Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 98 (2003) 201–211

Suitability of arable weeds as indicator organisms

to evaluate species conservation effects of management
in agricultural ecosystems
Harald Albrecht∗
Vegetation Ecology, Department of Ecology, TU Muenchen-Weihenstephan, 85350 Freising, Germany

Abstract
The overall objective of this study is to examine the application of arable weeds as indicator organisms of biodiversity in
agro-ecosystems to evaluate species conservation effects of management practices.
Both investigations of interactions between weeds with heterotrophic consumers and strong overall correlations between
the number of weed species and the total species diversity indicate that arable weeds are “key species”, the loss of which leads
to serious changes in the remaining biocoenosis via habitat and food chain relations.
The assessment of the value of management measures for species conservation presupposes a strong relation of target
organisms to land use practice. In arable fields, the high percentage of dormant seeds reduces the relevance of single cultivation
measures against weed populations and emphasizes the significance of long lasting management including cultivation systems,
crop rotations, or field edge effects.
A comparison of the number of weed species found at different times and frequencies of sampling indicates—especially
in herbicide treated fields—the importance of two recording times—one before the application and one before harvest. This
ensures a better estimation of the total species spectrum.
To evaluate plant species diversity in fields the number of characteristic arable weeds is proposed. In contrast to the total
number of species, the typical arable weeds do not include species frequently occurring outside fields. Thus, several highly
noxious species like Cirsium arvense, Elymus repens and Galium aparine are not positively valued. Differences in rarity and
usefulness could lead to a more sophisticated evaluation of single weed species and the species spectrum. The use of different
number of species as threshold values for different soil types cannot be recommended, however.
Programs which fund the results of management necessitate control measures. In Germany, which has an arable area of
11.8 million ha and an estimated average field size of 4 ha, 300 000 sites must be controlled per year when 10% of the farmers
were to participate in a corresponding program. Calculating costs of 50 per site, which includes two vegetation relevés,
15 million have to be spent each year.
Another possibility to increase agro-biodiversity are programs which pay for the application of specific management
practices (reduced fertilization, tillage, and weed control, measures of crop selection and rotation) or management systems
like organic farming. As the corresponding control is less time consuming such programs are less expansive. Their positive
effects on biodiversity are less specific and less reliable, however.
© 2003 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Weeds; Indicator; Species conservation; Biodiversity

∗ Tel.: +49-8161-713717; fax: +49-8161-714143.

E-mail address: albrecht@wzw.tum.de (H. Albrecht).

0167-8809/$ – see front matter © 2003 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0167-8809(03)00081-1
202 H. Albrecht / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 98 (2003) 201–211
1. Introduction
More than 38% of the total area of Germany are
arable fields and about 16% is grassland (Statistisches
Bundesamt, 1998). The majority of the remainder is
used for commercial production forest, settlement, and
traffic. Thus, agriculture is the most important type of
land use in Germany and the importance of agricul-
tural land for recreation, wellbeing, and species diver-
sity is evident. In the course of intensive farming over
the last decades this diversity has suffered a severe de-
cline (Meisel, 1984; Blab et al., 1989; Plachter, 1991;
Albrecht, 1995). To counteract this development,
most of the German federal states took measures to
conserve the organism diversity in agro-ecosystems.
Well known examples for these activities were the
field margin strip program (Schumacher, 1980) and
the program for birds breeding in meadows (Hutterer
et al., 1993). On a global scale, governments as well
as non-governmental organizations began to develop
concepts to conserve and increase biodiversity in
agricultural ecosystems, following the environmental
summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 (Nellinger, 2000).
Corresponding indicators proposed by OECD (1999)
are the diversity of “domesticated” plants and live-
stock, as well as “wildlife” biodiversity. For particular
agro-ecosystems, however, it was considered that fur-
ther research is needed to find out representative “key
indicator” wildlife species.
The aim of the present study is to examine the use
of arable weeds as indicator organisms of biodiversity
in agro-ecosystems to evaluate species conservation
effects of management practices. The ecosystem-
atic relevance, the relation to the management, the
influence of temporal and spatial variation on the
measurability and the time needed for inventory are
examination criteria. In addition, the selection of
appropriate methods to evaluate species diversity
and socioeconomic effects of different conservation
strategies are discussed.
2. Ecosystematic relevance
“Key species” are defined as those species, the loss
of which leads to serious changes in the remaining
biocoenosis (Calow, 1998). Arable weeds belong to
the carbon autotrophic producers which provide food
for the consumers in agro-ecosystems. The impor-
tance of this relation was impressively demonstrated
by Heydemann (1983) who found 1200 phytopha-
geous animal species feeding on the 100 most frequent
arable weeds.
