Ilias Travlos1*
Ioannis Gazoulis1
Nikolaos Antonopoulos1
Angeliki Kousta1
Metaxia Kokkini1
Dimitra Petraki1
Panagiotis Kanatas2- 1Laboratory of Agronomy, Department of Crop Science, Agricultural University of Athens, Athens, Greece
- 2Department of Crop Science, University of Patras, Mesolonghi, Greece
1 Introduction
Achieving a balance between biodiversity and productivity in agroecosystems remains challenging (Sachs et al., 2010; Mitchell et al., 2014). Even though agriculture is pivotal in addressing environmental sustainability and food security (DeClerck et al., 2016), it is usually considered the primary driver of biodiversity loss and there is increasing concern about the impact of pesticides on human health and the environment (Dudley and Alexander, 2017). Due to the intensification of farming systems, the excessive use of agrochemicals, and the conversion of natural ecosystems into farms, agriculture is responsible for 31% of wild biodiversity loss globally (Tilman et al., 2001). The profound negative effects on biodiversity loss are further enhanced by the frequency and severity of climate change events (Rinawati et al., 2013; Guo et al., 2017). Since most biodiversity and ecosystem indicators abruptly decline (IPBES, 2019), significant agricultural production and economic threats are posed (Bosch, 2022).
Therefore, an eco-efficient strategy sustainably optimizing the balance of agricultural production against its negative feedback is necessary. Nowadays, it is crucial to address the challenges of land restoration, pest-smart production and biodiversity enhancement by adapting sustainable agronomic practices. The biodiversity of the existing spontaneous vegetation (i.e. weed flora) could play a vital role. Even if weeds have been considered undesirable for crops and the scientific community focused mostly on their control, several studies confirmed the beneficial effects of weed flora on the agroecosystem by providing multiple ecosystem services (Blaix et al., 2018; Gaba et al., 2020; Travlos et al., 2021). Recently, the term “service weeds” has been introduced for weed species with the potential to offer ecosystem services in agricultural and non-crop areas (Gazoulis et al., 2024).
The aim of this opinion letter is to discuss some perspectives and key-issues of exploiting the manipulation and diversification of natural vegetation as a practice for ecosystem services enhancement in the farming systems.
2 Manipulation and diversification of natural vegetation
2.1 Ecosystem services: spontaneous vegetation as a part of a dynamic ecosystem
The concept of natural vegetation manipulation could emerge as an effective strategy for enhancing sustainability by integrating non-crop plant diversity within agricultural fields. Several studies have demonstrated that spontaneous plants, referred to as natural vegetation and “service weeds”, can deliver valuable benefits on ecosystem services under specific soil and climatic conditions across various agroecosystems. Among them, weed communities provide food and habitats for multiple organisms including beneficial insects, pollinators, and birds enhancing pollination and natural pest control (Bretagnolle and Gaba, 2015; Carpio et al., 2020; Blubaugh et al., 2021). Weeds also decrease the vulnerability of crops to pests by making them less appealing to the pests or by boosting crop defense mechanisms (Blaix et al., 2018). Previous study showed that the existing floor vegetation increased the beneficial nematodes, and organic matter of the up-soil level (Rahman et al., 2009). Furthermore, weed communities can improve soil health by increasing N uptake and fixation, reducing N leaching, and enriching the soil with organic matter, nutrients, and carbon (Garcia et al., 2018; Moreau et al., 2020; Mia et al., 2020). It has also been proven that several weed species enhance water acquisition and infiltration by preventing runoff and soil erosion (Power, 2010; Petit et al., 2011). These weed services are expected to probably become increasingly important, as modeling studies refer to climate change as likely to result in pollinator decline, resource depletion, and soil degradation (Martín-López et al., 2018). Given that diverse plant communities promote the potential of several plant species to thrive under various conditions (Visconti et al., 2018), “service weeds” could contribute to more resilient agroecosystems.
However, the adoption of weed-related ecosystem practices will be challenging due to the nudges toward weeds and the potentially negative impact on crop yield. Farmers and advisors are not familiar with the beneficial ecosystem functions that service weeds can provide. Since most spontaneous plant communities are effective competitors with crops for nutrients, water, and sunlight causing significant yield losses, the perception of growing weeds in cultivated or even abandoned fields remains negative (Zimdahl and Basinger, 2024; Mia et al., 2020). In addition, weeds are linked with disservices acting as hosts for harmful insects, pests, and diseases, degrading soil quality, and releasing dangerous toxins for livestock (Keeler et al., 2013; Thanou et al., 2021). Therefore, specific cultivation practices should be recommended to promote the adoption of weed management strategies among producers and keep them present in density, frequency, place and time that they do not cause major or irreversible problems. These practices should highlight their role in enhancing ecosystem services while maintaining high crop productivity.
2.2 Natural vegetation manipulations through cultural practices
Weed management methods are mainly focused on reducing potential weed-crop competition by effectively eradicating weed abundance (Lowry and Smith, 2018). As a result, many arable plants vanish, while a few more competitive species adapt to intensive management (Storkey et al., 2012). Common practices such as tillage and the application of herbicides, even if in some cases were temporally efficient against weeds, should be lowered due to their environmental consequences such as soil erosion, and fertility loss (Prosdocimi et al., 2016; Rodrigo-Comino, 2018). Therefore, alternative and more sustainable weed management methods should be proposed. The urgency of this necessity is further emphasized by the EU Natural Restoration Law (NRL) adopted by the European Union in 2024. According to NRL, biodiversity conservation in agricultural regions is outlined as a primary long-term restoration goal to be achieved by 2050 (European Parliament, Council of the European Union, 2024).
The current opinion letter addresses this need by highlighting the shift in focus from weed removal to biodiversity maintenance through manipulating weed communities. Given that resource availability (i.e. light, water, nutrients, and space) affects competition between crops and weeds, functional diversity will be used to increase resource utilization. This diversity can be achieved by introducing additional plant species or preferably by managing existing natural vegetation in agroecosystems. Newly entered plant species, referred to as cover crops, have been extensively studied, with considerable evidence demonstrating their effectiveness in suppressing weeds and providing ecosystem services like soil erosion prevention, nitrogen (N) fixation, and N leaching mitigation (Blanco-Canqui et al., 2015; Lemessa and Wakjira, 2015). Cover plants can be cultivated either before the main annual crops or during the growing season between primary crops as living mulch (Hartwig and Ammon, 2002). Previous studies showed that as cover crops grow more, they generate more residues, which in turn absorb greater amounts of soil resources and nutrients, thereby limiting their availability to weeds (Blanco-Canqui et al., 2015).
Given the beneficial effects of cover crops in weed suppression and ecosystem services, we propose that the strategic manipulation of the natural vegetation may result in analogous valuable outcomes. Compared to newly entered plant species, existing weed communities exhibit significant traits shaped by the evolutionary selection pressure. Their plasticity, adaptability, and short life cycles enable their adaptation to environments and improve their resilience to climate change (Bradshaw, 1965). Furthermore, weed species are self-seeded, facilitating their adequate ground cover and minimizing the financial and labor investments compared to the establishments of newly induced vegetation. Through the weed flora manipulation by means of practices like mowing, a less competitive environment could be created regarding resource availability. Ecological niche theory argues that a more diverse weed community, consisting of species with different resource requirements results in a greater variation in resource availability (Chesson, 2000; Storkey and Neve, 2018) and mitigates dominant competitive effects that could reduce crop yield (Borgy et al., 2012). Previous studies have demonstrated the ability of strips, fallow land, and field margins to promote biodiversity, and diversification, and provide multiple ecosystem services that contribute to improved conditions for crop growth and productivity (Gaba et al., 2020; Robinson et al., 2022). In this regard, service weeds present in arable crops or orchards could be transformed into “cover weeds” exploiting their ground floor cover and/or their mulches.
From a practical perspective, two manners are proposed for the manipulation of natural vegetation as cover weeds; before the crop is grown (fallow cover weeds) or alongside the crop (ground floor covered by weeds). Both practices are focused on the decrease of weed emergence and weed biomass, but their implementation is highly dependent on the crop. In arable crops, a short-term fallow before the crop establishment would be a suitable tactic and reduce the potential yield losses due to a long-term fallow (Lin et al., 2023). Previous studies demonstrated the significant role of fallow in the agroecosystem since it reduces soil erosion and improves several soil chemical properties (Wortman et al., 2016). Moreover, it reduces nitrogen losses, enhances soil organic matter and limit the dispersal of noxious or invasive species (Ando et al., 2014; Wortman, 2016; Gu et al., 2019). Therefore, a short-term fallow lasting a few months (Petit et al., 2011) is proposed as part of the rotation to simultaneously target weed communities that could emerge in the next crop, exploit the fallow benefits, and allow farmers to manage the land more successfully (Lin et al., 2023). Fallow is proposed to be managed with 1–2 cuttings at different height, depending on weed density, biology and ecology (e.g. presence of invasive species or ecosystem services prioritized). Accordingly, the weed cover is suggested to be mechanically terminated by roller crimping or mowing before crop establishment (Wallace et al., 2017). Weed mulches can also persist on the soil surface to restrict weed emergence in the subsequent crops (Teasdale and Mohler, 2000).
Concerning permanent crops, the exploitation of natural vegetation concerns the weeds that appear directly contiguous to the planting row, and between row spaces of woody perennial fruits. In these cases, spontaneous vegetation in orchards and vineyards can be managed by mowing at different heights and times to achieve suitable biomass growth and to prevent further weed seeding (Baumgartner et al., 2008). At the same time, cut weeds as mulching material will remain in the orchard or vineyard ensuring soil coverage (Travlos et al., 2024). Among the several ecosystem services provided, maintenance and mowing of ground floor can improve water retention and control of erosion, contribute to pest control, and increase soil organic carbon and biodiversity (Muscas et al., 2017; Daane et al., 2018; Guzmán et al., 2019; Hall et al., 2020).
2.3 Steps to be taken for cultural practices implementation
The above-mentioned practices, although immediately applicable, they depend on many parameters that must be considered before their implementation. We hereby propose a structured sequence of steps to enhance the effectiveness of these practices and evaluate the performance in the growing season (Figure 1). First, it is crucial to observe the weed flora composition (with particular attention to their competitiveness, the presence of invasive or perennial species in the wider area) and record their density, and potential fluctuations, as they depict the overall field history and the specific growing conditions (step 1). In case there are present considerable populations of perennial, noxious and/or invasive species, then ploughing or site-specific control of such species is necessary (Travlos et al., 2019; Kanatas et al., 2019). After recording the existing weed species, special characteristics of agroecosystems such as sloppy fields, soils of low fertility or bad structure and pest infestations must be recorded to adapt the cultivation practices and prioritize the ecosystem services in the short, medium and long term as previous proposed by Gazoulis et al. (2024) (step 2). The next step includes weed flora manipulation either as fallow in arable crops or ground floor in permanent crops with the adjustments made based on the agroecosystem special needs (step 3). In the end, an evaluation of the performance of these practices should follow up since it will determine the success of the proposed strategy and whether any adaptations and modifications are needed or not (step 4). The assessment of the ecosystem services of natural vegetation can be accomplished by means of field trials across various soil and climatic conditions (Gaba et al., 2020). In all cases, any evaluation should also consider the impact of these practices on crop productivity and biodiversity indices (Robinson et al., 2022). Recently, Feng et al. (2025) evaluated the long-term effectiveness of soil reconstruction and ecological restoration techniques in a non-agricultural area through the assessment of different parameters such as vegetation coverage, species diversity, biomass, and soil stability. Another issue to be taken into account is that diversification should be enhanced at different scales, both between fields (large scale) and within fields (small scale). Therefore, this manipulation of the natural vegetation that we propose here can be also extended in the areas between the fields to ensure a higher biodiversity and ecosystem services provision in a wider area.
Figure 1. Steps to be taken toward a systematic natural vegetation manipulation.
3 Conclusions and challenges
One of the primary challenges of the balance between productivity and biodiversity in farming land is addressing the biases and nudges of farmers and agronomists related to weeds and natural vegetation in general. Moreover, even if there are encouraging findings about weed flora manipulation and weed related services, there is a lack of systematic field research across different regions, sites and pedoclimatic conditions. Similarly, the knowledge about the competitive effect of weeds in complex communities, their interaction with pests and diseases, and the influence of weed diversity on crop productivity, is still in its infancy. Therefore, further research should be conducted to valorize the potential of natural vegetation, its services, disservices and interactions, and the prospects and obstacles derived by management methods. In all cases, if it is to restore and regenerate our farming systems, we ought to shift the paradigm and redesign them to rationally exploit natural vegetation in a beneficial way both for the productivity and the environment.
Author contributions
IT: Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. IG: Investigation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. NA: Writing – original draft. AK: Visualization, Writing – original draft. MK: Investigation, Writing – original draft. DP: Investigation, Writing – original draft. PK: Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article. This research was supported by the Hellenic Foundation of Research and Innovation (HFRI) under the action of “Funding for Basic Research (Horizontal support for all Sciences)” of the National Recovery and Resilience Plan “Greece 2.0” with funding from the European Union – NextGenerationEU in the framework of ONE GREEN project.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
The author(s) declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers, at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declare that no Generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
Ando K., Shinjo H., Kuramitsu H., Miura R., Sokotela S., and Funakawa S. (2014). Effects of cropping and short-natural fallow rotation on soil organic carbon in the Eastern Province of Zambia. Agricult. Ecos. Environ. 196, 34–41. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2014.06.012
Baumgartner K., Steenwerth K. L., and Veilleux L. (2008). Cover-crop systems affect weed communities in a California vineyard. Weed Sci. 56, 596–605. doi: 10.1614/WS-07-181.1
Blaix C., Moonen A. C., Dostatny D. F., Izquierdo J., Le Corff J., Morrison J., et al. (2018). Quantification of regulating ecosystem services provided by weeds in annual cropping systems using a systematic map approach. Weed Res. 58, 151–164. doi: 10.1111/wre.12303
Blanco-Canqui H., Shaver T. M., Lindquist J. L., Shapiro C. A., Elmore R. W., Francis C. A., et al. (2015). Cover crops and ecosystem services: Insights from studies in temperate soils. Agron. J. 107, 2449–2474. doi: 10.2134/agronj15.0086
Blubaugh C. K., Asplund J. S., Judson S. M., and Snyder W. E. (2021). Invasive predator disrupts link between predator evenness and herbivore suppression. Biolog. Control 153, 104470. doi: 10.1016/j.biocontrol.2020.104470
Borgy B., Gaba S., Petit S., and Reboud X. (2012). Non-random distribution of weed species abundance in arable fields. Weed Res. 52, 383–389. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3180.2012.00920.x
Bosch R. R. (2022). Central banking and supervision in the biosphere: An agenda for action on biodiversity loss, financial risk and system stability: Final Report of the NGFS-INSPIRE Study Group on Biodiversity and Financial Stability (Network for Greening the Financial System NGFS). Available online at: https://www.ngfs.net/system/files/import/ngfs/medias/documents/central_banking_and_supervision_in_the_biosphere.pdf (Accessed February 2, 2025).
