Summary: Ecosystem services have received increasing attention in life sciences, but only a limited amount of quantitative data are available concerning the ability of weeds to provide these services. Following an expert focus group on this topic, a systematic search for articles displaying evidence of weeds providing regulating ecosystem services was performed, resulting in 129 articles. The most common service found was pest control and the prevailing mechanism was that weeds provide a suitable habitat for natural enemies. Other articles showed that weeds improved soil nutrient content, soil physical properties and crop pollinator abundance. Weeds were found to provide some important ecosystem services for agriculture, but only a small number of studies presented data on crop yield. Experimental approaches are proposed that can: (i) disentangle the benefits obtained from ecosystem services provisioning from the costs due to weed competition and (ii) quantify the contribution of diverse weed communities in reducing crop competition and in providing ecosystem services. Existing vegetation databases can be used to select weed species with functional traits facilitating ecosystem service provisioning while having a lower competitive capacity. However, for services such as pest control, there are hardly any specific plant traits that have been identified and more fundamental research is needed.

To achieve efficient weed control through cover cropping, the plant species chosen needs particular consideration. Combing different cover crop (CC) species in mixtures may increase the number of provided ecosystem services, including reliable suppression of weeds. We tested the weed suppression ability of single CC species and CC mixtures in a field trial during the autumn-to-winter growing season of 2016 and 2017. Anethum graveolens L. (dill), Raphanus sativus var. oleiformis Pers. (oilseed radish), Avena strigosa Schreb. (black oat), Carthamus tinctorius L. (safflower), Vicia sativa L. (vetch) and Phacelia tanacetifolia Benth. (phacelia) were sown in monocultures, as well as in mixtures with three or six species. Treatments with favorable establishment and above-average biomass yields tended to suppress weeds by showing lower weed dry matter and weed numbers. The highest weed control efficacy within the monocultures was reached in 2017 by black oat and oilseed radish with 72% and 83%, respectively. The mixture treatments reached a generally lower soil cover, aboveground dry matter and weed control efficacy (with an average of 57% in 2017). Even though mixtures were not as effective as the best performing single sown CCs, species combinations increased resilience against adverse weather conditions, an advantage to achieving efficient weed control over a long-term period. Therefore, species composition within mixtures is more relevant than the number of species included.

The loss of weed biodiversity in agricultural fields is a global issue that needs to be counteracted to preserve their supported ecosystem services and food webs. Many short-term efforts are undertaken to conserve weed species, especially already endangered ones, but several years after expiration, eventually result in species-poor communities. Understanding drivers of community composition is key to prevent biodiversity loss. To understand the factors that shape weed communities and influence weed diversity and endangered weed species, we monitored conventional and organic cereal fields in two regions of southwestern Germany. A redundancy analysis was performed on vegetation recordings and data from a farmer survey. Crop species, herbicide use, farming system, nitrogen, and light availability had the strongest impact on weed diversity. The weed communities were dominated by Alopecurus myosuroides, Galium aparine, Viola arvensis, Polygonum convolvulus, and Veronica persica, and were mainly shaped by crop species, tillage, location in the field, and timing of herbicide application. Bromus grossus and Bromus secalinus, two endangered weed species, survived in conventional field margins as a result of the use of herbicides with gaps for Bromus species. Conservation efforts are not restricted to organic farming and should consider the major drivers of weed communities. Precision farming techniques are available to create networks of habitats for endangered and common weed species and subsequently increase agro-biodiversity per se.

