Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-p566r Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-29T13:28:34.027Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Influence of field margin type on weed species richness and abundance in conventional crop fields

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 November 2010

S.C. Reberg-Horton
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, Box 7620, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA.
J.P. Mueller*
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, Box 7620, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA.
S.J. Mellage
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, Box 7620, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA.
N.G. Creamer
Affiliation:
Department of Horticultural Science, Box 7609, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA.
C. Brownie
Affiliation:
Department of Statistics, Box 8203, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA.
M. Bell
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, Box 7620, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA.
M.G. Burton
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, Box 7620, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA.
*
*Corresponding author: Paul_Mueller@ncsu.edu

Abstract

Natural vegetation occurring on farms in field margins, fallow fields, ditch systems and neighboring forests, provides increased biodiversity, structural diversity, habitat for wildlife and beneficial insects, and can act as a protective buffer against agrochemical drift. Nevertheless, farmers frequently view these areas as non-productive and as potential sources of weeds, insect pests and diseases. Weed species richness and abundance were examined in crop fields in 2002–2003 at the Center for Environmental Farming Systems near Goldsboro, NC to determine if crop field weed infestation was associated with field margin management (managed versus unmanaged). Weed species abundance and richness were measured over two growing seasons on four occasions in crop fields along permanent transects that extended from the field edge toward the center of the field. The presence/absence of data for all plant species in the field margin was also recorded. For both margin types, managed and unmanaged, more weeds were found near the field edge than in the center of the field. Weed species richness was slightly higher in cropland bordering managed margins than in cropland along unmanaged margins. Several significant interactions led to an examination of nine dominant weed species in each field margin type and their distribution in crop fields. When all sampling dates were pooled, only 42 (40%) of 105 species identified in the field margins were observed in the crop field. Managed margins had lower species richness than unmanaged field margins—less than half the mean number of species (15 versus 6 species, respectively). Contingency table analysis did not reveal any association between plant species occurring in the margin and those found in the crop field. Furthermore, margin type and weed presence in the field margin were not effective predictors of weed occurrence in the crop field as determined by logistic regression.

Type
Research Papers
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

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

1Powers, L.E. and McSorley, R. 2000. Ecological Principles of Agriculture. Delmar Thomson Learning, Albany.Google Scholar
2Marshall, E.J.P. and Moonen, A.C. 2002. Field margins in northern Europe: their functions and interactions with agriculture. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 89:521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3O'Connor, R.J. 1987. Environmental interests of field margins for birds. In Way, J.M. and Greig-Smith, P.J. (eds). Field Margins. Monograph No. 35. British Crop Protection Council, Thornton Heath, Surrey, p. 3548.Google Scholar
4Maclean, M. 1992. New Hedges for the Countryside. Farming Press, Ipswich, UK.Google Scholar
5Kleijn, D. 1997. Species richness and weed abundance in the vegetation of arable boundaries. PhD thesis, Wageningen Agricultural University, Wageningen, p. 177.Google Scholar
6Marshall, E.J.P. and Moonen, A.C. 1998. A Review of Field Margin Conservation Strips in Europe. UK Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Long Ashton Research Station.Google Scholar
7Freemark, K.E., Boutin, C., and Keddy, C.J. 2002. Importance of farmland habitats for conservation of plant species. Conservation Biology 16:399412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8Marshall, E.J.P. 2002. Introduction to field margin ecology in Europe. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 89:14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9Kleijn, D. and Verbeek, M. 2000. Factors affecting the species composition of arable field boundary vegetation. Journal of Applied Ecology 37:256266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10Marshall, E.J.P. 1989. Distribution patterns of plants associated with arable field edges. Journal of Applied Ecology 26:247257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11Wilson, P.J. and Aebischer, N.J. 1995. The distribution of dicotyledonous arable weeds in relation to distance from field edge. Journal of Applied Ecology 32:295310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12Theaker, A.J., Boatman, N.D. and Froud-Williams, R.J. 1995. Variation in Bromus sterilis on farmland: evidence for the origin of field infestations. Journal of Applied Ecology 32:4755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13Sosnoskie, L.M., Luschei, E.C. and Fanning, M.A. 2007. Field margin weed-species diversity in relation to landscape attributes and adjacent land use. Weed Science 55:129136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14Boutin, 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. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 81:313324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15Wilcox, A., Perry, N.H., Boatman, N.D., and Chaney, K. 2000. Factors affecting the yield of winter cereals in crop margins. Journal of Agricultural Science 135:335346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16Mueller, J.P., Barbercheck, M.E., Bell, M., Brownie, C., Creamer, N.G., Hitt, A., Hu, S., King, L., Linker, H.M., Louws, F.J., Marlow, S., Marra, M., Raczkowski, C.W., Susko, D.J., and Wagger, M.G. 2002. Development and implementation of a long-term agricultural systems study: challenges and opportunities. HortTechnology 12:362368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17SAS Institute Inc. 1999. SAS/STAT User's Guide, Version 8. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
18Spellerberg, I.F. and Fedor, I. 2003. A tribute to Claude Shannon (1916–2001) and a plea for more rigorous use of species richness, species diversity and the ‘Shannon-Wiener’ index. Global Ecology and Biogeography 12:177179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19Joenje, W. and Kleijn, D. 1994. Plant distribution across arable field ecotones in the Netherlands. Field Margins: Integrating Agriculture and Conservation. Monograph No. 58. British Crop Protection Council, Thornton Heath, Surrey, p. 323328.Google Scholar
20Blumenthal, D. and Jordan, N. 2001. Weeds in field margins: a spatially explicit simulation analysis of Canada thistle population dynamics. Weed Science 49:509519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar