Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-sxzjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T06:40:37.264Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Using Assembly Theory to Explain Changes in a Weed Flora in Response to Agricultural Intensification

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

J. Storkey ,
Stephen R. Moss  and
John W. Cussans
J. Storkey*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant and Invertebrate Ecology, Rothamsted Research, Harpenden, Hertfordshire, AL5 2JQ, U.K.
Stephen R. Moss
Affiliation:
Department of Plant and Invertebrate Ecology, Rothamsted Research, Harpenden, Hertfordshire, AL5 2JQ, U.K.
John W. Cussans
Affiliation:
Department of Plant and Invertebrate Ecology, Rothamsted Research, Harpenden, Hertfordshire, AL5 2JQ, U.K.
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: jonathan.storkey@bbsrc.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The intensification of crop management in the U.K. over the past 60 years has resulted in the decline of the populations of a number of annual plant species adapted to arable habitats. In contrast, other species continue to be common as arable weeds. A community assembly approach was taken to explain these recent changes in the weed flora using databases of plant functional traits, a pot experiment, and weed surveys of the Broadbalk long-term experiment. The hypothesis was tested that species that have been selected against by increased fertilizer inputs and herbicide use share an adverse combination of traits. An analysis comparing the combination of maximum height, seed weight, and time of first flowering of 29 common and 32 rare or threatened U.K. autumn weeds established that rare or threatened species occupied an area of trait space that was distinct from the common species. A rare weed trait syndrome of short stature, large seed, and late flowering was identified. The theory that species with a trait syndrome that is currently unfavorable are better adapted for less fertile environments was supported by the pot experiment. Species with a combination of short stature and large seed had a relatively greater competitive ability in low compared to high fertility treatments. Analysis of survey data from the Broadbalk long-term experiment confirmed that, as N inputs increased, the abundance of the two functional groups that contained only common species remained stable or increased; whereas, the groups dominated by rare or threatened species declined as fertility increased. An understanding of the response traits of arable plants to management filters, including fertilizer inputs and herbicide, is valuable for designing conservation strategies for rare species or predicting future shifts in the functional diversity of weed communities including the potential for invasive species to establish.

Keywords

Community assemblycompetitionfertilityfunctional traitsmanagement filtersrare weeds
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 58 , Issue 1 , March 2010 , pp. 39 - 46
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.)

