Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-5lx2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-27T22:18:46.144Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Highlighting Differential Control of Weeds by Management Methods Using an Ordination Technique

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Per Milberg  and
Erik Hallgren
Per Milberg*
Affiliation:
Department of Biology—IFM, Linköping University, SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden
Erik Hallgren
Affiliation:
Department of Ecology & Crop Production Science, SLU, Box 7043, SE-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: permi@ifm.liu.se
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We demonstrate how direct (constrained) ordination methods can be used to analyze differential control by different weed management tactics. Weed biomass data of individual weed species were compiled for 110 trials on potatoes, each of which included a mechanical control treatment, a herbicide treatment, and an untreated control. We used “trial id” as 110 categorical dummy covariables, thereby eliminating between-trial variation, and made direct comparisons between the data from numerous trials. Unweeded plots had the largest biomass of all species as expected. Contrasting the results for the standard herbicide and the mechanical control treatments in a separate analysis, we could rank species from those best controlled by the herbicide (several annuals) to those best controlled by the mechanical treatment (a perennial grass and a climbing annual).

Keywords

PotatoSolanum tuberosum L.Metribuzinmultivariate analysisredundancy analysisselectivitySwedenweed communitypRDA, partial Redundancy AnalysisRDA, Redundancy Analysis
Type
Note
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 16 , Issue 3 , September 2002 , pp. 675 - 679
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

Andersson, T. N. and Milberg, P. 1998. Weed flora and the relative importance of site, crop, crop rotation, and nitrogen. Weed Sci. 46: 30–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dale, M. R. T., Thomas, A. G., and John, E. A. 1992. Environmental factors including management practices as correlates of weed community composition in spring seeded crops. Can. J. Bot. 70: 1931–1939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derksen, D. A. 1996. Weed community ecology: tedious sampling or relevant science? A Canadian perspective. Phytoprotection 77: 29–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derksen, D. A., Thomas, A. G., Lafond, G. P., Loeppky, H. A., and Swanton, C. J. 1994. Impact of agronomic practices on weed communities: fallows within tillage systems. Weed Sci. 42: 184–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, A. and Milberg, P. 1997. Effects on the flora of extensified use of field margins. Swed. J. Agric. Res. 27: 105–111.Google Scholar
Fogelberg, F. and Dock Gustavsson, A. M. 1999. Mechanical damage to annual weeds and carrots by in-row brush weeding. Weed Res. 39: 469–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Håkansson, S. 1967. Experiments with Agropyron repens (L.) Beauv. I. Development and growth, and the response to burial at different developmental stages. Lantbrukshögsk. Ann. 33: 823–873.Google Scholar
Håkansson, S. 1969. Experiments with Agropyron repens (L.) Beauv. IV. Response to burial and defoliation repeated with different intervals. Lantbrukshögsk. Ann. 35: 61–78.Google Scholar
Hallgren, E., Palmer, M. W., and Milberg, P. 1999. Data diving with cross-validation: an investigation of broad-scale gradients in Swedish weed communities. J. Ecol. 87: 1037–1051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jongman, R. H. G., ter Braak, C. J. F., and van Tongeren, O. F. R. eds. 1995. Data Analysis in Community and Landscape Ecology. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. 299 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurstjens, D. A. G., Perdok, U. D., and Goense, D. 2000. Selective uprooting by weed harrowing on sandy soils. Weed Res. 40: 431–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leps, J. 1999. Nutrient status, disturbance and competition: an experimental test of relationships in a wet meadow. J. Veg. Sci. 10: 219–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malik, N. and Van den Born, W. H. 1988. The biology of Canadian weeds. 86. Galium aparine L. and Galium spurium L. Can. J. Plant Sci. 68: 481–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milberg, P., Hallgren, E., and Palmer, M. W. 2000. Interannual variation in weed biomass on arable land in Sweden. Weed Res. 40: 311–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milberg, P., Hallgren, E., and Palmer, M. W. 2001. Timing of disturbance and vegetation development: how sowing date affects the weed flora in spring-sown crops. J. Veg. Sci. 12: 93–98.Google Scholar
Pysek, P. and Leps, J. 1991. Response of a weed community to nitrogen fertilization: a multivariate analysis. J. Veg. Sci. 2: 237–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salonen, J. 1993. Weed infestation and factors affecting weed incidence in spring cereals in Finland—a multivariate approach. Agric. Sci. Finl. 2: 525–536.Google Scholar
Suárez, S. A., de la Fuente, E. B., Ghersa, C. M., and Leon, R. J. C. 2001. Weed community as an indicator of summer crop yield and site quality. Agron. J. 93: 524–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tamado, T. and Milberg, P. 2000. Weed flora in arable fields of eastern Ethiopia with emphasis on the occurrence of Parthenium hysterophorus . Weed Res. 40: 507–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ter Braak, C. J F. and Prentice, I. C. 1988. A thoery of gradient analysis. Adv. Ecol. Res. 18: 271–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ter Braak, C. J F. and Smilauer, P. 1998. CANOCO for Windows: Software for Canonical Community Ordination. Microcomputer Power, Ithaca, NY. 352 p.Google Scholar
Thomas, A. G. and Frick, B. L. 1993. Influence of tillage systems on weed abundance in southwestern Ontario. Weed Technol. 7: 699–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuesca, D., Puricelli, E., and Papa, J. C. 2001. A long-term study of weed flora shifts in different tillage systems. Weed Res. 41: 369–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Dobben, H. F., ter Braak, C. J. F., and Dirkse, G. M. 1999. Undergrowth as a biomonitor for deposition of nitrogen and acidity in pine forest. For. Ecol. Manag. 114: 83–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar