Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-m9kch Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-04T19:40:08.239Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Effect of Rotation and In-Crop Weed Management on the Germinable Weed Seedbank after 10 Years

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Robert H. Gulden ,
Derek W. Lewis ,
Jane C. Froese ,
Rene C. Van Acker ,
Gary B. Martens ,
Martin H. Entz ,
Doug A. Derksen  and
Lindsay W. Bell
Robert H. Gulden*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Science, 222 Agriculture Building, 66 Dafoe Road, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB R3T 2N2, Canada
Derek W. Lewis
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Science, 222 Agriculture Building, 66 Dafoe Road, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB R3T 2N2, Canada
Jane C. Froese
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Science, 222 Agriculture Building, 66 Dafoe Road, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB R3T 2N2, Canada
Rene C. Van Acker
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Agriculture, Crop Science Building, University of Guelph, 50 Stone Road East, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada
Gary B. Martens
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Science, 222 Agriculture Building, 66 Dafoe Road, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB R3T 2N2, Canada
Martin H. Entz
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Science, 222 Agriculture Building, 66 Dafoe Road, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB R3T 2N2, Canada
Doug A. Derksen
Affiliation:
Brandon Research Centre, P.O. Box 1000A RR3, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Brandon MB R7A 5Y3, Canada
Lindsay W. Bell
Affiliation:
CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems/APSRU, P.O. Box 102, Toowoomba, Queensland 4350, Australia
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: gulden@cc.umanitoba.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Agricultural production systems that reduce the use of in-crop herbicides could greatly reduce risks of environmental damage and the development of herbicide-resistant weeds. Few studies have investigated the long-term effects of in-crop herbicide omissions on weed seedbank community size and structure. A crop-rotation study was sampled 10 yr after a strictly annual rotation and an annual/perennial rotation were exposed to different in-crop herbicide omission treatments. In-crop herbicides were applied either in all annual crops (control), omitted from oats only, or omitted from both flax and oats. Seedbank densities were greatest when in-crop herbicides were omitted from flax and oats, and this treatment also reduced crop yield. Shannon-Wiener diversity differed among crops in the annual crop rotation and among herbicide omission treatments in the perennial rotation. Herbicide omissions changed the weed-community structure in flax and in wheat and canola crops in the annual rotation enough to warrant alternate control methods in some treatments. The magnitude of the effects on the seedbank parameters depended largely on the competitive ability of the crop in which herbicides were omitted. No yield response to omitting herbicides in oats indicated that standard weed management practices have reduced weed populations below yield-loss thresholds.

Keywords

Canola, Brassica napus L. BRSNNoats, Avena sativa L. AVESAflax, Linum usitatissimum L. LIUUSwheat, Triticum aestivum L. TRZAXCommunity assemblycrop rotationherbicide omissionweed seedbank
Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 59 , Issue 4 , December 2011 , pp. 553 - 561
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

Albrecht, H. 2005. Development of arable weed seedbanks during the 6 years after the change from conventional to organic farming. Weed Res. 45:339–350.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2010. Guide to Field Crop Protection—Weed Control. http://www.gov.mb.ca/agriculture/crops/cropproduction/pdf/gcp2009/herbicide.pdf. Accessed: February 16, 2010.Google Scholar
Barberi, P., Silvestri, N., and Bonari, E. 1997. Weed communities of winter wheat as influenced by input level and rotation. Weed Res. 37:301–313.Google Scholar
Beckie, H. J., Leeson, J. Y., Thomas, A. G., Hall, L. M., and Brenzil, C. A. 2008. Risk assessment of weed resistance in the Canadian prairies. Weed Technol. 22:741–746.Google Scholar
Bellinder, R. R., Dillard, H. R., and Shah, D. E. 2003. Weed seedbank community responses to crop rotations schemes. Crop Prot. 23:94–101.Google Scholar
Booth, B. D. and Swanton, C. J. 2002. Assembly theory applied to weed communities. Weed Sci. 50:2–13.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
Cardina, J. and Sparrow, D. H. 1996. A comparison of methods to predict weed seedling populations from the soil seedbank. Weed Sci. 44:46–51.Google Scholar
Cathcart, R. J., Topinka, A. K., Kharbanda, P., Lange, R., Yang, R. C., and Hall, L. M. 2006. Rotation length, canola variety and herbicide resistance system affect weed populations and yield. Weed Sci. 54:726–734.Google Scholar
Cavers, P. B. 1995. Seed banks: memory in soil. Can. J. Soil Sci. 75:11–13.Google Scholar
Conn, J. S., Beattie, K. L., and Blanchard, A. 2006. Seed viability and dormancy of 17 weed species after 19.7 years of burial in Alaska. Weed Sci. 55:464–470.Google Scholar
Davis, A. S., Renner, K. A., and Gross, K. L. 2005. Weed seedbank and community shifts in a long-term cropping system. Weed Sci. 53:296–306.Google Scholar
Derksen, D. A., Thomas, A. G., Lafond, G. P., Loeppky, H. A., and Swanton, C. J. 1995. Impact of post-emergence herbicides on weed community diversity within conservation tillage systems. Weed Res. 35:311–320.Google Scholar
Derksen, D. A. and Watson, P. R. 1998. Weed community composition in seedbanks, seedling, and mature plant communities in a multi-year trial in western Canada. Asp. Appl. Biol. 51:43–50.Google Scholar
Doucet, C., Weaver, S. E., Hamill, A. S., and Zhang, J. 1999. Separating the effects of crop rotation from weed management on weed density and diversity. Weed Sci. 47:729–735.Google Scholar
Feldman, S. R., Alzugaray, C., Torres, P. S., and Lewis, P. 1997. The effect of different tillage systems on the composition of the seedbank. Weed Res. 37:71–16.Google Scholar
Fleck, N. G., Schaedler, C. E., Aostinetto, D., Rigoli, R. P., Dal Margo, T., and Tironi, S. P. 2009. Association of plant traits in oat cultivars with competitive ability. Planta Daninha. 27:211–220.Google Scholar
Gulden, R. H., Sikkema, P. H., Hamill, A. S., Tardif, F., and Swanton, C. J. 2010. Conventional vs. glyphosate-resistant cropping systems in Ontario: multivariate and nominal trait-based weed community structure. Weed Science. 58:278–288.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
Harker, K. N., Clayton, G. W., Blackshaw, R. E., O'Donovan, J. T., Lupwayi, N. Z., Johnson, E. N., Lafond, G. P., and Irvine, R. B. 2005. Glyphosate-resistant spring wheat production system effects on weed communities. Weed Sci. 53:451–464.Google Scholar
Heap, I. M. 1997. The occurrence of herbicide-resistant weeds worldwide. Pest Manag. Sci. 51:235–243.Google Scholar
Légère, A. and Stevenson, F. C. 2002. Residual effects of crop rotation and weed management on a wheat test crop and weeds. Weed Sci. 50:101–111.Google Scholar
Légère, A., Stevenson, F. C., and Benoit, D. L. 2005. Diversity and assembly of weed communities: contrasting responses across cropping systems. Weed Res. 45:303–315.Google Scholar
Leps, J. and Smilauer, P. 1999. Multivariate analysis of ecological data. Ceske Budejovice, Czech Republic University of South Bohemia. 110 p.Google Scholar
Leroux, G. D., Benoit, D. L., and Banville, S. 1996. Effect of carrot rotations on weed control, Bidens ceruna and Erigeron canadensis populations and carrot yields in organic soils. Crop Prot. 15:171–178.Google Scholar
Liebman, M. and Dyck, E. 1993. Crop rotation and intercropping strategies for weed management. Ecol. Appl. 3:92–122.Google Scholar
Littell, R. C., Miliken, G. A., Stroup, W. W., and Wolfinger, R. D. 1996. SAS System for Mixed Models. Cary, NC SAS Institute. 633 p.Google Scholar
Lund, R. E. 1975. Tables for an approximate test for outliers in linear models. Technometrics. 17:473–476.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
Menalled, F. D., Gross, K. L., and Hammond, M. 2001. Weed aboveground and seedbank community response to agricultural management systems. Ecol. Appl. 11:1586–1601.Google Scholar
Mickelson, J. A. and Stougaard, R. N. 2003. Assessment of soil sampling methods to estimate wild oat (Avena fatua) seed bank populations. Weed Sci. 51:226–230.Google Scholar
Norsworthy, J. K. 2008. Effect of tillage and herbicide programs on changes in weed species density and composition in the southeastern coastal plains of the United States. Crop Prot. 27:151–160.Google Scholar
Økland, R. H. 2003. Partitioning the variation in a plot-by-species data matrix that is related to n sets of explanatory variables. J. Veg. Sci. 14:693–700.Google Scholar
Ominski, P. D. and Entz, M. H. 2001. Eliminating soil disturbance reduces post-alfalfa summer annual weed populations. Can. J. Plant Sci. 81:881–884.Google Scholar
Ominski, P. D., Entz, M. H., and Kenkel, N. 1999. Weed suppression by Medicago sativa in subsequent cereal crops: a comparative survey. Weed Sci. 47:282–290.Google Scholar
Saxton, A. 1998. A macro for converting mean separation output to letter groupings in Proc Mixed. Pages 1243–1246 in Proceedings of the 23rd SAS Users Group International. Cary, NC SAS Institute.Google Scholar
Schoofs, A., Entz, M. H., Van Acker, R. C., Thiessen Martens, J. R., and Derksen, D. A. 2005. Agronomic performance of pesticide free production under two crop rotations. Renew. Agri. Food Syst. 20:91–100.Google Scholar
Shannon, C. E. and Weaver, W. 1949. The Mathematical Theory of Communication. Urbana, IL University of Illinois Press. 12 p.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
Swanton, C. J., Booth, B. D., Chandler, K., Clements, D. R., and Shrethra, A. 2006. Management in a modified no-tillage corn-soybean-wheat rotation influences weed population and community dynamics. Weed Sci. 54:47–58.Google Scholar
Swanton, C. J., Mahoney, K. J., Chandler, K., and Gulden, R. H. 2008. Integrated weed management: knowledge based weed management systems. Weed Sci. 56:168–172.Google Scholar
Swanton, C. J., Shrestha, A. L., Roy, R. C., Ball–Coelho, B. R., and Knezevic, S. Z. 1999. Effect of tillage systems, N, and cover crop on the composition of weed flora. Weed Sci. 47:454–461.Google Scholar
Thorne, M. E., Young, F. L., and Yenish, J. P. 2007. Cropping systems alter weed seed banks in the Pacific Northwest semi-arid wheat region. Crop Prot. 26:1121–1134.Google Scholar
Unger, P. W., Miller, S. D., and Jones, O. R. 1999. Weed seeds in long-term dryland tillage and cropping system plots. Weed Res. 39:213–223.Google Scholar
Willenborg, C. J., May, W. E., Gulden, R. H., Lafond, G. P., and Shirtliffe, C. J. 2005. Influence of wild oat (Avena fatua) relative time of emergence and density on cultivated oat yield, wild oat seed production, and wild oat contamination. Weed Sci. 53:342–352.Google Scholar