Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Field Margin Weed-Species Diversity in Relation to Landscape Attributes and Adjacent Land Use

  • Lynn M. Sosnoskie (a1), Edward C. Luschei (a1) and Mark A. Fanning (a1)

Abstract

The importance of managing weeds in seminatural habitats that are adjacent to farm fields is unclear. Weedy-margin vegetation may harbor pests or pathogens and may ALSo serve as source populations for ongoing immigration of weeds into the field. It is ALSo possible, however, that margin vegetation provides habitat for organisms that consume weed seeds or suppress the likelihood of pest or pathogen outbreak. We examined the nature of margin habitat using spatial-scaling of Weed-Species richness as an ecological assay. In 2003, we recorded the occurrence of weedy species along the perimeters of 63 fields in Wisconsin. The fields were distributed within six counties that differed in topography, geological history, local climate, and soil type and which spanned the range of variability in the agricultural landscape. We identified seven habitats that differed in geology and land use. The relationship between species richness and margin class was estimated using an analog of the power law. Additionally, we investigated broadscale correlates of habitat heterogeneity at the field level, using a modeling strategy that included additional explanatory factors logically connected to plant diversity. Using a model-confrontation approach, the survey supported the inclusion of two topographical diversity indices, elevation gradient and a field-shape index, into our model. Our broadscale survey provides information on one of a suite of important considerations needed to make decisions about the importance of managing weeds in field margins.

