International Journal of Agriculture and Crop Sciences.
Available online at www.ijagcs.com
IJACS/2012/4-22/1653-1659
ISSN 2227-670X ©2012 IJACS Journal
Introducing new indices for weed flora studies
Sirous Hassannejad1 and Soheila Porheidar Ghafarbi2
1. Assistant Professor of Weed Science, Department of Plant Eco-physiology, University of Tabriz-Iran
2. Ms of Weed Science
Corresponding author email:[email protected]
ABSTRACT: Field surveys were conducted during 2010-2012 to determine the dominance of weeds
in alfalfa fields of Tabriz-Iran. A total 65 weed species belonging to 25 families were recorded. The
major families were Asteraceae, Poaceae, and Brassicaceae with 67.54, 65.41, and 41.13FDI (Family
Dominance Index), respectively. Bromus tectorum, Crepis sancta, and Tragopogon graminifolius with
30.25, 25.56.and 22.16 RD (Relative Dominance) were the most important weeds in Tabriz alfalfa
fields. The objective of this study was to improve the Relative Abundance (RA) and Abundance Index
(AI) methods and introducing of Relative Dominance Index (RD) to describe the ranking of weed
species, and introducing of FDI (Family Dominance Index) instead of FIV (Family Important Value) for
plant family ranking in weed communities. In RD method, we used four quantitative measures
including relative frequency, relative uniformity, relative density, and relative coverage. In RA, the
mean density had a significant role and in AI, the frequency and uniformity had a higher value than the
mean field density. In both of them, the role of vegetation cover percentage has been taken in to
consideration. FIV combined of two parameters (relative diversity and elative density), and lake of
relative coverage in this index is highlight. In weed flora surveys, in case of some parasitic weeds like
dodder, perennial rhizomatous weeds like bindweed, bermudagrass, johnsongrass and etc, winter
weeds compare with summer weeds, and grasses compare with broadleaves, only the density could
not be sufficient. By adding vegetation coverage to RA and FIV parameters we suggested RD for
weed species ranking and FDI for family ranking in weed flora surveys.
Key words: Abundance Index, Alfalfa, Family Dominance Index, Relative Abundance, Relative
Dominance.
INTRODUCTION
Alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.), the queen of forages, is one of the most widely grown forage crops in Iran
especially in Tabriz county. Although many factors influence quality and quantity of this plant, weeds play a
significant role in reducing the feeding value of that’s hay. Weed directly competition with alfalfa for sunlight,
soil nutrients, and water reduces yield quality and quantity, thus reduces farm income. And the other hands,
weeds that accumulate nitrates or are poisonous to livestock are also a major concern in alfalfa, since
poisonous weeds sicken or kill animals every year (Puschner, 2005). Among weeds, Amaranthus spp.,
Chenopodium spp. and Solanum spp. have been found to contain nitrate at a potentially toxic concentrations
(Casteel et al., 2004). Some of weeds like Amsinckia, Cynoglossum, Echium, Heliotropium, and Senecio spp.
contain the toxic alkaloids that causing irreversible liver damage (Cheeke, 1998). Adonis spp. contain a series
of cardiotoxic compounds, similar to the toxins found in Nerium oleander, that poisoning reported in horses,
pigs, and sheep (Davies et al., 1989). Setaria glauca and Setaria viridis have sharp and barbed bristles. The
bristles are capable of penetrating the mucous membranes and causing serious erosions of the mouth. The
mechanical injury is a particularly serious problem in horses, but has also been reported in cattle (Fava et al.,
2000).When certain weeds, such as Hordeum spp., and Bromus spp. are present in hay, may injure the mouths
of animals (Canevari et al., 2007). This is due to physical factors, such as prickly texture on the inflorescence of
these weeds causes severe ulceration in the mouths of livestock and the pain frequently prevents them from
eating (Summers, 1998). Weeds such as Rumex crispus and Conyza canadensis have coarse stems that
livestock reject (Peters and Linscott, 1988). Other weeds, including Apium leptophyllum, Chenopodium
ambrosioides, Coronopus didymus, and Brassica spp. can contribute off favors in milk. Weeds such as
Amsinckia intermedia and Senecio vulgaris contain alkaloids that are toxic to livestock, especially horses.
Heavy infestations of Poa annua clog the cutter bar and may make cutting impossible (Summers et al., 1981).
Because of allelopathic substances produced by some weeds like Agropyron repens and Cynodon dactylon,
alfalfa growth and establishment is often difficult. Thus weed identification and management of them are
Intl J Agri Crop Sci. Vol., 4 (22), 1653-1659, 2012
necessary to provide maximum production of high quality alfalfa hay. Weed survey are crucial to determine the
occurrence and relative importance of weed species in crop production system (Korres et al., 2002). A poor
weed management decision can lead to stand loss, poor quality hay, unacceptable weed control, alfalfa injury
and a loss of money. Weed surveys are useful for determining the occurrence and relative importance of weed
species in crop production systems (Thomas, 1985; Frick and Thomas, 1992; McCully et al., 1991). Some
studies about weed flora in cereal, oil seed crops and some of annual crops have been done in many countries
e. g. from Iran (Maddah and Mirkamali 1973; Bahrami 1993; Dezyanian 1994; Minbashi et al., 2008), Canada
(Thomas, 1985), Turkey (Bukun, 2004; Bukun and Bararos, 2005), Pakistan (Nasirand Sultan, 2004),Bulgaria
(Milanova et al., 2009), Denmark (Andreasen and Stryhn, 2008; Andreasen and Skovgaard, 2009), France
(Fried et al., 2008), Hungray (Novak et al., 2010), the UK (Potts et al., 2010) and the US (Conn et al., 2011).
