16 H. Meiss et al. / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 138 (2010) 10–16 Kollmann, J., Bassin, S., 2001. Effects of management on seed predation in wildflower strips in northern Switzerland. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 83, 285–296. Kromp, B., 1999. Carabid beetles in sustainable agriculture: a review on pest control efficacy, cultivation impacts and enhancement. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 74, 187–228. Landis, D.A., Menalled, F.D., Costamagna, A.C., Wilkinson, T.K., 2005. Manipulating plant resources to enhance beneficial arthropods in agricultural landscapes. Weed Sci. 53, 902–908. Lin<strong>de</strong>garth, M., Gamfeldt, L., 2005. Comparing categorical and continuous ecological analyses: Effects of “wave exposure” on rocky shores. Ecology 86, 1346–1357. Mac Nally, R., 2000. Regression and mo<strong>de</strong>l-building in conservation biology, biogeography and ecology: The distinction between and reconciliation of ‘predictive’ and ‘explanatory’ mo<strong>de</strong>ls. Biodivers. Conserv. 9, 655–671. Macdonald, D.W., Tew, T.E., Todd, I.A., Garner, J.P., Johnson, P.J., 2000. Arable habitat use by wood mice (Apo<strong>de</strong>mus sylvaticus). 3. A farm-scale experiment on the effects of <strong>crop</strong> rotation. J. Zool. 250, 313–320. Manson, R.H., Stiles, E.W., 1998. Links between microhabitat preferences and seed predation by small mammals in old fields. Oikos 82, 37–50. Mauchline, A.L., Watson, S.J., Brown, V.K., Froud-Williams, R.J., 2005. Post-dispersal seed predation of non-target weeds in arable <strong>crop</strong>s. Weed Res. 45, 157–164. Menalled, F.D., Liebman, M., Renner, K.A., 2006. The Ecology of Weed Seed Predation in Herbaceous Crop Systems. In: Singh, H.P., Batish, D.R., Kohli, R.K. (Eds.), Handbook of Sustainable Weed Management. The Haworth Press, New York, pp. 297–327. Menalled, F.D., Marino, P.C., Renner, K.A., Landis, D.A., 2000. Post-dispersal weed seed predation in Michigan <strong>crop</strong> fields as a function of agricultural landscape structure. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 77, 193–202. Mittelbach, G.G., Gross, K.L., 1984. Experimental studies of seed predation in oldfields. Oecologia 65, 7–13. Moorcroft, D., Whittingham, M.J., Bradbury, R.B., Wilson, J.D., 2002. The selection of stubble fields by wintering granivorous birds reflects vegetation cover and food abundance. J. Appl. Ecol. 39, 535–547. Navntoft, S., Wratten, S.D., Kristensen, K., Esbjerg, P., 2009. Weed seed predation in organic and conventional fields. Biol. Control 49, 11–16. O’Rourke, M.E., Heggenstaller, A.H., Liebman, M., Rice, M.E., 2006. Post-dispersal weed seed predation by invertebrates in conventional and low-external-input <strong>crop</strong> rotation systems. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 116, 280–288. O’Rourke, M.E., Liebman, M., Rice, M.E., 2008. Ground beetle (Coleoptera: Carabidae) assemblages in conventional and diversified <strong>crop</strong> rotation systems. Environ. Entomol. 37, 121–130. Povey, F.D., Smith, H., Watt, T.A., 1993. Predation of annual grass weed seeds in arable field margins. Ann. Appl. Biol. 122, 323–328. R Development Core Team, 2008. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. Robinson, R.A., Sutherland, W.J., 2002. Post-war changes in arable farming and biodiversity in Great Britain. J. Appl. Ecol. 39, 157–176. Shearin, A.F., Reberg-Horton, S.C., Gallandt, E.R., 2008. Cover <strong>crop</strong> effects on the activity-<strong>de</strong>nsity of the weed seed predator Harpalus rufipes (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Weed Sci. 56, 442–450. Shuler, R.E., DiTommaso, A., Losey, J.E., Mohler, C.L., 2008. Postdispersal weed seed predation is affected by experimental substrate. Weed Sci. 56, 889–895. Westerman, P.R., Hofman, A., Vet, L.E.M., van <strong>de</strong>r Werf, W., 2003a. Relative importance of vertebrates and invertebrates in epigeaic weed seed predation in organic cereal fields. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 95, 417–425. Westerman, P.R., Liebman, M., Menalled, F.D., Heggenstaller, A.H., Hartzler, R.G., Dixon, P.M., 2005. Are many little hammers effective? Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) population dynamics in two- and four-year <strong>crop</strong> rotation systems. Weed Sci. 53, 382–392. Westerman, P.R., Wes, J.S., Kropff, M.J., Van <strong>de</strong>r Werf, W., 2003b. Annual losses of weed seeds due to predation in organic cereal fields. J. Appl. Ecol. 40, 824–836. Wilson, J.D., Morris, A.J., Arroyo, B.E., Clark, S.C., Bradbury, R.B., 1999. A review of the abundance and diversity of invertebrate and plant foods of granivorous birds in northern Europe in relation to agricultural change. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 75, 13–30. Zhang, J.X., Drummond, F.A., Leibman, M., 1998. Effect of <strong>crop</strong> habitat and potato management practices on the population abundance of adult Harpalus rufipes (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in Maine. J. Agric. Entomol. 15, 63–74.
D GENERAL DISCUSSION Data from weed surveys on commercial fields and from the small-scale field experiments suggested that PFCs have strong impacts on the arable weed vegetation which is in line <strong>with</strong> the initial hypothesis. The large-scale weed surveys (Article 1) showed that current annual and perennial <strong>crop</strong>s differed strongly in species composition (discussed in D.I.1). Comparisons between wheat fields following either perennial or annual <strong>crop</strong>s as well as the analysis of several stages of a <strong>crop</strong> rotation before, during and after perennial <strong>crop</strong>s using the space-for- time substitution <strong>de</strong>sign (Article 2) suggested that the inclusion of perennial <strong>crop</strong>s in <strong>rotations</strong> based on annual grain <strong>crop</strong>s also impacts the weed communities in the subsequent <strong>crop</strong> following PFC (seed <strong>de</strong>tails in D.I.2). While the large-scale studies were based on a high number of fields of a whole region during three years <strong>with</strong> a high variety of natural conditions and <strong>crop</strong> management techniques (information that was not available for analysis), different <strong>crop</strong> management treatment could be compared in the small-scale field experiment. This experiment suggested contrasting population dynamics and thus increasing differences in the communities between annual and perennial <strong>crop</strong>s (discussed in D.I.3). A comparison of the behaviour of individual weed species in the large- and small-scale studies is provi<strong>de</strong>d in chapter D.I.4; reactions of functional groups, weed abundances and diversities are discussed in D.I.5 and D.I.6. Results suggest that several mechanisms are involved in the effects of the impacts of PFCs on weeds (D.II). Mechanisms linked to (the absence of) soil tillage (D.II.1) and competition (D.II.2) are much better known than others linked to the regular hay cuttings (D.II.3), interactions between competition and disturbances (D.II.4) and weed seed predation (D.II.5), which were thus studied in more <strong>de</strong>tail. Strengths and weaknesses concerning the different approaches are discussed after each section. Given that the i<strong>de</strong>ntified processes are inten<strong>de</strong>d to be integrated into mathematical mo<strong>de</strong>ls simulating the weed population dynamics as influenced by <strong>crop</strong>ping systems and natural conditions, some suggestions for mo<strong>de</strong>lling formalisms are discussed in section D.III. 152
- Page 1 and 2:
Diversifying crop rotations with te
- Page 3 and 4:
In Chizé, I am indebted to all the
- Page 5 and 6:
Talks . ...........................
- Page 7 and 8:
C.II.4.1 Differences between crop t
- Page 9 and 10:
INDEX OF FIGURES Fig. 1: Population
- Page 11 and 12:
ABSTRACTS (ENGLISH, FRENCH & GERMAN
- Page 13 and 14:
Extended summary in English Résum
- Page 15 and 16:
Extended summary in English Résum
- Page 17 and 18:
CONTEXT AND FUNDING This thesis is
- Page 19 and 20:
THESIS ORGANISATION This thesis ent
- Page 21 and 22:
8) Meiss, H., Lagadec, L. L., Munie
- Page 23 and 24:
Posters . 1) Meiss, H., Waldhardt,
- Page 25 and 26:
2007). Agriculture is increasingly
- Page 27 and 28:
term considerations (Munier-Jolain
- Page 29 and 30:
problematic for the production of d
- Page 31 and 32:
Newton, 2004). Several bird species
- Page 33 and 34:
A.III APPROACHES TO ALLEVIATE THE
- Page 35 and 36:
and higher production costs or even
- Page 37 and 38:
competitive yield loss (Cousens, 19
- Page 39 and 40:
2006; Makowski et al., 2007). Moreo
- Page 41 and 42:
Table 3: Four strategies for combin
- Page 43 and 44:
otations is thus an obvious approac
- Page 45 and 46:
iv) the availability of cheap and e
- Page 47 and 48:
Clay & Aguilar (1998) compared the
- Page 49 and 50:
Heggenstaller & Liebman (2006) comp
- Page 51 and 52:
growth of any (crop or weed) plant
- Page 53 and 54:
A.V DIVERSIFIED CROPPING SYSTEM CON
- Page 55 and 56:
crops will thus probably show rathe
- Page 57 and 58:
annual crops while increasing organ
- Page 59 and 60:
• Which species are suppressed, w
- Page 61 and 62:
B OVERWIEW OF THE MATERIALS & METHO
- Page 63 and 64:
A) France B) Study site ~1000 km Pe
- Page 65 and 66:
perennial crops with different mana
- Page 67 and 68:
B.III.2.4 Cutting height In 2008, t
- Page 69 and 70:
B.IV.3 Design of the seed predation
