Diversifying crop rotations with temporary grasslands - Université de ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

664 H. Meiss et al. Table IV. Indicator species analysis (ISA) of the weed communities in seven crops. Only weed species with IVmax 20 (maximal IV over the different crops) are shown. High indicator values (IV) are shaded in successively darker shades of grey over the three levels: IV 10, IV 20 and IV 30. Alfalfas are associated with nine taxa. Indicator species of annual crops often show high indicator values in several annual crops, but rarely in annual and perennial crops. Alfalfas were thus characterised by a distinct weed community, suppressing many (noxious) weed species typical of different annual crops while favouring other species. Weed species Code Alfalfa Current crop Crop with highest IV m ------------------IV------------------ Taraxacum officinale TAROF 47 4 0 0 0 0 7 Alfalfa 0.0002 Veronica persica VERPE 39 12 1 3 1 3 6 Alfalfa 0.0002 Crepis sancta +vesicaria +sp. CVP 34 0 3 0 0 0 0 Alfalfa 0.0002 Veronica arvensis +polita VERAR 32 3 0 1 0 0 0 Alfalfa 0.0002 Silene latifolia MELAL 25 2 1 2 1 1 1 Alfalfa 0.0010 Myosotis arvensis +sp. MYOAR 22 4 3 1 0 0 0 Alfalfa 0.0020 Cerastium arvense +glomeratum CER 20 1 0 0 0 0 0 Alfalfa 0.0014 Poa trivialis POATR 20 3 0 1 0 1 3 Alfalfa 0.0026 Capsella bursa pastoris CAPBP 22 1 8 1 0 0 20 Alfalfa 0.0026 Papaver rhoeas +argemone +sp. PAPRH 4 20 2 3 0 0 0 Wheat 0.0070 Veronica hederifolia VERHE 3 32 17 19 0 0 0 Wheat 0.0002 Galium aparine GALAP 2 20 11 13 4 0 0 Wheat 0.0080 Viola arvensis +tricolor +sp. VIOTR 1 14 23 14 2 0 0 Rape 0.0022 Sinapis arvensis SINAR 1 6 27 4 9 2 4 Rape 0.0008 Euphorbia helioscopia EPHHE 0 1 32 3 15 3 6 Rape 0.0002 Reseda lutea +sp. RES 1 0 25 1 10 0 1 Rape 0.0004 Fallopia convolvulus POLCO 1 16 13 28 18 6 2 Pea 0.0002 Polygonum aviculare POLAV 1 11 5 20 4 14 14 Pea 0.0140 Kickxia spuria +sp. KICSP 0 0 0 40 1 6 12 Pea 0.0002 Senecio vulgaris +sp. SENVU 4 6 9 8 32 1 3 Sunflower 0.0002 Solanum nigrum +sp. SOLNI 0 0 0 14 25 9 21 Sunflower 0.0002 Mercurialis annua MERAN 0 5 10 16 24 19 14 Sunflower 0.0006 Convolvulus arvensis CONAR 3 3 0 12 22 26 22 Maize 0.0008 Chenopodium album CHEAL 0 4 1 17 8 11 36 Sorghum 0.0002 Setaria viridis +verticillata +sp. SET 0 0 0 0 2 20 42 Sorghum 0.0002 Polygonum persicaria POLPE 0 0 0 2 5 18 20 Sorghum 0.0006 Amaranthus retroflexus AMARE 0 0 0 0 1 6 58 Sorghum 0.0002 Verbena officinalis +sp. VEBOF 3 0 0 0 0 0 35 Sorghum 0.0002 Picris echioides PICEC 11 0 4 0 0 0 34 Sorghum 0.0002 Calystegia sepium CAGSE 0 0 0 0 0 9 30 Sorghum 0.0002 Echinochloa crus galli ECHCG 0 0 0 0 1 8 28 Sorghum 0.0002 Plantago major PLAMA 0 0 0 1 0 1 26 Sorghum 0.0002 Cirsium arvense +sp. CIRAR 2 7 4 5 8 3 21 Sorghum 0.0062 mechanism might be seed predation, which may have stronger impacts on populations of annual species than on perennials and which may be particularly strong in untilled perennial crops with permanent vegetation cover (Westerman et al., 2005). While the perennial species found in alfalfas did not appear with high frequency in any annual crop, other perennial species appeared in sorghum crops including Verbena officinalis, Picris echioides, Calystegia sepium, Plantago major and Cirsium arvense (Tab. IV). This might have been Wheat Rape Pea Sunflow. Maize Sorghum caused by lower competition, lower herbicide use or no-till practices in sorghum, but information on management details is lacking. However, it indicates that some perennial species are not favoured in alfalfa. The suppressive potential of alfalfas against C. arvense has already been observed by previous studies (Ominski et al., 1999). Thistles are probably less affected by soil tillage in annual crops compared with other perennial species (due to the ability to regenerate from root fragments). In contrast, they may particularly suffer from the P
Mean frequency in perennial lucernes 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.0 Contrasting weed species composition in perennial alfalfas and six annual crops: implications for integrated weed management 665 TAROF CAPBP VERPE SONAS VERAR POATR MELAL CVP STEME MYOAR 0.1 PICEC ATX ALOMY LAMPU SENVU CONAR ANGAR GALAP CIRAR POLAV SINAR EPHHE VIOTR KICSP SOLNI CHEAL VERHE 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 Mean frequency in annual crops Expected x=y POLCO MERAN Figure 2. Weed species occurrence in six annual crops (winter wheat, rape, maize, sunflower, pea and sorghum) and in perennial alfalfa crops. Frequency varies between 0 (completely absent in all fields of that group of crops) and 1 (present in all quadrats of all fields). All frequent weed species preferred either annual or perennial crops. SONAS, Sonchus asper; STEME, Stellaria media; ALOMY, Alopecurus myosuroides; ANGAR, Anagallis arvensis; ATX,Atrilex spp.; LAMPU, Lamium purpureum; seeTableIV for other species names. Rare taxa are not named in the figure. high competition and the repeated cuttings in alfalfas depleting their belowground carbohydrate resources needed for regrowth (Graglia et al., 2006). Besides some perennials including T. officinale, Crepis spp. and Silene latifolia, alfalfas also favoured a few small annual species with a very short life cycle such as Calepina irregularis, C. bursa-pastoris and V. persica. Short life cycles might allow species to produce seeds before the first or between two successive cuttings. Alfalfas might thus generate ‘divergent selection pressures’ favouring both long and very short life cycles. 4. CONCLUSION This study was based on commercial fields from a large area. The advantage of analysing data from real farming systems comes at the cost of various uncontrolled factors (crop management, environmental factors and local weed species pool) that may increase the noise in the data. Despite this noise, we detected strong differences in the weed composition between 6 annual crops and perennial alfalfas. Perennial alfalfas were characterised by reduced abundance of many annual species and some perennials including Cirsium arvense that are often problematic weeds in annual crops. In parallel, alfalfas showed increased frequency of some perennial and some short-lived annual species. Several differences between annual and perennial crops including the absence of soil tillage, the increased competition and the frequent hay cuttings may be responsible for these strong weed community shifts. The relative importance of these factors should be determined by more detailed experimental studies. This strong differentiation of plant communities confirms previous experimental studies and suggests that the diversification of crop rotations with perennial crops could contribute to Integrated Weed Management and herbicide use reduction. While alfalfas hinder the development of several weeds species that are problematic in annual crops, they may maintain a certain abundance and diversity of other wild plant species that may provide trophic resources for animals and other ecosystem services (Gerowitt et al., 2003; Marshall et al., 2003; Holland et al., 2006). The strong impacts of perennial crops on weed communities reported in this paper should be completed by long-term studies tracking the weed community during entire crop rotations. Acknowledgements: We thank Laurent Grelet, Anne-Caroline Denis, Damien Charbonnier, Luc Bianchi, Dominique Le Floch, Fabrice Dessaint, Bruno Chauvel, François Bretagnolle, Émilie Cadet, Jacques Gasquez and Florence Strbik for participation in the field surveys; Jacques Gasquez for help with weed taxonomy; Pablo Inchausti, Vincent Bretagnolle, Alban Thomas and Rodolphe Bernard for database maintenance, Fabrice Dessaint and Ralf Schmiele for statistical advice, and Richard Gunton and Antoine Gardarin for corrections and helpful comments. This work was funded by ECOGER, SYS- TERRA and AgroSupDijon, and supported by a PhD scholarship from the French research ministry to H.M. REFERENCES 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. Andersson T.N., Milberg P. (1996) Weed performance in crop rotations with and without leys and at different nitrogen levels, Ann. Appl. Biol. 128, 505–518. Andersson T.N., Milberg P. (1998) Weed flora and the relative importance of site, crop, crop rotation, and nitrogen, Weed Sci. 46, 30–38. Bellinder R.R., Dillard H.R., Shah D.A. (2004) Weed seedbank community responses to crop rotation schemes, Crop Prot. 23, 95–101. Belyea L.R., Lancaster J. (1999) Assembly rules within a contingent ecology, Oikos 86, 402–416. Cardina J., Herms C.P., Doohan D.J. (2002) Crop rotation and tillage system effects on weed seedbanks, Weed Sci. 50, 448–460. Cavigelli M.A., Teasdale J.R. , Conklin A.E. (2008) Long-term agronomic performance of organic and conventional field crops in the mid-Atlantic region, Agron. J. 100, 785–794. Clarke K.R. (1993) Non-parametric multivariate analyses of changes in community structure, Austral Ecol. 18, 117–143. Clay S.A., Aguilar I. (1998) Weed seedbanks and corn growth following continuous corn or alfalfa, Agron. J. 90, 813–818. Colwell R.K., Coddington J.A. (1994) Estimating terrestrial Biodiversity through extrapolation, Philos. T. Roy. Soc. B 345, 101–118.
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: Contrasting weed species compositio
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 and 174:
higher weed seed losses (e.g., Mena
Page 175 and 176:
D GENERAL DISCUSSION Data from weed
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
show all

Diversifying crop rotations with temporary grasslands - Université de ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?