Because previous weed surveys in Iran had only considered annual crops (Maddah and Mirkamali 1973;
Bahrami 1993; Dezyanian 1994; Minbashi et al., 2008), there was a lack of quantitative information on weed
problems in any of perennial crops, and absence of good method for weed flora surveys in all crops especially
in alfalfa is very important. Different survey methods have been used by many scientists (Thomas 1985;
Thomas 1991; McCully et al., 1991; Thomas and Dale 1991a,b; Schroeder et al., 1993; Minbashi et al., 2008).
The methods introduced by Thomas (1985) about determining the relative abundance (RA) and Minbashi et al.,
(2008) about determining the abundance index (AI) for each species in the weed community are more effective
in weed surveys. However, both of them have some shortcomings. The objective of this study was to improve
the Thomas (1985) and Minbashi et al., (2008) methods for weeds ranking in the community, to improve Mori et
al., (1983) method for plant family important in alfalfa fields and other crops and to identify Tabriz alfalfa fields
weed species and highlighted dangerous weeds for animals in this county.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Survey of area
Tabriz County of Iran is located between 35º 7´ latitude and 46 º 26 longitude covering 11800 km2, with
270 mm mean rain per year. Alfalfa fields were surveyed for weeds right before the first cutting during 20102012. This sampling time was chosen because: a) most of the weeds were well established in this time; b)
identification of weed species was possible because weeds were in flowering or fruit setting stages and easily
recognizable; c) most of the annual weeds were only observed before the first harvest. Fields were surveyed
following the methodology of Thomas (1985) in which 20 quadrates of 0.25 m2 were randomly placed along a
"W" pattern consisting of 5 quadrates in each one of 4 arms of the pattern, in each field. All weeds in each
quadrate were identified, counted (density and cover percent), and recorded for subsequent data entry and
analysis. Density counts and cover percentage of plants were recorded for each species in sampling quadrate
and in the case of perennial grasses, numbers of culms were counted. Unidentified weed species in the field
were catalogued and pressed for later identification by flora Iranica (Rechinger, 1963-2007) and Turkey (Davis,
1965-85).
Estimation of Dominance Index (DI) and Relative Dominance (RD)
The data were summarized using some quantitative measures, four measures (relative frequency,
relative uniformity, relative density) as outlined by Thomas (1985). Mean cover percentage over all fields were
used for the first time by Hassannejad (2011).
The frequency (F) value was the percentage of fields infested by a species k, at least in one quadrate per field.
This measure is an estimate of the geographical extent of the infestation in the county:
Where
is the frequency value of species k, Yi is the presence (1) or absence (0) of species k in field
i, and n is the number of fields surveyed.
The field Uniformity (U) value indicates the percentage of quadrates (20 quadrates per field) infested by
a species. This measure is an estimate of the area infested by a weed species.
Where
is the field uniformity value of species k,
is the presence (1) or absence (0) of species k in
quadrate j in field i, and n is the number of fields surveyed.
The density (D) value was calculated as the mean number of plant per square meter for each weed
species, expressed over all fields surveyed.
Intl J Agri Crop Sci. Vol., 4 (22), 1653-1659, 2012
Where
is the density (individuals per square meter) of species k in field i and
is the number of
plants of each species in quadrate j (each quadrate is 0.25 m2).
The mean field density (MFD) value indicates the number of plants per square meter for each species
averaged over all fields sampled. This measure was used to magnitude of the infestation in all fields surveyed.
Where
is the mean field density of species k,
is the density (numbers per square meter) of
species k in field i, and n is the number of all fields surveyed.
The cover percentage ( ) value indicates the vertical projection on the ground, based on visual
estimates; it usually does not include overlaps. For visual estimates, some count "empty space" within a clump
and others do not.
Where
is the cover percentage of species k in field i,
is the cover percentage of species k in
quadrate j.
The mean cover percentage (
) value indicates the cover of plants per square meter for each
species averaged over all fields sampled.
Where
is the mean field cover k,
is the cover percentage of species k in field i, and n is the
number of fields surveyed.
To summarize the relative dominance and dominance index of a species, four of the above measures
were combined in to a single value. RD calculated from relative frequency, relative uniformity, relative density,
and relative coverage. DI calculated from frequency, uniformity, density, and coverage.
Estimation of Family Dominance Index (FDI)
Family Important Values (FIV) that first time introduced by Mori et al. (1983) was improved by adding
relative coverage in this research. We used FDI (Family Dominance Index) to compare the relative contribution
of each taxonomic family to weed species composition. It was calculated as the sum of the relative diversity,
relative density, and relative coverage as follow:
$%&' ! () "* + " ) & #
!" #
,(
%&' ! () "* + "
$%&' ! () - -% " ) & #
" #
,(
%&' ! () - -% "
( ! . () - -% " ) & #
( ! .
,( +( ! . () - -% "
FDI=
!" #
" #
( ! .
