Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-j7khd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T06:57:11.241Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Selective Memory of Weed Seedbanks after 18 Years of Conservation Tillage

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Anne Légère ,
F. Craig Stevenson  and
Diane L. Benoit
Anne Légère*
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Saskatoon Research Centre, 107 Science Place, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada, S7N 0X2
F. Craig Stevenson
Affiliation:
142 Rogers Road, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada, S7N 3T6
Diane L. Benoit
Affiliation:
Agriculture et Agroalimentaire Canada, 430 Boulevard Gouin, Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, Québec, Canada, J3B 3E6
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: anne.legere@agr.gc.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A conservation tillage study provided the opportunity to test whether tillage effects on the germinable weed seedbank would be consistent across different crop rotations and to investigate the potential residual effects of herbicide treatments terminated 12 yr earlier. Our objective was to measure the effects of tillage (moldboard plow [MP] vs. chisel plow [CP] vs. no-till [NT]), crop rotation (2-yr barley–red clover followed by 4-yr barley–canola–wheat–soybean rotation, compared to a cereal monoculture), and of a prior weed management factor (three intensity levels of herbicide use) on the density, diversity, and community structure of weed seedbanks. Species richness, evenness (Shannon's E), and diversity (Shannon's H′) of spring seedbanks varied little across treatments and over time. Total seedbank density generally increased as tillage was reduced, with some variations due to weed management in 1993 and crop rotation in 2006. Crop rotations generally had smaller seedbanks with fewer species than the monoculture. In 1993, seedbanks with minimum weed management were twice as dense as those with intensive or moderate weed management (approximately 6,000 vs. 3,000 seed m−2). By 2006, seed density averaged 6,838 seed m−2 across intensive and moderate weed management regardless of tillage, but was nearly twice as large in NT (12,188 seed m−2) compared to MP (4,770 seed m−2) and CP (7,117 seed m−2) with minimum weed management (LSD0.005 = 4488). Species with abundant seedbanks responded differently to treatments. Barnyardgrass and green foxtail had larger seedbanks in the monoculture than in the rotation. Common lambsquarters and pigweed species had large seedbanks in tilled treatments in the rotation, whereas yellow foxtail and field pennycress contributed to the large seedbanks observed in NT treatments. The latter two species were also associated with residual effects of weed management treatments (terminated 12 yr earlier) in NT. The differential seedbank response of weed species, attributed in part to contrasting weed emergence patterns and agronomic practice effects on seed rain, explained some of the weak treatment effects observed for total seedbank density and diversity. The large weed seedbanks observed in NT plots after 18 yr confirms the importance of seed rain and seedbank management for the sustainability of NT systems.

Keywords

Barnyardgrass, Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) Beauvcommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album Lgreen foxtail, Setaria viridis (L.) Beauvfield pennycress, Thlaspi arvense Lpigweed species, Amaranthus spyellow foxtail, Setaria pumila (Poir.) Roem &SchultCrop rotationno-tillweed species richnessweed diversity, evennessweed community structure

Information

Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 59 , Issue 1 , March 2011 , pp. 98 - 106
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

