Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T07:34:00.476Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A multistudy approach to understanding weed population shifts in medium- to long-term tillage systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

A. Gordon Thomas ,
Douglas A. Derksen ,
Robert E. Blackshaw ,
Rene C. Van Acker ,
Anne Légère ,
Paul R. Watson  and
Gary C. Turnbull
A. Gordon Thomas
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 107 Science Place, Saskatoon, SK S7N 0X2, Canada
Douglas A. Derksen
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, P.O. Box 1000A, RR#3, Brandon, MB R7A 5Y3, Canada
Rene C. Van Acker
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Science, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB R3T 2N2, Canada
Anne Légère
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 2560 boulevard Hochelaga, Sainte-Foy, QC G1V 2J3, Canada
Paul R. Watson
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, P.O. Box 1000A, RR#3, Brandon, Canada MB R7A 5Y3
Gary C. Turnbull
Affiliation:
Dow AgroSciences Canada, 39 Scurfield Boulevard, Winnipeg, MB R3Y 1G4, Canada
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Production systems based on reduced-tillage practices account for over 60% of the cropped land on the Canadian Prairies. Concerns have been expressed regarding potential shifts in weed communities as a result of changing tillage practices. Study objectives were to (1) determine the feasibility of combining and analyzing weed abundance data from 10 medium- to long-term studies on the Canadian Prairies that compared conventional-, reduced-, and zero-tillage systems, (2) identify species that are associated with specific tillage systems, and (3) place species into plant response groups according to the similarity of their tillage system response. Conventional-tillage systems were defined as including both a fall and spring sweep-plow operation before seeding spring crops, whereas reduced tillage consisted of only one sweep-plow operation shortly before seeding. Crops within zero-tillage systems were planted directly into the previous crop's stubble. The association between weed species and tillage systems was investigated using indicator species analysis. Species were assigned to tillage response groups on the basis of the results of the analysis and the expertise of the project scientists. Perennial species such as Canada thistle and perennial sowthistle were associated with reduced- and zero-tillage systems, but annual species were associated with a range of tillage systems. Field pennycress was placed in the conventional-tillage response group, Russian thistle in the zero-tillage group, and wild buckwheat and common lambsquarters were equally abundant in all tillage systems. The goal of classifying weed species based on common functional traits in relation to responses to tillage systems was not realized, in part, because the required information on species biology and ecology was either unavailable or not applicable to local conditions.

Keywords

Canada thistle, Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop. CIRARcommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. CHEALfield pennycress, Thlaspi arvense L. THLARperennial sowthistle, Sonchus arvensis L. SONARRussian thistle, Salsola iberica Sennen & Pau SASKRwild buckwheat, Polygonum convolvulus L. POLCOIndicator species analysisplant functional groupsreduced tillageweed communities
Type
Symposium
Information
Weed Science , Volume 52 , Issue 5 , October 2004 , pp. 874 - 880
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

Arft, A. M., Walker, M. D., and Gurevitch, J. et al. 1999. Responses of tundra plants to experimental warming: meta-analysis of the international tundra experiment. Ecol. Monogr 69:491–511.Google Scholar
Arnqvist, G. and Wooster, D. 1995. Meta-analysis: synthesizing research findings in ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol. Evol 10:236–240.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
[ASAE] American Society of Agricultural Engineers. 2004. Terminology and definitions for soil tillage and soil-tool relationships. Pages 115–118 in ASAE Standards EP291.2 FEB04. St. Joseph, MI: ASAE.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E., Larney, F. J., Lindwall, C. W., Watson, P. R., and Derksen, D. A. 2001. Tillage intensity and crop rotation affects weed community dynamics in a winter wheat cropping system. Can. J. Plant Sci 81:805–813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E., Thomas, A. G., Derksen, D. A., Moyer, J. R., Watson, P. R., Légère, A., and Turnbull, G. C. 2004. Examining tillage and crop rotation effects on weed populations on the Canadian Prairies. in Singh, H. P., Batish, D. R., and Kohli, R. K., eds. Handbook of Sustainable Weed Management. Binghamton, NY: Haworth. In press.Google 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
Cardina, J., Regnier, E., and Harrison, K. 1991. Long-term tillage effects on seed banks in three Ohio soils. Weed Sci 39:186–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derksen, D. A., Anderson, R. L., Blackshaw, R. E., and Maxwell, B. 2002. Weed dynamics and management strategies for cropping systems in the northern Great Plains. Agron. J 94:174–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derksen, D. A., Thomas, A. G., Lafond, G. P., Loeppky, H. A., and Swanton, C. J. 1994. The impact of agronomic practices on weed communities: fallow within tillage systems. Weed Sci 42:184–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derksen, D. A., Watson, P. R., and Loeppky, H. A. 1998. Weed community composition in seedbanks, seedling, and mature plant communities in a multi-year trial in western Canada. Pages 43–50 in Champion, G. T., Grundy, A. C., Jones, N. E., Marshall, E.J.P., and Froud-Williams, R. J. eds. Aspects of Applied Biology 51, Weed Seedbanks: Determination, Dynamics & Manipulation. Wellesbourne, U.K.: Association of Applied Biologists.Google Scholar
Dufrêne, M. and Legendre, P. 1997. Species assemblages and indicator species: the need for a flexible asymmetrical approach. Ecol. Monogr 67:345–366.Google Scholar
Ecological Stratification Working Group. 1995. A National Ecological Framework for Canada. Hull, QC, Canada: Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Research Branch, Centre for Land and Biological Resources Research and Environment Canada, State of the Environment Directorate, Ecozone Analysis Branch. 125 p.Google Scholar
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. Boca Raton, FL: CRC.Google Scholar
Gitay, H. and Noble, I. R. 1997. What are functional types and how should we seek them. Pages 3–19 in Smith, T. M., Shugart, H. H., and Woodward, F. I. eds. Plant Functional Types—Their Relevance to Ecosystem Properties and Global Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gurevitch, J., Curtis, P. S., and Jones, M. H. 2001. Meta-analysis in ecology. Adv. Ecol. Res 32:200–247.Google Scholar
Hakansson, S. 2003. Weeds and Weed Management on Arable Land—An Ecological Approach. Oxon, U.K.: CABI. Pp. 193–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leeson, J. Y., Thomas, A. G., and Brenzil, C. A. 2003. Saskatchewan Weed Survey of Cereal, Oilseed and Pulse Crops in 2003. Weed Survey Series Publ. 03-1. Saskatoon, SK, Canada: Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. 342 p.Google Scholar
Leeson, J. Y., Thomas, A. G., and Hall, L. M. 2002. Alberta Weed Survey of Cereal, Oilseed and Pulse Crops in 2001. Weed Survey Series Publ. 02-1. Saskatoon, SK, Canada: Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. 263 p.Google Scholar
Légère, A. and Samson, N. 1999. Relative influence of crop rotation, tillage, and weed management on weed associations in spring barley cropping systems. Weed Sci 47:112–122.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
McCune, B. and Grace, J. B. 2002. Analysis of Ecological Communities. Gleneden Beach, OR: MjM Software Design. Pp. 198–204.Google Scholar
McCune, B. and Mefford, M. J. 1999. PC-ORD. Multivariate Analysis of Ecological Data. Version 4. Gleneden Beach, OR: MjM Software Design. Pp. 202–206.Google Scholar
Moss, S. R., Storkey, J., Cussans, J. W., Perryman, S. A. M., and Hewitt, M. V. 2004. The Broadbank long-term experiment at Rothamsted: what has it told us about weeds? Weed Sci 52:876–885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moyer, J. R., Roman, R. S., Lindwall, C. W., and Blackshaw, R. E. 1994. Weed management in conservation tillage systems for wheat production in North and South America. Crop Prot 13:243–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osenberg, C. W., Sarnelle, O., Cooper, S. D., and Holt, R. D. 1999. Resolving ecological questions through meta-analysis: goals, metrics, and models. Ecology 80:1105–1117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Padbury, G., Waltman, S., Caprio, J., Coen, G., McGinn, S., Mortensen, D., Nielsen, G., and Sinclair, R. 2002. Agroecosystems and land resources of the northern Great Plains. Agron. J 94:251–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollard, F., Moss, S. R., Cussans, G. W., and Froud-Williams, R. J. 1982. The influence of tillage on the weed flora in a succession of winter wheat crops on a clay loam soil and a silt loam soil. Weed Res 22:129–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Semb Torresen, K., Skuterud, R., Tandsaether, H. J., and Bredesen Hagemo, M. 2003. Long-term experiments with reduced tillage in spring cereals. I. Effects on weed flora, weed seedbank and grain yield. Crop Prot 22:185–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skuterud, R., Semb, K., Saur, J., and Mygland, S. 1996. Impact of reduced tillage on the weed flora in spring cereals. Norwegian J. Agric. Sci 10:519–532.Google Scholar
Statistics Canada. 2002. Table 7—Tillage practices used to prepare land for seeding, by province, Census Agricultural Region (CAR) and Census Division (CD), 2001 in 2001 Census of Agriculture, Farm Data: Initial Release. Data: Tables. www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/95F0301XIE/tables/html/Table7Can.htm#46.Google Scholar
Teasdale, J. R., Beste, C. E., and Potts, W. E. 1991. Response of weeds to tillage and cover crop residue. Weed Sci 39:195–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, P. R., Derksen, D. A., and Thomas, A. G. et al. 2001. Weed Management and Ecology in Conservation-tillage Systems: Determination of Weed Community Changes in Conservation-tillage Systems. Weed Community Analysis Series. Publication Dow-2001-01. Brandon, MB, Canada: Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. 239 p.Google Scholar
Wiese, A. F. 1985. Weed Control in Limited-Tillage Systems. Mongraph No. 2. Champaign IL: Weed Science Society of America. 297 p.Google Scholar