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Weed flora of Alfalfa fields
The results of study showed that 65 weed species belonging to 25 families were observed within the
surveyed alfalfa fields (Tab.1). Only 12 species (Poaceae with 8, Liliaceae with 2, Alliaceae with 1, and
Ixilirionaceae with 1 weed species) were monocotyledonous and the rest were dicotyledonous (Tab.2).
Asteraceae, Poaceae and Brassicaceae families include of 50.77 % of weed species in Tabriz alfalfa fields
(Tab. 2). In this survey, 81.54 % of species were dicotyledonous and18.64 % were monocotyledonous. Out of
65 weed species recorded from Tabriz alfalfa fields, 33 species (50.77%) were annual, 29 species (44.62 %)
were perennial, and 3 species (4.52%) were biennial. All weed species were classified in to new categories,
which include surpassing weeds (SW), underneath weeds (UW) and climbing weeds (CW) as shown in Tab. 1.
The surpassing weeds can be viewed and differentiated easily from distance during field survey (Memon,
2004). These weeds competition ability for sunlight is highlight. Surpassing weeds formed 80 % of species (52
weed species), included some dominant weeds like Bromus tectorum, Crepis sancta, and Tragopogon
graminifolius that observed in 77.78 %, 66.67 %, and 88.89 % of Tabriz alfalfa fields (Tab. 1). Underneath
weeds are procumbent, decumbent and prostrate in nature (Memon, 2004). This category formed 12.31 % of
species (8 weed species), included some weeds like Polygonum aviculare, Anagallis arvensis, and etc (Tab. 1).
Climbing weeds are climbing, twining, trailing and stoloniferous weeds (Memon, 2004). Climbing weeds such
as Convolvulus arvensis formed 7.69 % (5 weed species) of this category (Tab. 1). Adonis aestivalis, Acroptilon
Intl J Agri Crop Sci. Vol., 4 (22), 1653-1659, 2012
repens, Allium atroviolaceum, Chenepodium album, Euphorbia denthiculata, Ixiolirion tataricum, Muscari
neglectum, Salvia Aethiopis, Salvia virgata, Senecio glaucus, Urtica dioica are weeds that poisonous for
animals, and weeds like Alhagi persarum, Bromus tectorum, Centaurea congesta, Centaura depressa, Cirsium
arvense, Eremopyrum Bonaepartis, Hordeum glaucum, Lycium ruthenicum, Rumex crispus and Poa annua
causes severe ulceration in the mouths of livestock and the pain frequently prevents them from eating in Tabriz
County (Tab. 1). As researchers like Summers et al., (1981), Peters and Linscott (1988), Davies et al., (1989),
Cheeke (1998), Summers (1998), Fava et al., (2000), Casteel et al., (2004), Canevari et al., (2007), pointed
some of them as harmful for animals, that mentioned in introduction section.
The Comparesion of RA and AI by RD and DI
To compare RA (Thomas, 1985) and AI (Minbashi et al., 2008) methods with DI and RD (the sugested
methods by us), all weed species recorded inTabriz alfalfa fields, were ranked following the above mentioned
methods. For example roof broom grass , bastard hawkweed (Crepis sancta (L.) Babcock), and Goat,s beard
(Tragopogon graminifolius DC.) with 30.25, 25.56, and 22.16 RD, respectively were classified as the
dominance weed species in alfalfa fields (Tab.1). But by DI, Goat,s beard, bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis L.)
and roof broom grass with 127, 119, and 116 were dominantin alfalfa fields. Roof broom grass was in the same
ranking in terms of RA and RD, but had a different ranking with AI and DI methods (Tab. 2). Most dominace of
weed species had a different ranking for each methodes (Tab.1). n the Thomas method (1985), the mean
density had a significant role in determining the RA of each species, and frequency and uniformity had a less
significant role (Minbashi et al., 2008). In Minbashi et al. Method (2008), frequency and uniformity had a
significant role in determining the AI of each species, and mean density had a less significant role. n both of
them, the lack of vegetation cover percentage is highlight.
The reasons why vegetation cover percentage should be considered in weed ranking (as RD and DI
methods) are:
a) In case of some parasitic weeds like Dodder (Cuscuta campestris Yunck.), the number of plants
could not be counted and the only possible way to record its presence is to estimate its cover percentage in
sampling area (quadrate).
b) For rhizomatous creeping prennial weeds like bindweed recording the plant density could be
missleading beacuse it will have a very small vegetation cover in its first year of germination and growth in one
field or sampling quadrates, while in other areas an old plant could develop a vast vegetation cover and occupy
a big portion of the sampling area. On the other hand, counting the number of rising stems in case of perennial
bindweed (like annual bindweed) could be also missleading because this plant produces many rising stems
from the same rhizom.
c) In regard to majority of perenial rhizomatous weeds like field bindweed, Johnson grass (Sorghum
halepense (L.) pers.), bermuda grass ( Cynodon dactylon (L.) pers.), quackgrass (Agropyrun repens (L.) P.
