Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T16:33:11.264Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Seedbank–plant relationships for 19 weed taxa in spring barley–red clover cropping systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Anne Légère ,
F. Craig Stevenson ,
Diane Lyse Benoit  and
Nathalie Samson
F. Craig Stevenson
Affiliation:
142 Rogers Road, Saskatoon, SK S7N 3T6, Canada
Diane Lyse Benoit
Affiliation:
Horticultural Research and Development Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 430 Gouin Boulevard, Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, QC J3B 3E6, Canada
Nathalie Samson
Affiliation:
226, Chemin des Granites, Lac Beauport, QC G0A 2C0, Canada
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The objective of this study was to examine the effects of crop rotation (spring barley monoculture vs. spring barley–red clover 2-yr rotation), tillage (moldboard plow, chisel plow, no-till), and weed management (intensive, moderate, minimum) on plant–seedbank relationships for 19 weed species. Plant and seedbank density data were collected over 4 yr and analyzed by analysis of variance and correlation analysis to confirm treatment effects on plant–seedbank relationships. The relative frequency (difference between aboveground and seedbank frequency) of many species was more influenced by rotation, whereas species density appeared regulated more by weed management than by other factors. Frequency data confirmed that very few species were ubiquitous over time or treatment, aboveground or in the seedbank. The perennial species, field horsetail, quackgrass, white clover, and perennial sowthistle were more frequent aboveground than in the seedbank. This was also observed for annuals such as common hempnettle, sun spurge, catchweed bedstraw, and annual grasses. Treatment effects on abundance were inconsistent aboveground and in the seedbank across time for 12 of 19 species. The seven species that showed more consistent treatment response for abundance were frequent species present in 50% of the plots both aboveground and in the seedbank. For most species, plant density was correlated with either the previous or current year seedbank, but correlations were rarely of the same magnitude and significance over the years. Common chickweed was the only species for which treatment effects on the plant–seedbank relationship were confirmed for all 4 yr. Correlations between midseason plant populations and subsequent seedbanks confirmed the role of residual populations in replenishing the seedbanks, including those of perennials like quackgrass and dandelion. Overall, plant–seedbank relationships were tenuous for many weed species and varied over time with cropping practices and environment.

Keywords

Catchweed bedstraw, Galium aparine L. GALAPcommon chickweed, Stellaria media (L.) Cyrillo STEMEcommon hempnettle, Galeopsis tetrahit L. GAETEdandelion, Taraxacum officinale Weber in Wiggers TAROFfield horsetail, Equisetum arvense L. EQUARperennial sowthistle, Sonchus arvensis L. SONARquackgrass, Elytrigia repens (L.) Nevski AGRREsun spurge, Euphorbia helioscopia L. EPHHEwhite clover, Trifolium repens L. TRFREred clover, Trifolium pratense L. TRFPRspring barley, Hordeum vulgare L. HORVXConservation tillagecrop rotationno-tillplant–seedbank correlationweed managementweed seedbank
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 53 , Issue 5 , October 2005 , pp. 640 - 650
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

Ambrosio, L., Iglesias, L., Marin, C., and Del Monte, J. P. 2004. Evaluation of sampling methods and assessment of the sample size to estimate the weed seedbank in soil, taking into account spatial variability. Weed Res 44:224–236.Google Scholar
Bàrberi, P. and Lo Cascio, B. 2001. Long-term tillage and crop rotation effects on weed seedbank size and composition. Weed Res 41:325–340.Google Scholar
Baskin, C. C. and Baskin, J. M. 1998. Seeds. Ecology, Biogeography, and Evolution of Dormancy and Germination. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. 666 p.Google Scholar
Benoit, D. L. and Cavers, P. B. 1998. Does cropping sequence affect the abundance and physical state of Chenopodium seeds in the seed bank? Asp. Appl. Biol 51:205–211.Google Scholar
Beuret, E. 1984. Stocks grainiers des sols et pratiques culturales: la relation flore réelle—flore potentielle. Rech. Agron Suisse 23:89–97.Google Scholar
Boyd, N. S. and Van Acker, R. C. 2003. The effects of depth and fluctuating soil moisture on the emergence of eight annual and six perennial plant species. Weed Sci 51:725–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brenchley, W. E. 1918. Buried weed seeds. J. Agric. Sci 9:1–31.CrossRefGoogle 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
Bullied, W. J., Marginet, A. M., and Van Acker, R. C. 2003. Conventional and conservation-tillage systems influence emergence periodicity of annual weed species in canola. Weed Sci 51:886–897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardina, J., Herms, C. P., and Doohan, D. J. 2002. Crop rotation and tillage system effects on weed seedbanks. Weed Sci 50:448–460.Google Scholar
Cardina, J. and Sparrow, D. H. 1996. A comparison of methods to predict weed seedling populations from the soil seedbank. Weed Sci 44:46–51.CrossRefGoogle 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., 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. Asp. Appl. Biol 51:43–50.Google Scholar
Dessaint, F., Chadoeuf, R., and Barralis, G. 1997. Nine years' soil seedbank and weed vegetation relationships in an arable field without weed control. J. Appl. Ecol 34:123–130.Google Scholar
Douglas, B. J., Thomas, A. G., Morrison, I. N., and Maw, M. G. 1985. The biology of Canadian weeds. 70. Setaria viridis (L.) Beauv. Can. J. Plant Sci 65:669–690.Google Scholar
Forcella, F. 1992. Prediction of weed seedling densities from buried seed reserves. Weed Res 32:29–38.Google Scholar
Forcella, F. 2003. Debiting the seedbank: priorities and predictions. Asp. Appl. Biol 69:151–162.Google Scholar
Forcella, F., Wilson, R. G., Renner, K. A., Dekker, J., Harvey, R. G., Alm, D. A., Buhler, D. D., and Cardina, J. 1992. Weed seedbanks of the U.S. corn belt: magnitude, variation, emergence, and application. Weed Sci 40:636–644.Google Scholar
Freckleton, R. P. and Watkinson, A. R. 1998. How does temporal variability affect predictions of weed population numbers? J. Appl. Ecol 35:340–344.Google Scholar
Grundy, A. C., Mead, A., and Burton, S. 2003. Does weed seed sowing density significantly affect weed emergence response to burial depth? Asp. Appl. Biol 69:39–46.Google Scholar
Hebden, P. M., Rodger, S. J., Wright, G., and Squire, G. 1998. Effects of rotation and cropping system on dynamics of seedbank species diversity. Asp. Appl. Biol 51:243–248.Google Scholar
Hume, L. 1987. Long-term effects of 2,4-D applications on plants. I. Effects on the weed community in a wheat crop. Can. J. Bot 66:2530–2536.Google Scholar
Jensen, H. A. 1969. Content of buried seeds in arable soil in Denmark. Dan. Bot. Ark 27:1–56.Google Scholar
Kenkel, N. C., Derksen, D. A., Thomas, A. G., and Watson, P. R. 2002. Multivariate analysis in weed science research. Weed Sci 50:281–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kropáč, Z. 1966. Estimation of weed seeds in arable soil. Pedobiologia 6:105–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambelet-Haueter, C. 1985. Comparaisons entre flore réelle et flore potentielle en grandes cultures de la région genevoise. Candollea 40:99–107.Google Scholar
Légère, A. and Deschènes, J-M. 1989. Effects of time of emergence, population density and interspecific competition on hemp-nettle (Galeopsis tetrahit) seed production. Can. J. Plant Sci 69:185–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Légère, A. and Samson, N. 1999. Relative influence of crop rotation, tillage and weed management on weed associations in spring barley (Hordeum vulgare) cropping systems. Weed Sci 47:112–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Légère, A. and Samson, N. 2004. Tillage and weed management effects on weeds in barley–red clover cropping systems. Weed Sci 52:881–885.Google Scholar
Légère, A., Samson, N., Rioux, R., Angers, D. A., and Simard, R. R. 1997. Response of spring barley to crop rotation, conservation tillage, and weed management intensity. Agron. J 89:628–638.Google Scholar
Légère, A. and Stevenson, F. C. 2002. Residual effects of crop rotation and weed management on a wheat test crop and weeds. Weed Sci 50:101–111.Google Scholar
Légère, A., Stevenson, F. C., and Benoit, D. L. 2005. Diversity and assembly of weed communities: contrasting responses across cropping systems. Weed Res 45:303–315.Google Scholar
Liebman, M. and Dyck, E. 1993. Crop rotation and intercropping strategies for weed management. Ecol. Appl 3:92–122.Google Scholar
Littel, R. C., Milliken, G. A., Stroup, W. W., and Wolfinger, R. D. 1996. SAS System for Mixed Models. Cary NC: SAS Institute Inc. 656 p.Google Scholar
Lutman, P. J. W., Cussans, G. W., Wright, K. J., Wilson, B. J., McN Wright, G., and Lawson, H. M. 2002. The persistence of seeds of 16 weed species over six years in two arable fields. Weed Res 42:231–241.Google Scholar
Malik, N. and Vanden Born, W. H. 1988. The Biology of Canadian weeds. 86. Galium aparine L. and Galium spurium . Can. J. Plant Sci 68:481–499.Google Scholar
Manley, B. S., Wilson, H. P., and Hines, T. E. 2001. Weed management and crop rotations influence populations of several broadleaf weeds. Weed Sci 49:106–122.Google Scholar
Maun, M. A. and Barrett, S. C. H. 1986. The biology of Canadian weeds. 77. Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) Beauv. Can. J. Plant Sci 66:739–759.Google Scholar
Miyazawa, K., Tsuji, H., Yamagata, M., Nakano, H., and Nakamoto, T. 2004. Response of weed flora to combinations of reduced tillage, biocide application and fertilization pratices in a 3-year crop rotation. Weed Biol. Manag 4:24–34.Google Scholar
Moonen, A. C. and Bàrberi, P. 2004. Size and composition of the weed seedbank after 7 years of different cover-crop–maize management systems. Weed Res 44:163–177.Google Scholar
Moss, S. R., Storkey, J., Cussans, J. W., Perryman, S. A. M., and Hewitt, M. V. 2004. The Broadbalk long-term experiment: what has it told us about weeds? Weed Sci 52:864–873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raimbault, B. A. and Vyn, T. J. 1991. Crop rotation and tillage effects on corn growth and soil structural stability. Agron. J 83:979–985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, H. A. and Dawkins, P. A. 1967. Effects of cultivation on the numbers of viable weed seeds in soil. Weed Res 7:290–301.Google Scholar
Roberts, H. A. and Ricketts, M. E. 1979. Quantitative relationships between the weed flora after cultivation and the seed population in the soil. Weed Res 19:269–275.Google Scholar
[SAS] SAS Institute, Inc. 1996. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute, Inc. 1176 p.Google Scholar
Steel, M. G., Cavers, P. B., and Lee, S. M. 1983. The biology of Canadian weeds. 59. Setaria glauca (L.) Beauv. and S. verticillata (L.) Beauv. Can. J. Plant Sci 63:711–725.Google Scholar
Stevenson, C., Légère, A., Simard, R. R., Angers, D. A., Zizka, J., and Lafond, J. 1997. Weed community diversity in spring barley responds to crop rotation and tillage, but not to nutrient source. Weed Sci 45:798–806.Google Scholar
Stevenson, F. C., Légère, A., Simard, R. R., Angers, D. A., Pageau, D., and Lafond, J. 1998. Manure, tillage, and rotation effects on the occurrence of crop–weed interference in spring barley cropping systems. Agron. J 90:496–504.Google Scholar
Thomas, A. G., Derksen, D. A., Blackshaw, R. E., Van Acker, R. C., Légère, A., Watson, P. R., and Turnbull, G. C. 2004. A multi-study approach to understanding weed population shifts in medium- to long-term tillage systems. Weed Sci 52:874–880.Google Scholar
Tørresen, K. S. 2003. Relationship between seedbanks and emerged weeds in long-term tillage experiments. Asp. Appl. Biol 69:55–62.Google Scholar
Webster, T. M., Cardina, J., and White, A. D. 2003. Weed seed rain, soil seedbanks, and seedling recruitment in no-tillage crop rotation. Weed Sci 51:569–575.Google Scholar
Wilson, B. J. and Lawson, H. M. 1992. Seedbank persistence and seedling emergence of seven weed species in autumn sown crops following a single year's seeding. Ann. Appl. Biol 120:105–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, R. G., Kerr, E. D., and Nelson, L. A. 1985. Potential for using weed seed content in the soil to predict future weed problems. Weed Sci 33:171–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, F. L. 2004. Long-term weed management studies in the Pacific Northwest. Weed Sci 52:897–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, J., Hamill, A. S., Gardner, I. O., and Weaver, S. E. 1998. Dependence of weed flora on the active soil seedbank. Weed Res 38:143–152.Google Scholar