Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-zklqj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T16:55:39.006Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Spatial and Temporal Analysis of Weed Seedling Populations Using Geostatistics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Gregg A. Johnson ,
David A. Mortensen  and
Carol A. Gotway
Gregg A. Johnson
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron, Univ. Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583-0915
David A. Mortensen
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron, Univ. Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583-0915
Carol A. Gotway
Affiliation:
Dep. Biom., Univ. Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583-0915
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An intensive field survey of an eastern Nebraska corn and soybean field was conducted to characterize the spatial structure and temporal stability of broadleaf weed seedling populations over two growing seasons. Anisotropy, the effect of direction on the relationship between observations, is present in the semivariogram for the velvetleaf and common sunflower populations in 1992 and 1993. The directional trends in aggregation are visible in kriged maps as elliptical shapes oriented east to west across the study area. In addition, there are two distinct zones of aggregation from north to south. These two distinct areas of aggregation are reflected as a ‘plateau’ in the north-south semivariogram. The distance over which this plateau extends indicates that the shape or size of the patch is contracting in the north-south direction (perpendicular to the crop row). The slope of the semivariogram in the east-west direction (aligned with the crop row) remains consistent from 1992 to 1993 suggesting that the shape of the patch is not changing. For sunflower populations, the slope of the north-south empirical semivariogram changes at 20 m, similar to the velvetleaf population semivariograms. This change, however, is reflected as a downward trend in the empirical semivariogram. The distance over which this trend occurs increases from 1992 to 1993 suggesting that seedling patch size was smaller in 1993 compared to 1992. Weed seedling establishment resulting from seed dispersal, differential seed and seedling mortality, or emergence may have resulted in the observed patch dynamics.

Keywords

Common sunflower, Helianthus annuus L. ♯ HELANcorn, Zea mays L.soybean, Glycine max(L.) Merr.velvetleaf, Abutilon theophrasti Medicus ♯ ABUTHKrigingvariographyweed ecology

Information

Type
Special Topics
Information
Weed Science , Volume 44 , Issue 3 , September 1996 , pp. 704 - 710
Copyright
Copyright © 1996 by the 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

1. Cardina, J., Sparrow, D. H., and McCoy, E. L. 1995. Analysis of spatial distribution of common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) in no-till soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 43: 258–268.Google Scholar
2. Davis, F. W. Introduction to spatial statistics. Pages 16–25 in Levin, S. A., Powell, T. M. and Steele, J. H., eds. Lecture Notes in Biomathematics. Springer-Verlag. Berlin, Germany.Google Scholar
3. Deutsch, C. V. and Journel, A. G. 1992. GSLIB: Geostatistical Software Library and User's Guide. Oxford University Press. 340 pp.Google Scholar
4. Donald, W. W. 1994. Geostatistics for mapping weeds, with a Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) patch as a case study. Weed Sci. 42: 648–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Doyle, C. J. 1991. Mathematical models in weed management. Crop Prot. 10: 432–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Firbank, L. G. 1993. Implications of scale on the ecology and management of weeds. Pages 91–104 in Bunce, R.G.H., Ryszkowski, L. and Paoletti, M. G., eds. Landscape Ecology and Agroecosystems. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL.Google Scholar
7. Ghersa, C. M. and Roush, M. L. 1993. Searching for solutions to weed problems. BioSci. 43: 104–109.Google Scholar
8. Halstead, S. J. and Gross, K. L. 1993. Geostatistical analysis of the weed seed bank. Proc. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. 33: 50.Google Scholar
9. Hughes, G. 1990. The problem of weed patchiness. Weed Res. 30: 223–224.Google Scholar
10. Isaaks, E. H. and Srivastava, R. M. 1989. An Introduction to Applied Geostatistics. Oxford University Press. 561 pp.Google Scholar
11. Johnson, G. A., Mortensen, D. A., and Martin, A. R. 1995. A simulation of herbicide use based on weed spatial distribution. Weed Research. 35: 197–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Journel, A. G. 1986. Geostatistics: Models and tools for the earth sciences. Math. Geol. 18: 119–140.Google Scholar
13. Marshall, E.J.P. 1988. Field-scale estimates of grass weed populations in arable land. Weed Res. 28: 191–198.Google Scholar
14. Mortensen, D. A., Johnson, G. A., and Young, L. J. 1993. Weed Distribution in agricultural fields. Pages 113–123 in Robert, P. C., Rust, R. H. and Larson, W. E., eds. Soil Specific Crop Management. Amer. Soc. Agron., Crop Sci. Soc. America, and Soil Sci. Soc. America, Madison, WI.Google Scholar
15. Navas, M. L. 1991. Using plant population biology in research: a strategy to improve weed management. Weed Res. 31: 171–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Quinn, J. F. and Dunham, A. E. 1983. On hypothesis testing in ecology and evolution. Am. Nat. 122: 602–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Roberts, E. H., Ravlin, F. W., and Fleischer, S. J. 1993. Spatial data representation for integrated pest management programs. American Entomologist. Summer, 1993.Google Scholar
18. Rossi, R. E., Mulla, D. J., Journel, A. G., and Franz, E. H. 1992. Geostatistical tools for modelling and interpreting ecological spatial dependence. Ecol. Mono. 62: 277–314.Google Scholar
19. Thornton, P. K., Fawcett, R. H., Dent, J. B., and Perkins, T. J. 1990. Spatial weed distribution and economic thresholds for weed control. Crop Prot. 9: 337–342.Google Scholar
20. Wiles, L. J., Wilkerson, G. G., and Gold, H. J. 1992. Value of information about weed distribution for improving postemergence control decisions. Crop Prot. 11: 547–554.Google Scholar
21. Williams, L., Schotzko, D. J., and McCaffrey, J. P. 1992. Geostatistical description of the spatial distribution of Limonius californicus wireworms in the northwestern united states, with comments on sampling. Environ. Entomol. 21: 983–995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar