Manipulation of Weed Communities to Enhance Ground-Dwelling Arthropod Populations in Herbicide-Resistant Field Corn

Hough-Goldstein, Judith; VanGessel, Mark J.; Wilson, Asaph

doi:10.1603/0046-225x-33.3.577

Cited by 23 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In soybean, differences in total weed control (i.e., reduced weed ground cover) between the herbicide systems were observed in four of the five experiments, and in corn, these differences occurred in three of the five experiments, with similar trends at the remaining sites. Similar results in both crops have been reported elsewhere (Hough-Goldstein et al 2004;Ivany 2004;Johnson et al 2000;Nurse et al 2006Nurse et al , 2007Payne and Oliver 2000;Reddy and Whiting 2000;Thomas et al 2004). In general, broad-leaved weeds contributed more to total weed ground cover than grassy weeds.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 91%

“…Differences in weed diversity among the herbicide systems were influenced by the specific herbicideresistance system used and the time of year. The effect of the disturbance caused by herbicides on weed diversity may be of importance because weed diversity has been linked to diversity of other organisms, such as arthropods (Hough-Goldstein et al 2004;Schellhorn and Sork 1997), thereby influencing the complexity of the ecosystem.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Conventional vs. Glyphosate-Resistant Cropping Systems in Ontario: Weed Control, Diversity, and Yield

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Glyphosate-resistant (GR) crops have been adopted rapidly since their commercial introduction, and with the increase in commercially available crops resistant to glyphosate, continuous use of the same herbicide mode of action is now possible in some crop rotations. A 6-yr study was initiated to investigate the effects of conventional herbicides compared with continuous use of glyphosate in GR or Roundup Ready corn and GR soybean in a corn–soybean and a corn–soybean–winter wheat rotation. Individual experiments were fully phased and established at three locations under conventional tillage (CT) and at two locations under no-tillage (NT). Results indicated that midseason weed ground cover was lower when weeds were controlled with glyphosate; however, in most cases, this did not result in improved corn or soybean yields. Within locations, species richness, which strongly influenced other diversity indicators, was most affected by the herbicide treatments. Including winter wheat in the crop rotation had little effect on corn and soybean weed ground cover, density, and community structure and only affected soybean yield. Moreover, no effects of herbicide system used in previous corn and soybean were observed in winter wheat, with the exception of species diversity in NT, where species diversity tended to be greater when weeds in previous corn and soybean were treated with conventional herbicides. After 6 yr, the effects of continuous use of GR crops in rotation were similar to those reported in previous studies; however, continued monitoring and longer-term investigations of these systems are necessary to detect the early stages of development of herbicide-resistant biotypes.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 91%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Conventional vs. Glyphosate-Resistant Cropping Systems in Ontario: Weed Control, Diversity, and Yield

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Yardim and Edwards (2002) found significantly lower activity densities of carabids in weed-free plots established by herbicide application when compared to unmanipulated plots with high weed biomasses in tomato agroecosystems. Reduced weed densities established by weed removal negatively affected grounddwelling arthropod predators in a soybean field (Balfour and Rypstra 1998), whereas increased weediness enhanced the activity density of the most common carabid species in a manipulative experiment in a maize field (Hough- Goldstein et al 2004). The complex effects of structural properties and weed-associated food resources on natural enemies were emphasized by Honek and Jarosik (2000).…”

Section: Carabid Activity Densitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Arable weeds in organically managed wheat fields foster carabid beetles by resource- and structure-mediated effects

Diehl

Wolters

Birkhofer

2011

Arthropod-Plant Interactions

102

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Arable weeds in organically managed fields may foster arthropod generalist predators by the provision of shelter and favorable microclimate (structure-mediated effects) and the provision of additional animal and floral food resources (resource-mediated effects). In three organically managed winter wheat fields in Central Germany, we investigated the impact of weed removal and introduction of artificial weed-like structure on the activity density and species richness of carabid beetles with respect to trophic groups, microclimatic conditions, and densities of potential prey. Removal of weeds reduced both carabid activity density and species richness but did not affect trophic group composition. The decline in carabid activity density was dampened by the addition of artificial structure. Mean daily surface temperature and light intensity were significantly lower under weeds and artificial plants than under wheat plants alone. Weed removal reduced the abundance of leafhoppers and true bugs, but the response was inconsistent across fields. We conclude that the presence of arable weeds in organically managed wheat fields fosters carabid activity density and species richness via resource-mediated effects, such as a higher availability of weed-borne resources (e.g. seeds and pollen) and herbivorous prey. Structure-mediated effects (altering the microclimate) add to this positive effect. The presence of weeds in organically managed wheat fields enhances carabid activity density and diversity and needs to be integrated into future management strategies for natural enemy conservation.

show abstract

“…It has been suggested that an annual seed loss of 25–50% may be enough to slow down weed population growth substantially (Firbank & Watkinson 1985), and predation rates observed in the field can exceed this level. Weed seed predation studies have shown that certain carabid species can aggregate to weed patches in the field (Holland, Perry & Winder 1999; Hough‐Goldstein, VanGessel & Wilson 2004) and readily eat weed seeds under laboratory conditions (Honek, Martinkova & Jarosik 2003).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

National-scale regulation of the weed seedbank by carabid predators

Bohan

Boursault

Brooks

et al. 2011

Journal of Applied Ecology

188

120

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary1. Assuring future food productivity and security will require that better use is made of pest regulation provided by naturally occurring ecological services. However, empirical evidence of large-scale regulatory effects that might be employed in agriculture is still relatively scarce. 2. Using data from 257 conventionally managed arable fields at the UK national scale, we examine whether changes in the long-term store of weed seed in the seedbank are consistent with regulation by seed predatory carabid beetles. 3. We test three expectations of a simple conceptual model for carabid seed predation. The relationships we estimate are consistent with the model and suggest that carabid predation of weed seeds shed onto the soil surface changes the amount of seed returned to the seedbank bringing about seedbank change and regulation. 4. Granivorous and omnivorous carabids regulated seedbank abundance, with effects being observed on monocotyledon seedbank abundance, in all crops, and on total seedbank abundance, in spring maize and winter oilseed rape; effects that were robust across fields with differing pesticide management and between regions of the UK. 5. We found evidence of density dependence, with increasing amounts of seed rain leading to stronger regulation of the seedbank. 6. Our results also suggest that correlations between seed predators and seed rain abundance, which might be used to infer important effects of seed predators, do not provide sufficient evidence to indicate regulation of the weed seedbank. 7. Synthesis and applications. A major challenge for the future is to manage ecological, pest control services in place of current pesticides with little or no additional risk to productivity and food security. Our work shows that carabid seed predators have regulatory effects on the seedbank that appear general and robust across a range of current cropping and farm management situations at the national scale. Environmental Stewardship methods already exist across Europe to enhance carabid numbers in farmland. This means that carabid seed predators fit within a working framework that could be used to promote integrated pest management alongside or even in place of herbicides.

show abstract

Manipulation of Weed Communities to Enhance Ground-Dwelling Arthropod Populations in Herbicide-Resistant Field Corn

Cited by 23 publications

References 18 publications

Conventional vs. Glyphosate-Resistant Cropping Systems in Ontario: Weed Control, Diversity, and Yield

Conventional vs. Glyphosate-Resistant Cropping Systems in Ontario: Weed Control, Diversity, and Yield

Arable weeds in organically managed wheat fields foster carabid beetles by resource- and structure-mediated effects

National-scale regulation of the weed seedbank by carabid predators

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About