Two sides of one medal: Arable weed vegetation of Europe in phytosociological data compared to agronomical weed surveys
| Autor: | Jana Bürger, Filip Küzmič, Urban Šilc, Florian Jansen, Erwin Bergmeier, Milan Chytrý, Alicia Cirujeda, Silvia Fogliatto, Guillaume Fried, Denise F. Dostatny, Bärbel Gerowitt, Michael Glemnitz, José L. González‐Andújar, Eva Hernández Plaza, Jordi Izquierdo, Michaela Kolářová, Zdeňka Lososová, Helen Metcalfe, Jevgenija Ņečajeva, Sandrine Petit, Gyula Pinke, Valerijus Rašomavičius, Christoph Redwitz, Matthias Schumacher, Lena Ulber, Francesco Vidotto |
|---|---|
| Přispěvatelé: | Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya. Departament d'Enginyeria Agroalimentària i Biotecnologia, German Research Foundation, Czech Science Foundation, Slovenian Research Agency |
| Jazyk: | angličtina |
| Rok vydání: | 2022 |
| Předmět: |
phytosociology
Arable weeds and management in europe Plantes Management Monitoring Policy and Law Arable weeds Malezas segetal plants vegetation survey Species richness European Weed Vegetation database species richness weed survey Nature and Landscape Conservation agriculture Ecology Vegetación Agriculture vegetation-plot data Colecciones de material genético Encuestas arable weeds Arable Weeds and Management in Europe data collection Data collection Segetal plants Enginyeria agroalimentària::Agricultura [Àrees temàtiques de la UPC] Weeds--Ecology Phytosociology Vegetation survey |
| Zdroj: | UPCommons. Portal del coneixement obert de la UPC Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (UPC) |
| Popis: | Questions: Two scientific disciplines, vegetation science and weed science, study arable weed vegetation, which has seen a strong diversity decrease in Europe over the last decades. We compared two collections of plot-based vegetation records originating from these two disciplines. The aim was to check the suitability of the collections for joint analysis and for addressing research questions from the opposing domains. We asked: are these collections complementary? If so, how can they be used for joint analysis?. Location: Europe. Methods: We compared 13 311 phytosociological relevés and 13 328 records from weed science, concerning both data collection properties and the recorded species richness. To deal with bias in the data, we also analysed different subsets (i.e., crops, geographical regions, organic vs conventional fields, center vs edge plots). Results: Records from vegetation science have an average species number of 19.0 ± 10.4. Metadata on survey methodology or agronomic practices are rare in this collection. Records from weed science have an average species number of 8.5 ± 6.4. They are accompanied by extensive methodological information. Vegetation science records and the weed science records taken at field edges or from organic fields have similar species numbers. The collections cover different parts of Europe but the results are consistent in six geographical subsets and the overall data set. The difference in species numbers may be caused by differences in methodology between the disciplines, i.e., plot positioning within fields, plot sizes, or survey timing. Conclusion: This comparison of arable weed data that were originally sampled with a different purpose represents a new effort in connecting research between vegetation scientists and weed scientists. Both collections show different aspects of weed vegetation, which means the joint use of the data is valuable as it can contribute to a more complete picture of weed species diversity in European arable landscapes. The work on this project was supported by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft DFG (grant number BU 3097/1-1 for Jana Bürger), Czech Science Foundation (grant number 19-28491X for Milan Chytrý and Zdeňka Lososová), and by Slovenian Research Agency (research core funding No. P1-0236 for Urban Šilc and Young researcher programme for Filip Küzmič). |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|