Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Mitigating crop yield losses through weed diversity


Reconciling crop productivity and biodiversity maintenance is one of the main challenges of agriculture worldwide. Moreover, the importance of weed diversity in mitigating yield losses has been identified as one of the top five research priorities in weed science. We tested the hypotheses that (1) not all weed communities generate yield losses and (2) that more diversified weed communities can mitigate yield losses. The study is based on three years of observations of weed densities, weed biomass and crop biomass at four critical growth stages of winter cereals across 54 zones (36 unweeded and 18 weeded). Out of the six communities identified, only four generated significant yield losses in unweeded zones, ranging from 19% to 56%. The number of ears per plant and the number of grains per ear were systematically affected. Only one weed community was capable of reducing 1,000-kernel weight. Weed biomass decreased by 83% over the gradient of weed community evenness, whereas crop productivity increased by 23%. Diversified weed communities limited the negative effect of competitive and dominant species on crop productivity while potentially promoting ecosystem services provided by subordinate species.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Observed mean weed density and composition in the six WCCs (denoted C1 to C6) obtained by hierarchical classification.
Fig. 2: Conditional plots highlighting the relationships between crop biomass, weed biomass and evenness based on density or biomass.

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Code availability

The code used to analyse the data and produce the figures is available from the corresponding author upon request.


  1. 1.

    Milberg, P. & Hallgren, E. Yield loss due to weeds in cereals and its large-scale variability in Sweden. Field Crops Res. 86, 199–209 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Oerke, E. C. Crop losses to pests. J. Agric. Sci. 144, 31–43 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Foley, J. A. et al. Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature 478, 337–342 (2011).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Heap, I. in Integrated Pest Management: Pesticide Problems Vol. 3 (eds Pimentel, D. & Peshin, R.) 281–301 (Springer, 2014).

  5. 5.

    Storkey, J. & Neve, P. What good is weed diversity? Weed Res. 58, 239–243 (2018).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Malik, N. & Vanden Born, W. H. The biology of canadian weeds. 86. Galium aparine L. and Galium spurium L. Can. J. Plant Sci. 68, 481–499 (1988).

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Naylor, R. E. L. Aspects of the population dynamics of the weed Alopecurus myosuroides Huds. in winter cereal crops. J. Appl. Ecol. 9, 127–139 (1972).

    Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Jordan, N. & Vatovec, C. in Weed Biology and Management (ed. Inderjit, S.) 137–158 (Springer, 2004).

  9. 9.

    Marshall, E. J. P. et al. The role of weeds in supporting biological diversity within crop fields. Weed Res. 43, 77–89 (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Neve, P. et al. Reviewing research priorities in weed ecology, evolution and management: a horizon scan. Weed Res. 58, 250–258 (2018).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Guglielmini, A., Verdú, A. & Satorre, E. Competitive ability of five common weed species in competition with soybean. Int. J. Pest Manag. 63, 30–36 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Pollnac, F. W., Maxwell, B. D. & Menalled, F. D. Weed community characteristics and crop performance: a neighbourhood approach. Weed Res. 49, 242–250 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Davis, A. S., Renner, K. A. & Gross, K. L. Weed seedbank and community shifts in a long-term cropping systems experiment. Weed Sci. 53, 296–306 (2005).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Clements, D. R., Weise, S. F. & Swanton, C. J. Integrated weed management and weed species diversity. Phytoprotection 75, 1–18 (1994).

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Aschehoug, E. T. & Callaway, R. M. Diversity increases indirect interactions, attenuates the intensity of competition, and promotes coexistence. Am. Nat. 186, 452–459 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Weigelt, A. et al. Identifying mechanisms of competition in multi-species communities. J. Ecol. 95, 53–64 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Ali, A., Streibig, J. C. & Andreasen, C. Yield loss prediction models based on early estimation of weed pressure. Crop Prot. 53, 125–131 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Freckleton, R. & Watkinson, A. R. Asymmetric competition between plant species. Funct. Ecol. 15, 615–623 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Swinton, S. M., Buhler, D. D., Forcella, F., Gunsolus, J. L. & King, R. P. Estimation of crop yield loss due to interference by multiple weed species. Weed Sci. 42, 103–109 (1994).

    Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Poggio, S. L. & Ghersa, C. M. Species richness and evenness as a function of biomass in arable plant communities. Weed Res. 51, 241–249 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Navas, M.-L. Trait-based approaches to unravelling the assembly of weed communities and their impact on agro-ecosystem functioning. Weed Res. 52, 479–488 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Bennett, J. A., Riibak, K., Tamme, R., Lewis, R. J. & Pärtel, M. The reciprocal relationship between competition and intraspecific trait variation. J. Ecol. 104, 1410–1420 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Gibson, D. J., Young, B. G. & Wood, A. J. Can weeds enhance profitability? Integrating ecological concepts to address crop-weed competition and yield quality. J. Ecol. 105, 900–904 (2017).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Cierjacks, A., Pommeranz, M., Schulz, K. & Almeida-Cortez, J. Is crop yield related to weed species diversity and biomass in coconut and banana fields of northeastern Brazil? Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 220, 175–183 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Ferrero, R., Lima, M., Davis, A. S. & Gonzalez-Andujar, J. L. Weed diversity affects soybean and maize yield in a long term experiment in Michigan, USA. Front. Plant Sci. 8, 236 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Syswerda, S. P. & Robertson, G. P. Ecosystem services along a management gradient in Michigan (USA) cropping systems. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 189, 28–35 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Mariotte, P. Do subordinate species punch above their weight? Evidence from above- and below-ground. New Phytol. 203, 16–21 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Wilson, B. & Wright, K. Predicting the growth and competitive effects of annual weeds in wheat. Weed Res. 30, 201–211 (1990).

    Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    MacArthur, R. & Levins, R. The limiting similarity, convergence, and divergence of coexisting species. Am. Nat. 101, 377–385 (1967).

    Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Smith, R. G., Mortensen, D. A. & Ryan, M. R. A new hypothesis for the functional role of diversity in mediating resource pools and weed–crop competition in agroecosystems. Weed Res. 50, 37–48 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Funk, J. L. & Wolf, A. A. Testing the trait-based community framework: do functional traits predict competitive outcomes? Ecology 97, 2206–2211 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Satorre, E. H. & Slafer, G. A. Wheat: Ecology and Physiology of Yield Determination (CRC Press, 1999).

  33. 33.

    Angonin, C., Caussanel, J. P. & Meynard, J. M. Competition between winter wheat and Veronica hederifolia: influence of weed density and the amount and timing of nitrogen application. Weed Res. 36, 175–187 (1996).

    Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Aschehoug, E. T., Brooker, R., Atwater, D. Z., Maron, J. L. & Callaway, R. M. The mechanisms and consequences of interspecific competition among plants. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 47, 263–281 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Gherekhloo, J. et al. Multispecies weed competition and their economic threshold on the wheat crop. Planta Daninha 28, 239–246 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Zimdahl, R. L. Weed-Crop Competition: A Review (John Wiley & Sons, 2007).

  37. 37.

    Welsh, J., Bulson, H., Stopes, C., Froud-Williams, R. & Murdoch, A. The critical weed-free period in organically-grown winter wheat. Ann. Appl. Biol. 134, 315–320 (1999).

    Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Bauer, G. et al. Always on the bright side: the climbing mechanism of Galium aparine. Proc. R. Soc. B 278, 2233–2239 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Magurran, A. E. & McGill, B. J. (eds) Biological Diversity: Frontiers in Measurement and Assessment (Oxford Univ. Press, 2011).

  40. 40.

    Taylor, K. Galium aparine L. J. Ecol. 87, 713–730 (1999).

    Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Storkey, J. & Westbury, D. B. Managing arable weeds for biodiversity. Pest Manag. Sci. 63, 517–523 (2007).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Palmer, M. W. & Maurer, T. A. Does diversity beget diversity? A case study of crops and weeds. J. Veg. Sci. 8, 235–240 (1997).

    Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Booth, B. D. & Swanton, C. J. Assembly theory applied to weed communities. Weed Sci. 50, 2–13 (2002).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Armengot, L., José-María, L., Chamorro, L. & Sans, F. X. Avena sterilis and Lolium rigidum infestations hamper the recovery of diverse arable weed communities. Weed Res. 57, 278–286 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Adeux, G. et al. Diversified grain-based cropping systems provide long term weed control while limiting herbicide use and yield losses. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 39, 42 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Botta-Dukát, Z. Rao’s quadratic entropy as a measure of functional diversity based on multiple traits. J. Veg. Sci. 16, 533–540 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Westoby, M. A leaf-height-seed (LHS) plant ecology strategy scheme. Plant Soil 199, 213–227 (1998).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Kleyer, M. et al. The LEDA Traitbase: a database of life-history traits of the Northwest European flora. J. Ecol. 96, 1266–1274 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    R Core Team R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2016).

Download references


We thank (1) P. Chamoy, B. Pouilly and P. Farcy of the INRA experimental station in Bretenière, France, who carried out this field experiment, (2) all who participated in field work (D. Meunier, G. Louviot, M. Abgrall, J. Degenmann and the team Grenier with A. Baudron, L. Grall, M. Schwartz and M. Angaud) and (3) N. Colbach and D. Moreau for their scientific input. G.A. was funded by the International PhD Programme in Agrobiodiversity of the Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna, Pisa, Italy, and hosted by the Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique in Dijon. We acknowledge financial support from the French project CoSAC (ANR-15-CE18-0007), the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement no. 727321 (IWM PRAISE), the French ‘Investissement d’Avenir’ programme and the project ISITE-BFC ‘Agroecology in BFC’ (contract ANR-15-IDEX-03).

Author information




N.M.-J. designed the study. N.M.-J., S.Cordeau and P.B. funded the research. G.A., E.V. and S.Cordeau collected the data. G.A. analysed the data. All authors were involved in the interpretation of the results and contributed to writing the original version of the manuscript and improving the subsequent ones.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stéphane Cordeau.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary information

Supplementary methods, Tables 1–9, Figs. 1–4 and refs. 1–4.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Adeux, G., Vieren, E., Carlesi, S. et al. Mitigating crop yield losses through weed diversity. Nat Sustain 2, 1018–1026 (2019).

Download citation

Further reading


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing