Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T13:53:24.978Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Multivariate differentiation of quackgrass (Elytrigia repens) from three farming systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Kristin L. Mercer ,
Nicholas R. Jordan ,
Donald L. Wyse  and
Ruth G. Shaw
Nicholas R. Jordan
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Plant Genetics, University of Minnesota, 411 Borlaug Hall, St. Paul, MN 55108
Donald L. Wyse
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Plant Genetics, University of Minnesota, 411 Borlaug Hall, St. Paul, MN 55108
Ruth G. Shaw
Affiliation:
Department of Ecology, Evolution and Behavior, University of Minnesota, 100 Ecology, St. Paul, MN 55108
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The genetic variation of quackgrass as a species and the array of environments in which it is found indicate that selection in these different environments could lead to differentiation among quackgrass populations. Yet, a highly diverse environment might not promote the genetic divergence of quackgrass if it poses contradictory selection pressures. To assess the extent of divergence among quackgrass populations, this study compared the morphology of populations of quackgrass for 1 yr in Rosemount, MN, in a “common garden” study. The quackgrass was initially collected from three different farming systems in southeast Minnesota: corn–soybean (CS), oats–hay–corn (OHC), and permanent pasture (PP). The systems represent pasture or arable land and differ in cropping rotations and levels of disturbance. Although no differences among farming systems were detected in multivariate or univariate comparisons, a significant farming system effect was detected between CS and PP systems when the most diversified system, OHC, was excluded from the analysis. Consistent with this result, a principal components analysis suggested that plants from two of the three farming systems exemplified contrasting modes of perennial plant growth. Relative to each other, the CS plants showed more features of the “guerrilla” growth mode (longer intra-ramet distances, sparse, large patches), whereas PP plants showed more “phalanx” mode features (short intra-ramet distances, dense, smaller patches). Plants from the most diversified system, OHC, did not fit into either growth form, and for this farming system, the variation among populations was the highest. The results suggest that the CS and PP systems selected for distinct growth forms, whereas the diversified OHC system did not. This is consistent with the hypothesis that diversification of a farming system and weed management decreases the risk of evolution of a weed population highly adapted to control measures used in that farming system.

Keywords

Quackgrass, Elytrigia repens (L.) Nevski AGRREcorn, Zea mays L.oats, Avena sativa L.soybean, Glycine max (L.) MerrillAdaptationselectionfarming system diversificationprincipal components analysisMANOVAguerrillaphalanxperennialclonal
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 50 , Issue 5 , October 2002 , pp. 677 - 685
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

Belina, K. M. 2002. Farming system effect on the genetic diversity of quackgrass (Elytrigia repens) populations. . University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN. 70 p.Google Scholar
Bradshaw, A. D. 1991. Genostasis and the limits of evolution. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 333:289–305.Google Scholar
Casler, M. D., Greub, L. J., Carlson, S. K., and Collins, M. 1998. Genetic variation and selection for shoot and rhizome growth traits in a naturalized quackgrass population. Crop Sci. 38:1697–1703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheplick, G. P. 1997. Responses to severe competitive stress in a clonal plant: differences between genotypes. Oikos 79:581–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cousens, R. and Mortimer, M. 1995. The evolution of herbicide resistance. Pages 243–282 In Dynamics of Weed Populations. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dekker, J. H. and Chandler, K. 1985. Herbicide effect on the viability of quackgrass (Agropyron repens) rhizome buds. Can. J. Plant Sci. 65:1057–1064.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghersa, C. M., Martinez-Ghersa, M. A., Brewer, T. G., and Roush, M. L. 1994a. Selection pressures for diclofop-methyl resistance and germination time of Italian ryegrass. Agron. J. 86:823–828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghersa, C. M., Roush, M. L., Radosevich, S. R., and Cordray, S. M. 1994b. Coevolution of agroecosystems and weed management. Bioscience 44:85–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gould, F., Kennedy, G. G., and Johnson, M. T. 1991. Effects of natural enemies on the rate of herbivore adaptation to resistant host plants. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 58:1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gupta, A. P. and Lewontin, R. C. 1982. A study of reaction norms in natural populations of Drosophila psuedoobscura . Evolution 36:934–948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heap, I. M. 1999. International survey of herbicide-resistant weeds: lessons and limitations. Proc. Brighton Weed Conf. 3:769–776.Google Scholar
Hegazy, A. K. 1994. Trade-off between sexual and vegetative reproduction of the weedy Heliotropium curassavicum . J. Arid Environ. 27:209–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Humphrey, L. D. and Pyke, D. L. 1998. Demographic and growth responses of a guerrilla and a phalanx perennial grass in competitive mixtures. J. Ecol. 86:854–865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jana, S. and Thai, K. M. 1987. Patterns of changes of dormant genotypes in Avena fatua populations under different agricultural conditions. Can. J. Bot. 65:1741–1745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, D. E. 1998. Applied Multivariate Methods for Data Analysis. California: Brooks-Cole Publishing. pp. 93–142, 439–442.Google Scholar
Jordan, N. 1989. Predicted evolutionary response to selection for tolerance of soybean (Glycine max) and intraspecific competition in a nonweed population of poorjoe (Diodia teres). Weed Sci. 37:451–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, N. 1996. Effect of triazine-resistance mutation on fitness in Amaranthus hybridus (smooth pigweed). J. Appl. Ecol. 33:141–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, N. and Jannink, J. L. 1997. Assessing the practical importance of weed evolution: a research agenda. Weed Res. 37:237–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamson-Scribner, L. 1896. Useful and Ornamental Grasses. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Division of Agrostology. Bull. 3. pp. 11–12.Google Scholar
Lande, R. and Shannon, S. 1996. The role of genetic variation in adaptation and population persistence in a changing environment. Evolution 50:434–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linscott, D. L. 1970. Ten worst weeds of field crops: quackgrass. Crops Soils October:8–9.Google Scholar
Lovett Doust, L. 1981. Population dynamics and local specialization in a clonal perennial (Ranunculus repens) I. Dynamics of ramets in contrasting habitats. J. Ecol. 69:743–755.Google Scholar
Manly, B. 1994. Multivariate Statistical Methods: A Primer. 2nd ed. London: Chapman and Hall. pp. 76–91.Google Scholar
Neuteboom, J. H. 1980. Variability of Couch (Elytrigia repens (L.) Desv.) in grasslands and arable fields in two locations in the Netherlands. Acta Bot. Neerl. 29:407–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmid, B. 1985. Clonal growth in grassland perennials III. Genetic variation and plasticity between and within populations of Bellis perennis and Prunella vulgaris . J. Ecol. 73:819–830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shoner, C. A., Norris, R. F., and Chilcote, W. 1978. Yellow foxtail (Setaria lutescens) biotype studies: growth and morphological characteristics. Weed Sci. 26:632–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sokal, R. R. and Rohlf, F. J. 1981. Biometry, the Principles and Practice of Statistics in Biological Research. 2nd ed. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman. pp. 271–317.Google Scholar
Werner, P. A. and Rioux, R. 1977. The biology of Canadian weeds. 24. Agropyron repens (L.) Beauv. Can. J. Plant Sci. 57:905–919.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westra, P. H. and Wyse, D. L. 1981. Growth and development of quackgrass (Agropyron repens) biotypes. Weed Sci. 29:44–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolff, K. and Van Delden, W. 1987. Genetic analysis of the ecologically relevant morphological variability in Plantago lanceolata L. 1. Population characteristics. Heredity 58:183–192.Google Scholar