Ecological Indicators 84 (2018) 590–606

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ecological Indicators
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolind

Research paper

A novel approach to phytosociological classification of weeds flora of an MARK

agro-ecological system through Cluster, Two Way Cluster and Indicator
Species Analyses
⁎
Muhammad Iqbala, Shujaul Mulk Khanb, , Muhammad Azim Khanc, Zeeshan Ahmadb,
Habib Ahmadd
a
Department of Botany, Hazara University of Mansehra, Pakistan
b
Department of Plant Sciences, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad, Pakistan
c
Department of Weed Science, the University of Agriculture, Peshawar, Pakistan
d
Islamia College University, Peshawar, Pakistan

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Weed flora has not been analyzed quite often from its phytosociological classification and ecological point of
Indicator Species Analysis view due to its deteriorating impacts on economic crops. For the first time weed flora in winter wheat fields of
Weed indicators the District Malakand, Pakistan were sampled and quantitatively analyzed to identify indicator weeds and weeds
Agro-ecological system associations’ formation, using robust multivariate statistical approaches. It was hypothesized that the variation
Weed flora
in an agro-ecological system gives rise to diverse associations of weed species under the influence of edaphic and
Edaphic and climatic factors
climatic factors and prevailing farming practices under micro and macro habitat. The quantitative ecological
Farming practices
Species composition techniques i.e., quadrat along transect method were used to find various phytosociological attribute including
Cluster analysis Density, Frequency, Cover and Important Value Indices of weeds in the region. 1200 quadrates/releves were
PCORD established for quantification of weed species in one hundred and twenty randomly selected wheat fields in a
Association region of 26727 ha of wheat growing region. Data was put in MS Excel for analyses in the PCORD Version 5 to
find out various weed associations and their specific indicator species. Using Cluster and Two Way Cluster
Analyses via Sorenson distance measurements five major clusters/plant associations were established using 1,0
data. These species associations were: (1) Emix-Vicia-Lathyrus weed association, (2) Alysum-Cannabis-
Lithospermum weed association, (3) Oxalis-Lathyrus-Chenopodium weed association, (4) Euphorbia-Cerastium-
Capsella-bursa weed association and (5) Alopecurus-Mazus-Persicaria weed association. Association 1 includes 17
fields with a total of 170 releves (17 × 10) in the region. Association 2 includes 30 fields and 300 releves
(30 × 10), association 3 has 15 fields and 150 releves (15 × 10), association 4 has 34 fields and 340 releves
(34 × 10) and association 5 has 24 fields and 240 releves (24 × 10) in the study area. Various climatic factor,
edaphic variables and farming practices associated in each field were also examined for comparisons of influ-
encing factors of weed associations and recognition their respective indicator species. Temperature, soil pH,
electrical conductivity, soil structure, soil organic matter, lime contents, preceding crops, use of herbicides, time
and quantity of manure were the main factors/ingredients responsible for the variation and formation of dif-
ferent associations. Indicator species analysis gave the indicator weeds of each association under the influence of
each determining variable. From findings of this research it is concluded that farming practices and edaphic
factor show significant effects on recognition of Indicator species, distribution of weed flora and formation of
weed associations/communities in the region. Understanding these phenomena could further be used for weeds
management purposes under the micro climatic, edaphic and local farming practice regimes. Though the weeds
are considered as unwanted plants, nevertheless some of the economically important and rarely distributed
weeds also need proper conservation management.

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: smulkkhan@gmail.com, smkhan@qau.edu.pk (S.M. Khan).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.09.023
Received 31 May 2017; Received in revised form 24 August 2017; Accepted 12 September 2017
1470-160X/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Iqbal et al.
1. Introduction
Weed flora is an integral part of the entire agro-ecological system of
a region (Dickinson and Murphy, 2007; Khan et al., 2007; Leuschner
and van der Maarel, 2005; Trudgill, 2007; Waring, 1989) though it is
considered as a threat to crops from economic point of view (Munyuli,
2013). Such plants cohort increases floral diversity and provide en-
vironmental heterogeneity (Adler et al., 2001; Fridley, 2001). Weed
species and associations support the crop performance by providing
food plus shelter to beneficial insects, birds and hence, enhance services
of an ecosystem in the form of pollination, soil erosion, leaching of
Nitrogen and pest control (Carlesi et al., 2013; Donald, 2004; Isbell
et al., 2011; Kohler et al., 2011; Marshall et al., 2003; Russell, 1989).
Biological conservation and management practices could therefore, be
applied in the agro-ecosystems to protect important phyto-diversity and
indicator species, in such habitat (Khan, 2012; Kent, 2011; Mitsch et al.,
2001; Rauscher, 1999). The science of Phytosociology aims to describe,
recognize and quantify different plant associations under the influence
of various biotic and abiotic factors (Elmore et al., 2000; Garzón et al.,
2008; Kent, 2011; Khan et al., 2016; Nagase and Dunnett, 2012).
Twenty first century has introduced computing techniques in every
field of science including plant science (Drake et al., 2006; Legendre
et al., 2005; Podani, 2006). In this context multivariate statistical
techniques could be applied in a better way to understand various as-
pects of agro-ecological diversity (Hair et al., 2010; Hill and Gauch,
1980; Izenman, 2008).
Classification of weeds into associations in specific microhabitats
provide base for vegetation and environmental dynamics (Brohman
et al., 2005). Each species has specific microclimatic requirements to
establish itself successfully in a particular sort of habitat (Cavieres et al.,
2007; Kotzen, 2003; Suggitt et al., 2011). Plant association formation is
the most peculiar characteristics of vegetation (Clements, 1916;
Kramer, 2012) and weeds flora is one of the integral part of it
(Anderson et al., 1998; Gaba et al., 2010; Watson and Riha, 2010).
Weeds flora is important part of natural vegetation and compete for
resources to establish themselves in the habitats of crops where they
occur (Ahmad et al., 2016b; Altieri, 2002; Baker, 1965). Certain weed
species are important from conservation point of view. Habitat varia-
bility affects weeds diversity, distribution and association formation
(Iqbal et al., 2015; Marshall et al., 2003; Roschewitz et al., 2005).
Understanding of which may help for their control as well as con-
servation where necessary.
Type of ecological associations can be distinct if established on the
bases of Indicator values. Indicator values are the parameters which
designate the predictable richness of each species regarding various
environmental ingredients (Cáceres and Legendre, 2009; Dufrene and
Legendre, 1997; Reed et al., 2008; Ter Braak and Barendregt, 1986).
One of the major focus in the field of ecology is the identification of
indicators or characteristics species (Abbas et al., 2016; Carignan and
Villard, 2002; Dauber et al., 2003; Kremen et al., 1993). It usually re-
ference one or more indicator species for each type of a habitat. In-
dicator species are among the most sensitive species of a habitat which
act as base line to monitor the ecosystem. In addition, classification of
the species into association makes it further easier to manage diverse
sampled ecological combinations. Such assemblage may be eurytopic
and stenotopic (Kremen et al., 1993; Noss, 1990; Shah et al., 2015).
Classification, distribution and recognition of indicator species is also
affected by various environmental variables like soil conditions, climate
and prevailing farming practices (Ahmad et al., 2016a; Khan et al.,
2013). Plant associations formation is based on the combination of
these factor and phytosociological attributes of the species (Cook and
Kairiukstis, 2013). There has been a lot of research going on related to
the formation of plant communities in the natural ecosystem. Never-
theless little efforts can be seen to use these techniques for elaboration
of weeds in agri-environment.
On the other hand wheat accounts 19% of the total production
591
Ecological Indicators 84 (2018) 590–606
among major cereal crops. It provides 55% of the carbohydrates con-
sumed by humans globally (Gopinath et al., 2008; Oerke and Dehne,
2004). Approximately 1/3 of the total world population depends on
wheat crop for protein and energy requirements. It provides 72% of
calories and protein in average diet (Heyne et al., 1987; Khan et al.,
2003). The total production of wheat around the world was approxi-
mately 724 million tonnes with 10.1 million tonnes in 2016 that was
1.4% worse than previous year due to various environmental factors
(FAO, 2016). Whereas, the production of wheat in Pakistan was ap-
proximately 25.48 on an area of 8494 million hectares (FAO, 2016).
Wheat average yield of 2585 kg ha−1 in Pakistan is very low as com-
pared to other wheat producing countries like European Union, China,
India and Russian Federation. There are many factors responsible for
low yield. One of these major causes is weed infestation. Weed com-
petition decrease wheat yield by 12–35% or 10 billion losses per
annum. Though weed species are important from biodiversity con-
servation point of view
It was hypothesized that climatic and edhapic factors along with
farming practices are responsible for the formation of distinct weeds
association each with a unique set of indicator species. The main ob-
jective of this study was to document, quantify and classify the weed
species into different association’s types with specific objective to
analyze the impact of various environmental factors on the distribution,
composition and diversity of weeds in the region in general and in-
dicator species in particular. This study can be utilized as a baseline for
further research in the fields of weed ecology general and identification
of indicator species of microhabitats in particular.
2. Methodology
2.1. Study area
The study area District Malakand lies in the northern parts of the
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province of Pakistan and can be located at 34° 35′
North latitude and 71° 57′ East longitude, covering an area of
80,943 km2 (Iqbal et al., 2015). Agriculture is the primary source of
livelihood for the local people in the region. The major economic crops
in the area are wheat, sugarcane, tobacco, rice and maize. Various kinds
of vegetables and orchard are also grown in the region. Wheat crop is
grown in most parts of the in the project area occupies major part of
agricultural land. Weeds of wheat were therefore, considered for cur-
rent research project. Total cultivated area for wheat in the District
Malakand is 26727 ha in which total irrigated land is 9715 ha and total
non-irrigated land is 17012 ha. In Tehsil Dargai the total area sown
with wheat crop in 2013–14 was 10440 ha in which 5465 ha was non-
irrigated and 4975 ha was an irrigated land (Statistical Officer Agri
Deptt Dargai). Geographic Information System (GIS) tools were used to
design map of the study area (Fig. 1).
2.2. Methods
A total of 120 wheat fields were selected randomly at an approxi-
mately one kilometer distance from each other having a size of at least
one hectare each. Weed species were collected, labeled with tags, dried,
poisoned, mounted upon standard herbarium sheets and identified with
the help of Flora of Pakistan and other available literatures (Ali and
Nasir, 1990; Khan et al., 2013, 2014; Nasir et al., 1972). The specimens
were deposited in the Herbarium of Hazara University (HUH) Man-
sehra, Pakistan. Coordinates i.e., latitude, longitude and elevation were
recorded using Geographical Positioning System (GPS) (model Garmin
eTrex. HC series, vista HCx) in each sampled field. Quantitative eco-
logical techniques were used to collect weed species data i.e., at each
field 10 quadrats of 1 m square were established and density, frequency
and cover were measured for each weed species. Importance Value
Indices for each weed species were calculated using the formula:
M. Iqbal et al. Ecological Indicators 84 (2018) 590–606

Fig. 1. GIS generated map of the study area representing 120 sampled fields (considered as stations) with special reference to elevation zones.

RD + RC + RF paper plus soil residue.