Beauv.), it is quite likely that a big portion of the plant or its root is out of the sampling area which in this case
the analysis of vegetation cover will be difficult also if the basis to consider a plant in quadrate is the
observation of its root, then the presence or vegetation cover percentage of sampling area would be confusing.
d) In the priod of sampling which the winter and summer weed species are both in the field (late March
to mide April) determining the density of available weeds and thier ranking will be misleading. In this sampling
period, the density of winter weeds like flixweed (Descurainia Sophia (L.) Schur), hoary cress (Cardaria Draba
(L.) Desv.), and London rocket (Sisymbrium irio L.), before the first harvest of alfalfa and after tilling the cereal
crops, have been developed through inter and intra specific competition, so their density will be low while the
vegetation cover percent will be very high. On the other hand the summer weeds like redroot pigweed
(Amaranthus retroflexus L.), lamb’s squarters, and lesser burdock (Xanthium strumarium L.), in the same
sampling period, are in their early growing stage. In this case the density of these weeds is very high while their
vegetation cover is very low. That is why sampling in this period will be misleading if the vegetation cover is not
taken in consideration. In Minbashi et al., (2008) and Thomas (1985) ranking methods, sampling in this stage
(late March to mid April) will be misleading in ranking because the well developed winter weeds which covers a
big proportion of the sampling area (quadrate) will have a much more competition compared to many small
summer weeds which only occupy a small fraction of the sampling area. We believe that taking the vegetation
cover percentage into consideration will give us a much more accurate and better understanding of present
weed community competition ability with crops.
e) Counting the number of grasses in the sampling area is very difficult because of their dense growing
behaiviour and tillerings from collar. This is another reason that in practice is very important to consider the
vegetation cover percent rather than density for grasses to evaluate their competition impact on crops
compared to breadleaf weeds.
That is why we suggested that the fourth element (vegetation cover) should be added to our weed
ranking criteria which will significantly improve Thomas (1985) and Minabashi et al., (2008) ranking methods.
We can use the DI (Dominance Index) to predict the invasion potential of an introduced species in the
Intl J Agri Crop Sci. Vol., 4 (22), 1653-1659, 2012
preliminary introduction stage, like AI index (Minbashi et al., 2008: Rahimian, 2004), and we can use RD index
like RA (Thomas, 1985) when the species have entered at a more advanced colonization stage. Minbashi et al.
(2008) belived that in RA (Thomas method), a change in the frequency of one species affects the RA of the
species under survey, but its absolute frequency remains unchanged in AI method. In Thomas (1985) methods,
if only one species occuured in a district, the RA measure would have a value of 300 and this measure was
used to rank the species. But in AI methods we lack an measure for species ranking between them. n RD like
RA, we have a good measure for species ranking togethers. f only one species ocuurred in a district, the
relative dominance (RD) measure would have a value of 400 and this measure was used to all species ranking.
In DI like AI (Minbashi et al., 2008), all parameters have not an equal importance for DI calculation. To
determine DI like AI, may be the frequency and uniformity have a more significant role than mean density. For
,
example higher values of frequency and uniformity for a particulare species like Goat s beard represents that
this species is more compatible with the soil and climate conditions, however higher values for mean density
and mean cover percentage for a particular species like roof broom grass indicate that this species had more
competitive or reproductive ablity than other species.
The Comparesion of FIV by FDI
FIV (Mori et al., 1983) and FDI (introduced in this research) were compared in order to rank the family
dominance in alfalfa fields. Ranking by FDI showed that the dominance families in Tabriz alfalfa fields were
Asteraceae, Poaceae and Brassicaceae with 67.54, 65.41, and 41.13 FDI, respectively (Tab.2). But ranking by
FIV showed that, Poaceae with 41.11 FIV was the most important family in this fields (Tab.2). In the Mori et al.,
(1983) method, the relative density had a significant role for determining the FIV of each family, while the
relative diversity had a less significant role and relative coverage was not considered in his calculations.
Poaceae family with 8 species had a higher order than Asteraceae family with 12 species in FIV because of it's
higher relative density (28.81 plant per square meter) compare with Asteraceae (15.82 plant per square meter)
(Tab. 2). Chenopodiaceae, Ranunculaceae, Plantaginaceae, Geraniaceae, Boraginaceae, Apiaceae,
Fabaceae, and Lamiaceae Families each one with 2 species (relative diversity equal 3.08 %) had a higher or
lower order in FIV due to their corresponding higher or lower relative density (Tab. 2). However in FDI, three
parameters (relative diversity, relative density, and relative coverage) contributed to the ranking of these
families (Tab.2). Higher value for density in grasses family (Poaceae) due to their thilering and their habit, so
that number of shoots per square meter for each species in grasses is higherthanthe density of each species in
Asteraceae, Brassicaceae and other dicotyledonous families per meter of square. All reasons why vegetation
cover percentage should be considered in weed species ranking (as RD and DI methods) is honest for FDI. By
import relative coverage of each species in FDI, shortcomming of FIV was improved. Relative coverage of
Asteraceae family (33.25 %) in sampling quadratewas higher than Poaceae (24.3 %), so higher value of
relative coverage improved lower value of their density per square meter.The maximum number of species in
each family might be due to their better adaptability under dominant environment conditions (Tab. 2). Relative
diversity varied among the weed families. The highest relative diversity of 20, 18.46, and 12.31 were recorded
for Brassicaceae, Asteraceae, and Poaceae families, respectively (Tab. 2). However, different weed families
performed different rankings in relative density (Tab. 2). The density and coverage of weeds occupying a
specific area depends upon many factors, such as type of crops, climatic conditions, soil type, and
management methods (Buhler, 2001; Hassannejad, 2011).
Table 1. Order (O.), Scientific Name, Habit (H.), Frequency (F), Relative Frequency (RF), Uniformity (U), Relative Uniformity
(RU), Mean Density (MD), Relative Mean Density (RMD), Mean Coverage (MC), Relative Mean Coverage (RMC),
Abundance Index (AI), Relative Abundance (RA), Dominance Index (DI), and Relative Dominance (RD) of alfalfa field
weeds during the 2010-2012 in Tabriz county.
O.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Scientific Name
Bromus tectorum L.
Crepis sancta (L.) Babcock
Tragopogon graminifolius DC.
Convolvulus arvensis L.
Alopecurus myosuroides Hudson
Taraxacum syriacum Boiss
Polygonum aviculare L.
Descurainia Sophia (L.) Schur
Scorzonera calyculata Boiss.
Cardaria Draba (L.) Desv.
Plantago lanceolata L.
Poa bulbosa L.
Chenopodium album L.
Dactylis glomerata L.
Anagallis arvensis L.
Lactuca serriola L.
Hordeum glaucum Steud.
Veronica persica Poir.
Adonis aestivalis L.
Alyssum linifolium Steph. ex Willd.
H.
sw
sw
sw
cw
sw
sw
uw
sw
sw
sw
sw
sw
sw
sw
uw
sw
sw
cw
sw
sw
F
77.78
66.67
88.89
88.89
66.67
77.78
55.56
66.67
77.78
66.67
77.78
33.33
55.56
33.33
11.11
44.44
44.44
22.22
11.11
22.22
RF
4.37
3.75
5
5
3.75
4.37
3.12
3.75
4.37
3.75
4.37
1.87
3.12
1.87
0.62
2.5
2.5
1.25
0.62
1.25
U
25.12
30.84
31.77
24.7
22.18
25.78
16.36
24.04
18.8
16.59
19.76
13.67
14.96
13.89
4.17
8.26
5.83
4.44
6.94
2.78
RU
5.60
6.88
7.09
5.51
4.95
5.75
3.65
5.36
4.2
3.7
4.41
3.05
3.34
3.1
0.93
1.84
1.30
0.99
1.55
0.62
MD
6.33
2.60
2.89
2.13
3.74
0.97
4.79
1.85
0.86
2.49
0.89
1.64
2.18
2.83
4.78
0.36
0.79
1.19
2.28
0.5
RMD
10.92
4.49
4.99
3.67
6.45
1.68
8.26
3.2
1.49
4.30
1.54
2.83
3.75
4.89
8.24
0.62
1.36
2.05
3.93
0.86
MC
6.37
7.101
3.47
3.67
2.34
4.52
0.85
1.92
2.96
1.79
2.76
4.16
1.9
1.48
1.37
1.47
1.08
1.51
0.05
2.21
RMC
9.35
10.4
5.09
5.38
3.44
6.64
1.25
2.82
4.35
2.63
4.05
6.11
2.79
2.17
2.01
2.16
1.59
2.22
0.07
3.24
AI
109
100
124
116
92.6
105
76.7
92.6
97.4
85.7
98.4
48.6
72.7
50.1
20.1
53.1
51.1
27.9
20.3
25.5
RA
20.9
15.1
17.1
14.2
15.1
11.8
15
12.3
10.1
11.8
10.3
7.75
10.2
9.86
9.79
4.97
5.16
4.29
6.1
2.73
DI
116
107
127
119
94.9
109
77.6
94.5
100
87.5
101
52.8
74.6
51.5
21.4
54.5
52.1
29.4
20.4
27.7
RD
30.25
25.56
22.16
19.56
18.59
18.44
16.28
15.13
14.41
14.39
14.37
13.86
13
12.03
11.81
7.12
6.75
6.51
6.18
5.97
Intl J Agri Crop Sci. Vol., 4 (22), 1653-1659, 2012
Table 1 (continued). Order (O.), Scientific Name, Habit (H.), Frequency (F), Relative Frequency (RF), Uniformity (U),
Relative Uniformity (RU), Mean Density (MD), Relative Mean Density (RMD), Mean Coverage (MC), Relative Mean
Coverage (RMC), Abundance Index (AI), Relative Abundance (RA), Dominance Index (DI), and Relative Dominance (RD)
of alfalfa field weeds during the 2010-2012 in Tabriz county.
O.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
Scientific Name
Anchusa italic Retz.
Gallium tricornutum Dandy
Acroptilon repens (L.) DC.
Ceratocephalus falcata (L.) Pers.
Cirsium arvense L.
Agropyrum repens (L.) P. Beauv.
Falcaria vulgaris Bernh.
Geranium tuberosum L.
Muscari neglectum Guss.
Kochia scoparia (L.) Schrad.
Salvia virgata Jacq.
Carduus pycnocehalus L.
Capsella bursa-pastoris (L.)
Medicus
Rumex crispus L.
Chaerophyllu maureum L.
Urtica dioica L. var. dioica
Rubia tinctorum L.
Alhagi persarum Boiss. &Buhse.
Centaura depressa M.B.
Erodium cicutarium (Jusl.) L,Her.
Allium atroviolaceum Boiss.
Lycium ruthenicum Murr.
Lepidium perfoliatum L.
