62 research outputs found

    Low-Input maize-based cropping systems implementing IWM match conventional maize monoculture productivity and weed control

    Get PDF
    Conventional Maize Monoculture (MM), a dominant cropping system in south-western France, is now questioned for environmental reasons (nitrate leaching, pesticide use and excessive irrigation). Three low-input Cropping Systems (CS) using diverse weeding strategies (MMLI, a low-input MM implementing ploughing, a combination of on-row spraying and in-between row cultivation and cover crops; MMCT, conservation tillage MM implementing chemical control and cover crops; Maize-MSW, maize managed similar to MMLI but rotated with soybean & wheat) were compared to a reference system (MMConv, a conventional MM with tillage and a high quantity of inputs). Potential of Infestation of weeds (PI), weed biomass and crop production of these CS were compared during the first five years after their establishment. fields were also assessed in weed-free zones hand-weeded weekly in 2014 and 2015. Weed communities did not drastically differ among CS. PI and weed biomass were higher in MMCT, especially for Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) P.Beauv. and were comparable between MMConv, MMLI and Maize-MSW. Analysis of covariance between CS and weed biomass did not reveal a significant interaction, suggesting that weed biomass affected yield similarly among the CS. Comparison between weedy and weed-free zones suggested that weeds present at maize maturity negatively affected yields to the same extent for all four CS, despite having different weed biomasses. Grain yields in MMConv (11.3 ± 1.1 t ha−1) and MMLI (10.6 ± 2.3 t ha−1) were similar and higher than in MMCT (8.2 ± 1.9 t ha−1. Similar yields, weed biomasses and PI suggest that MMLI and Maize-MSW are interesting alternatives to conventional MM in terms of weed control and maize productivity and should be transferred to farmers to test their feasibility under wider, farm-scale conditions

    Mise en évidence du rôle de la diversité dans la dynamique des communautés d'adventices et des interactions adventices/cultures

    No full text
    The main challenge of 21st century agriculture is to provide sufficient food for a growing to identify cropping systems which maintain crop productivity, minimize reliance on synthetic herbicides and nitrogen fertilizers, and promote weed diversity. We hypothesized that cropping system diversification, either at the annual scale through the introduction of cover crops, or at the plurennial scale through a diversification of the crop sequence and associated weed management tools, could be a viable means to reach these objectives. More specifically, we hypothesized that cropping system diversification could (i) contain weed abundance and thereby, allow a reduction of herbicide use and an increase in weed diversity, and (ii) alleviate weed:crop competition through a modification of weed communities or available resources. Three experiments were mobilized or implemented to test these hypotheses: (i) a long-term integrated weed management cropping system experiment focusing on contrasted agronomic pathways to reduce herbicide reliance (2001 2017, Dijon, France), (ii) a longterm factorial experiment focusing on the interaction between cover crops, nitrogen fertilization, and tillage systems (1993 onwards, Pisa, Italy), and (iii) a three year experiment focusing on the effect of contrasted weed communities on winter cereal productivity (2016 2018, Dijon, France). Firstly, results highlighted 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. Strict no-till was not able to achieve significant reductions in herbicide use, mainly due to the use of glyphosate for burndown weed control. All alternative cropping systems tested were able to increase weed diversity at both the annual and plurennial scale but each pathway selected distinct weed community characteristics. Tillage, crop type and weeding strategy appeared as the main factors structuring weed communities. Secondly, we identified that the weed suppressive potential of cover crops could not simply be summarized to biomass production: the slopes between cover crop and weed biomass depended on cover crop species. However, modifications in weed community abundance or structure during the fallow period did not carry over to the subsequent crops, possibly due to the combined effect of tillage and herbicides. Nevertheless, the introduction of cover crops, such as Vicia villosa Roth, allowed to reach maximum maize productivity while significantly reducing nitrogen fertilization. Finally, analysis of weed:crop competitive relationships showed that (i) not all weed communities were capable of generating yield losses, (ii) weed communities can generate yield losses through contrasted processes in time or space, and that (iii) weed diversity was highly correlated to low weed biomass and therefore, a reduced effect on winter cereal productivity. All results point out that ecological intensification in agriculture can maintain crop productivity while limiting chemical herbicides and nitrogen fertilizers, and that this generally favors higher weed diversity. Benefits associated to cropping system diversification were mainly visible when management intensity was reduced. The transition towards more environmentally sound cropping systems will require deep changes for farmers and the farming sector, and in the way farmers are rewarded for the agroecosystem services they provide.Le principal défi de l'agriculture du 21e siècle est de fournir suffisamment de nourriture à une population croissante pour identifier les systèmes de culture qui maintiennent la productivité des cultures, minimisent la dépendance aux herbicides synthétiques et aux engrais azotés, et favorisent la diversité des mauvaises herbes. Nous avons émis l'hypothèse que la diversification des systèmes de culture, soit à l'échelle annuelle par l'introduction de plantes de couverture, soit à l'échelle pluriannuelle par une diversification de la séquence de cultures et des outils de gestion des adventices associés, pourrait être un moyen viable d'atteindre ces objectifs. Plus précisément, nous avons émis l'hypothèse que la diversification des systèmes de culture pourrait (i) contenir l'abondance des adventices et ainsi, permettre une réduction de l'utilisation des herbicides et une augmentation de la diversité des adventices, et (ii) atténuer la compétition adventices/cultures par une modification des communautés d'adventices ou des ressources disponibles. Trois expériences ont été mobilisées ou mises en œuvre pour tester ces hypothèses : (i) une expérience de système de culture de gestion intégrée des adventices à long terme axée sur des voies agronomiques contrastées pour réduire la dépendance aux herbicides (2001 2017, Dijon, France), (ii) une expérience factorielle à long terme axée sur l'interaction entre les plantes de couverture, la fertilisation azotée et les systèmes de travail du sol (depuis 1993, Pise, Italie), et (iii) une expérience de trois ans axée sur l'effet de communautés d'adventices contrastées sur la productivité des céréales d'hiver (2016 2018, Dijon, France). Tout d'abord, les résultats ont mis en évidence qu'une faible utilisation d'herbicides, une gestion à long terme des adventices et une productivité élevée des cultures peuvent être conciliées dans les systèmes de culture à base de céréales, à condition de mettre en œuvre une rotation culturale diversifiée intégrant une suite variée de tactiques (herbicides inclus). Le semis direct strict n'a pas permis de réduire de manière significative l'utilisation d'herbicides, principalement en raison de l'utilisation de glyphosate pour le désherbage par brûlage. Tous les systèmes de culture alternatifs testés ont été capables d'augmenter la diversité des adventices à l'échelle annuelle et pluriannuelle, mais chaque voie a sélectionné des caractéristiques de communauté d'adventices distinctes. Le travail du sol, le type de culture et la stratégie de désherbage sont apparus comme les principaux facteurs structurant les communautés d'adventices. Deuxièmement, nous avons identifié que le potentiel de suppression des adventices des cultures de couverture ne pouvait pas être simplement résumé à la production de biomasse : les pentes entre les cultures de couverture et la biomasse des adventices dépendaient des espèces de cultures de couverture. Cependant, les modifications de l'abondance ou de la structure des communautés de mauvaises herbes pendant la période de jachère ne se sont pas reportées sur les cultures suivantes, peut-être en raison de l'effet combiné du travail du sol et des herbicides. Néanmoins, l'introduction de plantes de couverture, telles que Vicia villosa Roth, a permis d'atteindre une productivité maximale du maïs tout en réduisant significativement la fertilisation azotée. Enfin, l'analyse des relations de compétition adventices/cultures a montré que (i) toutes les communautés d'adventices n'étaient pas capables de générer des pertes de rendement, (ii) les communautés d'adventices peuvent générer des pertes de rendement par des processus contrastés dans le temps ou l'espace, et que (iii) la diversité des adventices était fortement corrélée à une faible biomasse d'adventices et donc à un effet réduit sur la productivité des céréales d'hiver. Tous les résultats soulignent que l'intensification écologique de l'agriculture peut maintenir la productivité des cultures tout en limitant les herbicides chimiques et les engrais azotés, et que cela favorise généralement une plus grande diversité des adventices. Les avantages associés à la diversification des systèmes de culture étaient principalement visibles lorsque l'intensité de la gestion était réduite. La transition vers des systèmes de culture plus respectueux de l'environnement nécessitera de profonds changements pour les agriculteurs et le secteur agricole, ainsi que dans la manière dont les agriculteurs sont récompensés pour les services agroécosystémiques qu'ils fournissent

    Les Plantes Messicoles

    No full text
    National audienc

    Low-Input Maize-Based Cropping Systems Implementing IWM Match Conventional Maize Monoculture Productivity and Weed Control

    No full text
    Conventional Maize Monoculture (MM), a dominant Cropping System in South-Western France, is now questioned for environmental reasons (nitrate leaching, pesticide use and excessive irrigation). Three low-input Cropping Systems (CS) using diverse weeding strategies (MMLI, a Low-Input MM implementing ploughing, a combination of on-row spraying and in-between row cultivation and cover crops; MMCT, Conservation Tillage MM implementing chemical control and cover crops; Maize-MSW, maize managed similar to MMLI but rotated with soybean & wheat) were compared to a reference system (MMConv, a conventional MM with tillage and a high quantity of inputs). Potential of Infestation of weeds (PI), weed biomass and crop production of these CS were compared during the first five years after their establishment. Yields were also assessed in weed-free zones hand-weeded weekly in 2014 and 2015. Weed communities did not drastically differ among CS. PI and weed biomass were higher in MMCT, especially for Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) P.Beauv. and were comparable between MMConv, MMLI and Maize-MSW. Analysis of covariance between CS and weed biomass did not reveal a significant interaction, suggesting that weed biomass affected yield similarly among the CS. Comparison between weedy and weed-free zones suggested that weeds present at maize maturity negatively affected yields to the same extent for all four CS, despite having different weed biomasses. Grain yields in MMConv (11.3 ± 1.1 t ha−1) and MMLI (10.6 ± 2.3 t ha−1) were similar and higher than in MMCT (8.2 ± 1.9 t ha−1. Similar yields, weed biomasses and PI suggest that MMLI and Maize-MSW are interesting alternatives to conventional MM in terms of weed control and maize productivity and should be transferred to farmers to test their feasibility under wider, farm-scale conditions

    Régulation des plantes adventices par la compétition : effet des couverts et de leur conduite sur la gestion des adventices

    No full text
    National audienceLa régulation biologique des adventices repose majoritairement sur la compétition, même si la prédation et l’allélopathie existent. La compétition chez les plantes est le processus qui conduit à une limitation de croissance (ex. biomasse) ou développement (ex. impossibilité de fleurir ou grainer) d’une plante sous l’effet d’une autre en condition de ressources limitantes (eau, nutriment, lumière). Il existe une grande variété de pratiques agricoles qui permettent de mettre en oeuvre la compétition comme outil de régulation des adventices : rotation, choix variétal, couvert d’interculture, couvert permanent, couvert détruit maintenu en mulch mort, semis sous couvert en relai, … Or, agissant par compétition pour des ressources limitantes, la réussite de ces couverts dépend du niveau de ressources (principalement eau et azote) et de leur conduite (choix des espèces, densité et date de semis, date et mode de destruction). Il s’agit également de prendre en compte la biologie et l’écologie des espèces adventices présentes pour comprendre comment les réguler au mieux (période d’émergence, nitrophilie, type biologique, …). Il est illusoire de penser que les couverts représentent à eux seuls une méthode de substitution au désherbage chimique, mais ils sont un réel levier agro-écologique et bio-logique à insérer dans une réflexion systémique à l’échelle de la rotation

    The status of 102 segetal plant species across 37 European red lists reveals their drastic state of conservation

    No full text
    The declining trend of segetal plant species has been highlighted by small-scale studies scattered around different European countries. Hence, a complete picture of the conservation status of a wide set of segetal plant species in Europe is currently missing. Red lists are elaborated following a similar methodology (developed by the International Union for Conservation of nature (IUCN)) and their compilation represents one way of assessing the conservation status (NT: near threatened; VU: vulnerable; EN: endangered; CR: critically endangered; RE: extinct) of numerous species at a continental scale. Here, we assessed the conservation status of 102 segetal plant species (French national segetal plant list) across the red lists of 37 European countries. Information concerning species presence/absence and residence status (native/archeophyte vs. neophyte) in the different countries was also gathered across a diversity of databases. Of the 102 species considered, over 70 were present in Western and Mediterranean countries and a large proportion was considered as native/archeophyte. Northern countries (Baltic, Scandinavian, British Isles) counted less species and a large proportion was considered as neophytes. Most species (84) were found in 10 countries or more (e.g. Alopecurus myosuroides). Nevertheless, 11 of these were considered as archeophytes/natives in less than 10 countries (e.g. Ridolfia segetum). Seven species were almost always considered as neophytes in the countries where present (e.g. Tulipa spp.). Fifteen species showed restricted distributions, mainly around the Mediterranean Sea (e.g. Nigella spp., Delphinium spp., Silene spp., Hypecoum spp.). On average, red-lists included 16 of the 102 considered species, with important differences between countries (e.g. 0 for Denmark and 51 for Switzerland). Central European countries (e.g. Luxembourg, Belgium, Germany, Austria) usually had the highest count of species considered as CR or RE. On average, each of the 102 considered species was found in 6 national red lists, with important differences across species (e.g. 22 species present in more than 10 lists and 11 in none). Species most frequently considered as CR or RE were Agrostemma githago, Asperula arvensis, Scandix pecten-veneris, Gypsophila vaccaria and flax specialists. Four species with restricted distribution were absent from all lists (Tulipa lortetii, Nigella hispanica subsp. hispanica, Delphinium halteratum subsp. halteratum, Silene conoidea), even though usually considered natives/archeophytes. The state of European segetal flora may be even more drastic as segetal species are not necessarily considered for red-list assessments, even in hot-spots where they are known to be declining (e.g. Spain, Portugal, Italy). Data from south eastern countries was lacking and botanical assessments in these regions may temper the drastic state depicted here. We encourage the elaboration of a European segetal plant list and programs specific to different subsets of segetal plants (i.e. wide distribution but often red-listed vs. restricted distribution)

    Et si une impasse de désherbage en Agriculture de Conservation vous poussait à retravailler le sol ? Quelle intervention choisiriez-vous ?

    No full text
    National audienceIl est admis que la perturbation minimale du sol est l’une des trois règles d’or en agriculture de conservation des sols (ACS). Si l’impasse se fait sentir (adventices dominantes difficiles à gérer, voire résistantes), mieux vaut repenser le système que de laisser le mur se rapprocher à grands pas. Repenser la place du travail du sol, de manière exceptionnelle dans des systèmes en semis direct sous couvert, est déjà envisagé au Canada et aux États-Unis. L’Inra de Dijon a testé trois types de travail du sol sur des parcelles conduites en ACS depuis 17 ans
    • …
    corecore