Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-mp689 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T12:42:56.969Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Timing of tillage is an important filter on the assembly of weed communities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

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

Abstract

A trait-based community assembly approach to weed management may enhance our understanding of how weed communities respond to specific management practices and increase the utility of weed management based on ecological principles. Therefore, identifying management practices that operate as assembly filters and the species traits upon which they act is an important first step in developing a more predictive weed science. Here, I report results from a 3-yr investigation of the effects of timing of annual tillage (spring vs. fall) on the annual assembly of arable weed communities. The timing of tillage had consistent and dramatic effects on the composition of weed communities; spring tillage led to weed communities dominated by early emerging spring annual forbs and C4 grasses, and fall tillage led to communities dominated by later-emerging forbs and C3 grasses. Traits determining a species' susceptibility to tillage time likely include germination syndrome and life cycle, both of which influence how species respond to changes in soil resource levels and light availability driven by seasonal disturbance regime. Manipulating the timing of tillage and other major soil disturbances may therefore be an important tool for managers interested in influencing community composition or targeting species with similar germination and life-history traits.

Keywords

Community assembly theorydisturbanceresource availabilityspecies traitstemporal heterogeneitytillageweed ecology
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 54 , Issue 4 , August 2006 , pp. 705 - 712
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

Anderson, M. J. 2001. A new method for non-parametric multivariate analysis of variance. Aust. Ecol 26:32–46.Google Scholar
Anderson, M. J. 2004. DISTLM v.5: A FORTRAN Computer Program to Calculate a Distance-Based Multivariate Analysis for a Linear Model. Auckland, New: Zealand: University of Auckland, Department of Statistics.Google Scholar
Andersson, T. N. and Milberg, P. 1998. Weed flora and the relative importance of site, crop, crop rotation, and nitrogen. Weed Sci 46:30–38.Google Scholar
Bazzaz, F. A. 1983. Characteristics of populations in relation to disturbance in natural and man modified ecosystems. Pages 259–275 in Mooney, H. A. and Godron, M. eds. Disturbance and Ecosystems. Components of Response. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Belyea, L. R. and Lancaster, J. 1999. Assembly rules within a contingent ecology. Oikos 86:402–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Booth, B. D. and Swanton, C. J. 2002. Assembly theory applied to weed communities. Weed Sci 50:2–13.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapin, F. S. 1980. The mineral-nutrition of wild plants. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst 11:233–260.Google Scholar
Clements, D. R., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1994. Integrated weed management and weed species diversity. Phytoprotection 75:1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crawley, M. J. 2004. Timing of disturbance and coexistence in a species-rich ruderal plant community. Ecology 85:3277–3288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, M. A., Grime, J. P., and Thompson, K. 2000. Fluctuating resources in plant communities: a general theory of invisibility. J. Ecol 88:528–534.Google 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diamond, J. M. 1997. Assembly of species communities. Pages 342–444 in Cody, M. L. and Diamond, J. M. eds. Ecology and Evolution of Communities. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press/Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Díaz, S., Cabido, M., and Casanoves, F. 1999. Functional implications of trait-environment linkages in plant communities. Pages 339–362 in Weiher, E. and Keddy, P. A. eds. Ecological Assembly Rules: Perspectives, Advances, Retreats. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dufrene, M. and Legendre, P. 1997. Species assemblages and indicator species: the need for a flexible asymmetrical approach. Ecol. Monogr 67:345–366.Google Scholar
Emery, S. M. and Gross, K. L. 2005. Effects of timing of prescribed fire on the demography of an invasive plant, spotted knapweed Centaurea maculosa . J. Appl. Ecol 42:60–69.Google Scholar
Hald, A. B. 1999. The impact of changing the season in which cereals are sown on the diversity of the weed flora in rotational fields in Denmark. J. Appl. Ecol 36:24–32.Google Scholar
Hallgren, E., Palmer, M. W., and Milberg, P. 1999. Data diving with cross-validation: an investigation of broad-scale gradients in Swedish weed communities. J. Ecol 87:1037–1051.Google Scholar
Keddy, P. A. 1992. Assembly and response rules: two goals for predictive community ecology. J. Veg. Sci 3:157–165.Google Scholar
Keever, C. 1950. Causes of succession on old fields of the Piedmont, North Carolina. Ecol. Monogr 20:229–250.Google Scholar
Keever, C. 1979. Mechanisms of plant succession on old fields of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 106:299–308.Google Scholar
Little, R. C., Milliken, G. A., Stroup, W. W., and Wolfinger, R. D. 1996. SAS System for Mixed Models. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute.Google Scholar
Mack, M. C., D'Antonio, C. M., and Ley, R. E. 2001. Alteration of ecosystem nitrogen dynamics by exotic plants: a case study of C-4 grasses in Hawaii. Ecol. Appl 11:1323–1335.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. and Grace, J. B. 2002. Analysis of Ecological Communities. Gleneden Beach, OR: MjM Software Design.Google Scholar
McCune, B. and Mefford, M. J. 1999. PC-ORD. Multivariate Analysis of Ecological Data. Version 4. Gleneden Beach, OR: MjM Software Design.Google Scholar
Milberg, P., Hallgren, E., and Palmer, M. W. 2001. Timing of disturbance and vegetation development: how sowing date affects the weed flora in spring-sown crops. J. Veg. Sci 12:93–98.Google Scholar
Robertson, G. P., Klingensmith, K. M., Klug, M. J., Paul, E. A., Crum, J. R., and Ellis, B. G. 1997. Soil resources, microbial activity, and primary production across and agricultural ecosystem. Ecol. Appl 7:158–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheley, R. L., Jacobs, J. S., and Svejcar, T. J. 2005. Integrating disturbance and colonization during rehabilitation of invasive weed-dominated grasslands. Weed Sci 53:307–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, R. G. and Gross, K. L. 2006. Weed community and corn yield variability in diverse management systems. Weed Sci 54:106–113.Google Scholar
Thomas, A. G., Derksen, D. A., Blackshaw, R. E., Van Acker, R. C., Legere, A., Watson, P. R., and Turnbull, G. C. 2004. A multistudy approach to understanding weed population shifts in medium- to long-term tillage systems. Weed Sci 52:874–880.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiher, E. and Keddy, P. A. 1999. Assembly rules as general constraints on community composition. Pages 251–271 in Weiher, E. and Keddy, P. A. eds. Ecological Assembly Rules: Perspectives, Advances, Retreats. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Young, T. P., Chase, J. M., and Huddleston, R. T. 2001. Community succession and assembly: comparing, contrasting and combining paradigms in the context of ecological restoration. Ecol. Restor 19:5–18.Google Scholar