Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T08:49:27.631Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Field Margin Weed-Species Diversity in Relation to Landscape Attributes and Adjacent Land Use

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Lynn M. Sosnoskie ,
Edward C. Luschei  and
Mark A. Fanning
Lynn M. Sosnoskie
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, WI 53706
Edward C. Luschei*
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, WI 53706
Mark A. Fanning
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, WI 53706
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The importance of managing weeds in seminatural habitats that are adjacent to farm fields is unclear. Weedy-margin vegetation may harbor pests or pathogens and may ALSo serve as source populations for ongoing immigration of weeds into the field. It is ALSo possible, however, that margin vegetation provides habitat for organisms that consume weed seeds or suppress the likelihood of pest or pathogen outbreak. We examined the nature of margin habitat using spatial-scaling of Weed-Species richness as an ecological assay. In 2003, we recorded the occurrence of weedy species along the perimeters of 63 fields in Wisconsin. The fields were distributed within six counties that differed in topography, geological history, local climate, and soil type and which spanned the range of variability in the agricultural landscape. We identified seven habitats that differed in geology and land use. The relationship between species richness and margin class was estimated using an analog of the power law. Additionally, we investigated broadscale correlates of habitat heterogeneity at the field level, using a modeling strategy that included additional explanatory factors logically connected to plant diversity. Using a model-confrontation approach, the survey supported the inclusion of two topographical diversity indices, elevation gradient and a field-shape index, into our model. Our broadscale survey provides information on one of a suite of important considerations needed to make decisions about the importance of managing weeds in field margins.

Keywords

Conservation valuefield marginlandscapepower lawspatial-scalingspecies-area relationweed diversity
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 55 , Issue 2 , April 2007 , pp. 129 - 136
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

Adler, P. N., White, E. P., Lauenroth, W. K., Kaufman, D. K., Rassweiler, A., and Rusak, J. A. 2005. Evidence for a general species-time-area-relationship. Ecology. 86:2032–2039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arrhenius, O. 1921. Species and area. J. Ecol. 9:95–99.Google Scholar
Bischoff, A. 2005. Analysis of weed dispersal to predict chances of recolonization. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 106:377–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blumenthal, D. and Jordan, N. 2001. Weeds in field margins: a spatially explicit simulation analysis of Canada thistle population dynamics. Weed Sci. 49:509–519.Google Scholar
Boutin, C. and Jobin, B. 1998. Intensity of agricultural practices and effects on adjacent habitats. Ecol. Appl. 8:544–557.Google Scholar
Boutin, C., Jobin, B., Bélanger, L., and Choinère, L. 2001. Comparing weed composition in natural and planted hedgerows and in herbaceous field margins adjacent to crop fields. Can. J. Plant Sci. 81:313–324.Google Scholar
Brown, D. G. 2003. Land use and forest cover on private parcels in the Upper Midwest USA, 1970–1990. Landsc. Ecol. 18:777–790.Google Scholar
Burnham, K. P. and Anderson, D. R. 2002. Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach. 2nd ed. New York Springer Verlag. 353.Google Scholar
Cardina, J., Herms, C. P., and Doohan, D. J. 2002. Crop rotation and tillage effects on weed seedbanks. Weed Sci. 50:448–460.Google Scholar
Connor, E. F. and McCoy, E. D. 1979. The statistics and biology of the species area relationship. Am. Nat. 113:791–833.Google Scholar
Crawley, M. J. and Harral, J. E. 2001. Scale dependence in plant biodiversity. Science. 291:864–868.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Snoo, G. R. 1999. Unsprayed field margins: effects on environment, biodiversity and agricultural practices. Landsc. Urban Plann. 46:151–160.Google Scholar
Devlaeminck, R., Bossuyt, B., and Hermy, M. 2005a. Inflow of seeds through the forest edge: evidence from seedbank and vegetation patterns. Plant Ecol. 176:1–17.Google Scholar
Devlaeminck, R., Bossuyt, B., and Hermy, M. 2005b. Seed dispersal from a forest into adjacent cropland. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 107:57–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[ESRI] Environmental Systems Research Institute 2002. ArcViev. Version 3.3. New Delhi, India HCL Technologies.Google Scholar
Forman, R. T. and Baudry, J. 1984. Hedgerow and hedgerow networks in Landscape Environ. Manag. 8:495–510.Google Scholar
Freeman, R. E., Stanley, E. H., and Turner, M. G. 2003. Analysis and conservation of landscape change in the Wisconsin River floodplain, USA. Ecol. Appl. 13:416–431.Google Scholar
Gleason, H. A. and Cronquist, A. 1991. Manual of Vascular Plants of Northeastern United States and Adjacent Canada, 2nd ed. New York New York Botanical Garden. 910.Google Scholar
Hald, A. B. 2002. Impact of agricultural fields on vegetation of stream border ecotones in Denmark. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 89:127–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilborn, R. and Mangel, M. 1997. The Ecological Detective: Confronting Models with Data. Princeton, NJ Princeton University Press. 315.Google Scholar
Hooper, M. D. 1976. Historical and biological studies on English hedges. Pages 225–227. in. Les Bocages: Histoire, Ecologie, Econmie. Rennes, France University of Rennes.Google Scholar
Le Cœur, D., Baudry, J., and Burel, F. 1997. Field margins plant assemblages: variation partitioning between local and landscape factors. Landsc. Urban Plann. 37:57–71.Google Scholar
Le Cœur, D., Baudry, J., Burel, F., and Thenail, C. 2002. Why and how we should study field boundary biodiversity in an agrarian landscape context. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 89:23–40.Google Scholar
Lomolino, M. V. 2000. Ecology's most general, yet protean pattern: the species–area relationship. J. Biogeogr. 27:17–26.Google Scholar
Lomolino, M. V. 2001. The species–area relationship: new challenges for an old pattern. Prog. Phys. Geog. 25:1–21.Google Scholar
Ma, M., Tarmi, S., and Helenius, J. 2002. Revisiting the species–area relationship in a semi-natural habitat: floral richness in agricultural buffer zones in Finland. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 89:137–148.Google Scholar
Marshall, E. P. J. 1988. The ecology and management of field margin floras in England. Outlook Agric. 17:178–182.Google Scholar
Marshall, E. P. J. and Arnold, G. M. 1995. Factors affecting field weed and field margin flora on a farm in Essex, UK. Landsc. Urban Plann. 31:205–216.Google Scholar
Marshall, E. J. P. and Moonen, A. C. 2002. Field margins in northern Europe: their functions and interactions with agriculture. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 89:5–21.Google Scholar
Moonen, A. C. and Marshall, E. J. P. 2001. The influence of sown margin strips, management and boundary structure on herbaceous field margin vegetation on two neighboring farms in southern England. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 86:187–202.Google Scholar
Mulugeta, D., Stoltenberg, D. E., and Boerboom, C. M. 2001. Weed species–area relationships as influenced by tillage. Weed Sci. 49:217–223.Google Scholar
[NASS] National Agricultural Statistics Service 2005. http://www.nass.usda.gov. Accessed: November 9, 2006.Google Scholar
Preston, F. W. 1962a. The canonical distribution of common-ness and rarity: part I. Ecology. 43:185–215.Google Scholar
Preston, F. W. 1962b. The canonical distribution of common-ness and rarity: part II. Ecology. 43:410–432.Google Scholar
Rew, L. J., Froud-Williams, R. J., and Boatman, N. D. 1996. Dispersal of Bromus sterilis and Anthriscus sylvestris seed within arable field margins. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 59:107–114.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems 2003. SAS Procedures Guide. Version 9,1. Cary, NC SAS Institute.Google Scholar
Scheiner, S. M. 2003. Six types of species area curves. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 12:441–447.Google Scholar
Smith, H., Firbank, L. G., and Macdonald, D. W. 1999. Uncropped edges of arable fields managed for biodiversity do not increase weed occurrences in adjacent crops. Biol. Conserv. 89:107–111.Google Scholar
Sosnoskie, L. M., Herms, C. P., and Cardina, J. 2006. Weed seedbank community composition in a 35-yr-old tillage and rotation experiment. Weed Sci. 54:263–273.Google Scholar
Tjørve, E. 2003. Shapes and functions of species-area curves: a review of possible models. J. Biogeogr. 30:827–835.Google Scholar
Trimble Navigation Limited 2001. GPS Pathfinder Office. Version 2.90. Sunnyvale, CA Trimble Navigation.Google Scholar
Wilson, P. J. and Aebischer, N. J. 1995. The distribution of dicotyledonous arable weeds in relation to distance from the field edge. J. Appl. Ecol. 32:295–310.Google Scholar
Wolfram Research 2003. Mathematica. Version 5.1. Champaign, IL Wolfram Research http://support.wolfram.com/mathematica/reference/general/citing.html.Google Scholar
Zar, J. 1984. Biostatistical Analysis, 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ Prentice-Hall. 663.Google Scholar