Senecio glaucus L.
Fumaria parviflora Lam.
Euphorbia denthiculata Lam.
Plantago major L.
Chorispora tenella (Pall.) Dc.
Poa annua L.
Euclidium syriacum (L.) R. Br.
Myosotis palustris (L.) Nath.
Rapistrum rugosum (L.) All.
Carthamus oxyacantha M. B.
Ixiolirion tataricum (pall.) Herb.
Salvia Aethiopis L.
Stellaria media (L.) Vill.
Buglossoides arvense
Eremopyrum Bonaepartis
(Spreng.) Nevski
Neslia apiculata Fisch. et Mey.
Centaurea congesta Wagenitz
Onobrychis Bungei Boiss.
Goldbachia laevigata (M. B.) DC.
Malva neglecta Wallr.
Alyssum desertorum Stapf
Malcolmia africana (L.) R. Br.
H.
sw
cw
sw
uw
sw
sw
uw
sw
sw
sw
sw
sw
F
44.44
22.22
22.22
11.11
44.44
11.11
33.33
11.11
22.22
11.11
22.22
11.11
RF
2.5
1.25
1.25
0.62
2.5
0.62
1.87
0.62
1.25
0.62
1.25
0.62
U
7.71
3.56
7.24
5.56
5.3
4.76
5.44
8.33
5
1.59
2.28
4.44
RU
1.72
0.79
1.62
1.24
1.18
1.06
1.22
1.86
1.15
0.35
0.51
0.99
MD
0.44
0.92
0.98
1.83
0.14
1.14
0.2
0.94
0.39
1.02
0.11
0.10
RMD
0.75
1.58
1.69
3.16
0.24
1.97
0.34
1.63
0.68
1.75
0.2
0.18
MC
0.63
1.36
0.62
0.05
0.57
0.71
0.86
0.06
0.49
0.37
0.89
0.88
RMC
0.92
1.99
0.91
0.07
0.84
1.05
1.26
0.08
0.72
0.54
1.31
1.29
AI
52.6
26.7
30.4
18.5
49.9
17
39
20.4
27.6
13.7
24.6
15.7
RA
4.97
3.62
4.55
5.03
3.92
3.66
3.43
4.11
3.04
2.73
1.95
1.79
DI
53.2
28
31.1
18.6
50.5
17.7
39.8
20.4
28.1
14.1
25.5
16.5
RD
5.89
5.61
5.46
5.10
4.77
4.707
4.69
4.195
3.762
3.275
3.259
3.079
sw
sw
uw
sw
cw
sw
sw
sw
sw
sw
sw
sw
sw
sw
uw
uw
sw
sw
sw
sw
sw
sw
sw
sw
sw
22.22
22.22
11.11
11.11
22.22
11.11
22.22
11.11
22.22
11.11
11.11
11.11
11.11
11.11
11.11
11.11
11.11
11.11
11.11
11.11
11.11
11.11
11.11
11.11
11.11
1.25
1.25
0.62
0.62
1.25
0.62
1.25
0.62
1.25
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.62
2.22
2.67
2.78
1.78
1.33
4.76
0.89
1.78
1.82
3.18
1.59
2.78
3.11
2.22
1.39
2.78
1.39
1.39
1.39
2.22
1.39
1.39
0.89
1.39
1.39
0.5
0.6
0.62
0.4
0.3
1.06
0.2
0.4
0.41
0.71
0.35
0.62
0.69
0.5
0.31
0.62
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.4
0.31
0.31
0.2
0.31
0.31
0.13
0.07
0.22
0.25
0.12
0.19
0.02
0.24
0.12
0.13
0.51
0.11
0.12
0.08
0.06
0.17
0.17
0.06
0.11
0.06
0.06
0.11
0.06
0.11
0.06
0.23
0.12
0.38
0.43
0.21
0.33
0.03
0.42
0.2
0.22
0.88
0.19
0.21
0.14
0.1
0.29
0.29
0.1
0.19
0.11
0.1
0.19
0.11
0.19
0.1
0.4
0.36
0.56
0.51
0.29
0.09
0.44
0.47
0.11
0.28
0.04
0.28
0.2
0.38
0.48
0.13
0.28
0.39
0.3
0.22
0.21
0.15
0.24
0.09
0.14
0.59
0.52
0.82
0.75
0.42
0.14
0.65
0.69
0.17
0.41
0.06
0.41
0.29
0.56
0.70
0.19
0.41
0.57
0.44
0.33
0.31
0.21
0.36
0.13
0.20
24.6
25
14.1
13.1
23.7
16.1
23.1
13.1
24.2
14.4
13.2
14
14.3
13.4
12.6
14.1
12.7
12.6
12.6
13.4
12.6
12.6
12.1
12.6
12.6
1.98
1.96
1.63
1.45
1.75
2.02
1.48
1.44
1.85
1.55
1.85
1.44
1.53
1.26
1.03
1.53
1.22
1.03
1.13
1.23
1.03
1.13
0.93
1.13
1.03
25
25.3
14.7
13.6
24
16.2
23.6
13.6
24.3
14.7
13.2
14.3
14.5
13.8
13
14.2
12.9
12.9
12.9
13.6
12.8
12.8
12.3
12.7
12.7
2.563
2.482
2.444
2.202
2.179
2.151
2.132
2.129
2.022
1.96
1.92
1.84
1.82
1.81
1.73
1.72
1.63
1.60
1.56
1.55
1.35
1.34
1.29
1.25
1.24
uw
sw
sw
sw
sw
cw
sw
sw
11.11
11.11
11.11
11.11
11.11
11.11
11.11
11.11
1778
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.62
100
1.39
1.39
0.89
0.44
0.86
0.43
0.43
0.44
488.2
0.31
0.31
0.2
0.1
0.19
0.1
0.1
0.1
100
0.06
0.11
0.08
0.09
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
57.98
0.1
0.19
0.14
0.15
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
100
0.12
0.037
0.11
0.13
0.04
0.09
0.04
0.02
68.1
0.18
0.05
0.16
0.20
0.06
0.13
0.07
0.03
100
12.6
12.6
12.1
11.6
12
11.5
11.5
11.6
2284
1.03
1.13
0.96
0.88
0.83
0.73
0.73
0.73
300
12.7
12.6
12.2
11.8
12
11.6
11.6
11.6
2352
1.21
1.18
1.12
1.07
0.89
0.85
0.79
0.76
400
Table 2. Order, Family Name, Number of Species, Relative Diversity, Mean Density, Relative Density, Mean Coverage,
Relative Coverage, Family Important Value (FIV), and Family Dominance Index (FDI) of Tabriz alfalfa field weeds.
