Diversified grain-based cropping systems provide long-term weed control while limiting herbicide use and yield losses
Integrated weed management encourages long-term planning and targeted use of cultural strategies coherently combined at the cropping system scale. The transition towards such systems is challenged by a belief of lower productivity and higher weed pressure. Here, we hypothesize that diversifying the crop sequence and its associated weed management tools allow long-term agronomic sustainability (low herbicide use, efficient weed control, and high productivity). Four 6-year rotations with different constraints (S2: transition from reduced tillage to no-till, chemical weeding; S3: chemical weeding; S4: typical integrated weed management system; S5: mechanical weeding) were compared to a reference (S1: 3-year rotation, systematic ploughing, chemical weeding) in terms of herbicide use, weed management, and productivity over the 2000–2017 period. Weed density was measured before and after weeding. Crop and weed biomass were sampled at crop flowering. Compared to S1, herbicide use was reduced by 46, 65, and 99% in S3, S4, and S5 respectively. Herbicide use in S2 was maintained at the same level as S1 (− 9%), due to increased weed pressure and dependence to glyphosate for weed control during the fallow period of the no-till phase. Weed biomass was low across all cropping systems (0 to 5 g of dry matter m−2) but weed dynamics were stable over the 17 years in S1 and S4 only. Compared to S1, productivity at the cropping system scale was reduced by 22% in S2 and by 33% in S3. These differences were mainly attributed to a higher proportion of crops with low intrinsic productivity in S2 and S3. Through S4’s multiperformance, we show for the first time that low herbicide use, long-term weed management, and high crop productivity can be reconciled in grain-based cropping systems provided that a diversified crop rotation integrating a diverse suite of tactics (herbicides included) is implemented.
KeywordsCropping system Integrated weed management Weed dynamics Crop productivity Sustainable agriculture
We would like to thank (i) all actual or past members of the INRA Experimental Station in Bretenière, FR for carrying out this experiment with dedication (Phillippe CHAMOY, Vincent FALOYA, Pascal MARGET, Marie-Hélène BERNICOT, Violaine DEYTIEUX, Luc BIJU-DUVAL, Benjamin POUILLY, Alain BERTHIER, Claude SARRASIN, and Loïc DUMONT to only name a few), (ii) all the people who participated in field work over the years (François DUGUE, Florence STRBIK, and Hugues BUSSET in particular), (iii) all the people who provided their support to statistical analysis (Fabrice DESSAINT, Nathalie COLBACH, Benjamin BOLKER, Russell V. LENTH, and Henrik SINGMANN), the handling editor and anonymous referees for their valuable comments on the manuscript, and (v) all the visitors who made this experiment a rewarding and meaningful experience. Guillaume ADEUX was funded by the International PhD Programme in Agrobiodiversity of the Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna, Pisa, IT and hosted by the Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique in Dijon.
This study received financial support from INRA, the French Burgundy Region, the French project CoSAC (ANR-15-CE18-0007), the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement, no. 727321 (IWM PRAISE), the French “Investissement d’Avenir” program, and the project ISITE-BFC “Agroecology in BFC” (contract ANR-15-IDEX-03).
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Barzman M, Bàrberi P, Birch ANE, Boonekamp P, Dachbrodt-Saaydeh S, Graf B, Hommel B, Jensen JE, Kiss J, Kudsk P, Lamichhane JR, Messéan A, Moonen A-C, Ratnadass A, Ricci P, Sarah J-L, Sattin M (2015) Eight principles of integrated pest management. Agron Sustain Dev 35(4):1199–1215. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-015-0327-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Foley JA, Ramankutty N, Brauman KA, Cassidy ES, Gerber JS, Johnston M, Mueller ND, O’Connell C, Ray DK, West PC, Balzer C, Bennett EM, Carpenter SR, Hill J, Monfreda C, Polasky S, Rockström J, Sheehan J, Siebert S, Tilman D, Zaks DPM (2011) Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature 478:337–342. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10452 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Lechenet M, Bretagnolle V, Bockstaller C, Boissinot F, Petit M-S, Petit S, Munier-Jolain NM (2014) Reconciling pesticide reduction with economic and environmental sustainability in arable farming. PLoS One 9(6):e97922. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0097922 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Mamarot J, Rodriguez A (1997) Sensibilité des mauvaises herbes aux herbicides. Quatrième edn. Association de Coordination Technique Agricole, Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
- O'Donovan JT, de St. Remy EA, O'Sullivan PA, Dew DA, Sharma AK (1985) Influence of the relative time of emergence of wild oat (Avena fatua) on yield loss of barley (Hordeum vulgare) and wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Sci 33(4):498–503. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043174500082722 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Quinio M, De Waele M, Dessaint F, Biju-Duval L, Buthiot M, Cadet E, Bybee-Finley AK, Guillemin J-P, Cordeau S (2017) Separating the confounding effects of farming practices on weeds and winter wheat production using path modelling. Eur J Agron 82:134–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2016.10.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- R Development Core Team (2016) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
- Šmilauer P, Lepš J (2014) Multivariate analysis of ecological data using CANOCO 5, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139627061