Albrecht, H. 2005. Development of arable weed seedbanks during 6 years after the change from conventional to organic farming. Weed Res. 54:339–350.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
Bellinder, R. R., Dillard, H. R., and Shaw, D. A. 2004. Weed seedbank community responses to crop rotation schemes. Crop Protect. 23:95–101.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D., Stoltenberg, D. E., Becker, R. L., and Gonsolus, J. L. 1994. Perennial weed populations after 14 years of variable tillage and cropping practices. Weed Sci. 42:205–209.Google 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.Google 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
Carter, M. R. and Ivany, J. A. 2006. Weed seedbank composition under three long-term tillage regimes on a fine sandy loam in Atlantic Canada. Soil Tillage Res. 90:29–38.Google Scholar
Chee-Sanford, J. C., Williams, M. M. II, Davis, A. S., and Sims, G. K. 2006. Do microorganisms influence seed-bank dynamics? Weed Sci. 54:575–587.Google Scholar
Conn, J. S. 2006. Weed seed bank affected by tillage intensity for barley in Alaska. Soil & Tillage Res. 90:156–161.Google Scholar
Davis, A. S. 2006. When does it make sense to target the weed seed bank? Weed Sci. 54:558–565.Google Scholar
Davis, A. S. 2007. Nitrogen fertilizer and crop residue effects on seed mortality and germination of eight annual weed species. Weed Sci. 55:125–128.Google Scholar
Davis, A. S., Anderson, K. I., Hallett, S. G., and Renner, K. A. 2006. Weed seed mortality in soils with contrasting agricultural management histories. Weed Sci. 54:291–297.Google Scholar
Dessaint, F., Chadoeuf, R., and Barralis, G. 1997. Nine years' soil seed bank and weed vegetation relationships in an arable field without weed control. J. Appl. Ecol. 34:123–130.Google Scholar
Eriksen-Hamel, N. S., Speratti, A. B., Whalen, J. K., Légère, A., and Madramooto, C. A. 2009. Earthworm populations and growth rates related to long-term residue and tillage management. Soil & Tillage Res. 104:311–316.Google Scholar
Forcella, F. 1992. Prediction of weed seedling densities from buried seed reserves. Weed Res. 32:29–38.Google Scholar
Gallandt, E. R. 2006. How can we target the weed seedbank? Weed Sci. 54:588–596.Google Scholar
Harbuck, K. S. B., Menalled, F. D., and Pollnac, F. W. 2009. Impact of cropping systems on the weed seed banks in the northern Great Plains, USA. Weed Biol. Manag. 9:160–168.Google Scholar
Heijting, S., Van der Werf, W., and Kropff, M. J. 2009. Seed dispersal by forage harvester and rigid-tine cultivator in maize. Weed Res. 49:153–163.Google Scholar
Koocheki, A., Nassiri, M., Alimoradi, L., and Ghorbani, R. 2009. Effect of cropping systems and crop rotations on weeds. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 29:401–408.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., Stevenson, F. C., and Benoit, D. L. 2005a. Diversity and assembly of weed communities: contrasting responses across cropping systems. Weed Res. 45:303–315.Google Scholar
Légère, A., Stevenson, F. C., Benoit, D. L., and Samson, N. 2005b. Seedbank–plant relationships for 19 weed taxa in spring barley–red clover cropping systems. Weed Sci. 53:640–650.Google Scholar
Magurran, A. E. 1988. Ecological Diversity and Its Measurement. Princeton, NJ Princeton University Press. 179 p.Google Scholar
Marino, P. C., Gross, K. L., and Landis, D. A. 1997. Weed seed loss due to predation in Michigan maize fields. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 66:189–196.Google Scholar
Menalled, F. D., Smith, R. G., Dauer, J. T., and Fox, T. B. 2007. Impact of agricultural management on carabid communities and weed seed predation. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 118:49–54.Google Scholar
Milcu, A., Schumacher, J., and Scheu, S. 2006. Earthworms (Lumbricus terrestris) affect plant seedling recruitment and microhabitat heterogeneity. Funct. Ecol. 20:261–268.Google Scholar
Mohler, C. L., Frisch, J. C., and McCulloch, C. E. 2006. Vertical movement of weed seed surrogates by tillage implements and natural processes. Soil & Tillage Res. 86:110–122.Google Scholar
Murphy, S. D., Clements, D. R., Belaoussoff, S., Kevan, P. G., and Swanton, C. J. 2006. Promotion of weed species diversity and reduction of weed seedbanks with conservation tillage and crop rotation. Weed Sci. 54:69–77.Google Scholar
Norris, R. F. 2007. Weed fecundity: Current status and future needs. Crop Protect. 26:182–188.Google Scholar
Perron, F. and Légère, A. 2000. Effects of crop management practices on Echinochloa crus-galli and Chenopodium album seed production in a maize/soyabean rotation. Weed Res. 40:535–547.Google Scholar
Powles, S. B. and Yu, Q. 2010. Evolution in action: plants resistant to herbicides. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 61:317–347.Google Scholar
Regnier, E., Harrison, S. K., Liu, J., Schmoll, J. T., Edwards, C. A., Arancon, N., and Holloman, C. 2008. Impact of an exotic earthworm on seed dispersal of an indigenous US weed. J. Appl. Ecol. 45:1621–1629.Google Scholar
Ryan, M. R., Smith, R. G., Mirsky, S. B., Mortensen, D. A., and Seidel, R. 2010. Management filters and species traits: weed community assembly in long-term organic and conventional systems. Weed Sci. 58:265–277.Google Scholar
[SAS] SAS Institute, Inc. 1999. SAS OnlineDoc7, Version 8. Cary, NC Statistical Analysis Systems Institute, Inc. 1176 p.Google Scholar
[SAS] SAS Institute Inc. 2005. The GLIMMIX Procedure. Cary, NC Statistical Analysis Systems Institute, Inc.Google Scholar
Smith, R. G. and Gross, K. L. 2006. Rapid changes in the germinable fraction of the weed seed bank in crop rotations. Weed Sci. 54:1094–1100.Google Scholar
Smith, R. G. and Gross, K. L. 2007. Assembly of weed communities along a crop diversity gradient. J. Appl. Ecol. 44:1046–1056.Google Scholar
Smith, R. G., Gross, K. L., and Januchowski, S. 2005. Earthworms and weed seed distribution in annual crops. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 108:363–367.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
Sosnoskie, L. M., Herms, C. P., Cardina, J., and Webster, T. M. 2009. Seedbank and emerged weed communities following adoption of glyphosate-resistant crops in a long-term tillage and rotation study. Weed Sci. 57:261–270.Google Scholar
Teasdale, J. R., Mangum, R. W., Radhakrishnan, J., and Cavigelli, M. A. 2003. Factors influencing annual fluctuations of the weed seedbank at the long-term Beltsville Farming Systems Project. Aspects Appl. Biol. 69:93–99.Google Scholar
Teasdale, J. R., Mangum, R. W., Radhakrishnan, J., and Cavigelli, M. A. 2004. Weed seedbank dynamics in three organic farming crop rotations. Agron. J. 96:1429–1435.Google Scholar
Westerman, P. R., Liebman, M., Heggenstaller, A. H., and Forcella, F. 2006. Integrating measurements of seed viability and removal to estimate weed seed losses due to predation. Weed Sci. 54:566–574.Google Scholar