Diversifying crop rotations with temporary grasslands - Université de ...
Diversifying crop rotations with temporary grasslands - Université de ...
Diversifying crop rotations with temporary grasslands - Université de ...
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
INDEX OF FIGURES<br />
Fig. 1: Population trends of common bird species in Europe. ............................................................................... 7<br />
Fig. 2: Relation between weed seed <strong>de</strong>nsity and skylark (Alauda arvensis) <strong>de</strong>nsity in winter (Norfolk, UK). ..... 8<br />
Fig. 3: Published estimations of superficial weed seed <strong>de</strong>nsities in arable soils during the 20th century. ............ 9<br />
Fig. 4: Characterisation of common weed species according to their biodiversity value and potential <strong>crop</strong><br />
yield loss. ............................................................................................................................................... 13<br />
Fig. 5: Comparison of strategies for combining agricultural production and biodiversity conservation. ............ 17<br />
Fig. 6: Simplified illustration of the tra<strong>de</strong>-off between farming (<strong>crop</strong> yield), environmental protection and<br />
biodiversity conservation. ...................................................................................................................... 20<br />
Fig. 7: Illustration of the modified <strong>crop</strong>ping system (upper part) and hypothetical population dynamics of<br />
different weed species (lower part). ....................................................................................................... 32<br />
Fig. 8: Structure of the research project showing 4 empirical approaches. ......................................................... 36<br />
Fig. 9: A) Geographic position of the study region in western France, B) map of <strong>crop</strong>s grown at the study site<br />
in 2008, C) the ‘star’ configuration of the 32 vegetation relevés in each field centre, D) temporal<br />
<strong>de</strong>velopment of the principal <strong>crop</strong>s on the study region from 1995 to 2008. ......................................... 40<br />
Fig. 10: A) Spatial set up of the 36 experimental plots (9 <strong>crop</strong> treatments * 4 repetitions) on an experimental<br />
field <strong>with</strong> 6*9=54 plots. B) Localisation of plant <strong>de</strong>nsity and biomass measurements on the 6 mi<strong>crop</strong>lots<br />
of each plot. ................................................................................................................................... 77<br />
Fig. 11: Spatial heterogeneities of organic carbon and total nitrogen concentrations in the soil of the<br />
experimental field in October 2006 and November 2008. ..................................................................... 78<br />
Fig. 12: Development of emerged weed <strong>de</strong>nsities (plants per m 2 ) (A), emerged weed species richnesses (B),<br />
and richness/abundance ratios (C) in nine <strong>crop</strong> treatments. ................................................................... 81<br />
Fig. 13: Temporal <strong>de</strong>velopment of emerged weed <strong>de</strong>nsities (plants per m 2 ) in six perennial <strong>crop</strong> treatments<br />
(T2-T8, upper part) and three successions of annual <strong>crop</strong>s (T9-T11, lower part, plotted <strong>with</strong> two<br />
scales). ................................................................................................................................................... 85<br />
Fig. 14: Temporal <strong>de</strong>velopment of emerged plant <strong>de</strong>nsities of 19 major weed species in nine <strong>crop</strong> treatments. 86<br />
Fig. 15: Relation between weed sowing <strong>de</strong>nsity and field emergence <strong>de</strong>nsities of 17 weed species. .................. 89<br />
Fig. 16: Effect of weed seed addition on plant <strong>de</strong>nsity of 16 weed species during the 2-years experiment. ....... 90<br />
Fig. 17: Cumulated <strong>crop</strong> and weed biomass production in 2007 and 2008 in different <strong>crop</strong> treatments. ............ 92<br />
Fig. 18: Temporal <strong>de</strong>velopment of <strong>crop</strong> and weed biomass in perennial and annual <strong>crop</strong> treatments. ................ 93<br />
Fig. 19: Relation between <strong>crop</strong> and weed biomass at five observation dates in 2007 (A) and 2008 (B). ............ 94<br />
Fig. 20: Life cycle of annual and perennial weeds. ............................................................................................. 99<br />
Fig. 21: Comparison of relative weed species frequencies in annual and perennial <strong>crop</strong>s in the large-scale<br />
weed surveys (Chizé) and the field experiment (Epoisses). ................................................................. 158<br />
Fig. 22: Comparison of weed seed predation rates of the 2007 and 2008 experiments (cf. Article 6 and 8). .... 166<br />
Fig. 23: Possible relations between the plant age and the plant’s regrowth ability after cutting <strong>de</strong>termined by<br />
the ‘quantity of carbohydrate resources that can be remobilized for regrowth’ (B) [g d°day -1 ]. ......... 172<br />
Fig. 24: Daily aboveground biomass increase (ΔBMj) before and after a partial <strong>de</strong>struction of the<br />
photosynthetically active plant organs (cutting). ................................................................................. 174<br />
Fig. 25: Overview of factors <strong>de</strong>termining post-dispersal weed seed predation. ................................................ 177<br />
Fig. 26: Weed species frequency distribution in the large-scale weed surveys (Chizé). ................................... 209<br />
ix