Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-lpg2g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T10:31:35.536Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Glyphosate-Resistant Cropping Systems in Ontario: Multivariateand Nominal Trait-Based Weed Community Structure

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Robert H. Gulden,
Peter H. Sikkema,
Allan S. Hamill,
François J. Tardif and
Clarence J. Swanton
Robert H. Gulden
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Science, 222 Agriculture Building, 66 Dafoe Road, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB R3T 2N2, Canada
Peter H. Sikkema
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Agriculture, Crop Science Building, University of Guelph, 50 Stone Road E., Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada
Allan S. Hamill
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Harrow, 2585 Country Road 20, ON N0R 1G0, Canada
François J. Tardif
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Agriculture, Crop Science Building, University of Guelph, 50 Stone Road E., Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada
Clarence J. Swanton*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Agriculture, Crop Science Building, University of Guelph, 50 Stone Road E., Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: cswanton@uoguelph.ca
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Glyphosate-resistant (GR) cropping systems are popular and used extensivelyby producers. However, the long-term impacts of heavy reliance of thistechnology on weed community structure are not known. Five fully phasedfield experiments (two no-tillage and three conventional tillage) wereestablished at four locations in southwestern Ontario where the effects ofherbicide system (glyphosate or conventional) in corn and soybean and croprotation (corn–soybean or corn–soybean–winter wheat) on midseason weedcommunities were examined. Multivariate analysis on data over the last 3 yrof the 6-yr experiment showed that weed communities were distinctlydifferent among the treatments within each experiment. At several locations,midseason weed communities were more similar in corn and soybean treatedwith glyphosate compared to the same crops treated with conventionalherbicides, reflecting the continuous application of the same selectionpressure in both crops. Analysis of trait-densities revealed an increase inspecies with late initiation of seedling recruitment at the expense of weedspecies with medium time of initiation of seedling recruitment rather thanearly recruiting species. Increases in perennial species, species with ashort interval between recruitment and anthesis, and wind-dispersed specieswere also observed. Trait-density–based analysis of the weed community wasan effective method for reducing the complexity of divergent weedcommunities that enabled direct quantitative comparison of theherbicide-induced effects on these weed communities.

Keywords

Glyphosatecorn, Zea mays L. ZEAMXsoybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr. GLXMAwinter wheat, Triticum aestivum L. TRZAWcommunity structureglyphosate-resistantcanonical discriminant analysiscornmultivariate analysissoybeantrait-based analysiswinter wheat

Information

Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 58 , Issue 3 , September 2010, pp. 278 - 288
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

Alex, J. F. and Switzer, C. M. 1975. Ontario Weeds. Publication 505. Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, Ontario, Canada. Toronto, ON, Canada: Queen's Printer for Ontario. 200.Google Scholar
Anonymous, , 2004. Ontario field crops research and service committee annual report. http://www.ontla.on.ca/library/respository/ser/10316602/2004.pdf. Accessed: April 3, 2009.Google Scholar
Baucom, R. S. and Mauricio, R. 2004. Fitness costs and benefits of novel herbicide tolerance in a noxious weed. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 101:13386–13390.10.1073/pnas.0404306101Google Scholar