- Page 71 and 72:
Agron. Sustain. Dev. 30 (2010) 657-
- Page 73 and 74:
Contrasting weed species compositio
- Page 75 and 76:
Contrasting weed species compositio
- Page 77 and 78:
Contrasting weed species compositio
- Page 79 and 80:
Mean frequency in perennial lucerne
- Page 81 and 82:
C.I.2 Article 2: Meiss, H., Médiè
- Page 83 and 84:
332 H Meiss et al. communities (Boo
- Page 85 and 86:
334 H Meiss et al. functional group
- Page 87 and 88:
336 H Meiss et al. Table 3 Indicato
- Page 89 and 90:
338 H Meiss et al. Relative frequen
- Page 91 and 92:
340 H Meiss et al. MEISS H, MUNIER-
- Page 93 and 94:
perennial crop treatments, differen
- Page 95 and 96:
PFCs might inhibit the successful g
- Page 97 and 98:
during winter), T10 without soil ti
- Page 99 and 100:
The viability and germination abili
- Page 101 and 102:
Table 8: Organic carbon and total n
- Page 103 and 104:
The development of weed species ric
- Page 105 and 106:
C.II.3.1.2 Dynamics of weed communi
- Page 107 and 108:
C.II.3.1.3 Dynamics of individual w
- Page 109 and 110:
Time Fig. 14: Temporal development
- Page 111 and 112:
At the end of the experiment in spr
- Page 113 and 114:
Difference sown - unsown (plants m
- Page 115 and 116:
Cumulated BM production (g m -2 ) 1
- Page 117 and 118:
Weed biomass (g m -2 ) 500 400 300
- Page 119 and 120:
Table 12: Factors differing between
- Page 121 and 122:
However, some differences in densit
- Page 123 and 124: Table 13: Mechanisms causing the im
- Page 125 and 126: 2007 and 2008, while big numbers of
- Page 127 and 128: • Weed biomasses decreased in sum
- Page 129 and 130: Our results show that different mec
- Page 131 and 132: including exotic species (Palmer an
- Page 133 and 134: 01234568912661943 ! "#$$%&' ()123)4
- Page 135 and 136: 332 3 v77yDDI7FA7D9CyVuB69f7F6BIDI7
- Page 137 and 138: $%%524!'276372224274222489 00123452
- Page 139 and 140: 0123156789153263616 52675!6253!1!"5
- Page 141 and 142: XIII ème COLLOQUE INTERNATIONAL SU
- Page 143 and 144: irradiation,…), and (ii) biotic i
- Page 145 and 146: Table I: Species included in the ex
- Page 147 and 148: Fig. 2: Mean biomass (harvestable d
- Page 149 and 150: When both treatments were combined,
- Page 151 and 152: C.IV WEED SEED PREDATION C.IV.1 Art
- Page 153 and 154: 99"268)3635683498354836792666676983
- Page 155 and 156: 001234564787938494694783 777787946!
- Page 157 and 158: 001234564787938494694783 34564789@A
- Page 159 and 160: XIII ème COLLOQUE INTERNATIONAL SU
- Page 161 and 162: produites restent à la surface du
- Page 163 and 164: Tableau 1 : Liste des espèces adve
- Page 165 and 166: Insectes prédateurs Les principaux
- Page 167 and 168: C.IV.3 Article 8: Meiss, H., Lagade
- Page 169 and 170: Table 1 Studies investigating the i
- Page 171 and 172: Table 2 Overview showing (i) mean s
- Page 173: higher weed seed losses (e.g., Mena
- Page 177 and 178: The first two limits could be addre
- Page 179 and 180: composition that may be compared to
- Page 181 and 182: Frequency in field experiment (Epoi
- Page 183 and 184: crops (Clay and Aguilar, 1998; Card
- Page 185 and 186: Such diversified crop rotations cou
- Page 187 and 188: the leaves (needed for photosynthes
- Page 189 and 190: field margin strips (compare Articl
- Page 191 and 192: 1) The absence of soil tillage and
- Page 193 and 194: D.III.2 Predicting weed regrowth af
- Page 195 and 196: Future studies must determine the s
- Page 197 and 198: (illustrated in Fig. 24). Later, re
- Page 199 and 200: D.III.3 Factors determining weed se
- Page 201 and 202: governing the presence and abundanc
- Page 203 and 204: natural conditions, weed species po
- Page 205 and 206: This PhD research project documente
- Page 207 and 208: area needed for crop production. Gl
- Page 209 and 210: seed characteristics, tillage and s
- Page 211 and 212: Fried G., S. Petit, F. Dessaint, X.
- Page 213 and 214: at the Eastern base of the Meissner
- Page 215 and 216: Lindegarth M., L. Gamfeldt. (2005)
- Page 217 and 218: Murphy S.D., D.R. Clements, S. Bela
- Page 219 and 220: affected by experimental substrate.
- Page 221 and 222: Vincent G., M. Ahmim. (1985) Note o
- Page 223 and 224: ANNEXES ANNEXE 1: KEY WORDS IN ENGL
- Page 225 and 226:
genetically modified crop varieties
- Page 227 and 228:
ANNEXE 3: WEED SPECIES OF THE LARGE
- Page 229 and 230:
Name of species /genera Code Freq.
- Page 231 and 232:
Name of species /genera Code Freq.
- Page 233 and 234:
ERKLÄRUNG (DECLARATION FOR THE GIE