Bradshaw A. D. (1965). Evolutionary significance of phenotypic plasticity in plants. Adv. Genet. 13, 115–155. doi: 10.1016/S0065-2660(08)60048-6
Bretagnolle V. and Gaba S. (2015). Weeds for bees? A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 35, 891–909. doi: 10.1007/s13593-015-0302-5
Carpio A. J., Soriano M.-A., Gomez J. A., and Tortosa F. S. (2020). The self-seeding of Anthemis arvensis L. for cover crop in olive groves under intense rabbit grazing. Agron. 10, 1412. doi: 10.3390/agronomy10091412
Chesson P. (2000). Mechanisms of maintenance of species diversity. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Systematics 31, 343–366. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.31.1.343
Daane K. M., Hogg B. N., Wilson H., and Yokota G. Y. (2018). Native grass ground covers provide multiple ecosystem services in Californian vineyards. J. Appl. Ecol. 55, 2473–2483. doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.13145
DeClerck F. A., Jones S. K., Attwood S., Bossio D., Girvetz E., Chaplin-Kramer B., et al. (2016). Agricultural ecosystems and their services: the vanguard of sustainability? Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustainability 23, 92–99. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2016.11.016
Dudley N. and Alexander S. (2017). Agriculture and biodiversity: a review. Biodiversity 18, 45–49. doi: 10.1080/14888386.2017.1351892
European Parliament, Council of the European Union (2024). Regulation (EU) 2024/1991 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2024 on nature restoration and amending Regulation (EU) 2022/869 (Text with EEA relevance). Off J. Eur. Union Brussels (BE). Available at: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1991/oj (Accessed January 27, 2025).
Feng S., Li Z., Zhang C., Qi R., and Yang L. (2025). Ecological restoration in high-altitude mining areas: evaluation soil reconstruction and vegetation recovery in the Jiangcang coal mining area on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau. Front. Environ. Sci. 12. doi: 10.3389/fenvs.2024.1538243
Gaba S., Cheviron N., Perrot T., Piutti S., Gautier J.-L., and Bretagnolle V. (2020). Weeds enhance multifunctionality in arable lands in South-West of France. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 4. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2020.00071
Garcia L., Celette F., Gary C., Ripoche A., Valdes-Gomez H., and Metay A. (2018). Management of service crops for the provision of ecosystem services in vineyards: a review. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 251, 158–170. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2017.09.030
Gazoulis I., Kanatas P., Zannopoulos S., Kokkini M., Kontogeorgou V., Antonopoulos N., et al. (2024). Agroecology and beyond: enhancing ecosystem services provided by natural vegetation and inventing “service weeds”. Front. Plant Sci. 15. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2024.1436310
Gu X., Cen Y., Guo L., Li C., Yuan H., Xu Z., et al. (2019). Responses of weed community, soil nutrients, and microbes to different weed management practices in a fallow field in Northern China. PeerJ 7, e7650. doi: 10.7717/peerj.7650
Guo D., Desmet P. G., and Powrie L. W. (2017). Impact of the future changing climate on the southern Africa biomes, and the importance of geology. J. Geosci. Environ. Protect. 5, 1–9. doi: 10.4236/gep.2017.57001
Guzmán G., Cabezas J. M., Sánchez-Cuesta R., Lora Á., Bauer T., Strauss P., et al. (2019). A field evaluation of the impact of temporary cover crops on soil properties and vegetation communities in southern Spain vineyards. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 272, 135–145. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2018.11.010
Hall R. M., Penke N., Kriechbaum M., Kratschmer S., Jung V., Chollet S., et al. (2020). Vegetation management intensity and landscape diversity alter plant species richness, functional traits and community composition across European vineyards. Agric. Syst. 177, 102706. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2019.102706
Hartwig N. L. and Ammon H. U. (2002). Cover crops and living mulches. Weed Sci. 50, 688–699. doi: 10.1614/0043-1745
IPBES (2019). The global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services: Summary for policymakers. Available online at: https://ipbes.net/sites/default/files/202002/ipbes_global_assessment_report_summAry_for_policymakers_en.pdf (Accessed January 5, 2025).
Kanatas P., Tataridas A., Dellaportas V., and Travlos I. (2019). First report of Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats. in cotton, maize and sorghum in Greece and problems with its management. Agronomy 11, 1721. doi: 10.3390/agronomy11091721
Keeler R. F., Van Kampen K. R., and James L. F. (Eds.) (2013). Effects of Poisonous Plants on Livestock (New York: Academic Press).
Lemessa F. and Wakjira M. (2015). Cover crops as a means of ecological weed management in agroecosystems. J. Crop Sci. Biotechnol. 18, 123–135. doi: 10.1007/s12892-014-0085-2
Lin Y., Wang Y., Lv X., Yue S., Liu H., Li G., et al. (2023). How to improve the benefits of short-term fallow on soil physicochemical and microbial properties: a case study from the Yellow River Delta. Land 12, 1426. doi: 10.3390/horticulturae6040096
Lowry C. J. and Smith R. G. (2018). “Weed control through crop plant manipulations,” in Non-chemical weed control (New York: Academic Press), 73–96. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-809881-3.00005-X
Martín-López B., Church A., Başak Dessane E., Berry P., Chenu C., Christie M., et al. (2018). “Chapter 2: Nature’s contributions to people and quality of life,” in IPBES: The IPBES regional assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services for Europe and Central Asia. Eds. Rounsevell M., Fischer M., Torre-Marin Rando A., and Mader A. (Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, Bonn, Germany), 57–185.
Mia M. J., Massetani F., Murri G., Facchi J., Monaci E., Amadio L., et al. (2020). Integrated weed management in high density fruit orchards. Agron. 10, 1492. doi: 10.3390/agronomy10101492
Mitchell M. G. E., Bennett E. M., and Gonzalez A. (2014). Forest fragments modulate the provision of multiple ecosystem services. J. Appl. Ecol. 51, 909–918. doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.12241
Moreau D., Pointurier O., Nicolardot B., Villerd J., and Colbach N. (2020). In which cropping systems can residual weeds reduce nitrate leaching and soil erosion? Eur. J. Agron. 119, 126015. doi: 10.1016/j.eja.2020.12601
Muscas E., Cocco A., Mercenaro L., Cabras M., Lentini A., Porqueddu C., et al. (2017). Effects of vineyard floor cover crops on grapevine vigor, yield, and fruit quality, and the development of the vine mealybug under a Mediterranean climate. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 237, 203–212. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2016.12.035
Petit S., Boursault A., Guilloux M., Munier-Jolain N., and Reboud X. (2011). Weeds in agricultural landscapes. A review. Agron. Sustain. Devel. 31, 309–317. doi: 10.1051/agro/2010020
Power A. G. (2010). Ecosystem services and agriculture: tradeoffs and synergies. Philos. Trans. R. Soc B: Biol. Sci. 365, 2959–2971. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2010.0143
Prosdocimi M., Cerdà A., and Tarolli P. (2016). Soil water erosion on Mediterranean vineyards: A review. Catena 141, 1–21. doi: 10.1016/j.catena.2016.02.010
Rahman L., Whitelaw-Weckert M. A., Hutton R. J., and Orchard B. (2009). Impact of floor vegetation on the abundance of nematode trophic groups in vineyards. Appl. Soil Ecol. 42, 96–106. doi: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2009.02.006
Rinawati F., Stein K., and Lindner A. (2013). Climate change impacts on biodiversity–the setting of a lingering global crisis. Diversity 5, 114–123. doi: 10.3390/d5010114
Robinson S. V. J., Nguyen L. H., and Galpern P. (2022). Livin’ on the edge: Precision yield data shows evidence of ecosystem services from field boundaries. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 333, 107956. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2022.107956
Rodrigo-Comino J. (2018). Five decades of soil erosion research in “terroir”. The State-of-the-Art. Earth-Sci. Rev. 179, 436–447. doi: 10.1016/j.earscirev.2018.02.014
Sachs J., Remans R., Smukler S., Winowiecki L., Andelman S. J., Cassman K. G., et al. (2010). Monitoring the world’s agriculture. Nature 466, 558–560. doi: 10.1038/466558a
Storkey J., Meyer S., Still K. S., and Leuschner C. (2012). The impact of agricultural intensification and land-use change on the European arable flora. Proceed. R. Soc B: Biol. Sci. 279, 1421–1429. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2011.1686
Storkey J. and Neve P. (2018). What good is weed diversity? Weed Res. 58, 239–243. doi: 10.1111/wre.12310
Teasdale J. R. and Mohler C. L. (2000). The quantitative relationship between weed emergence and the physical properties of mulches. Weed Sci. 48, 385–392. doi: 10.1614/0043-1745
Thanou Z. N., Kontogiannis E. G., and Tsagkarakis A. E. (2021). Impact of weeds on Auchenorrhyncha incidence and species richness in citrus orchards. Phytoparasitica 49, 333–347. doi: 10.1007/s12600-020-00857-w
Tilman D., Fargione J., Wolff B., D’antonio C., Dobson A., Howarth R., et al. (2001). Forecasting agriculturally driven global environmental change. Sci. 292, 281–284. doi: 10.1126/science.1057544
Travlos I., Gazoulis I., Simic M., and Kanatas P. (2024). “The underestimated role of cultural practices in ecologically based weed management approaches,” in Chapter 5 in Ecologically-Based Weed Management: Concepts, Challenges, and Limitations. Eds. Korres N. E., Travlos I. S., and Gitsopoulos T. K. (New Jersey, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc), 75–92. doi: 10.1002/9781119709763.ch5
Travlos I. S., Montull J. M., Kukorelli G., Malidza G., Dogan M. N., Cheimona N., et al. (2019). Key aspects on the biology, ecology and impacts of johnsongrass [Sorghum halepense (L.) Pers] and the role of glyphosate and non-chemical alternative practices for the management of this weed in Europe. Agronomy 9, 717. doi: 10.3390/agronomy9110717
Travlos I., Tsekoura A., Antonopoulos N., Kanatas P., and Gazoulis I. (2021). Novel sensor-based method (quick test) for the in-season rapid evaluation of herbicide efficacy under real field conditions in durum wheat. Weed Sci. 69, 147–160. doi: 10.1017/wsc.2021.8
Visconti P., Elias V., Sousa Pinto I., Fischer M., Ali-Zade V., Báldi A., et al. (2018). “Status, trends and future dynamics of biodiversity and ecosystems underpinning nature’s contributions to people,” in The IPBES regional assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services for Europe and Central Asia. Eds. Rounsevell M., Fischer M., Torre-Marin Rando A., and Mader A. (Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, Bonn, Germany), 187–382. Chapter 3 in IPBES:.
Wallace J. M., Williams A., Liebert J. A., Ackroyd V. J., Vann R. A., Curran W. S., et al. (2017). Cover crop-based, organic rotational no-till corn and soybean production systems in the mid-Atlantic United States. Agriculture 7, 34. doi: 10.3390/agriculture7040034
Wortman S. E. (2016). Weedy fallow as an alternative strategy for reducing nitrogen loss from annual cropping systems. Agron. Sustain. Devel. 36, 1–10. doi: 10.1007/s13593-016-03973
Keywords: natural vegetation, manipulation, service weeds, biodiversity, fallow, mowing
Citation: Travlos I, Gazoulis I, Antonopoulos N, Kousta A, Kokkini M, Petraki D and Kanatas P (2025) Manipulation and diversification of natural vegetation toward ecosystem services enhancement and restoration of sustainable farming systems. Front. Agron. 7:1584540. doi: 10.3389/fagro.2025.1584540
Received: 03 March 2025; Accepted: 12 June 2025;
Published: 25 June 2025.
Edited by:
Katharina Hildegard Elisabeth Meurer, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, SwedenReviewed by:
Claudia Bita-Nicolae, Institute of Biology Bucharest of the Romanian Academy, RomaniaCopyright © 2025 Travlos, Gazoulis, Antonopoulos, Kousta, Kokkini, Petraki and Kanatas. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Ilias Travlos, dHJhdmxvc0BhdWEuZ3I=