Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T06:54:34.508Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Management in a modified no-tillage corn–soybean–wheat rotation influences weed population and community dynamics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Clarence J. Swanton ,
Barbara D. Booth ,
Kevin Chandler ,
David R. Clements  and
Anil Shrestha
Barbara D. Booth
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada
Kevin Chandler
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada
David R. Clements
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, Trinity Western University, Langley, BC V2Y 1Y1, Canada
Anil Shrestha
Affiliation:
Kearney Agricultural Center, University of California, Parlier, CA 93648
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Conservation tillage systems, such as no-tillage, are ecologically advantageous because they reduce soil erosion; however, they rely heavily on herbicide use. Our goal was to determine how weed communities of no-tillage systems are affected when the system is modified to reduce herbicide use through a combination of banded herbicides and interrow cultivation. To this end, we conducted a 9-yr study in a no-tillage corn–soybean–winter wheat rotation. All management systems had a preplant application of glyphosate, followed by either broadcast PRE herbicides (conventional no-tillage), interrow cultivation with banded PRE herbicides, or interrow cultivation alone. Aboveground weed densities were assessed each year and data were grouped into early (1991 to 1993) and late (1996 to 1998) time periods. Over time, weed communities became more distinct, showing a strong response to management and crop. In the early years, weed communities separated more in response to management than crop. In the late years, this was reversed. Weed communities in systems with interrow cultivation were more diverse than those in conventional no-tillage. The response to weed management system and crop was species specific. For example, the abundance of yellow foxtail was higher when interrow cultivation was employed, but abundance was equal in all crops. Dandelion was more abundant in conventional no-tillage of corn and soybean; however, it was equally abundant in all management systems in wheat. Seed bank species richness increased over time and was highest in systems with interrow cultivation. Herbicide use can be reduced in a modified no-tillage corn–soybean–wheat rotation by incorporating interrow cultivation, with or without banded herbicides, into the management plan. The weed community trajectory changes, and the weed community becomes more diverse. A more diverse weed community will not necessarily alter how we manage weeds.

Keywords

Glyphosateyellow foxtail, Setaria glauca (L.) Beauv.dandelion, Taraxacum officinale Webercorn, Zea mays L.soybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr.wheat, Triticum aestivum L.Banded herbicidesinterrow cultivationlong-term crop rotationssustainable cropping systemsweed community dynamics
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 54 , Issue 1 , February 2006 , pp. 47 - 58
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