Booth, B. D. and Swanton, C. J. 2002. Assembly theory applied to weed communities. Weed Sci. 50:2–13.10.1614/0043-1745(2002)050[0002:AIATAT]2.0.CO;2Google Scholar
Bryson, C. T. and Wills, G. D. 1985. Susceptibility of bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) biotypes to several herbicides. Weed Sci. 33:848–852.10.1017/S004317450008348XGoogle Scholar
Cavers, P. B. 1995. The biology of Canadian weeds—Contributions 62–83. Ottawa, ON, Canada: The Agricultural Institute of Canada. 338.Google Scholar
Cavers, P. B. 2000. The biology of Canadian weeds—Contributions 84–102. Ottawa, ON, Canada: The Agricultural Institute of Canada. 338.Google Scholar
Cavers, P. B. 2005. The biology of Canadian weeds—Contributions 103–129. Ottawa, ON, Canada: The Agricultural Institute of Canada. 516.Google Scholar
Choler, P. 2005. Consistent shifts in Alpine plant traits along a mesotopographical gradient. Arct. Antarct. Alp. Res. 37:444–453.Google Scholar
Cingolani, A. M., Posse, G., and Collantes, M. B. 2005. Plant functional traits, herbivore selectivity and response to sheep grazing in Patagonian steppe grasslands. J. Appl. Ecol. 42:50–59.Google Scholar
Culpepper, A. S. 2006. Glyphosate induced weed shifts. Weed Technol. 20:277–281.10.1614/WT-04-155R.1Google Scholar
Curran, W. S., Handwerk, K., and Lingenfelter, D. D. 2002. Temporal weed dynamics as influenced by corn and soybean herbicides. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstracts. 42:6.Google Scholar
De Bello, F., Leps, J., and Sebastia, M. T. 2005. Predictive value of plant traits to grazing along a climatic gradient in the Mediterranean. J. Appl. Ecol. 42:824–833.10.1111/j.1365-2664.2005.01079.xGoogle Scholar
Derksen, D. A., Lafond, G. P., Thomas, A. G., Loeppky, H. A., and Swanton, C. J. 1993. Impact of agronomic practices on weed communities—tillage systems. Weed Sci. 41:409–417.Google Scholar
Diaz, S., Acosta, A., and Cabido, M. 1992. Morphological analysis of herbaceous communities under different grazing regimes. J. Veg. Sci. 3:689–696.10.2307/3235837Google Scholar
Diaz, S., Lavorel, S., McIntyre, S., Falczuk, V., Casanoves, F., Milchunas, D. G., Skarpe, C., Rusch, G., Sternberg, M., Noy-Meir, I., Landsberg, J., Zhang, W., Clark, H., and Campbell, B. D. 2007. Plant trait responses to grazing—a global synthesis. Glob. Change Biol. 13:313–341.10.1111/j.1365-2486.2006.01288.xGoogle Scholar
Doll, J. 2007. Knowing when to look for what: Weed emergence and flowering sequences in Wisconsin. http://128.104.239.6/uw_weeds/extension/articles/weedemerge.htm. Accessed: February 27, 2010.Google Scholar
Doucet, C., Weaver, S. E., Hamill, A. S., and Zhang, J. 1999. Separating the effects of crop rotation from weed management on weed density and diversity. Weed Sci. 47:729–735.10.1017/S0043174500091402Google Scholar
Duncan, C. N. and Weller, S. C. 1987. Heritability of glyphosate susceptibility among biotypes of field bindweed. J. Hered. 78:257–260.Google Scholar
Fried, G., Chauvel, B., and Reboud, X. 2009. A functional analysis of large-scale temporal shifts from 1970 to 2000 in weed assemblages of sunflower crops in France. J. Veg. Sci. 20:49–58.Google Scholar
Fried, G., Norton, L. R., and Reboud, X. 2008. Environmental and management factors determining weed species composition and diversity in France. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 128:68–76.10.1016/j.agee.2008.05.003Google Scholar
Froese, N. T., Van Acker, R. C., and Friesen, L. F. 2005. Influence of spring tillage and glyphosate treatment on dandelion (Taraxacum officinale) control in glyphosate-resistant canola. Weed Technol. 19:283–292.Google Scholar
Froud-Williams, R. J., Chancellor, R. J., and Drennan, D. S. H. 1981. Potential changes in weed floras associated with reduced cultivation systems for cereal production in temperate regions. Weed Res. 21:99–109.10.1111/j.1365-3180.1981.tb00102.xGoogle Scholar