In search of suitable indicator groups for biodiver-
sity in cultivated ecosystems Duelli and Obrist (1998)
proposed to calculate the correlation coefficients be-
tween the number of species in every taxonomic group
and the total number of species. In an exemplary
investigation the number of flowering plant species
showed—in contrast to most of the other organism
groups tested—a highly significant correlation with
the total number of arthropod taxa. The investiga-
tors concluded that plant species belong to the best
indicators for biodiversity evaluation. In contrast,
the correlations among the number of individuals
of collembola, carabid beetles, skylarks, and weeds
recorded in arable fields by Albrecht et al. (2001)
were low. These authors contributed their results to
evident differences in habitat and food requirements
among the investigated groups. The only highly sig-
nificant correlation was observed between the weeds
and the carabid beetles. This correlation was caused
by high number of phyto- and polyphageous beetles
predominantly sampled in dense weed stands.
Generally, these results show that not all organism
groups occurring in arable fields are closely related to
each other. Nevertheless, they suggest that weeds be-
long to the group of species with a high ecosystematic
relevance.
3. Relation to management practice
As a high density of arable weeds can cause severe
problems by reducing the yield and the quality of
cultivated crops, weed control is an essential element
of arable farming. This obvious impact on farm man-
agement may rise the question if such species should
be considered at all in nature conservation activities.
One reason for such efforts is that only a small per-
centage of the arable weed species cause remarkable
infestation damage. Of 306 plant species listed by
Hofmeister and Garve (1998) which occur regularly
in arable fields, only 26 are defined problematic. The
remaining majority scarcely cause losses in yield
and significantly contribute to the species diversity
 H. Albrecht / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 98 (2003) 201–211 203

of arable landscapes. Consequently, it appears justi-
fied to consider the conservation of weeds in future
strategies for a sustainable land use.
Operations like ploughing or herbicide spraying
kill most of the weed plants growing on the soil
surface thus suggesting that single management mea-
sures can cause a severe decline in population density.
That these effects are less critical than it appears is
demonstrated by a comparison of the aboveground
flora to the weed seed bank in soil. Roberts and
Ricketts (1979), Barralis and Chadoeuf (1980), and
Albrecht and Pilgram (1997) observed that the num-
ber of individual plants on the soil surface represented
only 1–10% of the total weed numbers including the
seeds in soil. Thus, arable weed populations seem to
have adapted to such management induced collapses
through the development of persistent seed banks.
They are characterized by a high percentage of seeds
remaining dormant in soil while only a few germinate
and establish seedlings (Thompson and Grime, 1979).
A canonical correspondence analysis (CCA; ter
Braak, 1987–1992) which includes data on the actual
and recent management (Fig. 1) shows the long term
management practice to be an important factor de-
termining the species composition in the weed seed
bank. In ordination plots, the distance of two points
to each other indicates the similarity of the sites in
terms of species composition. It is evident that even

Fig. 1. CCA ordination of the weed seed bank composition at 256 sites on the FAM research station in Scheyern (southern Bavaria) with
environmental variables. Particle size = median soil particle size, pH = pH level (CaCl2 ), P2 O5 = P2 O5 concentration in soil (CAL),
Nt = Nt content in soil, hop = previous cultivation of hops (cleared 5 years before sampling) or annual arable crops, user = former
land use by different farmers (private farmers/Scheyern Abbey), margin = effect of field margins, organic farming = organic or integrated
farming for 2 years. Sampling date: February 1995.
204 H. Albrecht / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 98 (2003) 201–211
Table 1
The number of characteristic weed species in cereal and root crops under 4–5 years conventional and organic farming in North
Rhine-Westphalia; size of sampling plots 100 m2 (from Frieben, 1998, Table 36)
Cereals
Management Organic Organic Conventional
Position in field Margin Center Margin
Median number of characteristic 13 11 5 4
weed species
4 years after cleaning hop plants the weed seed bank
composition of former hop fields still differs clearly
from the one found in normal arable fields. Further-
more, the length and the proximity of the vector to the
first axis indicates that the former cultivation of hops
is still the most important variable to differentiate the
weed species composition. Another factor obviously
affecting the seed bank composition is the former
land use of previous farmers. All sites were brought
together under one management regime 4 years be-
fore the investigation began. In contrast, the change
from conventional to organic or integrated farming
which took place 2 years before sampling as well as
soil factors seem to be of minor importance.
That the management practice affects not only the
composition but also the number of species can be seen
from results of Frieben (1998) in Table 1. Comparing
the number of characteristic weed species in North
Rhine-Westphalia fields values from plots which were
under organic farming for 4–5 years ranged clearly
above the corresponding numbers recorded in fields.
In general terms, these results indicate that the arable
weeds are an organism group which are significantly
affected by the type and intensity of management. A
high percentage of dormant seeds reduces the impor-
tance of single cultivation measures and emphasizes
the significance of long term influences like cultiva-
tion systems, crop rotations, or field edges.