IVI =
3 Semi structured questionnaire method was adapted to collect data
on farming practices. For this purpose farmers whom look after the
Soil samples were collected at 15 cm depth in each station and
fields were visited frequently for personal observations and interviews
stored in polythene bags. The physic-chemical properties of the soil i.e.,
(Appendix A in Supplementary materials).
Calcium carbonate (CaCO3), soil texture class, percentage of organic
matter, Electrical Conductivity (EC), Potassium (K), Phosphorus (P),
Nitrogen (N), pH, Total Suspended Solvents (TSS) were analyzed in the
2.3. Data analyses
agriculture research laboratory Mansehra, Pakistan. During analyses,
the samples were mixed with an equal amount of distilled water, kept
Data sets of 132 recorded weed species recorded in 1200 quadrats of
for an hour and readings noted through pH meter (Jackson, 1963). For
120 fields were prepared in MS Excel. PCORD Version 5 software was
measurement of the electrical conductivity (EC) samples saturated with
used for psychosocial classification. Initially, species area and compo-
water were filtered and readings were recorded via electrical con-
sitional curves were drawn via abundance data combined through
ductivity meter (Corwin and Lesch, 2005; Rhoades, 1996). The texture
Sorensen method using PCORD to know the sample size (projected
classes of samples were determined through hydrometer techniques.
area) (Grandin, 2006; Khan et al., 2013; Turner and Tjørve, 2005).
Texture class was found by texture triangle methods after passing
Presence absence (1, 0) data was used to classify fields and weed into
through sieve apparatus (Adamu and Aliyu, 2012; Bergeron et al., 2013;
associations via Two Way Cluster Analysis (TWCA) and Cluster Analysis
Sarir et al., 2006). The soil organic matter was determined by method
(CA) using the weed abundance data. Based on 50% similarity and 50%
of standardized solution of FeSO4 and K2Cr2O7 (Gallardo et al., 1987;
Soil tests and questionnaire data matrices were treated together in
Nelson and Sommers, 1996). The CaCO3 concentration was determined
PCORD version 5 to find out the impact of edaphic factor and farming
by acid neutralization method (Allison et al., 1965; Kalra, 1971). AB-
practices on weed species composition and association formation by
DTPA extractable P and K was determined in samples through method
indicator species analysis (ISA). Different edaphic variables were ana-
described by (Soltanpour, 1991). For the determination of TSS, a dry
lyzed in order to know its effects on weed species composition, diversity
weight of filter paper was noted and tagged as W1 (initial weight). The
and aggregation. Soil analyses data and farming practices data were
100 gm of soil liquid sample was filtered, kept at oven at 100 ° C till W2
used as important determing factor for identification to show indicator
(constant weight) achieved. To measure TSS in the samples formula was
species in each association. The indicator species for each association
applied.
was selected at probability level, below than 0.05.
Total suspended solids (mg/1) = (W2-W1) × 10/volume of the
sample used
Where W1, is the weight of filter paper and W2 is the weight of filter

592
M. Iqbal et al.
Fig. 2. Species and compositional area curves of 132 weed species and 120 wheat fields in
the District Malakand, Pakistan.
3. Results
Preliminary findings confirmed a total of 132 weed species, dis-
tributed in 120 winter wheat crops. Species area curves was drawn to
assess whether the sample size was adequate or not and comprehend
the associated environmental ingredients. The results of species area
curves revealed there were new species appearing continuously from
field number 5–100 in the region. It also comprehended the species
relation along the fields (Fig. 2).
The application of multivariate analyses i.e., Cluster and Two Way
Cluster analysis divided the weed species into five major weed asso-
ciations which could be clearly observed in the cluster dendograms.
Diagrammatic presentation of the cluster analysis and Two Way Cluster
Analysis comprehends further the distribution of different weed species
in the fields. (Figs. 3 and 4). Five weed associations were established in
the whole area along with influencing environmental variables. (Figs. 3
and 4)
Using Indicator Species Analysis (ISA), indicator species were
identified for each sort of weed association through PCORD version 5.
Results showed that the organic matter, electrical conductivity, type of
preceded crop, type of Manure and practice used for elimination of
weeds have the significant effect on distribution pattern of weed spe-
cies. Detail discussion of which is as follows.
593
Ecological Indicators 84 (2018) 590–606
3.1. Association- 01
Using cluster and two way cluster analyses based on Sorenson
Similarity Index, a total of 17 out of 120 fields clustered in this asso-
ciation, having 48 weed species in 170 releves (17 × 10). The asso-
ciations’ name was given based on top indicator species (at probabilities
values < 0.05) i.e., Emix spinosa, Vicia sepium and Lathyrus sphaericus
(Fig. 5; Tables 1–3; Appendix B in Supplementary materials). Absence
of preceding crop was main factor for formation of this association. Due
to hot and dry season the farmers don’t grow any crop in the rain fed
region in the summer. Other co-variables of this association included
Fertilizer type 1(Fertilizer given before) and fertilizer type 2 (after
sowing) that give rise to co-indicator Calendula arvense, Cerastium fon-
tanum, Cirsium arvense, Euphorbia helioscopia, Stelaria media, Vicia ben-
thamii, Vicia monantha, Oxalis carniculata, Artemisia vulgaris, Galium
aprine, Lithospermum erythrorhizon, Melilotus indicus, scandix pectin ve-
neris and Mazus pumilus (Table 2). Almost all of the fields were provided
with nitrogen fertilizers immediately after germination of the crop.
Impact of various edaphic factors was also quantified. Soil texture of
this association was mainly silt and sandy loam. This association
comprised of the fields of purely rain fed region. The soil pH varied
from 7 to 8, electrical conductivity from 0.001 to 0.007dsm−1 and Total
Suspended Solids (TSS) 0.003–0.022 in this association (Appendix C in
Supplementary materials). Other factors used as farming practices in
this association i.e., sowing period mostly recorded in the month of
November and December. Few of the fields of this association were
provided with mixed house hold manure like buffaloes’ dung before
sowing. The type of seed sown in these fields was a stored seed from
previous year.
3.2. Association-02
A total of 30 fields established this association hosting 86 weed
species among 300 releves. This association was named after the in-
dicator species i.e., Alysum desertorum, Cannabis sativa and
Lithospermum erythrorhyzon. The influencing environmental variables of
this association were use of Di-Ammonium Phosphate (DAP) fertilizer,
Poultry farm manure. The preceding crop recorded in this association
was mainly maize and sugarcane. Other indicator of this association
Fig. 3. Cluster dendrogram of 120 wheat fields
(based on Sorensen measures) showing 5 weed as-
sociation in the studied region.
M. Iqbal et al. Ecological Indicators 84 (2018) 590–606

Fig. 4. Dendrogram based on Two Way Cluster Analysis showing distribution pattern of 132 weed species among 120 fields.

Fig. 5. Data attribute plots of (left to right) Emex spinosa (1st Indicator species), Vicia sepium (2nd indicator species) and Lathyrus sphaericus (3rd indicator species) showing their
distribution in relation to associated farming practices and edaphic variables (after Canonical Correspondence Analyses).

594
M. Iqbal et al. Ecological Indicators 84 (2018) 590–606

Table 1
Top three weed indicators of each association on the bases of which associations names were given (identified through indicator species analyses via PCORD V. 5).

Associations Indicator Species OIV IV mean Standard Deviation P TIV

Association-01 Emix spinosa 41.7 15.8 6.67 0.008 95.0814

Vicia sepium 37.2 16.1 4.16 0.0008 54.30
Lathyrus sphaericus 20.2 9.2 3.16 0.0078 53.90

Association-02 Alysum desertorum 41.6 16.2 5.54 0.0032 146.25

Cannabis sativa 48.2 10.2 5.15 0.0006 97.47
Lithospermum erythrorhizon 32.1 18.8 4.08 0.0092 78.70

Association-03 Oxalis corniculata, 65.9 23.4 9.1 0.0032 39.5

Lathyrus aphaca 30.6 16.4 7.17 0.053 33.30
Chenopodium album 46.2 19.4 11.9 0.0376 17.01

Association-04 Euphorbia helioscopia 56.8 21.3 5.78 0.0002 151.34

Cerastium fontanum 44.6 22.7 5.48 0.0026 199.86
Capsella bursa-pastoris 36 15.7 6.3 0.0144 70.47

Association-05 Alopecurus myosuroides 100 8.7 5.58 0.0002 135.82

Mazus pumilus 82.9 9.4 5.78 0.0002 22.84
Persicaria glabra 68.2 8.8 5.53 0.0002 21.76

OIV = Observed indicator value, IV = Indicator Value, P = Probability, TIV = Total Importance Values.

were Amaranthus viridis, Arenaria serpyllifolia, Bromus pectinatus,
Carbinea bennidicta, Coronopus didymus, Goldbachia laevigata, Ixiolirion
tataricum, Nonea edgeworthii, Papaver rhoeas, Phleum paniculatum,
Sisymbrium erysimoides and Vicia sepium (Table 2; Fig. 6).
As far as the edaphic variables are concerned, soil texture in the
association was mostly loamy and sandy loam type. The soil pH varied
from 7 to 8, Electrical Conductivity (EC) from 0.02 to 0.257dsm−1, and
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) from 32 to 60% that play a vital role in the
determination of indicator species of this association (Appendix C in
Supplementary materials). Regarding farming practices, methods used
for the elimination of weeds were either manual or absent at all.
Similarly few of the farmers use herbicides like Foama, Bromoxinel or
Topic. Very few of the fields were provided with mixed house hold
manure like buffaloes’ dung before sowing. Almost all of the fields are
provided with urea after germination of the crop. The types of seeds
sown were mostly the stored one from the previous year with few ex-
ceptions. Where, it is brought from agriculture research stations.
3.3. Association-03
A total of 55 weed species in 150 releves (15 × 10) belonging to 15
different fields were clustered together in this association through
cluster dendrogram. The top three indicator species were Oxalis corni-
culata, Lathyrus aphaca and Chenopodium album (Table 1; Appendix B in
Supplementary materials). The data indicated that low electrical con-
ductivity, low soil pH, rice as preceding crop type and tillage time were
the decisive environmental variables in the formation and segregation
of this association and its indicator species. Other characteristics weed
species of this association were Anagalis arvensis, Arabis saxicola, Arte-
misia vulgaris, Calendula arvensis, Cerastium fontanum, Chenopodium
album, Lactuca dissecta, Medicago polymorpha, Phalaris minor, Poa annua,
Polygonum plebeju, Ranunculus muricatus and Veronica polita (Fig. 7;
Tables 2 & 3).
Soil texture of this association was mostly sandy and silt loam type
with few exceptions of loam or clay loam in certain fields. Irrigation
was mostly done through canal water or tube well. The dominant
preceding crop type in this association was maize, sugarcane and ve-
getables. Soil pH of most of the fields was 7 with few exceptional fields
with pH = 8. Electrical Conductivity (EC) that varied from 0.01 to
1.668, ratio of the Total Suspended Solids (TSS) varied from 0.003 to
0.0024% (Appendix C in Supplementary materials). Means used for the
eradication of weeds were manual. Few of the farmers used herbicides
like Foama, Bromoxinel, Logran, Selector and Topic for the eradication
of weeds in wheat crop of the region. The manure used before sowing
time was mostly mixed with high proportion of buffaloes’ dung. Farmer
used mostly Di-Ammonium Phosphate (DAP) fertilizer at the sowing
time. While, the fields were provided with nitrogenous fertilizers/urea
after germination of the crop. The type of wheat seeds sown were
mostly home based (stored from previous thrashing season). Few of
such seed obtained from agricultural research stations for example the
varieties Sahar, Sha zoor, Pir sabaq, Millat and Hashim which were
usually obtained from research stations.
3.4. Association-04
Total numbers of the field segregated in this association were 34
with 340 releves possessing 64 weed species. The Indicator Species
Analyses inveterate Euphorbia helioscopia, Cerastium fontanum and
Capsella bursa-pastorus as top indicator (p < 0.05) under the influence
of higher electrical conductivity, sugarcane and rice as preceding crop
types, sowing time and date of tillage in January as determinant vari-
ables (Fig. 8; Table 3). The probability values recorded for theses in-
dicator weeds were 0.001, 0.05 and 0.01 respectively. The other In-
dicator species of this association were Avena fatua, Medicago minima,
Cannabis sativa, Lactuca dissecta, Linum corymbulosum, Medicago poly-
morpha, Ranunculus muricatus, Carthamus oxycantha, Plantago amplex-
icaulis, Parthenium hysteroporus, Cirsium arvense and Taraxicum officinale
(Table 2).
Soil texture of this group was mostly silt followed by a sandy loam.
Few other fields had loam, clay loam, silt clay loam and sandy clay
loam type of textural class as well (Appendix C in Supplementary ma-
terials). Irrigation was mostly done through canal water. The preceding
crop types in this association were mostly sugarcane followed by rice
while in few of the fields there was no record of preceding crop.
Electrical Conductivity (EC) had variable proportion that varied from
0.02 to 1.668, the Total Suspended Solids (TSS) varied in range of
0.006–0.038% (Appendix C in Supplementary materials). Sowing and
tillage timing were mostly November-January. Method used for the
eradication of weeds was manual i.e., hoeing, cutting as compared to
other association. Some of the farmers used herbicides like Foama,
Bromoxinel, Logran, Selector, Boom, Walter, Brosta and Topic for the
elimination of weeds in wheat crop. The manure used at the time of
sowing was mostly mixed type or buffaloes’ dung. Farmer also used
mostly Di Ammonium Phosphate (DAP) mixed with Urea mixed at the
sowing time. Almost all of the fields were provided with Urea after
germination of the wheat crop. The type of wheat seed sown was mostly
agricultural based (bought from agriculture research stations).