Order
Family Name
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Asteraceae
Poaceae
Brassicaceae
Polygonaceae
Chenopodiaceae
Primulaceae
Convolvulaceae
Ranunculaceae
Plantaginaceae
Rubiaceae
Geraniaceae
Apiaceae
Scrophulariaceae
Boraginacea
Lamiacea
Fabaceae
Liliaceae
Urticaceae
Euphorbiaceae
Solanaceae
Fumariceae
Ixiolirionaceae
Alliaceae
Caryophillaceae
Malvaceae
Number
Species
12
8
13
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
65
of
Relative
Diversity
18.46
12.31
20
3.0
3.078
1.54
1.54
3.08
3.08
3.08
3.08
3.08
1.54
3.08
3.08
3.08
1.54
1.54
1.54
1.54
1.54
1.54
1.54
1.54
1.54
100
Mean
Density
9.18
16.7
5.96
4.85
3.19
4.78
2.13
4.11
0.95
1.04
1.19
0.42
1.19
0.55
0.18
0.28
0.39
0.25
0.08
0.13
0.12
0.11
0.12
0.11
0
58
Relative
Density
15.82
28.81
10.28
8.37
5.51
8.24
3.67
7.09
1.63
1.79
2.05
0.72
2.05
0.94
0.30
0.48
0.68
0.43
0.14
0.22
0.21
0.19
0.20
0.19
0.01
100
Mean
Coverage
22.6
16.5
7.39
1.21
2.27
1.37
3.67
0.1
3.24
1.64
0.52
1.42
1.51
0.92
1.13
0.23
0.49
0.51
0.38
0.28
0.2
0.14
0.11
0.09
0.09
68.1
Relative
coverage
33.25
24.3
10.85
1.77
3.33
2.01
5.38
0.15
4.76
2.42
0.77
2.08
2.22
1.35
1.67
0.33
0.72
0.75
0.56
0.41
0.29
0.21
0.17
0.13
0.13
100
FIV
FDI
34.29
41.11
30.28
11.45
8.58
9.78
5.21
10.17
4.71
4.86
5.13
3.80
3.59
4.02
3.38
3.56
2.21
1.97
1.68
1.76
1.75
1.73
1.74
1.73
1.55
200
67.54
65.41
41.13
13.22
11.91
11.79
10.59
10.32
9.46
7.28
5.89
5.88
5.81
5.37
5.04
3.89
2.94
2.72
2.23
2.16
2.04
1.94
1.91
1.86
1.67
300
Intl J Agri Crop Sci. Vol., 4 (22), 1653-1659, 2012
REFERENCES
Andreasen C, Skovgaard I M. 2009. Crop and soil factors of importance for the distribution of plant species on arable fields in Denmark.
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 133: 61 – 67.
Andreasen C, Stryhn H. 2008. Increasing weed flora in Danish arable fields and its importance for biodiversity. Weed Research. 48: 1 – 9.
Bahrami N. 1993. Study on Distribution of Dominant Weed Species in Dry land Wheat Fields of Kermanshah Province. Kermanshah
Agriculture Research Station, Kermanshah, Iran.
Buhler DD, Kohler KA, Thomson RL. 2001. Weed seed bank dynamics during a five year crop rotation. Weed Technology. 15: 170-176.
Bukun B, Barbaros HG. 2005. Densities and Importance Values of Weeds in Lentil Production.International Journal of Botany. 1, 15-18.
Bukun B. 2004.The weed flora of winter wheat in Sasnliurfa, Turkey. Pakistan Journal Biology Science.7: 1530-1534.
Canevari M, Vargas RN, Orloff SB. 2007. Weed Management in alfalfa.University of California alfalfa & Forage Systems Workgroup.
Casteel SW, vans TJ. 2004. Nitrate. In: Clinical Veterinary Toxicology. Plumlee KH (ed), pp. 127-130.
Cheeke PR. 1998. Natural toxicants in feeds, forages, and poisonous plants. 2nd edn., pp.338-352.