That chemical weed control impacts not only on
plants but also on invertebrates and birds by modify-
ing weed abundance and species assemblages is sum-
marized by Boatman (2002) and Brown (2002).
4. Criteria to evaluate weed species diversity
The total number of species includes species char-
acteristic for the living conditions in a certain habi-
Root crops
Conventional Organic Organic Conventional Conventional
Center Margin Center Margin Center
14 11 5 0
tat and ubiquitous generalists. As the characteristic
species are greatly affected by changes in land use
and intensification than the generalists, they should be
considered with more importance in nature conserva-
tion issues. Another argument to select only the char-
acteristic species for the evaluation of plant species
diversity in arable fields is that highly noxious peren-
nials like Cirsium arvense, Elymus repens and Equi-
setum arvense which frequently occur outside fields
are not positively valued. A list of the “characteristic
weeds” of German arable fields is given in Table 2.
Vegetation relevés from 130 arable fields in seven
different landscapes in Bavaria with a standard sam-
pling area of 100 m2 give an impression of the vari-
ation in the number of such characteristic species in
winter cereals. There, the median number per site
was 11 and the 25 and 75% quartiles were 8 and 14,
respectively. In total, the values ranged between a
minimum of 2 and a maximum of 23. These num-
bers were recorded in two vegetation relevés, one
before weed control in spring and one before harvest
in summer. Compared with “normal” arable fields,
management intensity on these sites was low and the
spectrum of species well developed.
Apart from counting the number of species, diver-
sity can also be estimated by calculating the evenness
or combining the number of species with their relative
abundance (Magurran, 1988). The Shannon and the
Simpson index are the most frequently used indices of
the latter type (Usher, 1994). To evaluate species di-
versity for practical nature conservation issues, these
indices are disadvantageous for two reasons. The first
is that an accurate record of plant numbers for each
species is needed which is very time consuming. The
second reason is that these indices favor communities
with low number of species and individuals. A corre-
sponding example is given in Table 3 where the Shan-
non index is calculated for two weed communities
 H. Albrecht / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 98 (2003) 201–211 205

Table 2
List of higher plant species assigned to the plant-sociological sub-class Violenea asrvensis (Hüppe and Hofmeister, 1990)a
Adonis aestivalis L. Galeopsis speciosa Mill. Persicaria masculosa Gray
Adonis flammea Jacq. Galinsoga ciliata (Raf.) S.F.Blake Ranunculus arvensis L.
Aethusa cynapium L. Galinsoga parviflora Cav. Raphanus raphanistrum L.
Ajuga chamaepytis (L.) Schreb. Galium spurium L. Scandix pecten-veneris L.
Allium vineale L. Galium tricornutum Dandy Scleranthus annuus L.
Alopecurus myosuroides Huds. Geranium dissectum L. Setaria pumila (Poir.) Roem. and Schult.
Anagallis arvensis L. Geranium rotundifolium L. Setaria viridis (L.) P. Beauv.
Anagallis foemina Mill. Iberis amara L. Sherardia arvensis L.
Anchusa arvensis (L.) M. Bieb. Kickxia elatine (L.) Dumort. Silene linicola C.C.Gmel.
Androsace maxima L. Kickxia spuria (L.) Dumort. Silene noctiflora L.
Anthemis arvensis L. Lamium amplexicaule L. Sinapis arvensis L.
Anthoxanthum aristatum Boiss. Lamium hybridum Vill. Sonchus asper (L.) Hill
Apera spica-venti (L.) P.B. Lamium purpureum L. Spergula arvensis L.
Aphanes arvensis L. Lathyrus aphaca L. Spergularia segetalis (L.) G. Don.
Aphanes inexpectata W. Lippert Lathyrus hirsutus L. Stachys annua L.
Arnoseris minima (L.) Schweigg. And Körte Lathyrus nissolia L. Stachys arvensis L.
Asperula arvensis L. Legousia hybrida (L.) Delarbre Thlaspi alliaceum L.
Avena fatua L. Legousia speculum-veneris (L.) Chaix Thlaspi arvense L.
Bifora radians M. Bieb. Linaria arvensis (L.) Desf. Thymelaea passerina (L.) Coss. and Germ.
Bunium bulbocastanum L. Lithospermum arvense L. Torilis arvensis (Huds.) Link
Bupleurum rotundifolium L. Matricaria recutita L. Tulipa sylvestris L.
Calendula arvensis L. Melampyrum arvense L. Turgenia latifolia (L.) Hoffm.
Caucalis platycarpos L. Mercurialis annua L. Vaccaria hispanica (Mill.) Rauschert
Centaurea cyanus L. Misopates orontium (L.) Raf. Valerianella carinata Loisel.
Chenopodium polyspermum L. Muscari neglectum Guss. Ex Ten. Valerianella rimosa Bastard
Chrysanthemum segetum L. Myagrum perfoliatum L. Veronica agrestis L.
