Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-jswmv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T20:00:34.548Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Stacked Crop Rotations Exploit Weed-Weed Competition for Sustainable Weed Management

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Andrew J. Garrison,
Adam D. Miller,
Matthew R. Ryan,
Stephen H. Roxburgh and
Katriona Shea
Andrew J. Garrison
Affiliation:
Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802
Adam D. Miller
Affiliation:
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801
Matthew R. Ryan
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853
Stephen H. Roxburgh
Affiliation:
CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences & CSIRO Sustainable Agriculture Flagship, GPO Box 284, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia
Katriona Shea*
Affiliation:
Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: k-shea@psu.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

Crop rotation has long been considered one of the simplest and most effective tools for managing weeds. In this paper, we demonstrate how crop rotations can be strategically arranged to harness a novel mechanism of weed suppression: weed-weed competition. Specifically, we consider how crop stacking, or increasing the number of consecutive plantings of a single crop within a rotation, can decrease the size of the weed seed bank, by forcing weeds to compete with each other in similar environments for longer periods of time, while still reaping the traditional benefits of crop rotation. Using an annual plant model, we investigate the theoretical effects of stacked crop rotations on weeds that have different life-history strategies and phenology. Our results show that when weeds compete within a season, stacking can reduce the weed seed bank compared to rotations without stacked crops. Although more research is needed to fully understand the effects of crop stacking on other aspects of the system, such as insect pests and diseases, our research suggests that crop stacking has the potential to improve weed suppression without additional inputs, and their associated costs and externalities. More generally, improving management by changing the temporal arrangement of disturbances is a novel, process-based approach that could likely be applied to other weed management practices, such as mowing and herbicide application, and which could involve mechanisms other than weed-weed competition. Leveraging this new application of existing ecological theory to improve weed management strategies holds great promise.

Keywords

AutocorrelationcanoladisturbancemaizeReciprocal-Yield Lawsoybeanwheat

Information

Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 62 , Issue 1 , March 2014, pp. 166 - 176
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

References

Literature Cited

Anderson, RL (2004) Sequencing crops to minimize selection pressure for weeds in the Central Great Plains. Weed Technol 18:157–164 Google Scholar
Anderson, RL (2005) A multi-tactic approach to manage weed population dynamics in crop rotations. Agron J. 97:1579–1583 Google Scholar
Anderson, RL (2009) A 2-year small grain interval reduces need for herbicides in no-till soybean. Weed Technol 23:398–403 Google Scholar
Bastiaans, L, Paolini, R, Baumann, DT (2008) Focus on ecological weed management: what is hindering adoption? Weed Res 48:481–491 Google Scholar
Beck, D (2003) An Emphasis on Rotations. http://www.notill.org/KnowledgeBase/03_emphasisrotations_Beck.pdf. Accessed August 3, 2012Google Scholar
Bohan, DA, Powers, SJ, Champion, G, Haughton, AJ, Hawes, C, Squire, G, Cussans, J, Mertens, SK (2011) Modeling rotations: can crop sequences explain arable weed seedbank abundance? Weed Res 51:422–432 Google Scholar
Booth, BD, Swanton, CJ (2002) Assembly theory applied to weed communities. Weed Sci. 50:2–13 Google Scholar
Burnside, OC, Wilson, RG, Weisberg, S, Hubbard, KG (1996) Seed longevity of 41 weed species buried 17 years in eastern and western Nebraska. Weed Sci. 44:74–86 Google Scholar
Chesson, P (2000) Mechanisms of maintenance of species diversity. Ann Rev Ecol System 31:343–366 Google Scholar
Clay, SA, Kleinjan, J, Clay, DE, Forcella, F, Batchelor, W (2005) Growth and fecundity of several weed species in corn and soybean. Agron J. 97:294–302 Google Scholar
Davis, AS, Hill, JD, Chase, CA, Johanns, AM, Liebman, M (2012) Increasing cropping system diversity balances productivity, profitability and environmental health. PLoS ONE 7:e47149 Google Scholar
Davis, AS, Renner, KA, Dyer, L, Mutch, D (2005) Integrated weed management guide: One year's seedling. East Lansing, MI Michigan State University Extension. 112 pGoogle Scholar
Derksen, DA, Anderson, RL, Blackshaw, RE, Maxwell, B (2002) Weed dynamics and management strategies for cropping systems in the Northern Great Plains. Agron J. 94:174–185 Google Scholar
Doucet, C, Weaver, SE, Hamill, AS, Zhang, J (1999) Separating the effects of crop rotation from weed management on weed density and diversity. Weed Sci. 47:729–735 Google Scholar
Ellner, S (1985) ESS germination strategies in randomly varying environments. II. Reciprocal Yield-Law models. Theoretical Popul Biol. 28:80–116 Google Scholar
Eyre, MD, Critchley, CNR, Leifert, C, Wilcockson, SJ (2011) Crop sequence, crop protection and fertility management effects on weed cover in an organic/conventional farm management trial. Europ J Agron 34:153–162 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallandt, E (2009) Managing Weeds With Crop Rotation. http://gallandt.wordpress.com/. Accessed August 3, 2012Google Scholar
Garrison, A, Miller, AD, Roxburgh, SH, Shea, K (2012) More bang for the land manager's buck: disturbance autocorrelation can be used to achieve management objectives at no additional cost. J App Ecol 49:1020–1027 Google Scholar
Hagny, M (2001) Stand tall with stacked rotations. Leading Edge: The Journal of No-Till Agriculture 1:13–17 Google Scholar
Leighty, CE (1938) Crop rotation. Pp 406–430 in Patrick, AL, ed. Soils and Men: Yearbook of Agriculture 1938. Washington, DC USDA, Government Printing Office Google Scholar
Liebman, M, Davis, AS (2000) Integration of soil, crop and weed management in low-external-input farming systems. Weed Res 40:27–47 Google Scholar
Liebman, M, Gallandt, ER (1997) Many little hammers: ecological management of crop-weed interactions. Pp 291–343 in Jackson, LE, ed. Ecology in Agriculture. San Diego, CA Academic Press Google Scholar
Liebman, M, Staver, CP (2001) Crop diversification for weed management. Chapter 7 in Liebman, M, Mohler, CL, Staver, CP eds. Ecological Management of Agricultural Weeds. Cambridge Cambridge University Press Google Scholar
Maxwell, BD, O'Donovan, JT (2007) Understanding weed-crop interactions to manage weed problems. Pp 17–34 in Upadhyaya, MK, Blackshaw, RE, eds. Non-Chemical Weed Management: Principles, Concepts, and Technology. Oxfordshire, UK CAB International Google Scholar
McCloskey, MC, Firbank, LG, Watkinson, AR, Webb, DJ (1998) Interactions between weeds of winter wheat under different fertilizer, cultivation and weed management treatments. Weed Res 38:11–24 Google Scholar
Mertens, SK, van den Bosch, F, Heesterbeek, J (2002) Weed populations and crop rotations: exploring dynamics of a structured periodic system. Ecol Appl 12:1125–1141 Google Scholar
Miller, AD, Chesson, P (2009) Coexistence in disturbance prone communities: how a resistance-resilience trade-off generates coexistence via the storage effect. Amer Natural 173:E30–E43 Google Scholar
Miller, AD, Reilly, D, Bauman, S, Shea, K (2012b) Interactions between frequency and size of disturbance affect competitive outcomes. Ecol Res 27:783–791 Google Scholar
Miller, AD, Roxburgh, SH, Shea, K (2011) How frequency and intensity shape diversity-disturbance relationships. Proc National Acad Sci. 108:5643–5648 Google Scholar
Miller, AD, Roxburgh, SH, Shea, K (2012a) Timing of disturbance alters competitive outcomes and mechanisms of coexistence in an annual plant model. Theor Ecol 5:419–432 Google Scholar
Mohler, CL (2009) The role of crop rotation in weed management. Pp 44–46 in Mohler, CL, Johnson, SE, eds. Crop Rotation on Organic Farms. A Planning Manual. Ithaca, NY Natural Resource, Agriculture, and Engineering Service Google Scholar
Munier-Jolain, NM, Chauvel, B, Gasquez, J (2002) Long-term modelling of weed control strategies: analysis of threshold-based options for weed species with contrasted competitive abilities. Weed Res 42:107–122 Google Scholar
Nord, EA, Ryan, MR, Curran, WS, Mortensen, DA, Mirsky, SB (2012) Effects of management type and timing on weed suppression in soybean no-till planted into rolled-crimped cereal rye. Weed Sci. 60:624–633 Google Scholar
Olsen, JM, Griepentrog, H-W, Nielsen, J, Weiner, J. (2012) How important are crop spatial pattern and density for weed suppression by spring wheat? Weed Sci. 60:501–509 Google Scholar
Pickett, S, White, P (1985) The Ecology of Natural Disturbance and Patch Dynamics. New York, NY Academic. 472 pGoogle Scholar
Radosevich, SR (1987) Methods to study interactions among crops and weeds. Weed Techno 1:190–198 Google Scholar
Roxburgh, SH, Shea, K, Wilson, JB (2004) The intermediate disturbance hypothesis: patch dynamics and mechanisms of species coexistence. Ecology. 85:359–371 Google Scholar
Ryan, MR, Smith, RG, Mirsky, SB, Mortensen, DA, Seidel, R (2010) Management filters and species traits: weed community assembly in long-term organic and conventional systems. Weed Sci. 58:265–277 Google Scholar
Schreiber, MM (1992) Influence of tillage, crop rotation, and weed management on giant foxtail (Setaria faberi) population dynamics and corn yield. Weed Sci. 40:645–653 Google Scholar
Shea, K, Roxburgh, SH, Rauschert, ESJ (2004) Moving from pattern to process: coexistence mechanisms under intermediate disturbance regimes. Ecol Letters 7:491–508 Google Scholar
Shinozaki, K, Kira, T (1956) Intraspecific competition among higher plants VII. Logistic theory of the CD effect. J Instit Polytech Series D 7:35–72 Google Scholar
Storkey, J, Moss, SR, Cussans, JW (2010) Using assembly theory to explain changes in a weed flora in response to agricultural intensification. Weed Sci. 58:39–46 Google Scholar
Weiner, J, Andersen, SB, Wille, WK-M, Griepentrog, H-W, Olsen, JM (2010) Evolutionary agroecology: the potential for cooperative, high density, weed suppressing cereals. Evolut Appl 3:473–479 Google Scholar
Westerman, PR, Liebman, M, Menalled, E, Heggenstaller, AH, Hartzler, RG, Dixon, PM (2005) Are many little hammers effective? Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) population dynamics in two- and four-year crop rotation systems. Weed Sci. 53:382–392 Google Scholar
Zhang, R, Shea, K (2012) Integrating multiple disturbance aspects: management of an invasive thistle, Carduus nutans . Ann Botany 110:1395–1401 Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Garrison et al. supplementary material

Appendix

Download Garrison et al. supplementary material(File)
File 20 KB
Supplementary material: File

Garrison et al. supplementary material

Figure A1

Download Garrison et al. supplementary material(File)
File 389.2 KB
Supplementary material: File

Garrison et al. supplementary material

Figure A2

Download Garrison et al. supplementary material(File)
File 341.6 KB
Supplementary material: PDF

Garrison et al. supplementary material

Figure A3

Download Garrison et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 105 KB