| Literature DB >> 26770014 |
Amy Bogaard1, John Hodgson1, Erika Nitsch1, Glynis Jones2, Amy Styring1, Charlotte Diffey1, John Pouncett1, Christoph Herbig3, Michael Charles1, Füsun Ertuğ4, Osman Tugay5, Dragana Filipovic6, Rebecca Fraser1.
Abstract
This investigation combines two independent methods of identifying crop growing conditions and husbandry practices-functional weed ecology and crop stable carbon andEntities:
Keywords: Agricultural intensity; Archaeobotany; Neolithic; Stable isotopes; Weed ecology
Year: 2015 PMID: 26770014 PMCID: PMC4709954 DOI: 10.1007/s00334-015-0524-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Veg Hist Archaeobot ISSN: 0939-6314 Impact factor: 2.375
Fig. 1Map showing modern agricultural study locations
Fig. 2Map showing the study area in Haute Provence, France and the locations of the seven farms; the fields surveyed are indicated in black shading
Information on the farms studied in Haute Provence
|
|
Comparison of Haute Provence and Asturias study areas
| Haute Provence | Asturias | |
|---|---|---|
| Köppen–Geiger climate zone | Temperate-oceanic (Cfb) to temperate-mediterranean (Csb) | Temperate-oceanic (Cfb) |
| Annual precipitation (mm) | 700–900 | 1,000–1,100 |
| Farming scale | 1–2 ha (<100 ha farms) to 8–9 ha fields (>100 ha farms) | Plots of 15–800 m2, few fields per producer |
| Manuring | Minimal (nil to few t/ha/year) | 15–40 t/ha/year |
| Weeding | No hand-weeding; spring harrowing around Sault | Ploughing combined with hoeing to prepare soil; hand-weeding during growing season |
The weed functional attributes measured and their possible ecological significance within an arable context
| Functional attribute measured | Ecological attribute for which measurement is a surrogate | Relationship to habitat conditions | References |
|---|---|---|---|
| Attributes relating to the duration and quality of the growth period | |||
| Maximum canopy height and diameter | Maximum plant size, the product of growth rate and period of growth | Positively correlated with potential productivity, negatively with disturbance of habitat | Grime ( |
| Leaf area per node/leaf thickness | Plant growth rate | Positively correlated with potential productivity of habitat | Jackson ( |
| Mean specific leaf area (leaf area/dry leaf weight) | Plant growth rate | Positively correlated with potential productivity of habitat | Reich et al. ( |
| Attribute relating to seasonality and/or the capacity to regenerate under conditions of high disturbance | |||
| Length of flowering period | Duration of life cycle and potential to regenerate from seed | Positively associated with disturbance | Grime et al. ( |
Fig. 3Correspondence analysis of Haute Provence fields and weed taxa: a plot of 60 field transects, coded by regime and region; b plot of weed species, coded by phytosociological class (Chenopodietea = root/row-crop ‘garden’ weeds; Secalietea = cereal field weeds). Axis 1 horizontal, axis 2 vertical
Fig. 4Correspondence analysis of the weed species in 56 Haute Provence field transects (excluding intensively cultivated pulses), plot of transects coded by a farm (see Table 1); b river drainage (see Fig. 2); c harrowing. Axis 1 horizontal, axis 2 vertical; circles Sault area, squares Lubéron area
Fig. 5Correspondence analysis of the weed species in 56 Haute Provence field transects (excluding intensively cultivated pulses), with plot of species coded by a Ellenberg reaction (pH) scale (a 1–9 scale where 1 indicator of extreme acidity, 7 weakly acidic to weakly basic and 9 basic reaction and lime indicator, always found on calcareous soils—Ellenberg et al. 1992); b flowering duration. Axis 1 horizontal, axis 2 vertical
