Skip to main content
×
×
Home

Influence of field margin type on weed species richness and abundance in conventional crop fields

  • S.C. Reberg-Horton (a1), J.P. Mueller (a1), S.J. Mellage (a1), N.G. Creamer (a2), C. Brownie (a3), M. Bell (a1) and M.G. Burton (a1)...
Abstract
Abstract

Natural vegetation occurring on farms in field margins, fallow fields, ditch systems and neighboring forests, provides increased biodiversity, structural diversity, habitat for wildlife and beneficial insects, and can act as a protective buffer against agrochemical drift. Nevertheless, farmers frequently view these areas as non-productive and as potential sources of weeds, insect pests and diseases. Weed species richness and abundance were examined in crop fields in 2002–2003 at the Center for Environmental Farming Systems near Goldsboro, NC to determine if crop field weed infestation was associated with field margin management (managed versus unmanaged). Weed species abundance and richness were measured over two growing seasons on four occasions in crop fields along permanent transects that extended from the field edge toward the center of the field. The presence/absence of data for all plant species in the field margin was also recorded. For both margin types, managed and unmanaged, more weeds were found near the field edge than in the center of the field. Weed species richness was slightly higher in cropland bordering managed margins than in cropland along unmanaged margins. Several significant interactions led to an examination of nine dominant weed species in each field margin type and their distribution in crop fields. When all sampling dates were pooled, only 42 (40%) of 105 species identified in the field margins were observed in the crop field. Managed margins had lower species richness than unmanaged field margins—less than half the mean number of species (15 versus 6 species, respectively). Contingency table analysis did not reveal any association between plant species occurring in the margin and those found in the crop field. Furthermore, margin type and weed presence in the field margin were not effective predictors of weed occurrence in the crop field as determined by logistic regression.

Copyright
Corresponding author
*Corresponding author: Paul_Mueller@ncsu.edu
References
Hide All
1Powers L.E. and McSorley R. 2000. Ecological Principles of Agriculture. Delmar Thomson Learning, Albany.
2Marshall E.J.P. and Moonen A.C. 2002. Field margins in northern Europe: their functions and interactions with agriculture. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 89:521.
3O'Connor R.J. 1987. Environmental interests of field margins for birds. In Way J.M. and Greig-Smith P.J. (eds). Field Margins. Monograph No. 35. British Crop Protection Council, Thornton Heath, Surrey, p. 3548.
4Maclean M. 1992. New Hedges for the Countryside. Farming Press, Ipswich, UK.
5Kleijn D. 1997. Species richness and weed abundance in the vegetation of arable boundaries. PhD thesis, Wageningen Agricultural University, Wageningen, p. 177.
6Marshall E.J.P. and Moonen A.C. 1998. A Review of Field Margin Conservation Strips in Europe. UK Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Long Ashton Research Station.
7Freemark K.E., Boutin C., and Keddy C.J. 2002. Importance of farmland habitats for conservation of plant species. Conservation Biology 16:399412.
8Marshall E.J.P. 2002. Introduction to field margin ecology in Europe. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 89:14.
9Kleijn D. and Verbeek M. 2000. Factors affecting the species composition of arable field boundary vegetation. Journal of Applied Ecology 37:256266.
10Marshall E.J.P. 1989. Distribution patterns of plants associated with arable field edges. Journal of Applied Ecology 26:247257.
11Wilson P.J. and Aebischer N.J. 1995. The distribution of dicotyledonous arable weeds in relation to distance from field edge. Journal of Applied Ecology 32:295310.
12Theaker A.J., Boatman N.D. and Froud-Williams R.J. 1995. Variation in Bromus sterilis on farmland: evidence for the origin of field infestations. Journal of Applied Ecology 32:4755.
13Sosnoskie L.M., Luschei E.C. and Fanning M.A. 2007. Field margin weed-species diversity in relation to landscape attributes and adjacent land use. Weed Science 55:129136.
14Boutin 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. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 81:313324.
15Wilcox A., Perry N.H., Boatman N.D., and Chaney K. 2000. Factors affecting the yield of winter cereals in crop margins. Journal of Agricultural Science 135:335346.
16Mueller J.P., Barbercheck M.E., Bell M., Brownie C., Creamer N.G., Hitt A., Hu S., King L., Linker H.M., Louws F.J., Marlow S., Marra M., Raczkowski C.W., Susko D.J., and Wagger M.G. 2002. Development and implementation of a long-term agricultural systems study: challenges and opportunities. HortTechnology 12:362368.
17SAS Institute Inc. 1999. SAS/STAT User's Guide, Version 8. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.
18Spellerberg I.F. and Fedor I. 2003. A tribute to Claude Shannon (1916–2001) and a plea for more rigorous use of species richness, species diversity and the ‘Shannon-Wiener’ index. Global Ecology and Biogeography 12:177179.
19Joenje W. and Kleijn D. 1994. Plant distribution across arable field ecotones in the Netherlands. Field Margins: Integrating Agriculture and Conservation. Monograph No. 58. British Crop Protection Council, Thornton Heath, Surrey, p. 323328.
20Blumenthal D. and Jordan N. 2001. Weeds in field margins: a spatially explicit simulation analysis of Canada thistle population dynamics. Weed Science 49:509519.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems
  • ISSN: 1742-1705
  • EISSN: 1742-1713
  • URL: /core/journals/renewable-agriculture-and-food-systems
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords:

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 1
Total number of PDF views: 9 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 145 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 16th December 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.