595
M. Iqbal et al. Ecological Indicators 84 (2018) 590–606

Table 2
Significant influence of various strengths of different measured environmental factors on indicator species of each association. (p* = probability value; Maxgrp = Maximum Group
Value; IV = Indicator Value).

S.NO Maxgrp IV p* S.NO Maxgrp IV p*

Association-01
Fertilizer Type 1 Fertilizer Type 1
1 Calendula arvense 0 29 0.0446 2 Oxalis carniculata 2 39.4 0.0066
3 Cerastium fontanum 2 44.6 0.004 4 Stelaria media 2 49.2 0.0002
5 Cirsium arvense 2 39 0.0056 6 Vicia benthamii 2 20.2 0.026
7 Emix spinosa 1 33.2 0.0234 8 Vicia monantha 1 38.3 0.0292
9 Euphorbia helioscopia 2 56.8 0.0002

Fertilizer Type 2
1 Calendula arvense 0 29 0.0432 2 Oxalis carniculata 2 39.4 0.0084
3 Cerastium fontanum 2 44.6 0.0026 4 Stelaria media 2 49.2 0.0004
5 Cirsium arvense 2 39 0.0052 6 Vicia benthamii 2 20.2 0.0248
7 Emix spinosa 1 33.2 0.0268 8 Vicia monantha 1 38.3 0.028
9 Euphorbia helioscopia 2 56.8 0.0006

Practice used
1 Artemisia vulgaris 1 4 0.0112 2 Lithospermum erythrorhizon 1 18.8 0.0092
3 Calendula arvense 1 16.8 0.0078 4 Melilotus indicus 0 24.7 0.0172
5 Emix spinosa 1 20.6 0.0342 6 Scandix pectin veneris 1 35 0.0156
7 Galium aprine 1 10.9 0.0068 8 Vicia monantha 1 39.2 0.0048
9 Lathyrus sphaericus 1 9.2 0.0078 10 Vicia sepium 1 16.1 0.0008

Tillage time
1 Cirsium arvense 1 46.8 0.0346 2 Euphorbia helioscopia 1 50 0.0584
3 Oxalis carniculata 1 67.6 0.0068 4 Taraxicum officinale 1 27.8 0.0478

pH
1 Mazus pumilus 6 39.6 0.0294

Association-02
Manure
1 Amaranthus viridis 3 3.4 0.0594 2 Bromus pectinatus 3 7.3 0.001
3 Arenaria serpyllifolia 3 16.2 0.0032 4 Phleum paniculatum 3 7 0.0154
5 Coronopus didymus 1 24.6 0.0352 6 Rumex dentatus 1 19 0.0146
7 Goldbachia laevigata 3 10.2 0.0006 8 Sporobolus diander 3 4.5 0.0376
9 Ixiolirion tataricum 3 6.2 0.0068 10 Nonea edgeworthii 3 4.5 0.0376
11 Medicago polymorpha 3 18 0.0288 12 Papaver rhoeas 3 9.8 0.019

Practice used
1 Alyssum desertorum Stapf. 1 29.9 0.0036 2 Bromus pectinatus 1 6.3 0.0198
3 Artemisia vulgaris 1 4 0.0112 4 Melilotus indicus 0 24.7 0.0172
5 Calendula arvensis 1 16.8 0.0078 6 Nonea edgeworthii 1 2.6 0.045
7 Carbinea bennidicta 1 7.4 0.0534 8 Polygonum patulum 1 5.2 0.001
9 Coronopus didymus 0 37.9 0.014 10 Sisymbrium erysimoides 1 7.5 0.0064
11 Goldbachia laevigata 1 10.9 0.0068 12 Torilis nodosa 1 3.9 0.017
13 Lathyrus sphaericus 1 9.2 0.0078 14 Vicia sepium 1 16.1 0.0008
15 Lithospermum erythrorhizon 1 18.8 0.0092

Preceding crop
1 Achyranthus aspera 4 4.2 0.0394 2 Artemisia vulgaris 4 6.5 0.0046
3 Arabis saxicola 4 4.2 0.0394 4 Lathyrus sphaericus 0 10.1 0.0242
5 Aristida adscensionis 3 6.7 0.0094 6 Oxalis carniculata 1 16.6 0.0188
7 Calendula arvensis 0 14 0.0114 8 Phalaris minor 3 11.6 0.0474
9 Capsella bursa-pasturis 3 15.7 0.0144 10 Plantago amplexicaulis 3 8.6 0.0018
11 Carthamus oxycantha 0 7.8 0.0236 12 Polygonum plebejum 3 8.8 0.0024
13 Chenopodium album 3 12.9 0.0414 14 Ranunculus arvense 3 14.8 0.003
15 Cynodon dactylon 4 21.4 0.0462 16 Rumex dentatus 3 17.9 0.0208
17 Euphorbia helioscopia 1 19 0.001 18 Sisymbrium altissimum 3 6.7 0.005
19 Lathyrus aphaca 3 16.4 0.053 20 Stelaria media 4 21.5 0.0242

Association-03
Sowing time
1 Cirsium arvense 1 54.1 0.0096 2 Oxalis carniculata 1 65.9 0.0032
3 Euphorbia helioscopia 1 55.7 0.0158 4 Rumex dentatus 1 44.7 0.044
5 Parthenium hysteroporus 1 76.6 0.0002

Preceding crop
1 Anagalis arvensis 4 20 0.0394 2 Calendula arvensis 0 40.7 0.0114
3 Arabis saxicola 4 20 0.0394 4 Fumaria indica 0 43.2 0.0016
5 Artemisia vulgaris 4 35.6 0.0046 6 Oxalis carniculata 1 34.5 0.0188
7 Capsella bursa-pasturis 3 36 0.0144 8 Phalaris minor 3 26.2 0.0474
9 Cerastium fontanum 1 30.6 0.0508 10 Poa annua 3 38.4 0.0114
11 Chenopodium album 3 28.5 0.0414 12 Polygonum plebejum 3 44.3 0.0024
13 Cirsium arvense 1 32 0.024 14 Ranunculus arvense 3 47.9 0.003
15 Cynodon dactylon 4 33 0.0462 16 Rumex dentatus 3 36.8 0.0208
17 Euphorbia helioscopia 1 51.6 0.001 18 Stelaria media 4 34.9 0.0242
19 Vicia monantha 0 37.1 0.0212 20 Veronica polita 2 35 0.0084

(continued on next page)

596
M. Iqbal et al. Ecological Indicators 84 (2018) 590–606

Table 2 (continued)

S.NO Maxgrp IV p* S.NO Maxgrp IV p*

pH
1 Chenopodium album 6 46.2 0.0376

E.C
1 Cannabis sativa 1 25.6 0.0018 2 Cirsium arvense 1 20.3 0.0206
3 Lactuca dissecta 1 5.5 0.0108 4 Ranunculus muricatus 1 31.2 0.0368
5 Medicago polymorpha 1 29.2 0.0356

Association-04
E.C
1 Cannabis sativa 1 25.6 0.0018 2 Lactuca dissecta 1 5.5 0.0108
3 Cirsium arvense 1 20.3 0.0206 4 Medicago polymorpha 1 29.2 0.0356
5 Linum corymbulosum 1 1.7 0.0584 6 Medicago minima 1 9.4 0.0186
7 Ranunculus muricatus 1 31.2 0.0368

Preceding crop
1 Avena fatua 0 19.9 0.0516 2 Carthamus oxycantha 0 7.8 0.0236
3 Calendula arvensis 0 14 0.0114 4 Mazus pumilus 3 9.4 0.0002
5 Capsella bursa-pasturis 3 15.7 0.0144 6 Oxalis carniculata 1 16.6 0.0188
7 Cerastium fontanum 1 20 0.0508 8 Persicaria glabra 3 8.8 0.0002
9 Chenopodium album 3 12.9 0.0414 10 Plantago amplexicaulis 3 8.6 0.0018
11 Cirsium arvense 1 13.4 0.024 12 Polygonum plebejum 3 8.8 0.0024
13 Cynodon dactylon 4 21.4 0.0462 14 Ranunculus arvense 3 14.8 0.003
15 Euphorbia helioscopia 1 19 0.001 16 Rumex dentatus 3 17.9 0.0208
17 Fumaria indica 0 24.2 0.0016 18 Stelaria media 4 21.5 0.0242
19 Lathyrus sphaericus 0 10.1 0.0242 20 Veronica polita 2 22.8 0.0084
21 Vicia monantha 0 22.4 0.0212

Sowing time
1 Euphorbia helioscopia 1 55.7 0.0158 2 Rumex dentatus 1 44.7 0.044
3 Oxalis carniculata 1 65.9 0.0032 4 Parthenium hysteroporus 1 76.6 0.0002

Tillage Time
1 Cirsium arvense 1 46.8 0.0346 2 Parthenium hysteroporus 1 70.3 0.0022
3 Euphorbia helioscopia 1 50 0.0584 4 Taraxicum officinale 1 27.8 0.0478
5 Oxalis carniculata 1 67.6 0.0068

Association-05
Organic Matter
1 Alopecurus myosuroides 1 11.4 0.0058 2 Arenaria serpyllifolia 1 31.8 0.0262
3 Anagalis arvensis 0 56.7 0.004 4 Phalaris minor 1 17.5 0.0508
5 Fumaria indica 0 54.7 0.0404 6 Plantago amplexicaule 1 11.8 0.0408
7 Mazus pumilus 1 14.9 0.0064 8 Potentilla supine 1 1.8 0.029
9 Nasturtium officinale 1 1.6 0.0244 10 Sismbrium erysimoides 1 12.5 0.0022
11 Persicaria glabra 1 13.1 0.0094

pH
1 Chenopodium album 6 46.2 0.0376 2 Polygonum patulum 6 97.8 0.0006
3 Oenothera rosea 6 50 0.016 4 Rorippa Montana 6 50 0.016
5 Plantago amplexicaule 6 43 0.0238 6 Rottboellia exaltata 6 50 0.016
7 Polypogan fugax 6 50 0.016 8 Torilis nodosa 6 49.1 0.0078
9 Pseudognaphalium affine 6 50 0.016 10 Aristida adscensionis 6 47.2 0.0168
11 Mazus pumilus 6 39.6 0.0294

Preceding crop
1 Alopecurus myosuroides 3 8.7 0.0002 2 Chenopodium album 3 12.9 0.0414
3 Aristida adscensionis 3 6.7 0.0094 4 Poa annua 3 22.7 0.0114
5 Capsella bursa-pasturis 3 15.7 0.0144 6 Polygonum plebejum 3 8.8 0.0024
7 Cynodon dactylon 4 21.4 0.0462 8 Ranunculus arvense 3 14.8 0.003
9 Euphorbia helioscopia 1 19 0.001 10 Rumex dentatus 3 17.9 0.0208
11 Fumaria indica 0 24.2 0.0016 12 Sisymbrium altissimum 3 6.7 0.005
13 Mazus pumilus 3 9.4 0.0002 14 Stelaria media 4 21.5 0.0242
15 Persicaria glabra 3 8.8 0.0002 16 Veronica polita 2 22.8 0.0084
17 Phalaris minor 3 11.6 0.0474 18 Vicia monantha 0 22.4 0.0212
19 Plantago amplexicaule 3 8.6 0.0018

3.5. Association-05
This association comprised of a total of 24 fields and 51 weed
species distributed in 240 releves (24 × 10) in the study area. The
Alopecurus myosuroides, Mazus pumilus and Persicaria glabra were the top
Indicator Species of this association (Fig. 9). The higher concentration
of organic matter, lower pH and rice as preceding crop were the strong
influencing environmental factor in determination of indicators of this
association. In term of test statistics the probability values recorded for
these species (Tables 1 & 3; Appendix B in Supplementary materials).
The other visible indicators of this association were Alopecurus myo-
suroides, Arenaria serpyllifolia, Fumaria indica, Nasturtium officinale,
Persicaria glabra, Plantago amplexicaule, Potentilla supine, Sismbrium er-
ysimoides, Oenothera rosea, Polypogan fugax, Pseudognaphalium affine,
Rorippa Montana, Rottboellia exaltata, Aristida adscensionis and Sisym-
brium altissimum (Table 2).
Soil texture of this group was of sandy loam type. Canal irrigation,
relatively high value of electrical conductivity (EC), Total Suspended
Solids (TSS), early sowing and tillage timings were other peculiar fea-
tures observed in this association. The manure used at the time of

597
M. Iqbal et al.
Fig. 6. Data attribute plots of (left to right) Alysum desertorum, Cannabis sativa and Lithospermum erythrorhyzon top three indicator species of association-02 in relation to associated
influencing variables (after Canonical Correspondence Analyses).
sowing was mostly mixed type or buffaloes’ dung. Farmer also used
mostly Di Ammonium Phosphate (DAP) mixed with Urea at the time of
sowing and Urea after germination of the crop. The wheat varieties
sown in the fields were mostly Habib and Lasani (Tables 1–3).
4. Discussion
Being on top of all the cereal crops, wheat plays a vital role in the
economy of an agricultural country. Associated with wheat, weed
species also compete for the available resources. Weed species dis-
tribution, composition, association formation and their indicator spe-
cies are usually attributed to various environment variables and an-
thropogenic activities. In this study number of variables i.e., soil
chemical and physical composition, climatic factors, type of preceding
crops, sowing time in combination and other kind of farming practices
were analyzed as determining factors for weed species composition,
association formation and its indicator species. Many such kinds of
studies have been undertaken to study wild plants in ecosystem other
than agriculture one but very less number of studies on the composition
of weeds in arable and non-arable agri-ecosystems in various parts of
the developed world (Hallgren et al., 1999; Lososová et al., 2004;
Lososová et al., 2006; Šilc et al., 2008; Streibig, 1979).
Fig. 7. Data attribute plots of Oxalis corniculata (1st indicator), Lathyrus aphaca (2nd indicator) and Chenopodium album (3rd indicator) from left to right of association- 03 in relation to
various edaphic and farming practices in the region (after Canonical Correspondence Analyses).
598
Ecological Indicators 84 (2018) 590–606
Weed flora is an integral part of ecosystem, nevertheless, by defi-
nition weeds are unwanted plants and are considered as nutrient
competitor with economic crops that’s why they face considerable
threats in an agro-ecosystem. Generally weed added phyto-morphic
heterogeneity that play a vital role to maintain numerous arthropod
population via food providing and help in neutralizing the potential
pest attack on crop species (Jabran et al., 2012; Khaliq and Matloob,
2012; Muhammad et al., 2013; Rafay et al., 2014).
Numbers of research article also explained differences among the
weed species differences in crops (Ferro, 1990; Glemnitz et al., 2000;
Hüppe and Hofmeister, 1990; Lososová et al., 2006). Similarly other
studies focused on single weed species of different crops for instances
are given here. Shehata and Galal (2014) investigated the effect of
various environmental variables on the distribution of Malva parviflora
using TWINSPAN and DECORANA as classification and ordination
techniques (Shehata and Galal, 2014). In present study the 5 major
associations/communities/habitat types were resulted through PC-ORD
version 5 Software. Use of such robust technique can be observed quite
often for classification of natural vegetation (Khan et al., 2012; Shaheen
et al., 2011; Shaheen et al., 2015) but it is pretty rare in classification of
weed species associations especially in the Indo-Pak sub-continent.
Therefore, there exists a huge gap in the species classification as well as
M. Iqbal et al.
Fig. 8. Data attribute plots of (from left to right) Euphorbia helioscopia, Cerastium fontanum and Capsella bursa-pastorus indicator weeds of association-04 in relation to different en-
vironmental variables (after Canonical Correspondence Analyses).
types of associations. Such phytogeographic differences usually occur
due to the nature of ecosystems where the studies are undertaken but
rarity of the use of such techniques is also one of the reasons. Only few
parameters could be found at regional levels studies of weed (Ahmad
et al., 2016a; Iqbal et al., 2015; Khan et al., 2016). Another aspect that
becomes clearer from our findings is the importance of crop rotation in
the formation and ultimately control of weeds. Such effects were
quantified through analyzing the pattern of preceding crop types and
their impacts on the variability in weed species composition, richness as
well as grouping. Among the other farming practices irrigation and use
of herbicides for the elimination of weed were the most important
factors for determination of weed species composition and can be
compared with few available studies (Dale et al., 1992; Sharp, 1976;
Silvernail and Bomford, 2006).
One of the important applications of present work is methodological
improvement for designing weed studies and phyto-sociological clas-
sification of weed flora based on modern statistical tools. Weed vege-
tation structure is quite often defined via using the complete pattern
and composition of weed plants especially in the developed nation
(Cáceres et al., 2012). Use of indicator species concept used in our study
differentiates a species from those species that characterize individual
type rather than that characterizes relationship among them. This type
of differentiation usually determines the integer of sorts that exploits
the number of indicator species. Deliberation of cluster of fields/sites
provided additional flexibility to qualitatively model the habitat in-
clination of the species of interest (Acker, 1990). When in given site/
habitat one can find a species assemblage with higher projecting value
the habitat can be consigned with sureness to the indicator types.
Whereas, if an effective indicator species could be found then as a result
full vegetation plot may need to be established. While using this method
it should be kept in mind that when site group have been define using
species composition data they are by definition non independent from
species. In this regards, the indicator values would be higher than the
expected values that may prominent to rejection in inferential tests (De
Cáceres et al., 2010).
The techniques used in present work permit researcher to associate
multiple classification methods of one site in order to check significance
of result for authentication. Top indicator species of each of the cluster/
association were recorded on the basis of environmental gradients i.e.,
edaphic factors and farming practices. Present work can be compared
with available literature of the (Ahmad et al., 2016a; Ahmad et al.,
2016b; Khan et al., 2017; Khan et al., 2013, 2014; Khan et al., 2016;
Shah et al., 2015) where the classification of various plant species into
communities/habitat/associations and their indicator plant species
599
Ecological Indicators 84 (2018) 590–606
were done. The Species area curves were constructed through PCORD
in order to find out whether the sample size was adequate or not. Our
result support the work of (Bano et al., 2017) who also used the similar
method for the adequately of samples size via abundance data com-
bined with Sorensen distance values.
Among the edaphic factors and farming practices, higher organic
matter, comparatively lower electrical conductivity and pH, types of
preceding crop, practice used for the removal of weeds, tillage and
sowing time were the strongest variable affecting weed species com-
position, diversity, classification and recognition of indicator species in
different associations at field’s level. The soil texture of first association
varies from sandy to silt loam while the average soil pH was ± 7.8 and
electrical conductivity was ± 0.02. It shows that the species grew well
in sandy loam soil and pH. Indicator species of this association i.e.,
Calendula arvense, Cerastium fontanum, Stelaria media, Vicia monantha,
Artemisia vulgaris, Galium aprine, Lithospermum erythrorhizon, Melilotus
indicus, Scandix pectin veneris and Mazus pumilus are not common in
association number two. It may most probably because of the soil tex-
ture variability, preceding crop type and fertilizer types. The indicator
species of association-2 were Alysum desertorum, Cannabis sativa and
Lithospermum erythrorhyzon. The soil texture in this association varies
from sandy loam to loamy sand. Its pH was ± 7 and the average elec-
trical conductivity was from 0.03 to 0.2. Species of this association
favored neither acidic nor basic soil but normal pH with manure and
maize as a preceding crop environmental variable. The soil texture of
3rd association varied from sandy loam to silt and clay loam. Its
average pH was ± 7.4 with electrical conductivity of 0.05 and rice as
preceding crop type that played significant role in its indicator species
recognition. The top indicator species of 4th association were Euphorbia
helioscopia, Cerastium fontanum and Capsella bursa-pastorus. The other
Indicator species of this association revealed Avena fatua, Medicago
minima, Linum corymbulosum, Carthamus oxycantha and Plantago am-
plexicaulis. The soil texture varied from silt to sandy loam mostly. The
average soil pH is 7.2 and electrical conductivity of ± 0.06. The in-
dicator species of association five are Alopecurus myosuroides, Mazus
pumilus and Persicaria glabra. Its average pH is ± 7.1, electrical con-
ductivity of ± 0.02 and higher organic matter play its role in the for-
mation of this association. The other indicator included in this asso-
ciation favor alkaline soil pH. The most probable reason for such
differences is because of variability in the soil textural classes, pH and
organic matter concentration as is obvious from our findings. These
findings are in close harmony with the results of (Lososová et al., 2006;
Silverside, 1977) in which the weed species were divided into different
groups under the influence of calcicole and calcifuges habitat sites in
 Table 3
Results of Indicator species analysis (ISA) via PC-ORD version 5, presenting all the species in relation to various farming practices at various threshold level of indicator based on Monte Carlo test of significance for maximum observed indicator
value of species (P ≤ 0.05) (top indicators are showed in bold font). (p* = probability value; Maxgrp = Maximum Group Value; IV = Indicator Value).
M. Iqbal et al.

S. NO Botanical Names Emix, Vicia and Lathyrus Association Alysum, Cannabis and Lithospermum Oxalis, Lathyrus and Chenopodium Euphorbia, Cerastium and Capsella bursa Alopecurus, Mazus and Persicaria glabra
−01 defined by Practice used Association-02, defined by Manure Association-03, defined by Preceding Association-04, defined by Preceding Association −05, defined by Organic
crop (Rice) crop (Maize) matter

Maxgrp IV p* Maxgrp IV p* Maxgrp IV p* Maxgrp IV p* Maxgrp IV p*

1 Acanthophyllum grandiflora 0 1.7 1 1 3.4 1 1 4.2 0.5889 1 4.2 0.5889 0 1.7 1

Boiss.
2 Achyranthus aspera Linn. 0 1.7 1 1 3.3 1 4 4.2 0.0394 4 4.2 0.0394 0 1.5 1
3 5 Alopecurus myosuroides 0 7 0.5773 1 7.9 0.2961 3 8.7 0.0002 3 8.7 0.0002 1 11.4 0.0058
Hudes.,
4 1 Emix spinosa 1 20.6 0.0342 3 16.3 0.3457 0 15.8 0.008 0 15.8 0.008 0 30.2 0.5075
5 Alternanthera sessilis (Linn.) 1 1.7 0.2244 3 3.3 0.0584 2 4.2 1 2 4.2 1 0 1.7 1
DC.,
6 2 Alyssum desertorum Stapf. 1 29.9 0.0036 3 20.6 0.0022 2 19.1 0.0678 2 19.1 0.0678 0 40.5 0.8874
7 Amaranthus viridis Linn. 1 1.6 0.2146 3 3.4 0.0594 2 4.1 1 2 4.1 1 0 1.8 1
8 Anagallis arvensis L. 0 49.8 0.5529 2 28.8 0.1556 4 24.5 0.226 4 24.5 0.226 0 56.7 0.004
9 Arabis saxicola Edgew. 0 1.7 1 1 3.3 1 4 4.2 0.0394 4 4.2 0.0394 0 1.5 1
10 Arenaria serpyllifolia L. 1 21.4 0.1522 3 16.2 0.0032 3 15.6 0.151 3 15.6 0.151 1 31.8 0.0262
11 Aristida adscensionis Linn. 1 3.9 0.895 0 5.6 0.2322 3 6.7 0.0094 3 6.7 0.0094 0 6.2 1
12 Arnebia euchroma (Royle ex 0 2.7 1 1 4.5 0.9228 1 5.4 0.874 1 5.4 0.874 0 3.2 1
Benth.)
13 Arnebia guttata Bunge 1 4.5 0.0592 0 6.1 0.3155 2 7 0.5151 2 7 0.5151 0 7.2 1
14 Artemisia vulgaris Linnaeus 1 4 0.0112 0 5.7 0.1944 4 6.5 0.0046 4 6.5 0.0046 0 5.7 1
15 Asphodelus tenuifolius Cav. 1 8.3 0.5375 2 8.8 0.6395 0 9.3 0.11 0 9.3 0.11 0 15 1
16 Avena fatua Linn. 1 32.5 0.5655 3 21.8 0.1286 0 19.9 0.0516 0 19.9 0.0516 0 43.2 0.5535

600
17 Boerhavia procumbens Banks 0 1.7 1 1 3.3 1 1 4.2 0.5889 1 4.2 0.5889 0 1.7 1
ex Roxb.
18 Brachypodium distachyon 0 1.7 1 2 3.3 0.4447 0 4.1 0.2815 0 4.1 0.2815 0 1.8 1
(Linn.) P. Beauv.
19 Bromus pectinatus Thunb. 1 6.3 0.0198 3 7.3 0.001 2 8.2 0.1236 2 8.2 0.1236 0 10.7 1
20 Calendula arvensis L. 1 16.8 0.0078 3 14.3 0.1396 0 14 0.0114 0 14 0.0114 0 24.9 0.6353
21 2 Cannabis sativa Linn. 1 21.2 0.9546 0 16.5 0.8806 4 15.8 0.247 4 15.8 0.247 0 31 0.4913
22 4 Capsella bursa-pastoris 0 21.1 0.216 1 16.2 0.1986 3 15.7 0.0144 3 15.7 0.0144 1 31.3 0.7481
(L.) Medik.
23 Carbinea bennidicta 1 7.4 0.0534 0 8 0.2839 0 8.7 0.105 0 8.7 0.105 0 13 1
24 Carex fedia Nees 0 1.7 1 0 3.3 0.4463 3 4.1 0.116 3 4.1 0.116 1 1.8 0.029
25 Carthamus lanatus L. 1 2.6 0.4011 2 4.6 0.1974 0 5.4 0.1132 0 5.4 0.1132 0 3.3 1
26 Carthamus oxyacantha M.Bieb. 1 5.7 0.0602 0 7 0.2494 0 7.8 0.0236 0 7.8 0.0236 0 9.9 1
27 Cenchrus ciliaris Linn. 1 1.7 0.2254 0 3.3 0.4433 0 4.2 0.2913 0 4.2 0.2913 0 1.7 1
28 Centurea calitrapa L. 1 1.7 0.2252 2 3.5 0.4505 0 4.2 0.2863 0 4.2 0.2863 0 1.7 1
29 4 Cerastium fontanum 0 32.8 0.0546 1 22 0.2064 1 20 0.0508 1 20 0.0508 0 43.4 0.204
Baumgarten
30 3 Chenopodium album 1 14.7 0.985 1 12.8 0.1324 3 12.9 0.0414 3 12.9 0.0414 0 22.5 0.9406
Linnaeus
31 chenopodium murale 0 3.9 0.6637 1 5.6 0.9716 4 6.6 0.068 4 6.6 0.068 0 5.6 1
32 Cirsium arvense (Linnaeus) 0 16.3 0.3585 1 13.6 0.2004 1 13.4 0.024 1 13.4 0.024 0 25.1 0.6383
Scopoli
33 Convolvulus arvensis Linn. 0 24.9 0.852 3 18.4 0.1222 0 17.2 0.125 0 17.2 0.125 0 35.2 0.4075
34 Conyza bonariensis (L.) 1 2.7 0.4049 2 4.5 0.3943 0 5.4 0.5841 0 5.4 0.5841 0 3.3 1
Cronquist Tag-13
35 Coronopus didymus (Linn.) 0 37.9 0.014 1 24.6 0.0352 1 22.1 0.0694 1 22.1 0.0694 0 48.6 0.4633
Smith
36 Cynodon dactylon (Linn.) Pers. 1 36 0.7389 2 23.7 0.2847 4 21.4 0.0462 4 21.4 0.0462 0 46.1 0.9816
37 Cyperus rotundus Linnaeus. 1 30.4 0.1708 2 21.3 0.8576 4 19.9 0.0922 4 19.9 0.0922 0 40.7 0.3409
(continued on next page)
Ecological Indicators 84 (2018) 590–606
 Table 3 (continued)

S. NO Botanical Names Emix, Vicia and Lathyrus Association Alysum, Cannabis and Lithospermum Oxalis, Lathyrus and Chenopodium Euphorbia, Cerastium and Capsella bursa Alopecurus, Mazus and Persicaria glabra
−01 defined by Practice used Association-02, defined by Manure Association-03, defined by Preceding Association-04, defined by Preceding Association −05, defined by Organic
M. Iqbal et al.

crop (Rice) crop (Maize) matter

Maxgrp IV p* Maxgrp IV p* Maxgrp IV p* Maxgrp IV p* Maxgrp IV p*

38 Dicanthium anulatum (Forssk.) 1 2.7 0.2278 2 4.5 1 0 5.4 0.116 0 5.4 0.116 0 3.2 1
Stapf
39 Dicliptera roxburghiana (Nees) 1 1.7 0.2278 2 3.3 0.4403 0 4.3 0.2879 0 4.3 0.2879 0 1.7 1
Clarke
40 Eryngium coeruleum M- Bieb. 1 1.7 0.2294 2 3.4 0.4425 2 4.2 1 2 4.2 1 0 1.6 1
41 4 Euphorbia helioscopia L. 0 29.5 0.1598 1 20.5 0.147 1 19 0.001 1 19 0.001 0 40.3 0.3753
42 Euphorbia prostrata Ait. 0 1.7 1 0 3.3 0.4321 2 4.1 1 2 4.1 1 0 1.6 1
43 Fumaria indica (Hausskn.) 1 46.4 0.0932 3 27.9 0.2743 0 24.2 0.0016 0 24.2 0.0016 0 54.7 0.0404
44 Galium aparine L. 1 34.6 0.3937 3 23.2 0.1162 0 21 0.2048 0 21 0.2048 0 45.1 0.8698
45 Geranium rotundifolium L. 1 2.6 0.2336 3 4.4 0.0872 2 5.3 0.6249 2 5.3 0.6249 0 3.2 1
46 Goldbachia laevigata (M. Bieb.) 1 10.9 0.0068 3 10.2 0.0006 0 10.6 0.0506 0 10.6 0.0506 0 19.2 0.9628
DC.
47 Heliotropium cabulicum Bunge 0 1.7 1 0 3.3 0.4273 3 4.2 0.1146 3 4.2 0.1146 0 1.7 1
in Bull.
48 Heliotropium ulophyllum Rech. 0 1.7 1 0 3.3 0.4273 3 4.2 0.1146 3 4.2 0.1146 0 1.7 1
49 Hypecoum pendulum Linn.- 1 10.3 0.0028 3 9.9 0.2971 0 10.4 0.0794 0 10.4 0.0794 1 18.5 0.2875
tagb1
50 Iris decora Wall. 0 1.7 1 3 3.3 0.0568 0 4.1 0.2757 0 4.1 0.2757 0 1.8 1
51 Ixiolirion tataricum (Pall.) 0 4.6 0.6539 3 6.2 0.0068 0 7.1 0.3355 0 7.1 0.3355 0 7.3 1
52 Jaeskia oligosperma (Griseb.) 0 1.6 1 2 3.3 0.4393 2 4.1 1 2 4.1 1 0 1.7 1
Knob.
53 Jancus buforious 0 1.7 1 0 3.4 0.4471 0 4.2 0.2833 0 4.2 0.2833 0 1.7 1

601
54 Lactuca dissecta D. Don 1 3.8 0.7926 2 5.6 0.9278 4 6.8 0.0814 4 6.8 0.0814 0 6.2 1
55 Lamium amplexicaule L. 1 14.4 0.1142 1 12.6 0.4037 2 12.8 0.3617 2 12.8 0.3617 1 22.9 0.1456
56 3 Lathyrus aphaca Linn. 1 21.4 0.7125 2 16.9 0.5251 3 16.4 0.053 3 16.4 0.053 1 30.5 0.6523
57 Lathyrus latifolius Linnaeus- 1 3.3 0.7337 3 5.1 0.1588 0 6.2 0.0904 0 6.2 0.0904 0 4.8 1
tagb8
58 1 Lathyrus sphaericus Retz. 1 9.2 0.0078 2 9.6 0.3999 0 10.1 0.0242 0 10.1 0.0242 0 14.7 0.9324
59 Launaea procumbens 0 5.7 0.9566 2 6.9 0.0382 0 7.8 0.4029 0 7.8 0.4029 0 9.7 1
(Roxburgh)
Ramayya & Rajagopal
60 Lindelofia anchusoides (Lindl.) 0 1.7 1 1 3.3 1 1 4.2 0.5825 1 4.2 0.5825 0 1.5 1
61 Linum corymbulosum Rchb. 0 1.6 1 1 3.3 1 2 4.3 1 2 4.3 1 0 1.7 1
62 Linum perenne Linn. 0 1.7 1 2 3.3 0.4365 0 4.2 0.2795 0 4.2 0.2795 0 1.8 1
63 Lepidium apetalum Willdenow 0 1.7 1 0 3.3 0.4377 2 4.1 1 2 4.1 1 0 1.7 1
64 Lepidium pinnatifidum Ledeb. 0 8.3 0.794 3 8.7 0.0708 2 9.1 0.3823 2 9.1 0.3823 0 15 1
65 2 Lithospermum 1 18.8 0.0092 3 14.7 0.0108 2 14.4 0.0748 2 14.4 0.0748 1 28.9 0.7956
erythrorhizon
Siebold & Zuccarini
66 Lolium temulentum Linn. 1 12.3 0.4559 3 11.3 0.4857 3 11.4 0.6111 3 11.4 0.6111 0 20.8 0.912
67 Malcolmia africana (Linn.) 0 6.7 0.5897 2 7.6 0.0702 0 8.4 0.5759 0 8.4 0.5759 0 12.1 1
68 Malva neglecta Wallr. 0 2.6 1 2 4.6 0.6151 0 5.4 0.6521 0 5.4 0.6521 0 3.1 1
69 Malvastrum coromandelianum 0 1.7 1 1 3.3 1 2 4.3 1 2 4.3 1 0 1.8 1
(Linnaeus) Garcke
70 5 Mazus pumilus (N.L. 1 8.4 0.7934 0 8.8 0.7301 3 9.4 0.0002 3 9.4 0.0002 1 14.9 0.0064
Burman) Steenis
71 Medicago denticulata Willd. 0 50.1 0.3917 1 28.1 0.113 3 23.8 0.4129 3 23.8 0.4129 0 55.7 0.9426
72 Medicago minima (Linn.) 0 7 0.894 0 8.1 0.0522 0 8.7 0.8284 0 8.7 0.8284 0 11.3 1
73 Medicago polymorpha Linn. 1 24.7 0.4717 3 18 0.0288 2 17 0.5629 2 17 0.5629 0 35 0.5509
74 Mentha longifolia (L.) L. 0 2.7 1 1 4.6 0.7149 3 5.4 0.2352 3 5.4 0.2352 0 3.3 1
(continued on next page)
Ecological Indicators 84 (2018) 590–606
 Table 3 (continued)

S. NO Botanical Names Emix, Vicia and Lathyrus Association Alysum, Cannabis and Lithospermum Oxalis, Lathyrus and Chenopodium Euphorbia, Cerastium and Capsella bursa Alopecurus, Mazus and Persicaria glabra
−01 defined by Practice used Association-02, defined by Manure Association-03, defined by Preceding Association-04, defined by Preceding Association −05, defined by Organic
M. Iqbal et al.

crop (Rice) crop (Maize) matter

Maxgrp IV p* Maxgrp IV p* Maxgrp IV p* Maxgrp IV p* Maxgrp IV p*

75 Melilotus indicus (Linnaeus) 0 24.7 0.0172 1 18.3 0.5243 1 17.4 0.094 1 17.4 0.094 0 34.9 0.4319
Allioni
76 Moraea sisyrinchium (L.) 0 2.6 0.8154 3 4.4 0.1786 0 5.2 0.3979 0 5.2 0.3979 0 3.2 1
77 Nasturtium officinale R. Br. in 0 1.7 1 1 3.3 1 3 4.2 0.1214 3 4.2 0.1214 1 1.6 0.0244
Aiton
78 Nonea edgeworthii A. DC. 1 2.6 0.045 3 4.5 0.0376 2 5.4 0.5907 2 5.4 0.5907 0 3.2 1
79 Oenothera rosea L' Her. ex Ait. 1 1.7 0.2222 1 3.3 1 3 4.2 0.1174 3 4.2 0.1174 0 1.7 1
80 3 Oxalis corniculata L. 0 24.2 0.13 1 17.8 0.4769 1 16.6 0.0188 1 16.6 0.0188 0 34.6 0.4503
81 Papaver hybridum Linn. 0 5.2 0.3511 3 6.6 0.5891 1 7.5 0.9774 1 7.5 0.9774 0 8.4 1
82 Papaver rhoeas Linn. 1 10.4 0.1846 3 9.8 0.019 0 10.5 0.1918 0 10.5 0.1918 0 18.4 0.9804
83 Parthenium hysterophorus L. 0 8.8 0.857 1 8.9 0.5781 4 9.5 0.2006 4 9.5 0.2006 0 16 1
84 5 Persicaria glabra (Willd.) 0 7.4 0.5385 1 8.1 0.6441 3 8.8 0.0002 3 8.8 0.0002 1 13.1 0.0094
85 Phalaris minor Retz. 0 11.6 0.6173 3 11 0.3179 3 11.6 0.0474 3 11.6 0.0474 1 17.5 0.0508
86 Phleum paniculatum Huds. 0 5.9 0.8722 3 7 0.0154 2 7.9 0.157 2 7.9 0.157 0 9.5 1
87 Plantago amplexicaulis Cav. sb 0 6.9 0.7315 0 7.7 0.9884 3 8.6 0.0018 3 8.6 0.0018 1 11.8 0.0408
sp-bauphula
88 Plantago lanceolata Linn. 1 1.7 0.2324 1 3.3 1 0 4.2 0.2907 0 4.2 0.2907 0 1.7 1
89 Poa annua Linnaeus 0 40.6 0.0056 1 25.6 0.0246 3 22.7 0.0114 3 22.7 0.0114 1 50.2 0.1578
90 Polygonum aviculare Linnaeus 0 6.2 0.4503 0 7.4 0.4363 1 8.3 0.3629 1 8.3 0.3629 0 10.9 1
91 Polygonum patulum M. Bieb.- 1 5.2 0.001 1 6.7 0.5857 0 7.4 0.2432 0 7.4 0.2432 0 8.2 1
N2
92 Polygonum plebejum R. Br. 0 7.4 0.153 0 8 0.4159 3 8.8 0.0024 3 8.8 0.0024 1 13 0.0908

602
93 Polypogon fugax Ness ex Steud. 1 1.7 0.2222 1 3.3 1 3 4.2 0.1174 3 4.2 0.1174 0 1.7 1
94 Potentilla supina L. 0 1.7 1 0 3.3 0.4463 3 4.1 0.116 3 4.1 0.116 1 1.8 0.029
95 Potentilla reptans L. 0 1.7 1 1 3.3 1 3 4.2 0.1142 3 4.2 0.1142 0 1.7 1
96 Pseudognaphalium affine (D. 1 1.7 0.2222 1 3.3 1 3 4.2 0.1174 3 4.2 0.1174 0 1.7 1
Don)
97 Ranunculus arvensis L. 0 19.2 0.8708 1 15.3 0.6521 3 14.8 0.003 3 14.8 0.003 1 28.2 0.0508
98 Ranunculus muricatus L. 0 26.4 0.0416 1 19.1 0.1774 1 17.8 0.0648 1 17.8 0.0648 0 37.5 0.9748
99 Rorippa montana (Wall. ex 1 1.7 0.2222 1 3.3 1 3 4.2 0.1174 3 4.2 0.1174 0 1.7 1
Hook. f. & T. And.) Small
100 Rottboellia exaltata Linn t. 1 1.7 0.2222 1 3.3 1 3 4.2 0.1174 3 4.2 0.1174 0 1.7 1
101 Rumex dentatus Linnaeus 0 26.1 0.2246 1 19 0.0146 3 17.9 0.0208 3 17.9 0.0208 0 37 0.5661
102 Salvia hians Royle ex Benth. in 0 4.6 0.6743 2 6.2 0.8324 3 6.9 0.1964 3 6.9 0.1964 0 7.5 1
Hook.
103 Saussurea heteromalla (D. Don) 1 1.7 0.2328 1 3.3 1 2 4.3 1 2 4.3 1 0 1.6 1
Hand.-Mazz.
104 Scandix pecten-veneris Linn. 1 35 0.0156 3 23.6 0.036 0 21.6 0.1118 0 21.6 0.1118 1 46.2 0.8524
105 Silene conoidea L. 1 26 0.2266 3 18.7 0.0152 2 17.6 0.2551 2 17.6 0.2551 0 36.6 0.3737
106 Silybum marianum (Linnaeus) 0 13.3 0.6285 1 11.8 0.3757 1 12 0.1714 1 12 0.1714 0 21.8 0.8334
Gaertner
107 Sisymbrium altissimum Linn. 1 3.9 1 1 5.7 0.4345 3 6.7 0.005 3 6.7 0.005 0 6.1 1
108 Sisymbrium erysimoides Desf. 1 7.5 0.0064 0 8.3 0.4533 0 8.9 0.2903 0 8.9 0.2903 1 12.5 0.0022
109 Sisymbrium heteromallum C.A. 0 1.7 1 0 3.4 0.4471 0 4.2 0.2833 0 4.2 0.2833 0 1.7 1
Mey. in Ledeb.
110 Solanum nigrum L. 0 1.7 1 0 3.3 0.4367 0 4.2 0.2871 0 4.2 0.2871 0 1.7 1
111 Solanum surattense Burm. f. 0 1.7 1 1 3.3 1 1 4.1 0.5781 1 4.1 0.5781 0 1.7 1
112 Sonchus asper 0 6.7 0.6363 3 7.6 0.8514 1 8.5 0.972 1 8.5 0.972 0 12.3 1
113 Sorghum halepense (Linn.) 0 12.5 0.911 2 11.4 0.883 2 11.6 0.1908 2 11.6 0.1908 0 20.4 0.8488
Pers.
114 Spergula fallax (Lowe) E. H. L. 0 6.3 0.3599 2 7.4 0.0866 4 8.4 0.181 4 8.4 0.181 0 10.7 1
(continued on next page)
Ecological Indicators 84 (2018) 590–606
 Table 3 (continued)

S. NO Botanical Names Emix, Vicia and Lathyrus Association Alysum, Cannabis and Lithospermum Oxalis, Lathyrus and Chenopodium Euphorbia, Cerastium and Capsella bursa Alopecurus, Mazus and Persicaria glabra
−01 defined by Practice used Association-02, defined by Manure Association-03, defined by Preceding Association-04, defined by Preceding Association −05, defined by Organic
M. Iqbal et al.

crop (Rice) crop (Maize) matter

Maxgrp IV p* Maxgrp IV p* Maxgrp IV p* Maxgrp IV p* Maxgrp IV p*

115 Sporobolus diander (Retz.) P. 1 2.6 0.045 3 4.5 0.0376 2 5.5 0.5139 2 5.5 0.5139 0 3.2 1
Beauv.
116 Stellaria media (L.) Vill 0 37.9 0.3373 1 24.3 0.769 4 21.5 0.0242 4 21.5 0.0242 1 47.8 0.3037
117 Swertia ciliata (G. Don) 0 4.5 0.7536 2 6.1 0.3081 0 7 0.6749 0 7 0.6749 0 7.3 1
118 Taraxacum officinale F. H. 1 3.2 0.123 1 5 0.4883 1 6 0.5261 1 6 0.5261 0 4.8 1
Wiggers
119 Torilis nodosa (L.) Gaertn. 1 3.9 0.017 1 5.6 0.9206 3 6.6 0.3367 3 6.6 0.3367 0 5.9 1
120 Tribulus terrestris Linn. 1 1.7 0.2294 2 3.4 0.4425 2 4.2 1 2 4.2 1 0 1.6 1
121 Tulipa stellata Hook. 1 11.9 0.0054 0 11.1 0.2783 0 11.3 0.05 0 11.3 0.05 1 20.1 0.1534
122 Valerianella muricata (Stev.) 1 3.2 0.7177 0 5 0.5029 0 6.1 0.8638 0 6.1 0.8638 0 4.6 1
123 Verbascum thapsus 1 2.7 0.2278 2 4.6 1 0 5.4 0.116 0 5.4 0.116 0 3.3 1
124 Verbena officinalis Linn. Tag- 0 1.7 1 2 3.4 0.4409 1 4.2 0.5835 1 4.2 0.5835 0 1.5 1
18
125 Verbena tenuisecta Briq. 0 1.7 1 2 3.3 0.4365 0 4.2 0.2795 0 4.2 0.2795 0 1.8 1
126 Veronica anagallis-aquatica 0 2.6 1 2 4.5 0.6221 1 5.3 0.3211 1 5.3 0.3211 0 3.2 1
Linnaeus
127 Veronica polita Fries 0 44.3 0.9044 1 26.3 0.7862 2 22.8 0.0084 2 22.8 0.0084 0 52.3 0.6003
128 Viccia benthamii 0 5.7 0.953 2 7 0.5935 4 7.9 0.062 4 7.9 0.062 0 9.8 1
129 Vicia monantha Retz. 1 39.2 0.0048 3 25.1 0.3069 0 22.4 0.0212 0 22.4 0.0212 0 48.9 0.7135
130 1Vicia sepium Linn. 1 16.1 0.0008 2 13.8 0.4131 0 13.7 0.068 0 13.7 0.068 0 24.9 0.6945
131 Xanthium strumarium Linnaeus 0 2.6 1 1 4.5 0.7077 1 5.3 0.3305 1 5.3 0.3305 0 3.3 1
132 Youngia japonica (Linnaeus) 0 1.7 1 1 3.3 1 2 4.3 1 2 4.3 1 0 1.7 1

