Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:31:02.724Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed community and corn yield variability in diverse management systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Richard G. Smith  and
Katherine L. Gross
Katherine L. Gross
Affiliation:
W. K. Kellogg Biological Station and Department of Plant Biology, Michigan State University, Hickory Corners, MI 49060
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The effects of crop rotation and management system on annual variability in weed communities and crop yields were assessed in a 4-yr study in Michigan. Variability of the weed community and corn yields were assessed using the coefficient of variation (CV) and a multivariate dissimilarity index (Bray-Curtis) that accounted for changes in both weed species abundance and composition. The treatments included two rotations: continuous corn and a corn–corn–soybean–wheat rotation, and two management systems: conventional (CONV) and organic-based (ORG). Weed biomass was significantly higher in the ORG system; however, there was no effect of crop rotation on weed biomass or number of weed species in a treatment (species richness). Annual variability in weed community composition and structure was affected by both crop rotation and management system and was highest in the ORG rotation. In contrast to the weed community, variability in corn yield was highest in the least-diverse cropping system (CONV monoculture), despite that system having a more constant weed community. Corn yield in the ORG rotation was not significantly different from that in the CONV monoculture. Results of this study suggest that management aimed at increasing cropping system diversity may have additional effects on weed communities and crop yields beyond those commonly reported, and these may have important implications for the development of more efficient and sustainable weed and crop management practices.

Keywords

Corn, Zea mays L.soybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr.wheat, Triticum aestivum L.Crop rotationcover cropsdiversityecosystem functionmanagement systemsorganicweed community
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 54 , Issue 1 , February 2006 , pp. 106 - 113
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

Altieri, M. A. 1999. The ecological role of biodiversity in agroecosystems. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ 74:19–31.Google Scholar
Cavers, P. B. and Benoit, D. L. 1989. Seed banks in arable land. Pages 309–328 in Leck, M. A., Parker, V. T., and Simpson, R. L. eds. Ecology of Soil Seed Banks. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chesson, P. and Huntly, N. 1997. The roles of harsh and fluctuating conditions in the dynamics of ecological communities. Am. Nat 150:519–553.Google Scholar
Cottingham, K. L., Brown, B. L., and Lennon, J. T. 2001. Biodiversity may regulate the temporal variability of ecological systems. Ecol. Lett 4:72–85.Google Scholar
Davis, A. S., Renner, K. A., and Gross, K. L. 2005. Weed seedbank and community shifts in a long-term cropping systems experiment. Weed Sci 53:296–306.Google Scholar
Doucet, C., Weaver, S. E., Hamill, A. S., and Zhang, J. H. 1999. Separating the effects of crop rotation from weed management on weed density and diversity. Weed Sci 47:729–735.Google Scholar
Elton, C. 1958. The ecology of invasions by animals and plants. London, U.K.: Chapman and Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helmers, G. A., Yamoah, C. F., and Varvel, G. E. 2001. Separating the impacts of crop diversification and rotations on risk. Agron. J 93:1337–1340.Google Scholar
Hooper, D. U., Chapin, F. S. III, and Ewel, J. J. et al. 2005. Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a consensus of current knowledge. Ecol. Monogr 75:3–35.Google Scholar
Lehman, C. L. and Tilman, D. 2000. Biodiversity, stability, and productivity in competitive communities. Am. Nat 156:534–552.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liebman, M. and Dyck, E. 1993. Crop rotation and intercropping strategies for weed management. Ecol. Appl 3:92–122.Google Scholar
Lindgren, D. T. and Schaaf, D. M. 2004. Influence of seed stratification and seed age on emergence of Penstemon. Hortscience 39:1385–1386.Google Scholar
Little, R. C., Milliken, G. A., Stroup, W. W., and Wolfinger, R. D. 1996. SAS system for mixed models. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.Google Scholar
Lutman, P. J. W., Risiott, R., and Ostermann, H. P. 1996. Investigations into alternative methods to predict the competitive effects of weeds on crop yields. Weed Sci 44:290–297.Google Scholar
MacArthur, R. 1955. Fluctuations of animal populations, and a measure of community stability. Ecology 36:533–536.Google Scholar
Maxwell, B. D. and Luschei, E. C. 2005. Justification for site-specific weed management based on ecology and economics. Weed Sci 53:221–227.Google Scholar
McCune, B., Grace, J. B., and Urban, D. L. 2002. Analysis of Ecological Communities. Gleneden Beach, OR: MjM Software Design.Google Scholar
Menalled, F. D., Gross, K. L., and Hammond, M. 2001. Weed aboveground and seedbank community responses to agricultural management systems. Ecol. Appl 11:1586–1601.Google Scholar
Micheli, F., Cottingham, K. L., and Bascompte, J. et al. 1999. The dual nature of community variability. Oikos 85:161–169.Google Scholar
Pleasant, J. M., Burt, R. F., and Frisch, J. C. 1994. Integrating mechanical and chemical weed management in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol 8:217–223.Google Scholar
Rice, K. J. and Dyer, A. R. 2001. Seed aging, delayed germination and reduced competitive ability in Bromus tectorum . Plant Ecol 155:237–243.Google Scholar
Robertson, G. P. and Swinton, S. M. 2005. Reconciling agricultural productivity and environmental integrity: a grand challenge for agriculture. Front. Ecol. Environ 3:38–46.Google Scholar
Sanchez, J. E., Willson, T. C., Kizilkaya, K., Parker, E., and Harwood, R. R. 2001. Enhancing the mineralizable nitrogen pool through substrate diversity in long term cropping systems. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J 65:1442–1447.Google Scholar
Schlapfer, F. and Schmid, B. 1999. Ecosystem effects of biodiversity: a classification of hypotheses and exploration of empirical results. Ecol. Appl 9:893–912.Google Scholar
Showler, A. T. and Greenberg, S. M. 2003. Effects of weeds on selected arthropod herbivore and natural enemy populations, and on cotton growth and yield. Environ. Entomol 32:39–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevenson, F. C., Legere, A., Simard, R. R., Angers, D. A., Pageau, D., and Lafond, J. 1998. Manure, tillage, and crop rotation: Effects on residual weed interference in spring barley cropping systems. Agron. J 90:496–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tilman, D. 1996. Biodiversity: Population versus ecosystem stability. Ecology 77:350–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thorbek, P. and Bilde, T. 2004. Reduced numbers of generalist arthropod predators after crop management. J. Appl. Ecol 41:526–538.Google Scholar
Tracy, B. F. and Sanderson, M. A. 2004. Productivity and stability relationships in mowed pasture communities of varying species composition. Crop Sci 44:2180–2186.Google Scholar