Copyright

Corresponding author

Corresponding author's E-mail: ecluschei@wisc.edu

References

Hide All
Adler, P. N., White, E. P., Lauenroth, W. K., Kaufman, D. K., Rassweiler, A., and Rusak, J. A. 2005. Evidence for a general species-time-area-relationship. Ecology. 86:20322039.
Arrhenius, O. 1921. Species and area. J. Ecol. 9:9599.
Bischoff, A. 2005. Analysis of weed dispersal to predict chances of recolonization. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 106:377387.
Blumenthal, D. and Jordan, N. 2001. Weeds in field margins: a spatially explicit simulation analysis of Canada thistle population dynamics. Weed Sci. 49:509519.
Boutin, C. and Jobin, B. 1998. Intensity of agricultural practices and effects on adjacent habitats. Ecol. Appl. 8:544557.
Boutin, C., Jobin, B., Bélanger, L., and Choinère, L. 2001. Comparing weed composition in natural and planted hedgerows and in herbaceous field margins adjacent to crop fields. Can. J. Plant Sci. 81:313324.
Brown, D. G. 2003. Land use and forest cover on private parcels in the Upper Midwest USA, 1970–1990. Landsc. Ecol. 18:777790.
Burnham, K. P. and Anderson, D. R. 2002. Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach. 2nd ed. New York Springer Verlag. 353.
Cardina, J., Herms, C. P., and Doohan, D. J. 2002. Crop rotation and tillage effects on weed seedbanks. Weed Sci. 50:448460.
Connor, E. F. and McCoy, E. D. 1979. The statistics and biology of the species area relationship. Am. Nat. 113:791833.
Crawley, M. J. and Harral, J. E. 2001. Scale dependence in plant biodiversity. Science. 291:864868.
de Snoo, G. R. 1999. Unsprayed field margins: effects on environment, biodiversity and agricultural practices. Landsc. Urban Plann. 46:151160.
Devlaeminck, R., Bossuyt, B., and Hermy, M. 2005a. Inflow of seeds through the forest edge: evidence from seedbank and vegetation patterns. Plant Ecol. 176:117.
Devlaeminck, R., Bossuyt, B., and Hermy, M. 2005b. Seed dispersal from a forest into adjacent cropland. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 107:5764.
[ESRI] Environmental Systems Research Institute 2002. ArcViev. Version 3.3. New Delhi, India HCL Technologies.
Forman, R. T. and Baudry, J. 1984. Hedgerow and hedgerow networks in Landscape Environ. Manag. 8:495510.
Freeman, R. E., Stanley, E. H., and Turner, M. G. 2003. Analysis and conservation of landscape change in the Wisconsin River floodplain, USA. Ecol. Appl. 13:416431.
Gleason, H. A. and Cronquist, A. 1991. Manual of Vascular Plants of Northeastern United States and Adjacent Canada, 2nd ed. New York New York Botanical Garden. 910.
Hald, A. B. 2002. Impact of agricultural fields on vegetation of stream border ecotones in Denmark. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 89:127135.
Hilborn, R. and Mangel, M. 1997. The Ecological Detective: Confronting Models with Data. Princeton, NJ Princeton University Press. 315.
Hooper, M. D. 1976. Historical and biological studies on English hedges. Pages 225227. in. Les Bocages: Histoire, Ecologie, Econmie. Rennes, France University of Rennes.
Le Cœur, D., Baudry, J., and Burel, F. 1997. Field margins plant assemblages: variation partitioning between local and landscape factors. Landsc. Urban Plann. 37:5771.
Le Cœur, D., Baudry, J., Burel, F., and Thenail, C. 2002. Why and how we should study field boundary biodiversity in an agrarian landscape context. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 89:2340.
Lomolino, M. V. 2000. Ecology's most general, yet protean pattern: the species–area relationship. J. Biogeogr. 27:1726.
Lomolino, M. V. 2001. The species–area relationship: new challenges for an old pattern. Prog. Phys. Geog. 25:121.
Ma, M., Tarmi, S., and Helenius, J. 2002. Revisiting the species–area relationship in a semi-natural habitat: floral richness in agricultural buffer zones in Finland. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 89:137148.
Marshall, E. P. J. 1988. The ecology and management of field margin floras in England. Outlook Agric. 17:178182.
Marshall, E. P. J. and Arnold, G. M. 1995. Factors affecting field weed and field margin flora on a farm in Essex, UK. Landsc. Urban Plann. 31:205216.
Marshall, E. J. P. and Moonen, A. C. 2002. Field margins in northern Europe: their functions and interactions with agriculture. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 89:521.
Moonen, A. C. and Marshall, E. J. P. 2001. The influence of sown margin strips, management and boundary structure on herbaceous field margin vegetation on two neighboring farms in southern England. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 86:187202.
Mulugeta, D., Stoltenberg, D. E., and Boerboom, C. M. 2001. Weed species–area relationships as influenced by tillage. Weed Sci. 49:217223.
[NASS] National Agricultural Statistics Service 2005. http://www.nass.usda.gov. Accessed: November 9, 2006.
Preston, F. W. 1962a. The canonical distribution of common-ness and rarity: part I. Ecology. 43:185215.
Preston, F. W. 1962b. The canonical distribution of common-ness and rarity: part II. Ecology. 43:410432.
Rew, L. J., Froud-Williams, R. J., and Boatman, N. D. 1996. Dispersal of Bromus sterilis and Anthriscus sylvestris seed within arable field margins. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 59:107114.
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems 2003. SAS Procedures Guide. Version 9,1. Cary, NC SAS Institute.
Scheiner, S. M. 2003. Six types of species area curves. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 12:441447.
Smith, H., Firbank, L. G., and Macdonald, D. W. 1999. Uncropped edges of arable fields managed for biodiversity do not increase weed occurrences in adjacent crops. Biol. Conserv. 89:107111.
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. 54:263273.
Tjørve, E. 2003. Shapes and functions of species-area curves: a review of possible models. J. Biogeogr. 30:827835.
Trimble Navigation Limited 2001. GPS Pathfinder Office. Version 2.90. Sunnyvale, CA Trimble Navigation.
Wilson, P. J. and Aebischer, N. J. 1995. The distribution of dicotyledonous arable weeds in relation to distance from the field edge. J. Appl. Ecol. 32:295310.
Wolfram Research 2003. Mathematica. Version 5.1. Champaign, IL Wolfram Research http://support.wolfram.com/mathematica/reference/general/citing.html.
Zar, J. 1984. Biostatistical Analysis, 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ Prentice-Hall. 663.

Keywords

Field Margin Weed-Species Diversity in Relation to Landscape Attributes and Adjacent Land Use

  • Lynn M. Sosnoskie (a1), Edward C. Luschei (a1) and Mark A. Fanning (a1)

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed