• Aucun résultat trouvé

Decreasing herbicide use by contrasted cropping systems lead to various dynamics of weed communities

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Partager "Decreasing herbicide use by contrasted cropping systems lead to various dynamics of weed communities"

Copied!
2
0
0

Texte intégral

(1)Decreasing herbicide use by contrasted cropping systems lead to various dynamics of weed communities Fabrice Dessaint, Dominique Meunier, Florence Strbik, François Dugué, Stéphane Cordeau. To cite this version: Fabrice Dessaint, Dominique Meunier, Florence Strbik, François Dugué, Stéphane Cordeau. Decreasing herbicide use by contrasted cropping systems lead to various dynamics of weed communities. Joint 2014 Annual Meeting British Ecological Society and Société Française d’Ecologie (BES & SFE Joint Annual Meeting), Dec 2014, Lille, France. British Ecological Society, 2014. �hal-02739992�. HAL Id: hal-02739992 https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-02739992 Submitted on 2 Jun 2020. HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.. L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés..

(2) D ECREASING H ERBICIDE U SE BY C ONTRASTED C ROPPING S YSTEMS L EAD TO VARIOUS DYNAMICS OF W EED C OMMUNITIES F. D ESSAINT, D. M EUNIER, F. S TRBIK, F. D UGUÉ and S. C ORDEAU INRA, UMR1347 Agroécologie, F-21000 Dijon, France. Integrated Weed Management (IWM) systems are designed to 7 to manage weed species, 7 to reduce the reliance on herbicides, 7 to maintain economically sustainable crop production. But on a long term assessment . . .. What are the effects of these systems on weed communities dynamic?. Cropping system experiment (Dijon, France) From 2000 to 2012, four IWM systems (S2, S3, S4, S5) have been compared to a reference system (S1). System. Objective. Average Herbicide TFI. Weeding techniques. S1 S2 S3 S4 S5. Reference No-till No mechanical weeding Mixed chemical and non-chemical weeding Excluding herbicides. 2.1 1.4 1.0 0.7 0. Ploughing, Herbicide Herbicide, Summer cover crops Ploughing, Pre-sowing soil tillage, Herbicide with reduced doses All techniques All techniques except herbicides. The weed flora was surveyed several times each year, with 32 0.36 m2 quadrats where the weed species were listed and their abundance precisely counted. Analyses use the maximum of abundance of each weed species during the year.. Richness and density of weed community. Species accumulation curves. 3 Observed species richness (87 weed species; 82 4% of the ex-. 3 The accumulated species richness curves rapidly increases for the. trapoled Chao’ species richess) and densities (range: 0 to 310 individuals m−2) largely varied according to cropping systems and through the years. 3 IWM systems showed systematically higher species richness (Figure 1) and abundance (Figure 2) than S1 system.. IWM systems (S2-S5) 3 and leads to higher γ species richness (twice more species than in the reference system S1) (Figure 3). 3 But, all systems show the same rate of species accumulation relative to their γ species richness (Figure 4).. Figure 1: Observed weed species richness on the four IWM systems (S2-S5); S1 as reference. Figure 2: Total densities of weeds on the four IWM systems (S2-S5); S1 as reference. Figure 3: Species accumulation curves (Coleman et al. (1982) expected SAC). Figure 4: Species accumulation curves (Coleman et al. (1982) expected SAC) relative to γ system richness. 4 1.0. 40. 3. S2. S2. 2. 20. 1. 40 0. Cumulated species number/system species pool. 0 4. (Richness/Richness S1) − 1. S3. S3. 2. (Abundance/Abundance S1) − 1. 40. 3. 0.8. 30. 1 0. 4. 0. 40. 3. 20. S4. S4. 2. Species number. 20. 20. 1. 0.6. 0 0 10. 4 40. 3. S5. S5. 2. 20. 1 0. 0. 0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012. 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012. Year. Year. Systems. Systems. S1 S2 S3 S4 S5. S1 S2 S3 S4 S5. 0.4. 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012. 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012. Year. Year. Reference : Coleman, B.D, Mares, M.A., Willis, M.R. & Hsieh, Y. (1982). Randomness, area and species richness. Ecology 63: 1121–1133. Acknowledgements: We thank the staff of the INRA experimental farm for the field management of the systems. The work was supported by the Burgundy Region, the French Ministère de l’Aménagement du Territoire et de l’Environnement and by INRA..

(3)

Références

Documents relatifs

Modelling crop-weed canopies as a tool to optimise crop diversification in agroecological cropping systems. Nathalie Colbach, Floriane Colas, Stéphane Cordeau, Thibault

L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des

Potential of infestation (PI, see equation for details) detailed for the three main weed species (mean values over the 5-year period, 2011–2015) in the four cropping systems (MM Conv

Our hypotheses were the following: (i) agricultural practices, such as herbicide use, impair the development of photosynthetic microbial crusts, thereby decreasing soil

- The use of polar molecules as a probe of the charge distribution at the surface of a solid is discussed and illustrated with reference to recent

Large Inter-row Low Medium Cover residue Grass > Banana 48% Stem base High High/Stem flow Fertilizer Banana+Grass 23% Zone of homogenous functioning Shade Water flows

The objective of the present paper was to use a spatio-temporal simulation model for comparing 3 production systems with different cultural practices to evaluate the

Chemical weed control results are as good as can be obtained with careful manual weeding, carried out at the most suitable time with respect to the growth stage