Gulden, R. H., Sikkema, P. H., Hamill, A. S., Tardif, F. J., and Swanton, C. J. 2009. Glyphosate-resistant cropping systems in Ontario: Weed control, diversity, and yield. Weed Sci. 57:665–672.Google Scholar
Hacault, K. M. and Van Acker, R. C. 2006. Emergence timing and control of dandelion (Taraxacum officinale) in spring wheat. Weed Sci. 54:172–181.Google Scholar
Harker, K. N., Clayton, G. W., Blackshaw, R. E., O'Donovan, J. T., Lupwayi, N. Z., Johnson, E. N., Lafond, G. P., and Irvine, R. B. 2005. Glyphosate-resistant spring wheat production system effects on weed communities. Weed Sci. 53:451–464.Google Scholar
Hawes, C., Begg, G. S., Squire, G. R., and Iannetta, P. P. M. 2005. Individuals as the basic accounting unit in studies of ecosystem function: functional diversity in shepherd's purse, Capsella . Oikos. 109:521–534.Google Scholar
Heard, M. S., Clark, S. J., Rothery, P., Perry, J. N., Bohan, D. A., Brooks, D. R., Champion, G. T., Dewar, A. M., Hawes, G., Haughton, A. J., May, M. J., Scott, R. J., Stuart, R. S., Squire, G. R., and Firbank, L. G. 2006. Effects of successive seasons of genetically modified herbicide-tolerant corn cropping on weeds and invertebrates. Ann. Appl. Biol. 149:249–254.Google Scholar
Heard, M. S., Hawes, C., Champion, G. T., Clark, S. J., Firbank, L. G., Haughton, A. J., Parish, A. M., Perry, J. N., Rothery, P., Roy, D. B., Scott, R. J., Skellern, M. P., Squire, G. R., and Hill, M. O. 2003. Weeds in fields with contrasting conventional and genetically modified herbicide-tolerant crops. II. Effects on individual species. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 358:1833–1846.Google Scholar
Hilgenfeld, K. L., Martin, A. R., Mortensen, D. A., and Mason, S. C. 2004a. Weed management in glyphosate resistant soybean system: Weed emergence patterns in relation to glyphosate treatment timing. Weed Technol. 18:277–283.Google Scholar
Hilgenfeld, K. L., Martin, A. R., Mortensen, D. A., and Mason, S. C. 2004b. Weed management in glyphosate resistant soybean system: weed species shifts. Weed Technol. 18:284–291.Google Scholar
King, S. R., Hagwood, E. S., and Westwood, J. H. 2004. Differential response of a common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) biotype to glyphosate. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstracts. 44:68.Google Scholar
Krausz, R. G., Kapusta, G., and Matthews, J. L. 1996. Control of annual weeds with glyphosate. Weed Technol. 10:957–962.10.1017/S0890037X00041087Google Scholar
Leps, J. and Smilauer, P. 1999. Multivariate analysis of ecological data. University of South Bohemia, Ceske Budejovice, Czech Republic. 110.Google Scholar
Lindborg, R. and Eriksson, O. 2005. Functional response to land use change in grasslands: Comparing species and trait data. Ecosci. 12:183–191.10.2980/i1195-6860-12-2-183.1Google Scholar
Louault, F., Pillar, V. D., Aufrere, J., Garnier, E., and Soussana, J. F. 2005. Plant traits and functional types in response to reduced disturbance in a semi-natural grassland. J. Veg. Sci. 16:151–160.Google Scholar
Marshall, M. W., Al-Khatib, K., and Maddux, L. 2000. Weed community shifts associated with continuous glyphosate applications in corn and soybean rotation. Pages 22–25. in. Proceedings of the Western Society of Weed Science 53. Las Cruces, NM: Western Society of Weed Science.Google Scholar
Mas, M. T. and Verdu, A. M. C. 2003. Tillage system effects on weed communities in a 4-year crop rotation under Mediterranean dryland conditions. Soil Till. Res. 74:15–24.Google Scholar
Mayo, C. M., Horak, M. J., Peterson, D. E., and Boyer, J. F. 1995. Differential control of four Amaranthus species by six postemergence herbicides in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 9:141–147.10.1017/S0890037X00023083Google Scholar
Mulligan, G. A. 1979. The biology of Canadian weeds—Contributions 1–32. Publication 1693. Ottawa, ON, Canada: Communications Branch, Agriculture and AgriFood Canada. 380.Google Scholar
Mulligan, G. A. 1984. The biology of Canadian weeds—Contributions 33–61. Publication 1765. Ottawa, ON, Canada: Communications Branch, Agriculture and AgriFood Canada. 415.Google Scholar
Nandula, V. K., Reddy, K. N., Duke, S. O., and Poston, D. H. 2005. Glyphosate-resistant weeds: current status and future outlook. Out. Pest Manage. 16:183–187.Google Scholar
Økland, R. H. 2003. Partitioning the variation in a plot-by-species data matrix that is related to n sets of explanatory variables. J. Veg. Sci. 14:693–700.10.1111/j.1654-1103.2003.tb02201.xGoogle Scholar
Owen, M. D. K. and Zelaya, I. A. 2005. Herbicide-resistant crops and weed resistance to herbicides. Pest Manage. Sci. 61:301–311.10.1002/ps.1015Google Scholar
Patzoldt, W. L., Tranel, P. J., and Hager, A. G. 2002. Variable herbicide response among Illinois waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis and A. tuberculatus) populations. Crop Prot. 21:707–712.10.1016/S0261-2194(02)00027-3Google Scholar
Puricelli, E. and Tuesca, D. 2005. Weed density and diversity under glyphosate-resistant crop sequences. Crop Prot. 24:533–542.Google Scholar
Pykala, J. 2004. Cattle grazing increases plant species richness of most species trait groups in mesic semi-natural grasslands. Plant Ecol. 175:217–226.10.1007/s11258-005-0015-yGoogle Scholar
Shaner, D. L. 2000. The impact of glyphosate-tolerant crops on the use of other herbicides and on resistance management. Pest Manage. Sci. 56:320–326.Google Scholar
Sikkema, P. H. and Soltani, N. 2007. Herbicide-resistant crops in eastern Canada. in Gulden, R. H. and Swanton, C. J. eds. The First Decade of Herbicide Resistant Crops in Canada. Topics in Canadian Weed Science, Volume 4. 3–13. Saint-Anne-de Bellevue, Québec, Cananda: Canadian Weed Science Society–Société canadienne de malherbologie.Google Scholar
Storkey, J. 2006. A functional group approach to the management of UK arable weeds to support biological diversity. Weed Res. 46:513–522.10.1111/j.1365-3180.2006.00528.xGoogle Scholar
Swanton, C. J., Booth, B. D., Chandler, K., Clements, D. R., and Shrestha, A. L. 2006. Management in a modified no-tillage corn-soybean-wheat rotation influences weed population and community dynamics. Weed Sci. 54:47–58.10.1614/WS-05-013R1.1Google Scholar
Swanton, C. J., Shrestha, A. L., Roy, R. C., Ball-Coelho, B. R., and Knezevic, S. Z. 1999. Effect of tillage systems, N, and cover crop on the composition of weed flora. Weed Sci. 47:454–461.Google Scholar
Sweat, J. K., Horak, M. J., Peterson, D. E., Lloyd, R. W., and Boyer, J. E. 1998. Herbicide efficacy on four Amaranthus species in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 12:315–321.Google Scholar
Thomas, A. G., Derksen, D. A., Blackshaw, R. E., Van Acker, R. C., Legere, A., Watson, P. R., and Turnbull, G. C. 2004. A multistudy approach to understanding weed population shifts in medium- to long-term tillage systems. Weed Sci. 52:874–880.10.1614/WS-04-010R1Google Scholar
VanGessel, M. J. 2001. Glyphosate-resistant horseweed from Delaware. Weed Sci. 49:703–705.Google Scholar
Voille, C., Naves, M. L., Ville, D., Kazakou, E., Fortunel, C., Hummel, I., and Garnier, E. 2007. Let the concept of trait be functional Oikos. 16:882–892.Google Scholar
Weiher, E., van der Werf, A., Thompson, K., Roderick, M., Garnier, E., and Eriksson, O. 1999. Challenging Theophrastus: a common core list of plant traits for functional ecology. J. Veg. Sci. 10:609–620.10.2307/3237076Google Scholar
Westra, P. and Nissen, S. 2004. Weed population dynamics in conventional and Roundup Ready irrigated crops. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstracts. 44:125.Google Scholar
Westra, P., Wilson, R., Miller, S. D., Stahlman, P. W., Wicks, G. W., Chapman, P. L., Withrow, J., Legg, D., Alford, C., and Gaines, T. A. 2008. Weed population dynamics after six years under glyphosate- and conventional herbicide-based weed control strategies. Crop Sci. 48:1170–1177.Google Scholar
Wiegmann, S. M. and Waller, D. M. 2006. Fifty years of change in northern upland forest understories: Identity and traits of “winner” and “loser” plant species. Biol. Conserv. 129:109–123.10.1016/j.biocon.2005.10.027Google Scholar