Although different modifications of ridge tillage (RT) systems exist in different regions around the world, the positive impacts of RT on crop yields and weed management are quite similar. This review gives a comprehensive summary of different forms of RT and highlights the benefits of RT for crop growth, mainly due to better access to soil moisture, nutrients and light. In temperate areas, RT can accelerate crop emergence because soil temperature is usually higher on the ridge. These stimulating effects increase crop competitiveness against weeds especially in the early period of crop development until canopy closure. RT with crops placed on the top of ridges can also be used for automatically guiding inter-row hoes and intra-row band sprayers. The ridges can replace automatic vision control systems for hoeing and band spraying, which are needed for precise weeding in conventional flat seedbeds. Therefore, RT can be considered a possible platform for smart/robotic weeding. This paper introduces a new RT system using real-time kinematic (RTK) global satellite navigation systems (GNSS) for the ridging and seeding of maize and soybean on top of recompacted ridges. Straight ridges with precise positioning data were used to guide mechanical weeding elements precisely along the crop rows. Simultaneously, weeds in the valleys were suppressed by living mulches. Field experiments with this new technology in maize showed 85.5% weed dry biomass suppression compared to an untreated control and a slightly higher weed control efficacy than mechanical weeding in flat seedbeds.

Cover cropping plays an important role in Integrated Weed Management (IWM). Weed suppression of cover crops occurs by competition, physical barrier on the soil and allelopathy. Under favourable growing conditions, cover crops can provide similar weed suppression in the autumn‐to‐spring period as repeated stubble tillage and non‐selective herbicides. The objective of this study was to test if cover crop species with higher allelopathic potential can suppress weeds in the field with less shoot biomass than cover crop species with lower allelopathic effects. Data of cover crop shoot biomass, percentage of weed suppression in the field and reduction of weed seed germination in petri‐dish bioassays treated with cover crop extracts were analysed from 11 experiments. Weed suppression in relation to cover crop biomass was better predicted by a Weibul three‐parameter model than with the Cousens model. Raphanus sativus var. oleiferus, Sinapis alba, Fagopyrum esculentum and Phacelia tanacetifolia needed at least three‐fold more biomass than Avena strigosa for 80% weed suppression. Vicia sativa had the lowest weed reduction of only 62%. Aqueous extracts of A. strigosa had the highest inhibiting effect on weed seed germination followed by R. sativus. The lowest effect was observed for P. tanacetifolia. It is assumed that for A. strigosa allelopathy strongly contributes to weed suppression whereas for P. tanacetifolia and other cover crops, competition plays the major role for weed suppression. The model can help growers and consultants to mix cover crop species for the autumn‐to‐spring period. Under dry conditions, species such as A. strigosa can provide high weed suppression with low biomass. Under moist conditions, rapidly growing cover crops such as S. alba suppress most weeds and deliver high biomass.

Questions: Two scientific disciplines, vegetation science and weed science, study arable weed vegetation, which has seen a strong diversity decrease in Europe over the last decades. We compared two collections of plot‐based vegetation records originating from these two disciplines. The aim was to check the suitability of the collections for joint analysis and for addressing research questions from the opposing domains. We asked: are these collections complementary? If so, how can they be used for joint analysis?Location: Europe.Methods: We compared 13 311 phytosociological relevés and 13 328 records from weed science, concerning both data collection properties and the recorded species richness. To deal with bias in the data, we also analysed different subsets (i.e., crops, geographical regions, organic vs conventional fields, center vs edge plots).Results: Records from vegetation science have an average species number of 19.0 ± 10.4. Metadata on survey methodology or agronomic practices are rare in this collection. Records from weed science have an average species number of 8.5 ± 6.4. They are accompanied by extensive methodological information. Vegetation science records and the weed science records taken at field edges or from organic fields have similar species numbers. The collections cover different parts of Europe but the results are consistent in six geographical subsets and the overall data set. The difference in species numbers may be caused by differences in methodology between the disciplines, i.e., plot positioning within fields, plot sizes, or survey timing.Conclusion: This comparison of arable weed data that were originally sampled with a different purpose represents a new effort in connecting research between vegetation scientists and weed scientists. Both collections show different aspects of weed vegetation, which means the joint use of the data is valuable as it can contribute to a more complete picture of weed species diversity in European arable landscapes.