. Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell Scientific. 88 p.Google Scholar
Dyke, G. V. 1993. John Lawes of Rothamsted, Pioneer of Science, Farming and Industry. Harpenden, U.K.: Hoos. 234 p.Google Scholar
Firbank, L. G. 1993. Short-term variability of plant populations within a regularly disturbed habitat. Oecologia 94:351–355.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fisher, R. A. 1930. The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. Oxford, U.K.: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freckleton, R. P. and Watkinson, A. R. 2002. Are weed population dynamics chaotic? J. Appl. Ecol 39:699–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garner, H. V. 1957. Alternate Wheat and Fallow, Hoosfield. Harpenden, U.K.: Rothamsted Experimental Station Rep. for 1956. Pp. 184–187.Google Scholar
Goulding, K. W. T., Poulton, P. R., Webster, C. P., and Howe, M. T. 2000. Nitrate leaching from the Broadbalk wheat experiment, Rothamsted, U.K., as influenced by fertilizer and manure inputs and the weather. Soil Use Manag 16:244–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grime, J. P., Hodgson, J. G., and Hunt, R. 1988. Comparative Plant Ecology. London: Unwin Hyman. 742 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harmer, R., Peterken, G., Kerr, G., and Poulton, P. 2001. Vegetation changes during 100 years of development of two secondary woodlands on abandoned arable land. Biol. Conserv 101:291–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jenkinson, D. S. 1991. The Rothamsted long-term experiments: are they still of use? Agron. J 83:2–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, A. E. 1994. The Rothamsted classical experiments. Pages 9–37 in Leigh, R. A. and Johnston, A. E. eds. Long-Term Experiments in Agricultural and Ecological Sciences. Wallingford, U.K.: CAB International.Google Scholar
Johnston, A. E. and Garner, H. V. 1969. Broadbalk: Historical Introduction. Harpenden, U.K.: Rothamsted Experimental Station Rep. for 1968, Part 2. Pp. 12–25.Google Scholar
Johnston, A. E. and Poulton, P. R. 1977. Yields on the Exhaustion Land and Changes in the NPK Content of the Soil Due to Cropping and Manuring. Harpenden, U.K.: Rothamsted Experimental Station Rep. for 1956, Part 2. Pp. 53–85.Google Scholar
Jornsgard, B., Rasmussen, K., Hill, J., and Christiansen, J. L. 1996. Influence of nitrogen on competition between cereals and their natural weed populations. Weed Res 36:461–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, T. L. 1992. 150 Years of research at Rothamsted: practice with science exemplified. J. R. Agric. Soc. Engl 153:107–118.Google Scholar
McEwen, J., Johnston, A. E., Poulton, P. D., and Yeoman, D. P. 1984. Rothamsted Garden Clover—Red Clover Grown Continuously Since 1854. Harpenden, U.K.: Rothamsted Experimental Station Rep. for 1983. Pp. 225–235.Google Scholar
Payne, R. W., Lane, P. W., and Ainsley, A. E. 1987. Genstat 5 Reference Manual. Oxford, U.K.: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Poulton, P. R., Pye, E., Hargreaves, P. R., and Jenkinson, D. S. 2003. Accumulation of carbon and nitrogen by old arable land reverting to woodland. Glob. Change Biol 9:942–955.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Preston, C. D., Pearman, D. A., and Dines, T. D. 2002. New Atlas of the British and Irish Flora. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press. 910 p.Google Scholar
Silvertown, J., McConway, K. J., Hughes, Z., Biss, P., Macnair, M., and Lutman, P. 2002. Ecological and genetic correlates of long-term population trends in the Park Grass experiment. Am. Nat 160:409–420.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stewart, A., Pearman, D. A., and Preston, C. D. 1994. Scarce plants in Britain. Peterborough, U.K.: Joint Nature Conservation Committee.Google Scholar
Thurston, J. M. 1963. Biology and Control of Wild-Oats. Harpenden, U.K.: Rothamsted Experimental Station Rep. for 1962. Pp. 236–253.Google Scholar
Thurston, J. M. 1969. Weed Studies on Broadbalk. Harpenden, U.K.: Rothamsted Experimental Station Rep. for 1968, Part 2. Pp. 186–208.Google Scholar
Thurston, J. M. 1972. Black-grass (Alopecurus myosuroides) and its control. Pages 977–987 in Proceedings of the 11th British Weed Control Conference. Volume 3. Farnham, U.K.: British Crop Protection Council.Google Scholar
Tilman, D., Dodd, M. E., Silvertown, J., Poulton, P. R., Johnston, A. E., and Crawley, M. J. 1994. The Park Grass experiment: insights from the most long-term ecological study. Pages 287–303 in Leigh, R. A. and Johnston, A. E. eds. Long-term Experiments in Agricultural and Ecological Sciences. Wallingford, U.K.: CAB International.Google Scholar
Warington, K. 1924. The influence of manuring on the weed flora of arable land. J. Ecol 12:111–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warington, K. 1936. The effects of constant and fluctuating temperatures on the germination of weed seeds in arable soil. J. Ecol 24:185–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warington, K. 1958. Changes in the weed flora on Broadbalk permanent wheat field during the period 1930–55. J. Ecol 46:101–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warren, R. G. and Johnston, A. E. 1962. Barnfield. Harpenden, U.K.: Rothamsted Experimental Station Rep. for 1961. Pp. 227–247.Google Scholar
Warren, R. G. and Johnston, A. E. 1967. Hoosfield Continuous Barley. Harpenden, U.K.: Rothamsted Experimental Station Rep. for 1966. Pp. 320–338.Google Scholar
Warwick, S. I. 1990. Genetic variation in weeds. Pages 3–18 in Kawano, S. ed. Biological Approaches and Evolutionary Trends in Plants. London: Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, P., Kay, S., Philips, J., and Lock, L. 1999. Auditing the arable flora— problems and some possible solutions. Pages 823–828 in Proceedings of the 1999 Brighton Conference—Weeds. Volume 3. Farnham, U.K.: British Crop Protection Council.Google Scholar
Wilson, P. J. 1990. The Ecology and Conservation of Rare Arable Weed Species and Communities. . University of Southampton, Southampton, U.K. Google Scholar
Wilson, P. J. 1999. Space for endangered plants in arable landscapes. Pages 273–278 in Proceedings of the 1999 Brighton Conference—Weeds. Volume 1. Farnham, U.K.: British Crop Protection Council.Google Scholar