Conn JS, Werdin-Pfisterer NR, Beattie KL. 2011. Development of the Alaska agricultural weed flora 1981-2004: a case for prevention.
Weed Research 51: 63 – 70.
Davies R L, Whyte PBD. 1989. Adonis microcarpa (pheasants eye) toxicity in pigs fed field pea screenings. Aust Vet Journal. 66:141-143.
Davis PH. 1965-85.Flora of Turkey. Edinburgh at the University of Press. V: 1-10
Dezyanian A. 1994. Study on Determination of Dominant Weeds Species in Cereal Fields of Semnan Province. Semnan Agriculture
Research Station, Shahroud, Iran.
Fava E, Rossi F, Speranzini G. 2000. Enzootic ulcer in the back of the tongue in cattle after ingestion of hay containing flower clusters of
yellow bristle-grass. DtschTierarztl Wochenschr 107, 351-354.
Frick B, Thomas AG. 1992. Weed survey in different tillage systems in Southeastern Ontario field crops. Canadian Journal of Plant
Science. 72, 1337-1347.
Fried G, Norton LR, Rebound X. 2008. Environmental and management factors determining weed species composition and diversity in
France. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 128, 68 – 76.
Hassannejad S. 2011. Weed flora identification and weed mapping in wheat, barley, and Alfalfa fields of East Azerbaijan by Geographical
Information System (GIS). Ph.D. Theses. Department of Agronomy and Plant Breeding, University of Tehran-Iran. PP: 293.
Korres NE, Froud-Williams RJ. 2002. Effects of winter wheat cultivars and seed rate on the biological characteristics of naturally occurring
weed flora. Weed Research. 42, 417-428.
Maddah MB, Mirkamali H. 1973.The weeds of Arak wheat fields. Iran. Journal of Plant pest Disease Research Institution. 19, 9 – 27.
McCully KV, Sampson MG, Watson AK. 1991. Weed survey of Nova Scotia, Lowbush blueberry (Vaccinium angustifoliumm) fields. Weed
Science. 39, 180-185.
Memon RS. 2004. Weed flora composition of wheat and cotton crops in district Khairpur, Sindh. Ph.D. Theses. Department of Botany.
Shah Abdul Latif University Khairpur, Sindh. Pp. 258.
Milanova S, Dimitrova T, Valkova M, Tachkov J, Atanasova L, Llieva L,Christov C. 2009. Weed infestation of winter wheat in Pleven region,
Bulgria. Herbologia 10, 1 – 11.
Minbashi M, Baghestanii MA, Rahimian H. 2008. Introducing abundance index for assessing weed flora in survey studies. Weed Biology
and Management. 8, 172 – 180.
Mori SA, Boom BM, Carvalino AM, Santo TS. 1983. Ecological importance of Mrtaceae in an Eastern Brazilian Wet forest. Biotropica. 15,
68-70.
Nasir ZA, Sultan S. 2004. Survey of weeds in mustard fields of district. Chakwal, Pakistan. Pkistan Journal Biology Science. 7, 279-286.
Novak R, Dancza I, Szentey L, Karaman J, Beres I, Kazinczi G, Golya G. 2010. Arable weeds of Hungary. The fifth national weed survey
th
(2007-2008). Proceedings of the 15 EWRS Symposium, Kaposvar, Hungary. P. 8 – 9.
Peters EJ, Linscott DL. 1988. Weeds and weed control. In Hanson AA, Barnes D K and Hill R R. Alfalfa and alfalfa improvement, pp. 705735. American Society Agronomy, Madison, W I.
Potts GR, Ewald JA, Aebischer NJ. 2010. Long – term changes in the flora of the cereal ecosystem on the Sussex Downs, England,
focusing on the years 1968-2005. Journal of Applied Ecology 47, 215 – 226.
Puschner B. 2005.Problem weeds in hay and forages for livestock.In Proceedings, California Alfalfa Symposium, 12-14 December, 2005,
Visalia.
Rahimian H. 2004. Invasive plants. In: Weed biology and Management (ed. By Inderjit). Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, the Netherlands. 128.
Rechinger KH. 1963-200. Flora Iranica. Akademische Durck-U.Verlagsanstalt Graz-Austria. V: 1-178.
Shroeder D, Muller H, Stinson CS A. 1993. A European weed survey in 10 major crop systems to identify targets for biological control.
Weed Research. 33, 449 – 458.
Summers CG, Gilchrist DG, Norris RF, 1981. Integrated pest management for alfalfa hay. University of California Publication No. 4104,
Oakland, CA.
Summers CG. 1998. Integrated pest management in forage alfalfa.Integrated Pest Management Reviews 3, 127-154.
Thomas AG, Dale MRT. 1991a. Weed survey system used in Saskatchewan for cereal and oil seed crops. Weed Science. 33, 34-43.
Thomas AG, Dale MRT. 1991b. Weed community structure in spring-seeded crops in Manitoba. Canadian Journal of Plant Science. 71(4),
1069-1080.
Thomas AG. 1985. Weed survey system used in Saskatchewan for cereal and oilseed crops. Weed Science. 33, 34-43.
Thomas AG. 1991. Floristic composition and relative abundance of weeds in annual crops of Manitoba. Canadian Journal of Plant Science.
71, 831-839.