Conringia orientalis (L.) Dumort. Myosotis arvensis (L.) Hill Veronica arvensis L.
Consolida regalis Gray Neslia paniculata (L.) Desv. Veronica hederifolia L.
Digitaria ischaemum (Schreb.) Muhl. Nigella arvensis L. Veronica opaca Fr.
Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) P. Beauv. Nonea pulla (L.) DC. Veronica persica Poir.
Erucastrum gallicum (Willd.) O.E. Schulz Orobanche ramosa L. Veronica polita Fr
Euphorbia exigua L. Odontites vernus (Bellardi) Dumort. V. triphyllos L.
Euphorbia helioscopia L. Orlaya grandiflora (L.) Hoffm. Vicia angustifolia L.
Euphorbia peplus L. Ornithogalum nutans L. Vicia hirsuta (L.) Gray
Fallopia convolvulus (L.) A. Löve Ornithogalum umbellatum L. Vicia lutea L.
Filago neglecta (Soy.-Will.) DC. Oxalis stricta L. Vicia tetrasperma (L.) Schreb.
Fumaria officinalis L. Papaver argemone L. Vicia villosa Roth ssp. Villosa
Fumaria rostellata Knaf Papaver dubium L. Viola arvensis Murr.
Fumaria vaillantii Loisel. Papaver rhoeas L.
Gagea villosa (M.Bieb.) Sweet Polycnemum arvense L.
a This sub-class comprises 118 plant species which have their main habitat in Germany in arable fields and vineyards (=characteristic
arable weeds). It does not include therophytic ruderals as well as perennial species frequently occurring outside arable fields. The original
list was given by Hüppe and Hofmeister (1990), several species were added according the sociological classification by Oberdorfer (1990)
and Hofmeister and Garve (1998). Names of species accord with Wisskirchen and Haeupler (1998).

with different number of individual plants and species.
Although plant community A has only 10 species, its
Shannon diversity is as higher than the one in com-
munity B where 13 species were found. Obviously,
the more even distribution of species abundance com-
pensates the lack in the number of species. That num-
ber of individuals are more evenly distributed among
species when the application of herbicides is inten-
sively confirmed by the seed bank investigations of
Squire et al. (2000). They observed that the number of
species slightly more than doubled as herbicide appli-
cations were reduced while the total number of seeds
increased by two orders of magnitude. Consequently,
indices integrating the evenness of plant species cannot
206 H. Albrecht / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 98 (2003) 201–211

Table 3 would not be paid for high number of species on their

Shannon index of two differently structured arable weed commu- fields but for applying management practices which
nities
intensify the spread of species. Unfortunately, knowl-
Species Plant community edge on the efficacy and workability of such measures
A (plants m−2 ) B (plants m−2 ) is poor up to now.
Capsella bursa-pastoris 1 2
Chenopodium album 1 1
Tripleurospermum perforatum 1 1 5. Temporal variation
Taraxacum officinale 1
Myosotis arvensis 1 1 Great temporal variation in the apparent part of
Polygonum aviculare 1 2
populations is a factor which makes it generally dif-
Galinsoga ciliata 1 1
Stellaria media 2 2 ficult to record organisms occurring in agricultural
Poa annua 1 2 ecosystems.
Viola arvensis 1 14 One important reason for the differences between
Apera spica-venti 1 the number of weed species found in different arable
Matricaria recutita 17
crops under central European climate conditions is
Centaurea cyanus 1
Anthemis arvensis 1 the seasonal variation of temperature. This is caused
Number of species 10 13 by cold spells in autumn and early spring favoring
Number of individual plants 11 46 weeds with a strong adaptation to germination at low
Shannon index 2.27 1.86 temperatures (Otte, 1996). As these species are unable
Evenness 0.99
to germinate in summer, they predominantly occur in
winter annual stands. Thus, winter annual crops po-
tentially inhabited by a higher number of species are
be recommended as a criterion to evaluate biodiversity recommended for sampling. When looking for well
in this ecosystem type. developed weed stands within the winter annual crops,
Another useful criterion for a more sophisticated autumn sown stands, where weed control is carried out
evaluation of single weed species is their degree of in spring, are favorable as herbicide spraying at sow-
endangerment. As 42 of the 118 species from Table 2 ing time prevents an early development of weeds. In
are listed in the red data book of Germany and an- later stages the weeds are suppressed by light and nu-
other 41 species are listed in the corresponding books trient competition of the crops. This especially applies
of single federal states (Korneck et al., 1996), arable to oil seed rape where weed sampling is significantly
weeds belong to the vegetation types with the highest affected by the early herbicide application in autumn.
percentage of endangered plant species in Germany. To get representative information on the composi-
A second criterion for a differentiated evaluation on tion of plant communities, repeated sampling is fre-
the species level may be the number of plant species quently needed. Fig. 2 illustrates the relation between
which favor useful insects. Frieben (1998) prepared a the frequency of sampling and the number of weed
list of such species named in literature and found that taxa observed in the 130 arable fields in Bavaria, the
their numbers varied between 0 and 10 on an area of same which were used for the analysis in Section 4.
100 m2 , depending on the management system. It can be seen that adding one relevé carried out in
Instead of using “static” criteria like the number of early spring to the usual sample made before har-
species occurring on a certain area, Pfadenhauer et al. vest in summer increased the number of species by
(1997) recommended “dynamic” indicators to evaluate almost 30%.
the efficacy of management measures for nature con- Both natural and anthropogenic influences may
servation issues. As lots of weeds possess no efficient be the reason behind this increase. Weeds may have
strategies for an active dispersal over long distances faded in the course of weed control after the inves-
and passive transport by management was greatly re- tigation in spring; thus a human influence. However,
duced by land use changes during the last decades, the natural influences can cause withering of plants long
dispersal rate could be such an indicator. Thus, farmers before harvest time in summer. A corresponding
 H. Albrecht / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 98 (2003) 201–211 207

Fig. 2. Median numbers (with 95% intervals of confidence) of species recorded in 1, 2, 3 and 7 series of vegetation relevés in 130 winter
cereal fields in seven different landscapes in Bavaria (see Fig. 3). The first series was carried out before harvest in summer, the second
and third additionally comprise species observed before herbicide application in spring and during the flowering period in early summer,
respectively. The right columns record the number of species found in seven relevés in different crops over 3 continuous years with or
without an additional seed bank analysis. The “char” indicates characteristic species according to Table 2, while “total” includes all plant
species found at the site.

example is Veronica triphyllos which occurs in Ger-
man arable fields predominantly on coarse grained
soils. This species escapes the summer drought on
such substrates by early germination, flowering and
fructification (Albrecht et al., 1999). These results
demonstrate especially in herbicide treated fields that
at least two records—one before the application and
one before harvest—are necessary to give a general
image of the total species spectrum.
As there were no additional species counted in a
third series of relevés carried out during the flower-
ing period of cereals suggests that this effort was not
worthwhile. In contrast, another significant increase in
the number of species was observed when the relevés
were repeated seven times over 3 years in different
crops and when additional seed bank analyses were
made (columns 7–10 in Fig. 2). Thus, sampling in dif-
ferent years and crops in combination with investiga-
tions in the soil seed bank provide very detailed in-
formation on the weed flora. Unfortunately, economic
circumstances limit such precision in large scale sur-
vey programs.
6. Spatial variation
Spatial variation is another factor which may ag-
gravate an accurate evaluation of the species diversity
in arable weed communities. At a field scale, this
variation can be caused by differences in natural site
conditions and former management. To overcome
this problem using a sophisticated sampling method,
Frieben (1998) recommended to record the species
observed when crossing the field until no more new
species can be found. Doubtlessly, this method is
precise but also very time intensive.
208 H. Albrecht / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 98 (2003) 201–211
To reduce this effort, most samples for the floristic
description of the weed vegetation in arable fields in
central Europe were made according to the method
of the Zurich-Montpellier school (Braun-Blanquet,
1964). This method is based on the concept of mini-
mal area and species–area curves. It involves doubling
the size of the sampling area in a homogeneous stand
until no new species are recorded. In practice, this in-
struction led to remarkable differences in the area re-
searchers used for their vegetation relevés. Sampling
areas reported in the corresponding literature vary
from a minimum of 2 m2 (Kulp, 1993) to a maximum
of 1500 m2 (Plakholm, 1989). As a consequence, the
results cannot be compared with each other. To over-
come this problem, a standardization of the sampling
area is needed. According to Frieben (1998) most of
the species occurring under homogeneous site and
management conditions in arable fields can be found
on an area of 100 m2 . Thus, this sampling area should
be used to unify the method for vegetation records.
Conditions particularly favorable for high number
of species and population densities can be found near
field margins. Investigations of Marshall (1989), van
Elsen (1994), and Wilson and Aebischer (1995) have
shown that the majority of species are most abundant
in the outermost meter and thin out sharply within
the first 4 m from the field edge. A better supply of
Fig. 3. Median numbers (with 95% confidence intervals) of characteristic arable weed species in seven different arable regions in Bavaria.
Records were made in winter cereal fields with two relevés per site apart from the field margins. (1) Plant sociological communities as
described by Hofmeister and Garve (1998).
light (van Elsen, 1994, p. 157), lower crop yields and
management intensity (Boatman and Sotherton, 1988),
and the possibility to survive an to re-invade from
neighboring habitats (Wilson and Aebischer, 1995) fa-
vor a high species diversity in the margin area. Using
this effect for nature conservation issues, programs
have been developed in which farmers were paid for
limiting herbicide and fertilizer use in field margin
strips (Schumacher, 1980). In Germany, these pro-
grams were introduced in most of the federal states
and covered a total area of approximately 5000 ha in
the beginning of the 1990s (Wicke, 1998). This area
totaled to 0.04% of the arable land of the FRG. Since
the sites included in these programs were continuously
controlled and selected for their floristic inventory,
many fields with well developed weed communities
and with rare species listed in red data books could
be included (e.g. Mattheis and Otte, 1994; Frieben,
1995). For farmers, however, managing the field mar-
gin and the field center differently is time consum-
ing and can cause crop rotation and weed infestation
problems (Boatman and Sotherton, 1988). Thus, the
programs were only accepted in conjunction with a
suitable compensation payment. As the expenses for
the field margin strip programs of the German fed-
eral states were reduced since 1992, a severe set back
in the area included was observed (Wicke, 1998). To
 H. Albrecht / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 98 (2003) 201–211
increase the integration into the production process
and make it more acceptable for the farmers, an exten-
sion of the protected area from the field margin strips
to the whole fields could be advantageous.
At a large landscape scale arable weed communi-
ties are shaped by site conditions and—closely related
to the site conditions—by the type and intensity of
management. Fig. 3 shows that the median number of
characteristic species observed in winter cereal crops
in different regions of Bavaria varied between 9 and
15. That sandy and loamy soils did not significantly
differ in their number of typical weeds (sandy sites
in the Nuremberg basin and in the Tertiärhügelland
were compared to the loamy soil type in the Aisch
valley and in the Tertiärhügelland using the U-test
by Mann–Whitney) is confirmed by the results of
Frieben (1998), who investigated corresponding sites
in northwestern Germany. The median value for the
arable fields on limestone substrates (Lech valley,
Main valley and Munich plain), however, significantly
exceeded the number of species found on the other
soil types. As this observation goes along with un-
published results cited by Frieben (1998), there could
be a higher threshold recommended for arable fields
on limestone substrates.
7. Economic implications
For the realization of nature conservation issues the
costs and time expense for corresponding measures
are of importance.
Programs which pay for the results of management
like a high number of species or the presence of rare
weeds necessitate control measures. To estimate the
costs of such a control, an approximate calculation was
drawn up for the Federal Republic of Germany. This
country has an arable area of 11.8 million ha and an
estimated average field size of 4 ha. Given a participa-
tion of 10% in this program, 300 000 arable fields must
be controlled. Vegetation ecologists report that one
vegetation relevé in a normal arable field takes about
30 min. Thus, the time needed for the two relevés pro-
posed is 60 min. Further reduction of time is possible
by leaving out the estimation of cover abundance, us-
ing pre-printed survey forms, and finishing the investi-
gation when a certain number of plants is found. Thus,
time to reach the sites is often greater than the time
209
needed to record information. Calculating the price of
two records per site (=field) at 50, 15 million have
to be spent each year for the program.
Another possibility to increase agro-biodiversity
not discussed in detail are programs which pay for the
application of specific management practices (reduced
fertilization, tillage, and weed control, measures of
crop selection and rotation) or management systems
like organic farming. As corresponding control is less
time consuming such programs cause lower costs.
Their positive effects on biodiversity are less specific
and less reliable, however (e.g. Albrecht and Mattheis,
1998).
8. Conclusions
Both a high sensitivity to cultivation measures
and a strong relation to other organism groups make
weeds suitable indicators to evaluate management
effects on wildlife diversity in arable fields. Consid-
erations presented in Chapter 8 show that recording
weed assemblages could feasibly be carried out even
in a high number of fields. It remains however un-
certain, whether nature conservation authorities are
willing to pay several million Euros each year for a
system to control the maintenance of biodiversity at
a certain level. Thus, a regular weed inventory may
remain limited to areas with a high species conser-
vation value (high number of species, occurrence of
rare and endangered species). In fields where such
a regular control is not possible, specific cultivation
measures or management systems would have to take
on an indicator function of wildlife biodiversity. This
means that applying management systems like or-
ganic farming or cultivation patterns like minimum
tillage should guarantee a certain level of species di-
versity. As management systems like organic farming
comprise a broad spectrum of diverging cultivation
measures, fields of different farms can show a great
variation in species diversity (Becker and Hurle,
1998). Thus, single measures like the application of
fertilizers or certain herbicides may show a stronger
correlation to species diversity. Unfortunately, little
is known about these effects on weed and wildlife
diversity in arable fields at present Marshall et al.
(2002) and should consequently be the focus of future
arable ecosystem research. Proposals for evaluating
210 H. Albrecht / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 98 (2003) 201–211
the corresponding results were given in the present
paper.
References
Albrecht, H., 1995. Changes in the arable weed flora of Germany
during the last five decades. In: Proceedings of the Ninth
European Weed Research Society Symposium on Challenges
for Weed Science in a Changing Europe, Budapest, pp. 41–48.
Albrecht, H., Mattheis, A., 1998. The effect of organic and
integrated farming on rare arable weeds on the Forschun-
gsverbund Agrarökosysteme München (FAM) research station
in southern Bavaria. Biol. Conserv. 86, 347–356.
Albrecht, H., Pilgram, M., 1997. The weed seed bank in
a landscape segment in southern Bavaria. II. Relation to
environmental factors and to the soil surface vegetation. Plant
Ecol. 131, 31–43.
Albrecht, H., Mayer, F., Mattheis, A., 1999. Veronica triphyllos
L. in the Tertiärhügelland landscape in southern Bavaria—an
example for habitat isolation of a stenoeceous plant species in
agroecosystems. Zeitschrift für Ökologie und Naturschutz 8,
219–226.
Albrecht, H., Kühn, N., Filser, J., 2001. Site effects on plant and
animal distribution at the Scheyern experimental farm. Ecol.
Stud. 147, 209–227.
Barralis, G., Chadoeuf, R., 1980. Etude de la dynamique d’une
communauté adventice. I. Evolution de la flore adventice au
cours du cycle végétatif d’une culture. Weed Res. 20, 231–237.
Becker, B., Hurle, K., 1998. Unkrautflora auf Feldern mit
unterschiedlich langer ökologischer Bewirtschaftung. Zeitschrift
für Pflanzenkrankheiten und Pflanzenschutz, Sonderheft XVI,
155–161.
Blab, J., Bless, R., Nowak, E., Rheinwald, G., 1989. Veränderungen
und neue Entwicklungen im Gefährdungs- und Schutzstatus der
Wirbeltiere in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Schriftenreihe
für Landschaftspflege und Naturschutz 29, 9–37.
Boatman, N.D., 2002. Relationship between weeds, herbicides
and birds. In: Marshall, E.J.P., Brown, V.K., Boatman, N.D.,
Lutman, P.J.W., Squire, G.R. (Eds.), The Impact of Herbicides
on Weed Abundance and Biodiversity. DEFRA Desk Study
PN0940, pp. 85–102.
Boatman, N.D., Sotherton, N.W., 1988. The agronomic
consequences and costs of managing field margins for game
and wildlife conservation. Aspects Appl. Biol. 17, 47–56.
Braun-Blanquet, J., 1964. Pflanzensoziologie, 3rd ed. Springer,
Wien.
Brown, V.K., 2002. The impact of herbicides on invertebrates.
In: Marshall, E.J.P., Brown, V.K., Boatman, N.D., Lutman,
P.J.W., Squire, G.R. (Eds.), The Impact of Herbicides on Weed
Abundance and Biodiversity. DEFRA Desk Study PN0940,
pp. 59–84.
Calow, P. (Ed.), 1998. The Encyclopedia of Ecology and
Environmental Management. Blackwell, Oxford.
Duelli, P., Obrist, M.K., 1998. In search of the best correlates
for local organismal biodiversity in cultivated areas. Biodivers.
Conserv. 7, 297–309.
Frieben, B., 1995. Effizienz des Schutzprogrammes für
Ackerwildkräuter. Mitteilungen, Schriftenreihe der Landesan-
stalt für Ökologie, Landschaftsentwicklung und Forstplanung
NRW 4/95, pp. 14–19.
Frieben, B., 1998. Verfahren zur Bestandsaufnahme und Bewertung
von Betrieben des organischen Landbaues im Hinblick auf
Biotop- und Artenschutz und die Stabilisierung des Agra-
rökosystems. D. Köster, Berlin.
Heydemann, B., 1983. Aufbau von Ökosystemen im Agrarbereich
und ihre langfristigen Veränderungen. Daten und Dokumente
zum Umweltschutz 35, 53–83.
Hofmeister, H., Garve, E., 1998. Lebensraum Acker, 2nd ed. Parey,
Hamburg.
Hüppe, J., Hofmeister, H., 1990. Syntaxonomische Fassung
und Übersicht über die Ackerunkrautgesellschaften der Bund-
esrepublik Deutschland. Berichte der Reinhold Tüxen-Ge-
sellschaft 2, 61–61.
Hutterer, C.-P., Briemle, G., Fink, C. (Eds.), 1993. Wiesen, Weiden
und anderes Grünland. Weitbrecht, Stuttgart.
Korneck, D., Schnittler, D.M., Vollmer, I., 1996. Rote Liste
der Farn- und Blütenpflanzen (Pteridophyta et Spermatophyta)
Deutschlands. Schriftenreihe für Vegetationskunde 28, 21–187.
Kulp, K.-G., 1993. Vegetationskundliche und experimentell-ök-
ologische Untersuchungen der Lammkraut-Gesellschaft in No-
rdwestdeutschland. Dissertationes Botanicae 198. Cramer/
Borntraeger, Stuttgart.