Baker, C. J., Saxton, K. E., and Richie, W. R. 1996. No-tillage Seeding: Science and Practice. Oxon, UK: CAB International. P. 272.Google Scholar
Ball, D. A. and Miller, S. D. 1989. A comparison of techniques for estimation of arable soil seedbanks and their relationship to weed flora. Weed Res 29:365–373.Google Scholar
Bàrberi, P., Silvestri, N., and Bonari, D. E. 1997. Weed communities of winter wheat as influenced by input level and rotation. Weed Res 37:301–313.Google Scholar
Bassett, I. J. and Crompton, C. W. 1978. The biology of Canadian weeds, 32: Chenopodium album L. Can. J. Plant Sci 58:1061–1072.Google Scholar
Booth, B. D. and Swanton, C. J. 2002. Assembly theory applied to weed communities. Weed Sci 50:2–13.Google Scholar
Bugg, R. L. 1992. Using cover crops to manage arthropods on truck farms. Hortscience 27:741–745.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., Webster, T. M., Herms, C. P., and Regnier, E. E. 1999. Development of weed IPM: levels of integration for weed management. J. Crop Prod 2:239–267.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
Clements, D. R., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1994. Integrated weed management and weed species diversity. Phytoprotection 75:1–18.Google Scholar
Coffman, C. A. and Frank, J. R. 1991. Weed-crop responses to weed management systems in conservation tillage corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol 5:76–81.Google Scholar
Cromar, H. E., Murphy, S. D., and Swanton, C. J. 1999. Influence of tillage and crop residue on post-dispersal predation of weed seeds. Weed Sci 47:184–194.Google Scholar
Day, J. C., Hallahan, C. B., Sandretto, C. L., and Lindamood, W. A. 1999. Pesticide use in U.S. corn production: Does conservation tillage make a difference? J. Soil Water Conserv 54:477–484.Google Scholar
de La Fuente, E. B., Suárez, S. A., Ghersa, C. M., and León, R. J. C. 1999. Soybean weed communities: relationship with cultural history and corn yield. Agron. J 91:234–241.Google Scholar
Derksen, D. A. 1996. Weed community ecology: tedious sampling or relevant Science? Phytoprotection 77:29–39.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
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
Donald, W. W., Kitchen, N. R., and Sudduth, K. A. 2001. Between-row mowing + banded herbicide to control annual weeds and reduce herbicide use in no-till soybean (Glycine max) and corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol 15:675–584.Google Scholar
Eadie, A., Swanton, C. J., Shaw, J., and Anderson, G. W. 1992. Integration of cereal cover crops in ridge-tillage corn production. Weed Technol 6:553–560.Google Scholar
Feldmann, F. and Boyle, C. 1999. Weed-mediated stability of arbuscular mycorrhizal effectiveness in maize monocultures. J. Appl. Bot 73:1–5.Google Scholar
Forcella, F., Wilson, R. G., and Decker, J. et al. 1997. Weed seed bank emergence across the Corn Belt. Weed Sci 45:67–76.Google Scholar
Frick, B. L. and Thomas, A. G. 1993. Influence of tillage systems on weed abundance in southwestern Ontario. Weed Technol 7:699–705.Google Scholar
Grime, J. P. 1979. Plant Strategies and Vegetational Processes. Toronto: J. Wiley. P. 42.Google Scholar
Grubb, P. J. 1977. The maintenance of species-richness in plant communities: the importance of the regeneration niche. Biol. Rev 52:107–145.Google Scholar
Hellwig, K. B., Johnson, W. G., and Massey, R. E. 2003. Weed management and economic returns in no-tillage herbicide-resistant corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol 17:239–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooker, D. C., Vyn, T. J., and Swanton, C. J. 1997. Effectiveness of soil applied herbicides with mechanical weed control for conservation tillage systems in soybean. Agron. J 89:579–587.Google Scholar
House, G. J. and Brust, G. E. 1989. Ecology of low-input, no-tillage agroecosystems. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ 27:331–345.Google Scholar
Hyvönen, T. and Salonen, J. 2002. Weed species diversity and community composition in cropping practices at two intensity levels—a six-year experiment. Plant Ecology 154:73–81.Google Scholar
Jordan, N. and Vatovec, C. 2003. Agroecological benefits from weeds. Pages 137–158 in Inderjit, ed. Weed Biology and Management. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Kegode, G. O., Forcella, F., and Clay, S. 1999. Influence of crop rotation, tillage, and management inputs on weed seed production. Weed Sci 47:175–183.Google Scholar
Leeson, J. Y., Sheard, J. W., and Thomas, A. G. 2000. Weed communities associated with arable Saskatchewan farm management systems. Can. J. Plant Sci 80:177–185.Google Scholar
Légère, A. and Samson, D. N. 1999. Relative influence of crop rotation, tillage, and weed management on weed associations in spring barley cropping systems. Weed Sci 47:112–122.Google Scholar
Liebman, M., Bastiaans, L., and Baumann, D. T. 2004. Weed management in low-external input and organic farming systems. Pages 285–315 in Inderjit, ed. Weed Biology and Management. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Liebman, M. and Mohler, C. L. 2001. Weeds and the soil environment. Pages 210–268 in Liebman, M., Mohler, C. L., and Staver, C. P. eds. Ecological Management of Agricultural Weeds. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University.Google Scholar
Maxwell, B. D. and Luschei, E. 2004. The ecology of weed–crop interactions: towards a more complete model of weed communities in agroecosystems. J. Crop Improvement 11:137–152.Google Scholar
McIntyre, S. and Lavorel, S. 2001. Livestock grazing in subtropical pastures: steps in the analysis of attribute response and plant functional type. J. Ecol 89:209–226.Google Scholar
Norris, R. F. 1999. Ecological implications of using thresholds for weed management. J. Crop Prod 2:31–58.Google Scholar
Shrestha, A., Knezevic, S. Z., Roy, R. C., Ball-Coelho, B. R., and Swanton, C. J. 2002. Effect of tillage, cover crop and crop rotation on the composition of weed flora in a sandy soil. Weed Res 42:76–87.Google Scholar
Sturz, A. V., Matheson, B. G., Arsenault, W., Kimpinski, J., and Christie, B. R. 2001. Weeds as a source of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria in agricultural soils. Can. J. Microbiology 47:1013–1024.Google 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
Swanton, C. J. and Murphy, S. D. 1996. Weed Science, beyond the weeds: the role of integrated weed management (IWM) in agroecosystem health. Weed Sci 44:437–445.Google Scholar
Swanton, C. J., Shrestha, A., Clements, D. R., Booth, B. D., and Chandler, K. 2002. Evaluation of alternative weed management systems in a no-till corn–soybean–winter wheat rotation: Weed densities, crop yield, and economics. Weed Sci 50:504–511.Google Scholar
Swanton, C. J., Shrestha, A., Knezevic, S. Z., Roy, R. C., and Ball-Coelho, B. R. 1999. Effect of tillage systems, N, and cover crop on the composition of weed flora. Weed Sci 47:454–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuesca, D., Puricelli, E., and Papa, C. J. 2001. A long-term study of weed flora shifts in different tillage systems. Weed Res 41:369–382.Google Scholar
Verheyen, K., Honnay, O., Motzkin, G., Hermy, M., and Foster, D. R. 2003. Response of forest plant species to land-use change: a life-history trait-based approach. J. Ecol 91:563–577.Google Scholar
Weaver, S. E. and McWilliams, E. L. 1980. The biology of Canadian weeds. 44. Amaranthus retroflexus L., Amaranthus powellii S. Wats. and Amaranthus hybridus L. Can. J. Plant Sci 60:1215–1234.Google Scholar