603
Candolle
Ecological Indicators 84 (2018) 590–606
M. Iqbal et al.
Fig. 9. Data attribute plots of Alopecurus myosuroides (1st indicator), Mazus pumilus (2nd indicator) and Persicaria glabra (3rd indicator) (left to right) showing its position in relation to
various edaphic and farming practice variables (after Canonical Correspondence Analyses).
relation to crop types. Recognition of such indicator could further be
utilized for management of weeds in varied micro habitats, having
varied soil type and diverse farming practices.
5. Conclusion
It is concluded that Cluster, Two Way Cluster and Indicator Species
Analyses using PCORD are useful tools for phtosociological classifica-
tion of weeds flora which are generally been used for natural/wild
plants usually. Indicator species analysis further elaborates about the
indicator weeds of each association under the influence of each de-
termining variable. From findings of this research it is concluded that
farming practices and edaphic factor show significant effects on re-
cognition of Indicator species, distribution of weed flora and formation
of weed associations/communities in the region. Among these edaphic
factors and farming practices i.e., electrical conductivity, soil texture,
pH, organic matter, preceding crop type, practice used for the elim-
ination of weed, tillage and sowing time were the strong influencing
variables that shape diverse associations of weed species and their
unique indicators. Among the indicator species, Emix spinosa, Vicia se-
pium and Lathyrus sphaericus were indicators of association-1 where the
fields were rain fed, had no preceding crop, with silt and sandy loam
soil. Similarly Alysum desertorum, Cannabis sativa and Lithospermum er-
ythrorhyzon were the indicators of association-2 where maize was re-
portedas preceding crop type, manure (Di-Ammonium
Phosphate & Poultry farm manure) was given to the wheat crop and
loam and sandy loam was the soil type. Oxalis corniculata, Lathyrus
aphaca and Chenopodium album were the weed indicators of association-
3, fields of which were observed with rice as preceding crop, canal and
tube well irrigation, low level of electrical conductivity and pH and
loam & clay loam as class texture of soil. Euphorbia helioscopia,
Cerastium fontanum and Capsella bursa-pastorus indicator species of as-
sociation-4 where higher electrical conductivity, sugarcane as pre-
ceding crop, canal irrigation, silt and sandy loam soil gave rise to this
association along with its specific indicators. Alopecurus myosuroides,
Mazus pumilus and Persicaria glabra were the indicator of those type of
field crop/habitat which came in association-5 where higher con-
centration of organic matter, low pH, rice as preceding crop and sandy
loam sort of soil were observed as determinant ecological factors. This
concept of indicator species could further be extended to weed in-
dicators of other crops as well as other regions at a larger scale to bring
equilibrium between those agricultural crops and weeds flora.
Categorization of weeds into various groups/associations and
604
Ecological Indicators 84 (2018) 590–606
identification of weed indicators as well as determining factors could
further be used for weeds management purposes at the micro habitat
level. Similarly some of the economically important and rarely dis-
tributed weeds could be recognized and preserved for conservation
purposes in the scenario of global biodiversity conservation.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the
online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.09.023.
References
Abbas, Z., Khan, S.M., Abbasi, A.M., Pieroni, A., Ullah, Z., Iqbal, M., Ahmad, Z., 2016.
Ethnobotany of the Balti community, Tormik valley, Karakorum range, Baltistan,
Pakistan. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 12, 38.
Acker, S.A., 1990. Vegetation as a component of a non-nested hierarchy: a conceptual
model. J. Veg. Sci. 1, 683–690.
Adamu, G., Aliyu, A., 2012. Determination of the influence of texture and organic matter
on soil water holding capacity in and around Tomas Irrigation Scheme, Dambatta
Local Government Kano State. Res. J. Environ. Earth Sci. 4, 1038–1044.
Adler, P., Raff, D., Lauenroth, W., 2001. The effect of grazing on the spatial heterogeneity
of vegetation. Oecologia 128, 465–479.
Ahmad, Z., Khan, S.M., Abd_Allah, E.F., Alqarawi, A.A., Hashem, A., 2016a. Weed species
composition and distribution pattern in the maize crop under the influence of edaphic
factors and farming practices: a case study from Mardan, Pakistan. Saudi J. Biol. Sci.
23, 741–748.
Ahmad, Z., Khan, S.M., Ali, S., Rahman, I., Ara, H., Noreen, I., Khan, A., 2016b. Indicator
species analyses of weed communities of maize crop in district Mardan, Pakistan.
Pak. J. Weed Sci. Res 22, 227–238.
Ali, S., Nasir, J., 1990. Flora of Pakistan. Department of Botany, University of Karachi.
Shamim Printing Press, Karachi.
Allison, L., Black, C., Evans, D., Ensminger, L., White, J., Clark, F., Dinauer, R., 1965.
Organic Carbon. l∼ Z Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 2: Chemical and Microbiological
Properties. (Edited).
Altieri, M.A., 2002. Agroecology: the science of natural resource management for poor
farmers in marginal environments. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 93, 1–24.
Anderson, R.L., Tanaka, D.L., Black, A.L., Schweizer, E.E., 1998. Weed community and
species response to crop rotation, tillage, and nitrogen fertility. Weed Technol.
531–536.
Baker, H.G., 1965. Characteristics and Modes of Origin of Weeds. pp. 147–172.
Bano, S., Khan, S.M., Alam, J., Alqarawi, A.A., Abd_Allah, E.F., Ahmad, Z., Rahman, I.U.,
Ahmad, H., Aldubise, A., Hashem, A., 2017. Eco-floristic studies of the Beer Hills
along the Indus River in the districts Haripur and Abbottabad, Pakistan. Saudi J. Biol.
Sci. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sjbs.2017.02.009.
Bergeron, S.P., Bradley, R.L., Munson, A., Parsons, W., 2013. Physico-chemical and
functional characteristics of soil charcoal produced at five different temperatures.
Soil Biol. Biochem. 58, 140–146.
Brohman, R.J., Bryant, L.D., Tart, D., Williams, C.K., Brewer, C.K., DiBenedetto, J.P.,
Schwind, B., Crowe, E., Girard, M.M., Gordon, H., 2005. Existing Vegetation
Classification and Mapping Technical Guide: Version 1.0. US Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Ecosystem Management Coordination Staff.
M. Iqbal et al.
Cáceres, M.D., Legendre, P., 2009. Associations between species and groups of sites: in-
dices and statistical inference. Ecology 90, 3566–3574.
Cáceres, M., Legendre, P., Wiser, S.K., Brotons, L., 2012. Using species combinations in
indicator value analyses. Methods Ecol. Evol. 3, 973–982.
Carignan, V., Villard, M.-A., 2002. Selecting indicator species to monitor ecological in-
tegrity: a review. Environ. Monit. Assess. 78, 45–61.
Carlesi, S., Bocci, G., Moonen, A.-C., Frumento, P., Bàrberi, P., 2013. Urban sprawl and
land abandonment affect the functional response traits of maize weed communities in
a heterogeneous landscape. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 166, 76–85.
Cavieres, L.A., Badano, E.I., Sierra-Almeida, A., Molina-Montenegro, M.A., 2007.
Microclimatic modifications of cushion plants and their consequences for seedling
survival of native and non-native herbaceous species in the high Andes of central
Chile. Arctic Antarctic Alp. Res. 39, 229–236.
Clements, F.E., 1916. Plant Succession: an Analysis of the Development of Vegetation.
Carnegie Institution of Washington.
Cook, E.R., Kairiukstis, L.A., 2013. Methods of Dendrochronology: Applications in the
Environmental Sciences. Springer Science & Business Media.
Corwin, D., Lesch, S., 2005. Apparent soil electrical conductivity measurements in agri-
culture. Comput. Electron. Agric. 46, 11–43.
Dale, M., Thomas, A., John, E., 1992. Environmental factors including management
practices as correlates of weed community composition in spring seeded crops. Can.
J. Bot. 70, 1931–1939.
Dauber, J., Hirsch, M., Simmering, D., Waldhardt, R., Otte, A., Wolters, V., 2003.
Landscape structure as an indicator of biodiversity: matrix effects on species richness.
Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 98, 321–329.
De Cáceres, M., Legendre, P., Moretti, M., 2010. Improving indicator species analysis by
combining groups of sites. Oikos 119, 1674–1684.
Dickinson, G., Murphy, K., 2007. Ecosystems. Routledge.
Donald, P.F., 2004. Biodiversity impacts of some agricultural commodity production
systems. Conserv. Biol. 18, 17–38.
Drake, J.M., Randin, C., Guisan, A., 2006. Modelling ecological niches with support
vector machines. J. Appl. Ecol. 43, 424–432.
Dufrene, M., Legendre, P., 1997. Species assemblages and indicator species: the need for a
flexible asymmetrical approach. Ecol. Monogr. 67, 345–366.
Elmore, A.J., Mustard, J.F., Manning, S.J., Lobell, D.B., 2000. Quantifying vegetation
change in semiarid environments: precision and accuracy of spectral mixture analysis
and the normalized difference vegetation index. Remote Sens. Environ. 73, 87–102.
Ferro, G., 1990. Revisione della vegetazione segetale mediterranea ed Europea
dell'ordine'Secalietalia. Dipartimento ed ecologia dell'Università; Station inter-
nationale de phytosociologie.
Fridley, J.D., 2001. The influence of species diversity on ecosystem productivity: how,
where, and why? Oikos 93, 514–526.
Gaba, S., Chauvel, B., Dessaint, F., Bretagnolle, V., Petit, S., 2010. Weed species richness
in winter wheat increases with landscape heterogeneity. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 138,
318–323.
Gallardo, J., Saavedra, J., Martin‐Patino, T., Millan, A., 1987. Soil organic matter de-
termination. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 18, 699–707.
Garzón, M.B., de Dios, R.S., Ollero, H.S., 2008. Effects of climate change on the dis-
tribution of Iberian tree species. Appl. Veg. Sci. 11, 169–178.
Glemnitz, M., Czimber, G., Radics, L., Hoffmann, J., 2000. Weed flora composition along
a north-south climate gradient in Europe. Acta Agronómica Ováriensis 42, 155–169.
Gopinath, K., Saha, S., Mina, B., Pande, H., Kundu, S., Gupta, H., 2008. Influence of
organic amendments on growth, yield and quality of wheat and on soil properties
during transition to organic production. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 82, 51–60.
Grandin, U., 2006. PC-ORD version 5: a user-friendly toolbox for ecologists. J. Veg. Sci.
17, 843–844.
Hüppe, J., Hofmeister, H., 1990. Syntaxonomische Fassung und Übersicht über die
