Hostname: page-component-7f64f4797f-fz5kh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-11-05T07:04:21.866Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Seedbank and Emerged Weed Communities Following Adoption of Glyphosate-Resistant Crops in a Long-Term Tillage and Rotation Study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Lynn M. Sosnoskie ,
Catherine P. Herms ,
John Cardina  and
Theodore M. Webster
Lynn M. Sosnoskie
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture and Crop Science, The Ohio State University, Wooster, OH 44691
Catherine P. Herms
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture and Crop Science, The Ohio State University, Wooster, OH 44691
John Cardina*
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture and Crop Science, The Ohio State University, Wooster, OH 44691
Theodore M. Webster
Affiliation:
Crop Protection and Management Research Unit, USDA-ARS, Tifton, GA 31794
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: cardina.2@osu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The compositions of the germinable weed seedbank and aboveground weed communities in a long-term tillage and rotation study were characterized 4, 5, and 6 yr (2002 to 2004) after the adoption of glyphosate-tolerant corn and soybean. Averaged across rotation, mean germinable weed seed density and diversity were greatest in the no-tillage treatment as compared to the minimum- and conventional-tillage treatments. Averaged over tillage, density and diversity were greater in the corn–oat–hay (ryegrass + alfalfa) system as compared to the continuous corn and corn–soybean rotations. Similar trends in density and diversity were observed for the aboveground weed communities. Differences in community composition among treatments were quantified with the use of a multiresponse permutation procedure. Results indicated that the weed seedbank community in a corn–oat–hay rotational system differed from the communities associated with the continuous corn and corn–soybean rotational systems. Weed seedbank communities developing under a no-tillage operation differed from those in minimum- and conventional-tillage scenarios. Compositional differences among the aboveground weed communities were less pronounced in response to tillage and rotation. Indicator species analyses indicated that the number of significant indicator weed species was generally higher for no tillage than minimum or conventional tillage for both the seedbank and the aboveground weed communities. The number of significant indicator species for the seedbank and weed communities was generally greater in the three-crop rotation as compared to the continuous corn and corn–soybean rotations. The trends observed in density, diversity, and community composition after the adoption of glyphosate-tolerant corn and soybeans, and a glyphosate-dominated weed management program, were also observed when soil-applied herbicides were included in the study. We suggest that the switch to a POST-glyphosate protocol did not significantly alter weed communities in the short term in this study.

Keywords

Glyphosatealfalfa, Medicago sativa L.corn, Zea mays L.oat, Avena sativa L.ryegrass, Lolium perenne L.soybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr.Weed communitiestillagerotationglyphosateindicator species

Information

Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 57 , Issue 3 , June 2009 , pp. 261 - 270
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

Anderson, R. L., Tanaka, D. L., Black, A. L., and Schweizer, E. E. 1998. Weed community and species response to crop rotation, tillage and nitrogen fertility. Weed Technol. 12:531–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bàrberi, P., Cozzani, A., Macchia, M., and Bonari, E. 1998. Size and composition of the weed seedbank under different management systems for continuous maize cropping. Weed Res. 38:319–334.CrossRefGoogle 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
Biondini, M. E., Mielke, P. W. Jr., and Berry, K. J. 1988. Data-dependent permutation techniques for the analysis of ecological data. Vegetatio. 75:161–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackburn, L. G. and Boutin, C. 2003. Subtle effects of herbicide use in the context of genetically modified crops: a case study with glyphosate (Roundup®). Ecotoxicology. 12:271–285.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
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cavers, P. B. and Benoit, D. L. 1989. Seedbanks in arable land. Pages 309–328. In Leck, M. A., Parker, V. T., and Simpson, R. L. Ecology of Soil Seedbanks. New York Academic.Google Scholar
Culpepper, A. S., Grey, T. L., Vencill, W. K., Kichler, J. M., Webster, T. M., Brown, S. M., York, A. C., Davis, J. W., and Hanna, W. H. 2006. Glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) confirmed in Georgia. Weed Sci. 54:620–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, A. S., Renner, K. A., and Gross, K. L. 2005. Weed seedbank and community shifts in a long-term cropping systems experiment. Weed Sci. 53:296–306.Google Scholar
Dick, W. A. and Van Doren, D. M. Jr. 1985. Continuous tillage and rotation combinations effects on corn, soybean, and oat yields. Agron. J. 77:459–465.Google Scholar
Dufrêne, M. and Legendre, P. 1997. Species assemblages and indicator species: the need for a flexible asymmetrical approach. Ecol. Monogr. 67:345–366.Google Scholar
Duke, S. O. 2005. Taking stock of herbicide-resistant crops ten years after introduction. Pest Manag. Sci. 61:211–218.Google Scholar
Feldman, F. and Boyle, C. 1998. Weed-mediated stability of arbuscular mycorrhizal effectiveness in maize monocultures. J. Appl. Bot. 73:1–5.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. 37:71–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freyssinet, G. 2003. Herbicide-resistant transgenic crops—a benefit for agriculture. Phytoparasitica. 31:105–107.Google Scholar
Kleyer, M. 1999. Distribution of plant functional types along gradients of disturbance intensity and resource supply in an agricultural landscape. J. Veg. Sci. 10:697–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuiper, H. A., Kleter, G. A., and Nordam, M. Y. 2000. Risks of the release of transgenic herbicide-resistant plants with respect to humans, animals and the environment. Crop Prot. 19:773–778.Google Scholar
Légère, A. and Samson, N. 1999. Relative influence of crop rotation, tillage and weed management on weed associations in spring barley cropping systems. Weed Sci. 47:112–122.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
Leroux, G. D., Benoit, D. L., and Banville, S. 1996. Effect of crop rotation on weed control, Bidens cernua and Erigeron canadensis populations, and carrot yields in organic soils. Crop Prot. 15:171–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liebman, M. 2001. Weed management: a need for ecological approaches. Pages 1–30. In Liebman, M., Mohler, C. L., and Staver, C. P. Ecological Management of Agricultural Weeds. Cambridge, UK Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Liebman, M. and Dyck, E. 1993. Crop rotation and intercropping strategies for weed management. Ecol. Appl. 3:92–122.Google Scholar
Lyon, D. J., Bussman, A. J., Evans, J. O., Mallory-Smith, C. A., and Peeper, T. F. 2002. Pest management implications of glyphosate-resistant wheat (Triticum aestivum) in the western United States. Weed Technol. 16:680–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martinez-Ghersa, M. A., Worster, C. A., and Radosevich, S. R. 2003. Concerns a weed scientist might have about herbicide-tolerant crops: a revisitation. Weed Technol. 17:202–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCune, B. and Grace, J. B. 2002. Analysis of Ecological Communities. Gleneden Beach, OR MjM Software Design. 300.Google Scholar
Menalled, F. D., Gross, K. L., and Hammond, M. 2001. Weed aboveground and seedbank community responses to agricultural management systems. Ecol. Appl. 11:1586–1601.Google Scholar
Powles, S. B. and Shaner, D. L. 2001. Herbicide Resistance and World Grains. Boca Raton, FL CRC. 328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Puricelli, E. and Tuesca, D. 2005. Weed density and diversity under glyphosate-resistant crop sequences. Crop Prot. 24:533–542.Google Scholar
Riches, C. R. and Valverde, B. E. 2002. Agricultural and biological diversity in Latin America: implications for development, testing, and commercialization of herbicide resistant crops. Weed Technol. 16:200–214.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Streit, B., Rieger, S. B., Stamp, P., and Richner, W. 2003. Weed populations in winter wheat as affected by crop sequence, intensity of tillage and time of herbicide application in a cool and humid climate. Weed Res. 43:20–32.Google Scholar
Sturz, A. V., Matheson, B. G., Arsenault, W., Kimpinski, J., and Christie, B. R. 2001. Weeds as a source of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria in agricultural soils. Can. J. Microbiol. 47:1013–1024.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Swift, M. J. and Anderson, J. M. 1993. Biodiversity and ecosystem function in agricultural systems. Pages 14–41. In Schultz, E. D. and Mooney, H. A. Biodiversity and Ecosystem Function. Berlin Springer.Google Scholar
Thomas, A. G., Derksen, D. A., Blackshaw, R. E., Van Acker, R. C., Légère, 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.Google Scholar
Tørresen, K. S. and Skuterud, R. 2002. Plant protection in spring cereal production with reduced tillage. IV. Changes in weed flora and weed seedbank. Crop Prot. 21:179–193.Google Scholar
Tørresen, K. S., Skuterud, R., Tandsæther, H. J., and Breddesen Hagemo, M. 2003. Long-term experiments with reduced tillage in spring cereals. I. Effects on weed flora, weed seedbank and grain yield. Crop Prot. 22:185–200.Google Scholar
Tuesca, D., Puricelli, E., and Papa, J. C. 2001. A long-term study of weed flora shifts in different tillage systems. Weed Res. 41:369–382.Google Scholar
Zanin, G., Otto, S., Riello, L., and Borin, M. 1997. Ecological interpretation of weed flora dynamics under tillage systems. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 66:177–188.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, G. M., Goetz, H., and Mielke, P. W. Jr. 1985. Use of an improved statistical method for group comparison to study effects of prairie fire. Ecol. 66:606–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zoschke, A. 1994. Toward reduced herbicide rates and adapted weed management. Weed Technol. 8:376–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar