Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T04:54:31.488Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Impact of Agronomic Practices on Weed Communities: Fallow Within Tillage Systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Douglas A. Derksen ,
A. Gordon Thomas ,
Guy P. Lafond ,
Heather A. Loeppky  and
Clarence J. Swanton
Douglas A. Derksen
Affiliation:
Agric. Canada, Box 760, Indian Head, SK, S0G 2K0
A. Gordon Thomas
Affiliation:
Agric. Canada, Box 440, Regina, SK, S4P 3A2
Guy P. Lafond
Affiliation:
Agric. Canada, Box 760, Indian Head, SK, SOG 2K0
Heather A. Loeppky
Affiliation:
Agric. Canada, Box 1240, Melfort, SK S0E 1A0
Clarence J. Swanton
Affiliation:
Univ. Guelph, Guelph, ON, NIG 2W1
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Continuous-cropping conservation tillage systems may provide a viable alternative to the practice of summer fallow; however, concerns have been raised regarding potentially negative changes in weed communities in continuous cropping. Field experiments were established in Saskatchewan at three locations to determine the nature of weed community differences between a crop sequence with and without fallow in zero-, minimum-, and conventional-tillage systems from 1986 to 1990. Weed communities in continuous-cropping treatments tended to have greater total densities and were more similar in composition than crop-fallow treatments. Inclusion or exclusion of fallow within the rotation had a greater impact on weed community composition than did tillage system at Ituna and Waldron, but the reverse was true at Tadmore due to poor crop growth in all tillage systems. Differences in weed community composition were generally characterized by fluctuational changes in species associations. Volunteers of summer-annual crops, such as canola, flax, and barley, were associated with continuous cropping, but other species including perennial weeds, such as Canada thistle, perennial sowthistle, and quackgrass, were not strongly associated with the presence or absence of fallow. The practice of fallowing land to manage weeds may not be necessary.

Keywords

Canada thistle, Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop. # CIRARperennial sowthistle, Sonchus arvensis L. # SONARquackgrass, Elytrigia repens (L.) Nevski # AGRREBarley, Hordeum vulgare L. # HORVXcanola, Brassica napus L. # BRSNSflax, Linum usitatissimum L. # LINUSZero tillageminimum tillagesummer fallowcanonical discriminant analysis
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 42 , Issue 2 , June 1994 , pp. 184 - 194
Copyright
Copyright © 1994 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

1. Aldrich, R. J. 1984. Weed-Crop Ecology. Breton Publishers, North Scituate, MA. Pages 378–391.Google Scholar
2. Best, K. F., Banting, J. D., and Bowes, G. G. 1979. The biology of Canadian Weeds. 31. Hordeum jubatum L. Can. J. Plant Sci. 58:699–708.Google Scholar
3. Brandt, S. A. 1989. Zero till vs conventional tillage with two rotations: crop production over the last 10 years. Pages 330–338 in Soils and Crops Workshop, Saskatoon. Feb. 16–17. Univ. Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK.Google Scholar
4. Campbell, C. A., Zentner, R. P., Janzen, H. H., and Bowren, K. E. 1990. Crop rotation studies on the Canadian prairies. Agric. Can. Publ. 1841. Ottawa, ON. 133 pp.Google Scholar
5. Cavers, P. B. and Benoit, D. L. 1989. Seed banks in arable land. Pages 309–328 in Leck, M. A., Parker, V. T., and Simpson, R. L., eds. Ecology of Soil Seed Banks. Academic Press, San Diego.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Champlin, M. 1925. Crop rotation problems in Saskatchewan. Agron. J. 11:646–650.Google Scholar
7. Crosson, P. R. and Rosenberg, N. J. 1989. Strategies for Agriculture. Sci. Am. 261:128–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. De Jong, R. and Bootsma, A. 1988. Estimated long-term soil moisture variability on the Canadian prairies. Can. J. Soil Sci. 68:307–321.Google Scholar
9. Derksen, D. A., Lafond, G. P., Thomas, A. G., Loeppky, H. A., and Swanton, C. J. 1993. The impact of agronomic practices on weed communities: tillage systems. Weed Sci. 41:409–417.Google Scholar
10. Donaghy, D. I. 1980. Zero tillage in relation to Canada thistle. Pages 87–90 in Proc. Canada thistle symp. Agric. Can., Regina, SK.Google Scholar
11. Dormaar, J. F. 1979. Organic matter characteristics of undisturbed and cultivated chernozemic and solonetzic A horizons. Can. J. Soil Sci. 59:349–356.Google Scholar
12. Froud-Williams, R. J. 1988. 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. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.Google Scholar
13. 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
14. Klecka, W. R. 1980. Discriminant Analysis. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA. 70 pp.Google Scholar
15. Lafond, G. P., Derksen, D. A., Loeppky, H. A., and Struthers, D. 1994. An agronomic evaluation of conservation tillage systems and continuous cropping in east central Saskatchewan. J. Soil Water Conserv. (in press).Google Scholar
16. Najda, H. G., Darwent, A. L., and Hamilton, G. 1982. The biology of Canadian weeds. 54. Crepis tectorum L. Can. J. Plant Sci. 62:473–481.Google Scholar
17. Pierce, J. T. and Stathers, R. J. 1988. Environmental impacts on cereal grain production in the Canadian prairie provinces: a growth constraint model. Agric. Ecosyst. & Environ. 21:225–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Regnier, E. E. and Janke, R. R. 1990. Evolving strategies for managing weeds. Pages 174–202 in Edwards, C. A., Lal, R., Madden, P., Miller, R. H., and House, G., eds. Sustainable Agricultural Systems. Soil and Water Conserv. Soc., IA.Google Scholar
19. Agriculture, Saskatchewan. 1990. Chemical Weed Control in Cereal, Oilseed, Pulse and Forage Crops. Regina, SK. 112 pp.Google Scholar
20. Ter Braak, C. J. F. 1987. Ordination. Pages 91–173 in Jongman, R. H., Ter Braak, C. J. F., and Van Tongeren, O. F. R., eds. Data Analysis in Community and Landscape Ecology. Pudoc. Wageningen.Google Scholar
21. Thomas, A. G. 1985. Weed survey system used in Saskatchewan for cereal and oilseed crops. Weed Sci. 33:34–43.Google Scholar
22. University of Saskatchewan. Guide to Farm Practice in Saskatchewan. 1987. Univ. Saskatchewan Div. of Ext. and Community Relations, Saskatoon, SK. 240 pp.Google Scholar
23. Walker, R. H. and Buchanan, G. A. 1982. Crop manipulation in integrated weed management systems. Weed Sci. 30(Suppl): 17–24.Google Scholar
24. Wicks, G. A. 1986. Substitutes for tillage on the great plains. Pages 183–196 in Sprague, Milton A. and Triplett, Glover B., eds. No-Tillage and Surface-Tillage Agriuclture. John Wiley and Sons, Toronto.Google Scholar