References

Literature Cited

Aerts, R. 1999. Interspecific competition in natural plant communities: mechanisms, trade-offs and plant-soil feedbacks. J. Exp. Bot. 50:29–37.Google Scholar
Bohan, D. A., Boffey, C. W. H., Brooks, D. R., Clark, S. J., Dewar, A. M., Firbank, L. G., Haughton, A. J., Hawes, C., Heard, M. S., May, M. J., Osborne, J. L., Perry, J. N., Rothery, P., Roy, D. B., Scott, R. J., Squire, G. R., Woiwod, I. P., and Champion, G. T. 2005. Effects on weed and invertebrate abundance and diversity of herbicide management in genetically modified herbicide-tolerant winter-sown oilseed rape. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 272:463–474.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Booth, B. D. and Swanton, C. J. 2002. Assembly theory applied to weed communities. Weed Sci. 50:2–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chalmers, A., Kershaw, C., and Leech, P. 1990. Fertiliser use on farm crops in Great Britain: results from the Survey of Fertiliser Practice, 1969–88. Outlook Agric. 19:269–278.Google Scholar
Cheffings, C. M. and Farrell, L. 2005. The vascular plant red data list for Great Britain. Species Status, Report No. 7. Peterborough, UK Joint Nature Conservation.Google Scholar
Fenner, M. 1983. New Phytology. 95:697–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Firbank, L. G. and Watkinson, A. R. 1986. Modeling the population—dynamics of an arable weed and its effects upon crop yield. J. Appl. Ecol. 23:147–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freckleton, R. P. and Watkinson, A. R. 1998. Predicting the determinants of weed abundance: a model for the population dynamics of Chenopodium album in sugar beet. J. Appl. Ecol. 35:904–920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freckleton, R. P. and Watkinson, A. R. 2001. Predicting competition coefficients for plant mixtures: reciprocity, transitivity and correlations with life-history traits. Ecol. Lett. 4:348–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaudet, C. L. and Keddy, P. A. 1988. A comparative approach to predicting competitive ability from plant traits. Nature. 334:242–243.Google Scholar
Grime, J. P., Thompson, K., Hunt, R., Hodgson, J. G., Cornelissen, J. H. C., Rorison, I. H., Hendry, G. A. F., Ashenden, T. W., Askew, A. P., Band, S. R., Booth, R. E., Bossard, C. C., Campbell, B. D., Cooper, J. E. L., Davison, A. W., Gupta, P. L., Hall, W., Hand, D. W., Hannah, M. A., Hillier, S. H., Hodkinson, D. J., Jalili, A., Liu, Z., Mackey, J. M. L., Matthews, N., Mowforth, M. A., Neal, A. M., Reader, R. J., Reiling, K., RossFraser, W., Spencer, R. E., Sutton, F., Tasker, D. E., Thorpe, P. C., and Whitehouse, J. 1997. Integrated screening validates primary axes of specialisation in plants. Oikos. 79:259–281.Google Scholar
Johnston, A. E. 1994. The Rothamsted classical experiments. Pages 9–37. in Leigh, R. A. and Johnston, A. E. Long-Term Experiments in Agricultural and Ecological Sciences. Wallingford, UK CAB International.Google Scholar
Keddy, P., Gaudet, C., and Fraser, L. H. 2000. Effects of low and high nutrients on the competitive hierarchy of 26 shoreline plants. J. Ecol. 88:413–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleijn, D. and vanderVoort, L. A. C. 1997. Conservation headlands for rare arable weeds: the effects of fertilizer application and light penetration on plant growth. Biol. Conserv. 81:57–67.Google Scholar
Krebs, J. R., Wilson, J. D., Bradbury, R. B., and Siriwardena, G. M. 1999. The second silent spring? Nature. 400:611–612.Google Scholar
Legere, 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, K., Eastwood, R. J., Flynn, S., Turner, R. M., and Stuppy, W. H. 2008. Seed Information Database (release 7.1, May 2008). http://www.kew.org/data/sid. Accessed March 1, 2009.Google Scholar
Moonen, A. C. and Barberi, P. 2008. Functional biodiversity: an agroecosystem approach. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 127:7–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moss, S. R., Storkey, J., Cussans, J. W., Perryman, S. A. M., and Hewitt, M. V. 2004. The Broadbalk long-term experiment at Rothamsted: what has it told us about weeds? Weed Sci. 52:864–873.Google Scholar
Payne, R. W., Lane, P. W., and Ainsley, A. E. 1987. Genstat 5 reference manual. Oxford Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Poorter, H. and Garnier, E. 1999. Ecological significance of inherent variation in relative growth rate and its components. Pages 81–120. in Pugnaire, F. I. and Valladares, F. Handbook of Functional Plant Ecology. New York Marcel Dekker.Google Scholar
Preston, C. D., Pearman, D. A., and Dines, T. D. 2002. New Atlas of the British and Irish Flora. Oxford Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Reich, P. B., Walters, M. B., and Ellsworth, D. S. 1992. Leaf life-span in relation to leaf, plant, and stand characteristics among diverse ecosystems. Ecol. Monogr. 62:365–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, R. A. and Sutherland, W. J. 2002. Post-war changes in arable farming and biodiversity in Great Britain. J. Appl. Ecol. 39:157–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seibert, A. C. and Pearce, R. B. 1993. Growth analysis of weed and crop species with reference to seed weight. Weed Sci. 41:52–56.Google Scholar
Shipley, B. and Peters, R. H. 1990. The allometry of seed weight and seedling relative growth rate. Functional Ecology. 4:523–529.Google Scholar
Smith, R. G. 2006. Timing of tillage is an important filter on the assembly of weed communities. Weed Sci. 54:705–712.Google Scholar
Storkey, J. 2006. A functional group approach to the management of U.K. arable weeds to support biological diversity. Weed Res. 46:513–522.Google Scholar
Storkey, J. and Holst, N. 2008. A weed traits database for predicting the response of weed communities to management. Pages 265–266. in. 5th International Weed Science Congress. Vancouver, BC IWSS.Google Scholar
Storkey, J. and Westbury, D. B. 2007. Managing arable weeds for biodiversity. Pest Manag. Sci. 63:517–523.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sutcliffe, O. L. and Kay, Q. O. N. 2000. Changes in the arable flora of central southern England since the 1960s. Biol. Conserv. 93:1–8.Google Scholar
Telfer, M. G., Preston, C. D., and Rothery, P. 2002. A general method for measuring relative change in range size from biological atlas data. Biol. Conserv. 107:99–109.Google Scholar
Thompson, K., Band, S. R., and Hodgson, J. G. 1993. Seed size and shape predict persistence in soil. Funct. Ecol. 7:236–241.Google Scholar
Tilman, D. 1988. Plant strategies and the dynamics and structure of plant communities. Princeton, NJ Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Vile, D., Shipley, B., and Garnier, E. 2006. Ecosystem productivity can be predicted from potential relative growth rate and species abundance. Ecol. Lett. 9:1061–1067.Google Scholar
Westoby, M. 1998. A leaf-height-seed (LHS) plant ecology strategy scheme. Plant Soil. 199:213–227.Google Scholar
Westoby, M., Jurado, E., and Leishman, M. 1992. Comparative Evolutionary Ecology of Seed Size. Trends Ecol. Evol. 7:368–372.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilson, B. J. and Wright, K. J. 1990. Predicting the growth and competitive effects of annual weeds in wheat. Weed Res. 30:201–211.Google Scholar
Wilson, P. and King, M. 2003. The Biology of Arable Plants. Arable Plants—A Field Guide. London Hanway Press. 312.Google Scholar