Magurran, A.E., 1988. Ecological Diversity and Its Measurement.
Chapman & Hall, London.
Marshall, E.J.P., 1989. Distribution patterns of plants associated
with arable field edges. J. Appl. Ecol. 26, 247–258.
Marshall, E.J.P., Brown, V.K., Boatman, N.D., Lutman, P.J.W.,
Squire, G.R., 2002. The Impact of Herbicides on Weed
Abundance and Biodiversity. DEFRA Desk Study PN0940.
Mattheis, A., Otte, A., 1994. Ergebnisse der Erfolgskontrollen zum
Ackerrandstreifenprogramm im Regierungsbezirk Oberbayern
1995–1991. Schriftenreihe der Stiftung zum Schutz gefährdeter
Pflanzen 5, 56–71.
Meisel, K., 1984. Landwirtschaft und “Rote Liste”-Pflanzenarten.
Natur und Landschaft 59, 301–307.
Nellinger, L., 2000. Politische Anforderungen und Vorgaben
für Indikatoren im Bereich Landwirtschaft und Biodiversität.
Symposium Indikatorenfindung für eine nachhaltige Land-
wirtschaft in den Bereichen Landschaft und Biodiversität,
Freising, 1.
Oberdorfer, E., 1990. Pflanzensoziologische Exkursionsflora, 6th
ed. Ulmer, Stuttgart.
OECD, 1999. Environmental Indicators for Agriculture, vol.
2, Issues and Design. In: Proceedings of the York Work-
shop. OECD Publications, Paris.
Otte, A., 1996. Populationsbiologischen Parameter zur Kenn-
zeichnung von Ackerwildkräutern. Zeitschrift für Pflanzen-
krankheiten und Pflanzenschutz, Sonderheft XV, 45–60.
Pfadenhauer, J., Albrecht, H., Auerswald, K., 1997. Naturschutz in
der Agrarlandschaft - Perspektiven aus dem Forschungsverbund
Agrarökosysteme München (FAM). Berichte Reinhold-Tüxen-
Gesellschaft 9, 49–59.
Plachter, H., 1991. Naturschutz. Gustav Fischer UTB, Stuttgart.
 H. Albrecht / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 98 (2003) 201–211
Plakholm, G., 1989. Unkrauterhebungen in biologisch und
konventionell bewirtschafteten Getreideäckern Oberösterreichs.
Thesis Univ. Agricultural Sciences, Vienna.
Roberts, H.A., Ricketts, M.E., 1979. Quantitative relationships
between the weed flora after cultivation and the seed population
in the soil. Weed Res. 19, 269–275.
Schumacher, W., 1980. Schutz und Erhaltung gefährdeter
Ackerwildkräuter durch Integration von landwirtschaftlicher
Nutzung und Naturschutz. Natur und Landschaft 55, 447–453.
Squire, G.R., Rodger, S., Wright, G., 2000. Community-scale
seedbank response to less intense rotation and reduced herbicide
input at three sites. Ann. Appl. Biol. 136, 47–57.
Statistisches Bundesamt, 1998. Land- und Forstwirtschaft,
Fischerei. Fachserie 3, Reihe 5.1 Bodenfläche nach Art der
tatsächlichen Nutzung 1997. Metzler-Poeschel, Stuttgart.
ter Braak, C.J.F., 1987–1992. CANOCO—A FORTRAN Pro-
gram for Canonical Community Ordination by [partial][detre-
nded][canonical] Correspondence Analysis, Principal Compo-
nents Analysis and Redundancy Analysis. Microcomputer
Power, Ithaca, NY.
211
Thompson, K., Grime, J.P., 1979. Seasonal variation in the seed
banks of herbaceous species in ten contrasting habitats. J. Ecol.
67, 893–921.
Usher, M.B., 1994. Erfassung und Bewertung von Lebnesräumen:
Merkmale, Kriterien, Werte. In: Usher, M.B., Erz, W. (Eds.),
Erfassen und Bewerten im Naturschutz. Quelle & Meyer/UTB,
Heidelberg.
van Elsen, T., 1994. Die Fluktuation von Ackerwildkraut-
Gesellschaften und ihre Beeinflussung durch Fruchtfolge und
Bodenbearbeitungs-Zeitpunkt. Ökologie und Umweltsicherung
9/94.
Wicke, G., 1998. Stand der Ackerrandstreifenprogramme in
Deutschland. Schriftenreihe Landesanstalt für Pflanzenbau und
Pflanzenschutz, Mainz 6, 55–84.
Wilson, P.J., Aebischer, N.J., 1995. The distribution of
dicotyledoneous arable weeds in relation to distance from the
field edge. J. Appl. Ecol. 32, 295–310.
Wisskirchen, R., Haeupler, H., 1998. Standardliste der Farn- und
Blütenpflanzen Deutschlands. Ulmer, Stuttgart.