Ackerunkrautgesellschaften der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Berichte der Reinhold-
Tüxen-Gesellschaft 2, 61–81.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Babin, B.J., Black, W.C., 2010. Multivariate Data Analysis: A
Global Perspective. Pearson Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Hallgren, E., Palmer, M.W., Milberg, P., 1999. Data diving with cross-validation: an in-
vestigation of broad-scale gradients in Swedish weed communities. J. Ecol. 87,
1037–1051.
Heyne, E., Mickelson, S., Luellen, W., Buxton, D.R., 1987. Wheat and Wheat
Improvement. American Society of Agronomy Madison, WI.
Hill, M.O., Gauch, H.G., 1980. Detrended correspondence analysis: an improved ordi-
nation technique. Vegetation 42, 47–58.
Iqbal, M., Khan, S., Khan, M., Rahman, I., Abbas, Z., 2015. Zahidullah. 2015. Exploration
and inventorying of weeds in wheat crop of the district Malakand, Pakistan. Pak. J.
Weed Sci. Res. 21, 435–452.
Isbell, F., Calcagno, V., Hector, A., Connolly, J., Harpole, W.S., Reich, P.B., Scherer-
Lorenzen, M., Schmid, B., Tilman, D., van Ruijven, J., 2011. High plant diversity is
needed to maintain ecosystem services. Nature 477, 199–202.
Izenman, A.J., 2008. Modern multivariate statistical techniques. Regression,
Classification and Manifold Learning.
Jabran, K., Farooq, M., Hussain, M., Khan, M., Shahid, M., DongJin, L., 2012. Efficient
weeds control with penoxsulam application ensures higher productivity and eco-
nomic returns of direct seeded rice. Int. J. Agric. Biol. 14, 901–907.
Jackson, M., 1963. Interlayering of expansible layer silicates in soils by chemical
weathering. Clays Clay Miner. 11, 29–46.
Kalra, Y., 1971. Methods Used for Soil, Plant and Water Analysis at the Soils Laboratory of
the Manitoba-Saskatchewan Region 1967–1970.
Kent, M., 2011. Vegetation Description and Data Analysis: A Practical Approach. John
Wiley & Sons.
Khaliq, A., Matloob, A., 2012. Germination and growth response of rice and weeds to
605
Ecological Indicators 84 (2018) 590–606
herbicides under aerobic conditions. Int. J. Agric. Biol. 14, 775–780.
Khan, S.M., 2012. Plant communities and vegetation ecosystem services in the Naran
Valley, Western Himalaya (Doctoral dissertation, University of Leicester).
Khan, M., Hassan, G., Khan, N., Khan, M.A., 2003. Efficacy of different herbicides for
controlling broadleaf weeds in wheat. Asian J. Plant Sci. 2, 254–256.
Khan, S.M., Ahmad, H., Ramzan, M., Jan, M.M., 2007. Ethnomedicinal plant resources of
Shawar Valley. Pak. J. B. Sci. 10, 1743–1746.
Khan, S.M., Page, S., Ahmad, H., Shaheen, H., Harper, D., 2012. Vegetation dynamics in
the Western Himalayas, diversity indices and climate change. Sci. Technol. Dev. 31,
232–243.
Khan, S.M., Page, S., Ahmad, H., Harper, D., 2013. Identifying plant species and com-
munities across environmental gradients in the Western Himalayas: method devel-
opment and conservation use. Ecol. Inf. 14, 99–103.
Khan, S.M., Page, S., Ahmad, H., Harper, D., 2014. Ethno-ecological importance of plant
biodiversity in mountain ecosystems with special emphasis on indicator species of a
Himalayan Valley in the northern Pakistan. Ecol. Indic. 37, 175–185.
Khan, W., Khan, S.M., Ahmad, H., Ahmad, Z., Page, S., 2016. Vegetation mapping and
multivariate approach to indicator species of a forest ecosystem: a case study from the
Thandiani sub Forests Division (TsFD) in the Western Himalayas. Ecol. Indic. 71,
336–351.
Khan, M., Khan, S.M., Ilyas, M., Alqarawi, A., Ahmad, Z., Abd_Allah, E., 2017. Plant
Species and communities assessment in interaction with edaphic and topographic
factors; a case study of the Mount Eelum District Swat Pakistan. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 24,
778–786.
Kohler, F., Vandenberghe, C., Imstepf, R., Gillet, F., 2011. Restoration of threatened
arable weed communities in abandoned mountainous crop fields. Restor. Ecol. 19,
62–69.
Kotzen, B., 2003. An investigation of shade under six different tree species of the Negev
desert towards their potential use for enhancing micro-climatic conditions in land-
scape architectural development. J. Arid Environ. 55, 231–274.
Kramer, P., 2012. Physiology of Woody Plants. Elsevier.
Kremen, C., Colwell, R., Erwin, T., Murphy, D., Noss, R.A., Sanjayan, M., 1993. Terrestrial
arthropod assemblages: their use in conservation planning. Conserv. Biol. 7,
796–808.
Legendre, P., Borcard, D., Peres-Neto, P.R., 2005. Analyzing beta diversity: partitioning
the spatial variation of community composition data. Ecol. Monogr. 75, 435–450.
Leuschner, C., van der Maarel, E., 2005. Vegetation and ecosystems. Veg. Ecol. 85–105.
Lososová, Z., Chytrý, M., Cimalová, Š., Kropáč, Z., Otýpková, Z., Pyšek, P., Tichý, L.,
Bakker, J., 2004. Weed vegetation of arable land in Central Europe: gradients of
diversity and species composition. J. Veg. Sci. 15, 415–422.
Lososová, Z., Chytrý, M., Cimalová, Š., Otýpková, Z., Pyšek, P., Tichý, L., 2006.
Classification of weed vegetation of arable land in the Czech Republic and Slovakia.
Folia Geobotanica 41, 259–273.
Marshall, E., Brown, V., Boatman, N., Lutman, P., Squire, G., Ward, L., 2003. The role of
weeds in supporting biological diversity within crop fields. Weed Res. 43, 77–89.
Mitsch, W.J., Day Jr, J.W., Gilliam, J.W., Groffman, P.M., Hey, D.L., Randall, G.W., Wang,
N., 2001. Reducing nitrogen loading to the Gulf of Mexico from the Mississippi River
Basin: strategies to counter a persistent ecological problem: ecotechnology—the use
of natural ecosystems to solve environmental problems—should be a part of efforts to
shrink the zone of hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico. Bioscience 51, 373–388.
Muhammad, S., Anjum, A., Kasana, M.I., Randhawa, M.A., 2013. Impact of organic fer-
tilizer, humic acid and sea weed extract on wheat production in Pothowar region of
Pakistan. Pak. J. Agric. Sci. 50, 677–681.
Munyuli, M.T., 2013. Pollinator biodiversity in Uganda and in Sub-Sahara Africa: land-
scape and habitat management strategies for its conservation. Int. J. Biodivers.
Conserv. 3, 551–609.
Nagase, A., Dunnett, N., 2012. Amount of water runoff from different vegetation types on
extensive green roofs: effects of plant species, diversity and plant structure.
Landscape Urban Plann. 104, 356–363.
Nasir, E., Ali, S., Stewart, R.R., 1972. Flora of West Pakistan: an Annotated Catalogue of
the Vascular Plants of West Pakistan and Kashmir. Fakhri.
Nelson, D.W., Sommers, L.E., 1996. Total Carbon, Organic Carbon, and Organic Matter.
Methods of Soil Analysis Part 3—Chemical Methods. pp. 961–1010.
Noss, R.F., 1990. Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: a hierarchical approach. Conserv.
Biol. 4, 355–364.
Oerke, E.-C., Dehne, H.-W., 2004. Safeguarding production—losses in major crops and the
role of crop protection. Crop Protect. 23, 275–285.
Podani, J., 2006. Braun-Blanquet's legacy and data analysis in vegetation science. J. Veg.
Sci. 17, 113–117.
Rafay, M., Hussain, T., Ruby, T., Rehman, F., Ahmad, I., Abdullah, M., 2014. Role of
weeds in creating agroecological stability. Pak. J. Agric. Sci. 51, 531–538.
Rauscher, H.M., 1999. Ecosystem management decision support for federal forests in the
United States: a review. For. Ecol. Manage. 114, 173–197.
Reed, M.S., Dougill, A.J., Baker, T.R., 2008. Participatory indicator development: what
can ecologists and local communities learn from each other. Ecol. Appl. 18,
1253–1269.
Rhoades, J., 1996. Salinity: Electrical Conductivity and Total Dissolved Solids. Methods of
Soil Analysis Part 3—Chemical Methods. pp. 417–435.
Roschewitz, I., Gabriel, D., Tscharntke, T., Thies, C., 2005. The effects of landscape
complexity on arable weed species diversity in organic and conventional farming. J.
Appl. Ecol. 42, 873–882.
Russell, E.P., 1989. Enemies hypothesis: a review of the effect of vegetational diversity on
predatory insects and parasitoids. Environ. Entomol. 18, 590–599.
Sarir, M., Durrani, M., Mian, I.A., 2006. Effect of the source and rate of humic acid on
phosphorus transformations. J. Agric. Biol. Sci. 1, 29–31.
Shah, A.H., Khan, S.M., Shah, A.H., Mehmood, A., Rahman, I.U., Ahmad, H., 2015.
M. Iqbal et al.
Cultural uses of plants among Basikhel tribe of District Tor Ghar, Khyber
Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. Pak J. Bot. 47, 23–41.
Shaheen, H., Khan, S.M., Harper, D.M., Ullah, Z., Qureshi, Allem, 2011. Species diversity,
community structure, and distribution patterns in western Himalayan alpine pastures
of Kashmir, Pakistan. Mt. Res. Dev. 31, 153–159.
Shaheen, H., Sarwar, R., Firdous, S.S., Dar, M.E.U.I., Ullah, Z., KHAN, S.M., 2015.
Distribution and structure of conifers with special emphasis on Taxus Baccata in
moist temperate forests of Kashmir Himalayas. Pak. J. Bot. 47, 71–76.
Sharp, D., 1976. A phytosociological study of weed communities on the southwestern
coastal plain of North Carolina. Plant Ecol. 31, 103–119.
Shehata, H.S., Galal, T., 2014. Phytosociology and phytochemical screening of the
medicinal weed Malva parviflora L. Life Sci. J. 11, 458–468.
Šilc, U., Vrbničanin, S., Božić, D., Čarni, A., Dajić Stevanović, Z., 2008. Classification of
weed vegetation in the north western Balkans. Phytocoenologia 38, 241–254.
Silvernail, A., Bomford, M.K., 2006. (157) weed control in organic edamame soybean
production. HortScience 41 (1031-1031).
Silverside, A.J., 1977. A Phytosociological Survey of British Arable-weed and Related
Communities. Durham University.
606
Ecological Indicators 84 (2018) 590–606
Soltanpour, P., 1991. Determination of Nutrient Availability and Elemental Toxicity by
AB-DTPA Soil Test and ICPS, Advances in Soil Science. Springer, pp. 165–190.
Streibig, J., 1979. Numerical methods illustrating the phytosociology of crops in relation
to weed flora. J. Appl. Ecol. 577–587.
Suggitt, A.J., Gillingham, P.K., Hill, J.K., Huntley, B., Kunin, W.E., Roy, D.B., Thomas,
C.D., 2011. Habitat microclimates drive fine-scale variation in extreme temperatures.
Oikos 120, 1–8.
Ter Braak, C.J., Barendregt, L.G., 1986. Weighted averaging of species indicator values:
its efficiency in environmental calibration. Math. Biosci. 78, 57–72.
Trudgill, S., 2007. Tansley, AG 1935: the use and abuse of vegetational concepts and
terms. Ecology 16, 284–307. Prog. Phys. Geogr. 31, 517–522.
Turner, W.R., Tjørve, E., 2005. Scale-dependence in species-area relationships. Ecography
28, 721–730.
Waring, R., 1989. Ecosystems: Fluxes of Matter and Energy. Symposium of the British
Ecological Society.
Watson, J., Riha, K., 2010. Telomeres, aging, and plants: from weeds to Methuselah–a
mini-review. Gerontology 57, 129–136.