You are on page 1of 10

DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-3180.2012.00941.

Trait-based approaches to unravelling the assembly


of weed communities and their impact on
agro-ecosystem functioning
M-L NAVAS
Montpellier SupAgro, Centre dEcologie Fonctionnelle et Evolutive (UMR 5175), Montpellier Cedex 5, France

Received 21 December 2011


Revised version accepted 28 June 2012
Subject Editor: Jonathan Storkey, Rothamsted Research, UK

and the role thereof in the assembly of weed commu-


Summary nities. How weed trait values and their distribution
The trait-based approach to plant functional ecology within communities aect agro-ecosystem processes is
has gained considerable attention over the last two discussed in relation to loss of crop production. We also
decades, allowing ecologists to address questions relat- introduce the question of the impact of weed functional
ing to species distribution, community assembly and structure on ecosystem services and suggest some
ecosystem functioning. We show here how this approach directions for research at species, community and
can be used to address these issues for weed ecology in a agro-ecosystem levels.
new way, allowing research to shift from purely weed
Keywords: agroecology, biodiversity, community struc-
control issues to a more global understanding of the
ture, ecosystem processes, functional structure, plant
impact of weed communities on the agro-ecosystem. We
functional trait.
review how weed species are sorted by environmental
factors and management according to the value of traits

NAVAS M-L (2012). Trait-based approaches to unravelling the assembly of weed communities and their impact on
agro-ecosystem functioning. Weed Research 52, 479488.

species (Marshall et al., 2003; Petit et al., 2010). As a


Introduction
consequence, weed research needs to shift in emphasis
Weed research is facing new challenges because of from purely weed control issues, based on the popula-
changes in agricultural management, climate and policy tion dynamics of a few major species, to a more global
(Fernandez-Quintanilla et al., 2008; Petit et al., 2010). understanding of the impact of weed communities on
A priority in meeting these challenges is to take into the agro-ecosystem.
account changes in crop-weed oras, for example the Shifting weed research from the population level to
highly specialised ora in intensively managed crops communities and ecosystems requires a change in
may shift to a highly diverse communities in places scientic perspective, because the objectives and theo-
where herbicide use is reduced (Aubertot et al., 2007; retical frameworks of population biology and commu-
Wezel et al., 2009). Moreover, the negative perception of nity ecology are clearly distinct. To characterise complex
crop weeds that was universal until recently is being communities, weed ecology must revisit issues of com-
challenged by the recognition of the positive impact munity ecology, such as the identication of assembly
weeds can have on local biodiversity and ecosystem rules of communities, that is, the processes related to the
functioning, and also of the conservation value of some co-existence of species, the recognition of groups of

Correspondence: Marie-Laure Navas, Montpellier SupAgro, Centre dEcologie Fonctionnelle et Evolutive (UMR 5175), 1919 route de Mende, 34293
Montpellier Cedex 5, France. Tel: (+33) 499 61 24 57; Fax: (+33) 499 61 24 26; E-mail: navas@supagro.inra.fr

 2012 The Author


Weed Research  2012 European Weed Research Society Weed Research 52, 479488
480 M-L Navas

species that respond similarly to a set of environmental following denition: any morphological, physiological
conditions or management practices, or that similarly or phenological feature measurable at the individual
aect the ecosystem (Booth & Swanton, 2002; Weiher level, from the cell to the whole-organism level (Violle
et al., 2011). Adapting these questions to weed ecology et al., 2007). The cornerstone of the approach is the
is not straightforward because of the specic character- responseeect framework proposed by Lavorel and
istics of weed communities compared with other types of Garnier (2002) and further rened by Suding et al.
vegetation (Cousens & Mortimer, 1995; Booth et al., (2008): environmental drivers act as lters sorting
2003). Weeds are highly adaptive organisms, because of species according to the value of traits (so-called
the large unpredictability of cultivated areas that response traits), which results in a functional diversity
strongly interact with crop plants, and can recover from of communities depending on the type and strength of
the seed bank or through vigorous vegetative production these lters. In turn, that functional diversity of com-
after destruction of plants by agricultural practices. munities, assessed by their distribution of traits, has
They form communities characterised by a fast turnover, various impacts (via so-called eect traits) on ecosystem
whose structure depends on current conditions and the processes and services (Diaz et al., 2007b). The use of
legacy of previous land use. These characteristics suggest this framework has led to universal, mechanistically
that both the ways in which the environment and the sound assessments of community structure and func-
crop conditions control weeds need to be taken into tioning, explaining their increasing use for a large range
account when analysing the structure of weed commu- of situations and organisms (for a review of recent
nities and their impact on the functioning of the agro- papers see Garnier & Navas, 2012). A simplied scheme
ecosystem. The aim of this article is to show that trait- of this framework incorporating services provided by
based approaches give the opportunity to address these weeds is presented in Fig. 1. Environmental drivers
new questions for weed ecology. relate to local conditions and crop management that act
Trait-based approaches are built on the idea that a on the functional structure of weeds; agro-ecosystem
trait is measured at the level of an individual organism processes are related to crop production, trophic webs
(see McGill et al., 2006; Lavorel et al., 2007), with the and resource cycles, whereas agro-ecosystem services

Environmental drivers
1 Local conditions :
o Climate, soil and history
Crop abiotic factors:
o Crop type (sowing date,
herbicide, fertilization)
o Preceding crop type
o Tillage (date, depth)

2
Agro-ecosystem services
Shelter and food for non pests 5 Functional
(including pollinators)
Parasite trapping structure of weeds 3
Soil cover Distribution of traits
Biodiversity conservation
Cultural services

4
Agro-ecosystem processes
Biomass production
Trophic webs (pests, non pests,
disease agent of crops)
Biogeochemical cycles
Water cycle

Fig. 1 The functional structure of a community of weeds depends on the individual responses of species to environmental drivers
because of local conditions and crop abiotic factors (see text for precisions) according to their value of response traits. It also impacts
processes at the agro-ecosystem level and service supply through effect traits. Although this framework is valid for any kind of ecosystem, it
is illustrated here for weed communities, as part of the agro-ecosystem, with examples given in the text. Numbers refer to the different
sections of the article. After Diaz et al. (2007b).

 2012 The Author


Weed Research  2012 European Weed Research Society Weed Research 52, 479488
Functional structure of weeds 481

include the benets of weeds for other components of because they act dierently on species. Local conditions,
the local biodiversity, the regulation of crop production such as climate and soil conditions or history of land
and the aesthetic or conservation values of particular use, are independent state factors. In addition to driving
species. We examine below how this general framework weed assembly directly, they also modulate the eect of
applies to weed communities and suggest directions for crop abiotic factors on all local organisms (Fig. 2B,
future research considering actual issues of weed con- Chapin et al., 2002). For example, climatic condi-
trol, but also the contribution weed ecology could have tions at a site constrain the period of growth of all
to community ecology. For an easier reading, the organisms, whatever the kind of agricultural practices.
numbers in Fig. 1 correspond to sections of the text. As a consequence, interactions between weeds and
crop plants or other organisms respond to the crop
abiotic factors, whose impact is constrained by local
Environmental drivers acting on weeds
conditions.
Two categories of environmental drivers act on weed These two groups of factors dier in their impact on
diversity (Fig. 1); some are related to local conditions, weed distribution. The larger inuence of soil conditions
whereas others depend on crop type and management. than of climate on weed distribution has been well
We suggest to name the second category of factors crop documented (references in Maillet, 1981; Lososova
abiotic factors instead of management factors to focus et al., 2004; Fried et al., 2008; Andreasen & Skovgaard,
on their eect on the environmental and ecological 2009; Hanzlik & Gerowitt, 2011). As an example, a
conditions (e.g. soil properties and resources, length of recent analysis of weed species of 700 arable elds in
growing season) and not on the dierent kinds of France showed that weed communities on basic clay
techniques that are used to manage weeds. Although soils were distinct from those on acidic sandy soils,
these two groups of factors have been traditionally whereas the inuence of climate and geographical region
merged into a single category forming the abiotic was identied mainly through relationships with precip-
environment (Fig. 2A, Booth et al., 2003), we propose itation and longitude (Fried et al., 2008). However,
to separate them into two hierarchical groups (Fig. 2B) major variations in weed composition between elds are
also associated with management factors: current or
preceding crop type, land drainage and occurrence of
A tillage (Andersson & Milberg, 1998; Fried et al., 2008;
Crop Butler et al., 2009; Hawes et al., 2009; Cirujeda et al.,
Animals
2011). Current crop type includes the eects of sowing
weeds
season, herbicide families and fertilisation regimes that
Abiotic constrain the growth and phenology of weeds (Lososova
environment et al., 2008; Gunton et al., 2011). Weed composition is
also impacted by crop rotation, but responds more to
the current identity of the crop than to the total number
B Local conditions:
climate, sol, history of crops in the rotation (Smith & Gross, 2007; Meiss
et al., 2010). More specically, a large body of literature
Crop Abiotic factors: is dedicated to the description of weed communities
Preceding crop type
Fertilisation, watering associated with each crop (for examples from recent
Tillage, herbicides
Crop
work: soybean, De La Fuente et al., 2006; sugarcane,
Firehun & Tamado, 2006; temperate cereals, Potts et al.,
2010; Mediterranean cereals, Cirujeda et al., 2011).
Most of these studies include precise descriptions of
Weeds Animals the impact of management on the environment. How-
ever, these descriptions often relate an environmental
impact to a given management practice without dening
Fig. 2 Two representations of the relationships between crop and
weeds in an agro-ecosystem. (A) In the traditional representation the corresponding intensity and frequency of distur-
(Booth et al., 2003), the main interaction is between crop and weed bance and or constraint. This makes the comparison of
plants that are similarly impacted by all other biotic and abiotic the impacts of dierent techniques and combinations
components of the ecosystem. (B) In this study, we distinguish the thereof on weed trait distributions among dierent
local conditions that are state factors constraining all components
situations (e.g. among crops in a same area or among
of the system and crop abiotic factors, corresponding to the
impact of management practices on the local environment that varieties of a given crop plant) and their prediction
depend on the crop type and that are modulated by local under future conditions rather dicult. If we want
conditions. to understand the quantitative relationships between

 2012 The Author


Weed Research  2012 European Weed Research Society Weed Research 52, 479488
482 M-L Navas

management practices and weed trait distribution, a size, relatively large plant height and opportunistic
careful quantication of the impact of crop abiotic phenology (Storkey, 2006; Ryan et al., 2010; Gunton
factors on local environment is required, because the et al., 2011).
interpretation of trait response depends on the local A second set of studies characterised the ability of
value and range of the environmental factor under weeds to respond to fast changes in manmade selective
scrutiny (McGill et al., 2006; Garnier et al., 2007). This pressures (Navas, 1991). For example, species that
is one of the key reasons why the changes in environ- increased in occurrence in sunower crops during the
ment because of all abiotic factors need to be quantied last forty years belong to a sunower mimicking
with objective, comparable variables and methodologies. functional group: they are nitrophilous and heliophil-
Such an approach, leading to the proposal of standar- ous, tolerant to sunower herbicides and share a rapid
dised procedures for characterising the dierences in summer life cycle, independently of phylogeny (Fried
management, has been developed for grasslands and et al., 2009). By contrast, weeds occurring in less
pastures located throughout Europe (Garnier et al., intensive systems are generally short plants, producing
2007). These dierences are mostly due to dierences in big seeds and owering later than species found in more
defoliation regime, because of cutting or grazing by intensive systems (Lososova et al., 2006). These species
dierent kinds of animals varying in number and period are excluded from intensive systems because short plants
of stay. Five components related to the intensity and cannot be competitive enough to survive under highly
frequency of disturbance induced by defoliation were productive conditions and the few seedlings produced by
dened, to compare the amount of produced and big seeds have a low probability to avoid herbicide
removed biomass over the year, the dates and length spraying. Unsurprisingly, the same set of traits was
of periods of biomass removal. We recommend the use found to characterise weed species selected against over
of a similar procedure for standardising the impact of the past 60 years in cereal crops in the UK (Storkey
major agricultural practices, such as dierent soil and et al., 2010).
tillage practices, which result in dierent kinds and levels A third set of comparative studies identied weed
of disturbance and or constraints. traits responding to specic components of manage-
ment. Most of experiments have been performed with a
limited number of major species, and generalisation of
Response traits of weeds
results is not possible. However, the response of weed
Traditionally, the rst step for identifying functional communities to sowing time or tillage has been described
groups is to detect emergent groups of species sharing using comparative studies on germination syndrome.
correlated traits that reect their adaptation to local For example, changes in seed bank across time were
environment (Lavorel et al., 1997). The rst functional related to a limited number of seed traits: seed mortality
classication of weeds was the ideal weed portrait in the soil decreases exponentially with seed coat
proposed by Baker (1974), Baker and Stebbins (1965). thickness (Gardarin et al., 2010b), germination varies
In this proposal, weeds have a general purpose with mass, area and lipid content of seeds (Gardarin
genotype and a set of characteristics linked to weed- et al., 2011), whereas seedling emergence depends on
iness: opportunistic germination of long-lived seeds, seed mass and hypocotyl or epicotyl diameter and diers
high growth rate and short vegetative phase, self- among monocotyledon and dicotyledon species (Fayolle
compatibility or non-specialised pollination systems, et al., 2009; Gardarin et al., 2010a). The response to
production of a large number of seeds in a large range nutrient availability was characterised using a similar
of environments, dispersal over both long and short comparative approach: seed mass decreased as nutrient
distances, large competitive ability and vigorous vege- availability increased; plant height was unchanged in all
tative reproduction for perennial species. Other classi- fertilised treatments, with shorter plants being found in
cations based on ecological characteristics, such as unfertilised areas (Storkey et al., 2010). Weed response
dispersal and reproductive patterns, demographical to competition by crop plants was related to specic leaf
traits or adaptations to management practices, have area (the ratio of leaf area and biomass), a trait that
also been proposed as a basis for further identication of varies with light availability in crop weed mixture
potential weeds (Patterson, 1985; Noble, 1989). For (Violle et al., 2009; Fila & Sartorato, 2011). By contrast,
example, Newsome and Noble (1986) analysed 86 herbicide tolerance is most often described by genetic or
noxious weeds in Victoria (Australia) and recognised physiological characteristics of a few species, yet cannot
10 groups of species on the basis of 17 characteristics, be generalised. Comparative studies on the impact of
including longevity, size, origin, growth form, photo- leaf anatomy and architecture, cuticle thickness, plant
synthetic pathway and germination. More recently, trait growth and phenology are lacking (e.g. Hilgenfeld et al.,
analyses related weediness to short life cycle, low seed 2004; Baucom & Mauricio, 2008; Vila-Aiub et al., 2009),

 2012 The Author


Weed Research  2012 European Weed Research Society Weed Research 52, 479488
Functional structure of weeds 483

despite the fact that they could help to rank species crop and weed plants. We suggest here that constraints
according to herbicide tolerance in less intensively on weed traits by crop functional structure occur also in
managed situations. more complex situations, as suggested by a recent
comparative study of weed communities occurring in
dierent crops (Gunton et al., 2011). In this study,
Functional structure of weeds
weeds occurring in crops with late sowing date were
The functional diversity of a community can be taller, established and owered later and had a shorter
described through the distribution of traits. A rst period of owering than other weed species. Further-
descriptor of this structure estimates the average value more, the mean and range of date of emergence of
of traits in the community as: weeds, respectively, increases and decreases with crop
X n sowing date. We suspect that similar control could be
CWM pi  traiti 1 documented for other crop abiotic factors, once they are
i1
evaluated with standardised methods, as suggested
where CWM represents the community-weighted mean, earlier. For example, we suggest that CWM of crop
pi and traiti are, respectively, the proportion and the height at the time of canopy closure is of major
trait value for species i, and n is the total number of species importance to restrict weed diversity, as this trait
in the community (Garnier et al., 2004). This calculation is describes the use of light and water by the community
based on the mass ratio hypothesis (Grime, 1998), which throughout the growing season (Violle et al., 2009).
proposes that the controls on function by species are
proportional to their abundance. A second descriptor
Effect traits and agro-ecosystem processes
assesses the functional divergence of traits of species
present in a community. Many different indices are used The most documented eect of weeds on the agro-
(reviewed in Garnier & Navas, 2012); most are based on the ecosystem is the depression of crop production. Because
sum of or average functional distances between species the prediction of lost crop production is a major
pairs, distances between species along a hierarchical clas- economic issue, it has given rise to a signicant
sification or on the distribution of abundances along modelling eort since the early 70s (Doyle, 1997),
functional trait axes. Recent developments in community especially for elds invaded by major noxious species.
ecology emphasise the relevance of these descriptors for In this case, predictions have been based on the
assessing the assembly of species (Cornwell & Ackerly, assessment of changes in demography of the weed in
2009). The deviation of observed mean, range and diver- response to dierent management systems (Petit et al.,
gence of traits compared with values generated with a null 2010). Most of these models are deterministic and
model can reveal the filtering effect of environmental factors require a large experimental eort to assess a large
on traits and the nature of the associated processes (Weiher number of parameters, explaining why they have been
& Keddy, 1995; Grime, 2006). Descriptors of functional developed for only a few species. Recent demo-
structure are also used to assess ecosystem services (see graphical models group species into functional types
below). So far, few calculations of CWM of traits of crop (Storkey & Cussans, 2007; Gardarin et al., 2011), but
weeds or functional divergence have been published (Stor- the complexity of the models impedes further extension
key et al., 2010), reflecting the poor understanding we have to diverse weed communities.
of the functional structure of weed communities. An alternative approach is to characterise the more
When analysing the functional structure of weeds general competitive eect of weeds on crops. The
found in a eld, there is a question of where to include signicant relationship linking competitive eect to
crop plants in the analysis as a driver or component of size-related traits (Gaudet & Keddy, 1988; Keddy &
the ora. We argue that crop plants that may display a Shipley, 1989) has been conrmed for weed species:
range of phenotypes, despite genetic homogeneity, in comparative studies related seed size or plant height to
response to local environmental heterogeneity, represent competitive eect (Goldberg & Fleetwood, 1987; Gold-
a local biotic lter acting on weed species via their berg & Landa, 1991; Torner et al., 2000; Storkey et al.,
impact on local resource level and environmental 2010). Yet, these traits have not been used in models
conditions (Fig. 2B). This ltering eect constrains the predicting competition outcomes. These models are
values of traits of weeds. For example, weeds mimicking based on the fact that weed size relative to that of the
crop plants with slight dierences in trait values (e.g. crop, measured at an early stage depending on weed and
earlier owering phenology or with brittle owering crop phenology, is the best predictor of the nal crop
stems, Navas, 1991; Linghwa & Morishima, 1997; Fried yield (e.g. Krop & Spitters, 1992; Booth & Swanton,
et al., 2009) are an example of responses to such a 2002). For example, beet yield was accurately predicted
ltering eect, revealing niche dierentiation between by the relative leaf area of Chenopodium album measured

 2012 The Author


Weed Research  2012 European Weed Research Society Weed Research 52, 479488
484 M-L Navas

30 days after weed emergence (Krop & Spitters, 1991). (iii) soil protection depends on canopy size or architec-
Recently, the dierence in plant height among weed and ture or growth form (De Bello et al., 2010). However,
crop plants assessed soon after weed emergence was quantitative links between these services and weed traits
related to the intensity of competition and crop yield have yet to be fully explored.
and also to the reproductive performance of weeds
(McDonald et al., 2010). These results can be explained
Weed traits and services
in the light of recent theoretical ecological studies:
(i) traits of interacting plants are tightly connected, and The recent emergence of the concept of ecosystem
the competitive response of a plant varies with the services has led to the recognition of the positive impact
competitive eect of its neighbours (Wang et al., 2010); weeds can have on agro-ecosystem. To that aim, a
(ii) the dierences in size-related traits among interacting framework recognising three categories of weeds,
plants explain the co-existence of species in communities involved in the whole range of ecosystem services, has
regenerated from seeds (Turnbull et al., 2004) and been recently proposed (Moonen & Ba`rberi, 2008):
(iii) the distribution of trait values for the whole (i) species with high intrinsic conservation value or
community formed by weed and crop plants reects because of sheltered biodiversity, (ii) species contribut-
the competition at the site (McGill et al., 2006). ing to the production of food for animals, or to services
Although simple to parameterise and ecologically of regulation such as pollination or limitation of soil
sound, these models lack accuracy, because demograph- erosion and (iii) species with no intrinsic value but that
ical changes of weeds are not taken into account (but see are used as indicators of high-quality practices. The
McDonald et al., 2010). Therefore, there is an urgent next step is to recognise traits related to properties and
need to identify traits related to demography, because processes that have substantial contribution to services,
only a few studies addressed this question. Some traits following the pioneering framework proposed by De
have been proposed for tropical trees (Garnier & Navas, Bello et al. (2010). Although the positive impact of
2012), and a recent modelling study characterised which weeds on local biodiversity is well known (Ba`rberi et al.,
life-history traits of weeds are more sensitive to man- 2010), no clear set of traits has been related to these
agement (Colbach et al., 2010). services. A recent study performed in oilseed rape, beet
The predictions by these two kinds of models are, and maize crops in the UK showed that functional types
however, of low value when the functional diversity of of weeds, identied by categorical traits, can be associ-
weeds is high under extensive management systems. ated with those of non-pest invertebrate species (Hawes
Some authors have recently suggested that in such et al., 2009). A similar result was found in Mediterra-
conditions, the ability of weeds to draw on resource nean winter wheat elds when classifying weeds into
pools complementarily to that of crop plants, which can three functional groups (Caballero-Lopez et al., 2010).
be assessed by dierences in root depth and architecture On the other hand, the ability of weeds to host other
(Freckleton & Watkinson, 2001; Deen et al., 2003; Smith organisms, which can be positive when weeds act as trap
et al., 2010), might be related to lower weed-crop crops attracting pests (Ba`rberi et al., 2010), or negative
competition (Smith et al., 2010). This means that the when they host disease agents (Franke et al., 2009), has
functional divergence of the crop-weed community not been clearly depicted by traits. An exception is the
dened by traits related to resource use could be of identication of shifted phenology of weeds that host
major importance for predicting crop yield. A high fungi or virus comparatively to crops, allowing the
divergence inducing complementarity in resource use by disease agent to persist between two periods of crop
weeds and crop across time or space, in relation to niche production (Navas et al., 1998).
dierentiation, should result in a reduced impact of Once eect traits are identied, which is something
weeds on crops. This suggests that the limiting similarity still to be done for weeds, it is necessary to evaluate the
eect, one hypothesis explaining co-existence of species shortest set of traits that provision a given service at a
in spontaneous communities [co-existing species slightly site. To that aim, Diaz et al. (2007a) proposed a
dier in functioning then have separated niche dimen- hierarchical procedure that should be used in agro-
sions (Wilson, 2011)], should also prevail in managed ecosystems. Once the eect of the environment on
places. services is identied, CWM and functional divergence of
There are probably other eect traits of weeds that eect traits are assessed, then the impact of some species
could relate to major ecosystem processes. For example, on services, for example the dominant when the biomass
(i) occurrence of herbivores is generally related to tissue ratio hypothesis is valid (Grime, 1998), as it is the case
chemistry, leaf morphology and seed production, when assessing services related to resource use (Garnier
(ii) pollinator provision is explained by oral traits such et al., 2004), is quantied. This procedure was used rst
as accessibility, attractiveness and nectar production and for grasslands and allowed to recognise the best com-

 2012 The Author


Weed Research  2012 European Weed Research Society Weed Research 52, 479488
Functional structure of weeds 485

bination of environmental factors and functional diver- community ecology. First, this will improve the
sity components acting on ecosystem processes and understanding of the impact of disturbances on
services. community assembly. If the impact of resource
The identication of services provided by weeds change on traits is rather well documented, there is
introduces complexity in the denition of control still no general understanding of the impact of
strategies, as the balance between the negative and disturbances on functional structure of plants (see
positive impacts weeds have on the dierent components Garnier & Navas, 2012, for a general discussion). The
of the agro-ecosystem needs to be assessed. Although rather specic disturbances occurring in an agro-
there are some exceptions, weed species cannot be ecosystem (e.g. soil tillage and herbicide application)
grouped into two contrasted groups, the rst including compared with other systems (e.g. re, ooding and
highly competitive species without conservation value herbivory) should allow the general quantication of
and a second one formed of species with opposite processes linked to disturbance. Second, the crop-
characteristics. The reality is in between, as documented weed system is an ideal one to test the hypothesis that
for common weed species of UK, for which no clear co-existence among species is governed by their values
correlation exists between harmfulness and positive of traits, especially those related to competition,
eects on biodiversity (Storkey, 2006). Therefore, pro- because of the asymmetrical relationships between
posing to manage elds to keep only species with the two kinds of plants.
positive eects appears to be unrealistic (Storkey & 3 At the agro-ecosystem level, the understanding of
Westbury, 2007). Furthermore, dening which weeds are how and which traits (in terms of values and ranges)
acceptable because they have more positive than nega- affect processes, properties and services remains very
tive eects remains a challenge, because the former preliminary. The originality of weeds compared with
eects remain poorly understood and largely unquanti- other vegetation of agricultural interest, such as
ed. Potentially, functional traits could be used as a grasslands, is that the balance between their impact
common metric for trading o the positive and negative on ecosystem can vary from purely negative (if only
impacts of contrasting weed communities. loss of crops is taken into account) to purely positive
(if only services on biodiversity are taken into
account), allowing the characterisation of the whole
Conclusion: directions for weed research
range of trade-offs.
Applying trait-based approaches to weed ecology raises
In conclusion, trait-based approaches should give new
a number of challenges that are somewhat dierent to
tools for predicting weed community assembly and
those proposed for other kinds of vegetation (see
impact on agro-ecosystem services, especially in com-
Garnier & Navas, 2012, for a general discussion). The
plex communities where a detailed mechanistic and
most important dierences can be summarised as
modelling approach based on in-depth knowledge
follows:
of all organisms involved will probably not be
1 Concerning plant functioning, whether any easily tractable.
measured traits can be related to the various aspects
of the regeneration niche and to demographical
Acknowledgements
parameters, such as population birth and death rate,
appears as a central issue for better prediction of weed The idea of this study came after the publication of a
demography under contrasted management scenarios. review on trait-based approach for agro-ecology
We suspect that such research could be a major (Garnier & Navas, 2012) including a very short section
contribution to community ecology, because weed on crop weeds. I also thank S Gaba, B Chauvel, G Fried
species are characterised by rapidly adapting life- and E Kazakou for very interesting discussions on some
history traits in response to varying environmental of the ideas developed here. Many thanks also to
conditions. referees and editor who carefully read a former version
2 At the community level, understanding the mecha- and provide very useful recommendations for improving
nisms through which species traits determine func- the ideas.
tional structure will require theoretical, experimental
and modelling approaches. There is a need to
References
better identify and quantify the crop abiotic factors
acting on weeds, and weed response traits, by ANDERSSON TN & MILBERG P (1998) Weed ora and the
performing comparative experiments. Working with relative importance of site, crop, crop rotation, and nitrogen.
the crop-weed system gives two opportunities for Weed Science 46, 3038.

 2012 The Author


Weed Research  2012 European Weed Research Society Weed Research 52, 479488
486 M-L Navas

ANDREASEN C & SKOVGAARD IBM (2009) Crop and soil factors DIAZ S, LAVOREL S, BELLO FD, QUETIER F, GRIGULIS K &
of importance for the distribution of plant species on arable ROBSON TM (2007a) Incorporating plant functional diversity
elds in Denmark. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment eects in ecosystem service assessments. Proceedings of the
133, 6167. National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
AUBERTOT J-N, BARBIER J-M, CARPENTIER A et al. (2007) 104, 2068420689.
Pesticides, Agriculture et environnement. Reduire lutilisation DIAZ S, LAVOREL S, CHAPIN FS, TECCO PA, GURVICH DE &
des pesticides et en limiter les impacts environnementaux. GRIGULIS K (2007b) Functional diversity at the crossroads
Expertise scientique collective Inra-Cemagref (decembre between ecosystem functioning and environmental lters.
2005). Quae, Paris. In: Terrestrial Ecosystems in a Changing World (eds JG
BAKER HG (1974) The evolution of weeds. Annual Review of CANADELL, D PATAKI & L PITELKA), 8191. Springer-Verlag,
Ecology and Systematics 5, 124. Berlin, Heidelberg.
BAKER HG & STEBBINS GL (1965) The Genetics of Colonizing DOYLE CJ (1997) A review of the use of models of weed control
Species. Academic Press, New York & London. in integrated crop protection. Agriculture Ecosystems &
BA`RBERI P, BURGIO G, DINELLI G et al. (2010) Functional Environment 64, 165172.
biodiversity in the agricultural landscape: relationships FAYOLLE A, VIOLLE C & NAVAS ML (2009) Dierential impacts
between weeds and arthropod fauna. Weed Research 50, of plant interactions on herbaceous species recruitment:
388401. disentangling factors controlling emergence, survival and
BAUCOM RS & MAURICIO R (2008) Constraints on the growth of seedlings. Oecologia 159, 817825.
evolution of tolerance to herbicide in the common morning FERNANDEZ-QUINTANILLA C, QUADRANTI M, KUDSK P &
glory: resistance and tolerance are mutually exclusive. BA`RBERI P (2008) Which future for weed science? Weed
Evolution 62, 28422854. Research 48, 297301.
BOOTH BD & SWANTON CJ (2002) Assembly theory applied to FILA G & SARTORATO I (2011) Using leaf mass per area as
weed communities. Weed Science 50, 213. predictor of light interception and absorption in crop weed
BOOTH BD, MURPHY SD & SWANTON CJ (2003) Weed Ecology monoculture or mixed stands. Agricultural and Forest
in Natural and Agricultural Systems. CABI Publishing, Meteorology 151, 575584.
Oxon, UK. FIREHUN Y & TAMADO T (2006) Weed ora in the Rift
BUTLER SJ, BROOKS D, FEBER RE, STORKEY J, VICKERY JA & Valley sugarcane plantations of Ethiopia as inuenced by
NORRIS K (2009) A cross-taxonomic index for quantifying soil types and agronomic practises. Weed Biology and
the health of farmland biodiversity. Journal of Applied Management 6, 139150.
Ecology 46, 11541162. FRANKE AC, LOTZ LAP, van der Burg WJ & OVERBEEK LV
CABALLERO-LOPEZ B, BLANCO-MORENO JM, PEREZ N et al. (2009) The role of arable weed seeds for agroecosystem
(2010) A functional approach to assessing plant-arthropod functioning. Weed Research 49, 131141.
interaction in winter wheat. Agriculture Ecosystems & FRECKLETON RP & WATKINSON AR (2001) Asymmetric
Environment 137, 288293. competition between plant species. Functional Ecology 15,
CHAPIN FS III, MATSON PA & MOONEY HA (2002) Principles of 615623.
Terrestrial Ecosystem Ecology. Springer-Verlag, New-York. FRIED G, NORTON LR & REBOUD X (2008) Environmental and
CIRUJEDA A, AIBAR J & ZARAGOZA C (2011) Remarkable management factors determining weed species composition
changes of weed species in Spanish cereal elds from 1976 to and diversity in France. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environ-
2007. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 31, 675688. ment 128, 6876.
COLBACH N, DARMENCY H & TRICAULT Y (2010) Identifying FRIED G, CHAUVEL B & REBOUD X (2009) A functional analysis
key life-traits for the dynamics and gene ow in a weedy crop of large-scale temporal shifts from 1970 to 2000 in weed
relative: sensitivity analysis of the GENESYS simulation assemblages of sunower crops in France. Journal of
model for weed beet (Beta vulgaris ssp. vulgaris). Ecological Vegetation Science 20, 4958.
Modelling 221, 225237. GARDARIN A, DURR C & COLBACH N (2010a) Eects
CORNWELL WK & ACKERLY D (2009) Community assembly of seed depth and soil aggregates on the emer-
and shifts in plant trait distributions across an environ- gence of weeds with contrasting seed traits. Weed Research
mental gradient in coastal California. Ecological 50, 91101.
Monographs 79, 109126. GARDARIN A, DURR C, MANNINO MR, BUSSET H & COLBACH N
COUSENS R & MORTIMER M (1995) Dynamics of Weed (2010b) Seed mortality in the soil is related to seed coat
Populations, 1st edn. Cambridge University Press, thickness. Seed Science Research 20, 243256.
Cambridge, UK. GARDARIN A, DAURR C & COLBACH N (2011) Prediction of
DE BELLO F, LAVOREL S, DIAZ S et al. (2010) Towards an germination rates of weed species: relationships between
assessment of multiple ecosystem processes and services via germination speed parameters and species traits. Ecological
functional traits. Biodiversity and Conservation 19, 28732893. Modelling 222, 626636.
DE LA FUENTE EB, SUAREZ SA & GHERSA CM (2006) Soybean GARNIER E & NAVAS M-L (2012) A trait-based approach to
weed community composition and richness between 1995 comparative functional plant ecology: concepts, methods
and 2003 in the Rolling Pampas (Argentina). Agriculture and applications for agroecology. A review. Agronomy for
Ecosystems & Environment 115, 229236. Sustainable Development 32, 365399.
DEEN W, COUSENS R, WARRINGA J et al. (2003) An evaluation GARNIER E, CORTEZ J, BILLES G et al. (2004) Plant functional
of four crop: weed competition models using a common data markers capture ecosystem properties during secondary
set. Weed Research 43, 116129. succession. Ecology 85, 26302637.

 2012 The Author


Weed Research  2012 European Weed Research Society Weed Research 52, 479488
Functional structure of weeds 487

GARNIER E, LAVOREL S, ANSQUER P et al. (2007) Assessing the diversity and species composition. Journal of Vegetation
eects of land-use change on plant traits, communities and Science 15, 415422.
ecosystem functioning in grasslands: a standardized LOSOSOVA Z, CHYTRY M, KUHN I et al. (2006) Patterns of plant
methodology and lessons from an application to 11 traits in annual vegetation of man-made habitats in central
European sites. Annals of Botany 99, 967985. Europe. Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and
GAUDET CL & KEDDY PA (1988) A comparative approach Systematics 8, 6981.
to predicting competitive ability from plant traits. Nature LOSOSOVA Z, CHYTRY M & KUEHN I (2008) Plant
334, 242243. attributes determining the regional abundance of weeds
GOLDBERG DE & FLEETWOOD L (1987) Competitive eect on central European arable land. Journal of Biogeography
and response in four annual plants. Journal of Ecology 75, 35, 177187.
11311143. MAILLET J (1981) Evolution de la ore adventice dans le
GOLDBERG DE & LANDA K (1991) Competitive eect and Montpellierais sous la pression des techniques culturales.
response hierarchies and correlated traits in the early stages Docteur Ingenieur, Universite des Sciences et Techniques du
of competition. Journal of Ecology 79, 10131030. Languedoc, Montpellier.
GRIME JP (1998) Benets of plant diversity to ecosystems: MARSHALL EJP, BROWN VK, BOATMAN ND et al. (2003) The
immediate, lter and founder eects. Journal of Ecology 86, role of weeds in supporting biological diversity within crop
902910. elds. Weed Research 43, 7789.
GRIME JP (2006) Trait convergence and trait divergence in MCDONALD AJ, RIHA SJ & DITOMMASO A (2010) Early season
herbaceous plant communities: mechanisms and conse- height dierences as robust predictors of weed growth
quences. Journal of Vegetation Science 17, 255260. potential in maize: new avenues for adaptive management?
GUNTON RM, PETIT S & GABA S (2011) Functional traits Weed Research 50, 110119.
relating arable weed communities to crop characteristics. MCGILL BJ, ENQUIST BJ, WEIHER E & WESTOBY M (2006)
Journal of Vegetation Science 22, 541550. Rebuilding community ecology from functional traits.
HANZLIK K & GEROWITT B (2011) The importance of climate, site Trends in Ecology & Evolution 21, 178185.
and management on weed vegetation in oilseed rape in Ger- MEISS H, MEDIENE S, WALDHARDT R et al. (2010) Perennial
many. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 141, 323331. lucerne aects weed community trajectories in grain crop
HAWES C, HAUGHTON AJ, BOHAN DA & SQUIRE GR (2009) rotations. Weed Research 50, 331340.
Functional approaches for assessing plant and invertebrate MOONEN AC & BA`RBERI P (2008) Functional biodiversity:
abundance patterns in arable systems. Basic and Applied an agroecosystem approach. Agriculture Ecosystems &
Ecology 10, 3442. Environment 127, 721.
HILGENFELD KL, MARTIN AR, MORTENSEN DA & MASON SC NAVAS ML (1991) Using plant-population biology in weed
(2004) Weed management in a glyphosate resistant research a strategy to improve weed management. Weed
soybean system: weed species shifts. Weed Technology Research 31, 171179.
18, 284291. NAVAS ML, FRIESS N & MAILLET J (1998) Inuence of
KEDDY PA & SHIPLEY B (1989) Competitive hierarchies in cucumber mosaic virus infection on the growth response
herbaceous plant communities. Oikos 54, 234241. of Portulaca oleracea (purslane) and Stellaria media (chick-
KROPFF MJ & SPITTERS CJT (1991) A simple model of crop weed) to nitrogen availability. New Phytologist 139, 301309.
loss by weed competition from early observations on relative NEWSOME AE & NOBLE IR (1986) Ecological and physiological
leaf area of the weeds. Weed Research 31, 97105. characters of invading species. In: Ecology of Biological
KROPFF MJ & SPITTERS CJT (1992) An ecophysiological model Invasions (eds RH GROVES & JJ BURDON), 120. Cambridge
for interspecic competition, applied to the inuence of University Press, New York, USA.
Chenopodium album L. on sugar-beet. 1. Model description NOBLE I (1989) Attributes of invaders and the invading process:
and parameterization. Weed Research 32, 437450. terrestrial and vascular plants. In: Biological Invasions: A
LAVOREL S & GARNIER E (2002) Predicting changes in Global Perspective (eds JA DRAKE, HA MOONEY, FD CASTRI
community composition and ecosystem functioning from & et al.), 301314. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK.
plant traits: revisiting the Holy Grail. Functional Ecology 16, PATTERSON DT (1985) Comparative Ecophysiology of Weeds
545556. and Crops. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA.
LAVOREL S, MCINTYRE S, LANDSBERG J & FORBES TDA (1997) PETIT S, BOURSAULT A, GUILLOUX ML, MUNIER-JOLAIN N &
Plant functional classications: from general groups to REBOUD X (2010) Weeds in agricultural landscapes. A
specic groups based on response to disturbance. Trends in review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 31, 309317.
Ecology & Evolution 12, 474478. POTTS GR, EWALD JA & AEBISCHER NJ (2010) Long-term
LAVOREL S, DIAZ S, CORNELISSEN H et al. (2007) Plant changes in the ora of the cereal ecosystem on the Sussex
Functional Types: Are We Getting Any Closer to the Holy Downs, England, focusing on the years 19682005. Journal
Grail? In: Terrestrial Ecosystems in a Changing World (eds of Applied Ecology 47, 215226.
JG CANADELL, D PATAKI & L PITELKA), 150164. Springer RYAN MR, SMITH RG, MIRSKY SB, MORTENSEN DA & SEIDEL
Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany. R (2010) Management lters and species traits: weed
LINGHWA T & MORISHIMA H (1997) Genetic characterization of community assembly in long-term organic and conventional
weedy rices and the inference on their origins. Breeding systems. Weed Science 58, 265277.
Science 47, 153160. SMITH RG & GROSS KL (2007) Assembly of weed communities
LOSOSOVA Z, CHYTRY M, CIMALOVA S et al. (2004) Weed along a crop diversity gradient. Journal of Applied Ecology
vegetation of arable land in Central Europe: gradients of 44, 10461056.

 2012 The Author


Weed Research  2012 European Weed Research Society Weed Research 52, 479488
488 M-L Navas

SMITH RG, MORTENSEN DA & RYAN MR (2010) A new VILA-AIUB MM, NEVE P & POWLES SB (2009) Evidence for an
hypothesis for the functional role of diversity in mediating ecological cost of enhanced herbicide metabolism in Lolium
resource pools and weed-crop competition in agroecosys- rigidum. Journal of Ecology 97, 772780.
tems. Weed Research 50, 3748. VIOLLE C, NAVAS M-L, VILE D et al. (2007) Let the concept of
STORKEY J (2006) A functional group approach to the trait be functional!. Oikos 116, 882892.
management of UK arable weeds to support biological VIOLLE C, GARNIER E, LECOEUR J et al. (2009) Competition,
diversity. Weed Research 46, 513522. traits and resource depletion in plant communities.
STORKEY J & CUSSANS JW (2007) Reconciling the conservation Oecologia 160, 747755.
of in-eld biodiversity with crop production using a simu- WANG P, STIEGLITZ T, ZHOU DW & CAHILL JF (2010)
lation model of weed growth and competition. Agriculture Are competitive eect and response two sides of the
Ecosystems & Environment 122, 173182. same coin, or fundamentally dierent? Functional Ecology
STORKEY J & WESTBURY DB (2007) Managing arable weeds for 24, 196207.
biodiversity. Pest Management Science 63, 517523. WEIHER E & KEDDY PA (1995) Assembly rules, null models,
STORKEY J, MOSS SR & CUSSANS JW (2010) Using assembly and trait dispersion: new questions front old patterns. Oikos
theory to explain changes in a weed ora in response to 74, 159164.
agricultural intensication. Weed Science 58, 3946. WEIHER E, FREUND D, BUNTON T, STEFANSKI A, LEE T &
SUDING KN, LAVOREL S, CHAPIN FS et al. (2008) Scaling BENTIVENGA S (2011) Advances, challenges and a developing
environmental change through the community-level: a trait- synthesis of ecological community assembly theory.
based response-and-eect framework for plants. Global Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London.
Change Biology 14, 11251140. Series B, Biological Sciences 366, 24032413.
TORNER C, DEL ARCO MJS, SATORRE E & FERNANDEZ WEZEL A, BELLON S, DORE T, FRANCIS C, VALLOD D & DAVID
QUINTANILLA C (2000) A comparison of the growth patterns C (2009) Agroecology as a science, a movement and a
and the competitive ability of four annual weeds. Agronomie practice. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development
20, 147156. 29, 203515.
TURNBULL LA, COOMES D, HECTOR A & REES M (2004) Seed WILSON JB (2011) The twelve theories of co-existence
mass and the competition colonization trade-o: in plant communities: the doubtful, the impor-
competitive interactions and spatial patterns in a guild of tant and the unexplored. Journal of Vegetation Science 22,
annual plants. Journal of Ecology 92, 97109. 184195.

 2012 The Author


Weed Research  2012 European Weed Research Society Weed Research 52, 479488