Fig. 6The relationship of Haute Provence fields (open circles, n = 56) and Asturias fields (filled circles, n = 65) to the discriminant function extracted to distinguish these two groups on the basis of a fully quantitative; b semi-quantitative (presence/absence) weed attribute scores. Larger symbols indicate group centroids; grey squares intensively worked pulse fields in Haute Provence entered into the classification phase of the analysis only
Fig. 7Correlations between the functional attribute scores used as discriminating variables and the discriminant function based on a fully quantitative data; b semi-quantitative (presence/absence) data
Mean crop stable isotope values and discriminant scores for the weed functional attribute analysis of the modern cereal studies
| Mean | δ15N | Mean | ∆13C | Discriminant scores | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fully quantitative | Semi-quantitative | ||||||||||
| SD | N | SD | N | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | N | |||
| Haute Provence | 1.2 | 2.2 | 19 | 18.1 | 0.8 | 19 | −2.5 | 1.0 | −2.8 | 1.0 | 56 |
| Asturias | 5.4 | 1.7 | 17 | 17.3 | 0.6 | 18 | 2.2 | 1.0 | 2.4 | 1.0 | 65 |
| Sighisoara | 3.3 | 1.6 | 14 | 18.6 | 1.0 | 14 | nd | – | 1.8 | 1.5 | 17 |
| Kastamonu | 1.3 | 1.7 | 8 | nd | – | – | nd | – | −3.3 | 1.9 | 13 |
Fig. 8A scatter plot of Δ13C versus δ15N values for modern cereal samples collected from a Haute Provence, France, b Asturias, Spain, and c Sighisoara, Romania. Vertical lines indicate reference values for well-watered wheat (grey) and barley (black) (after Wallace et al. 2013). Horizontal lines indicate reference values for high, medium and low levels of manure (after Bogaard et al. 2013)
Summary of the classification of Sighisoara and Kastamonu fields by the discriminant function extracted to distinguish the Haute Provence and Asturias regimes on the basis of weed functional attributes
|
| High-intensity (Asturias) | Low-intensity (Haute Provence) | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sighisoara fields | |||
| High | 17 | – | 17 |
| Low | – | – | |
| Total | 17 | – | 17 |
| Kastamonu fields | |||
| High | – | 13 | 13 |
| Low | – | – | – |
| Total | – | 13 | 13 |
| Archaeobotanical samples | |||
| High | 83 | 30 | 113 |
| Low | 19 | 9 | 28 |
| Total | 102 | 39 | 141 |
* Probability of classifications: ‘high’ = ≥ 0.9, ‘low’ = < 0.9
Fig. 9The relationship of a Haute Provence fields (open circles, n = 56) and Asturias fields (filled circles, n = 65), b Sighisoara fields (filled diamonds, n = 17), c Kastamonu fields (open squares, n = 13) and d archaeobotanical samples from Neolithic central Europe (grey triangles, n = 141) to the discriminant function extracted to distinguish the Haute Provence and Asturias groups on the basis of semi-quantitative (presence/absence) weed attribute scores. Larger symbols indicate centroids for Haute Provence and Asturias
Fig. 10Box plots showing δ15N differences between modern cereals grown in four different locations and archaeobotanical cereals from Neolithic central Europe. The charred archaeobotanical specimens have been corrected for the effect of charring by subtracting 0.31 ‰ after Nitsch et al. (2015)
Fig. 11A scatter plot of the weed ecology discriminant scores versus δ15N values for modern cereals grown in four different locations, including the mean and 1σ range of the discriminant scores and δ15N values for Asturias. The grey linear regression line (y = 0.54x−2.88) is based on all plotted data (R2 = 0.19), the black linear regression line (y = 0.92x−3.18) excludes two outlying transects from Provence with high δ15N values (R2 = 0.45)
Fig. 12A scatter plot of degrees of field slope versus Δ13C values of cereals in Haute Provence, showing linear regression line (y = 38.6x−1.9, p = 0.0011, R2 = 0.47)