Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-2n9c9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T13:44:47.755Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Light and growth rate effects on crop and weed responses to nitrogen

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Matthew M. Harbur and
Micheal D. K. Owen
Micheal D. K. Owen
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, 2104 Agronomy Hall, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The nitrogen (N) response of competing plants may be affected by photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) availability and maximum potential growth rate, which determine N requirements. The responses of two crop (corn and soybean) and six weed species (common lambsquarters, common waterhemp, giant foxtail, velvetleaf, wild mustard, and woolly cupgrass) in low and high (150 and 450 μmol m−2 s−1) PAR levels to daily fertilization with either low or high (0.2 or 7.5 mM) NH4NO3 levels were studied. Leaf area of all species responded positively to N by 8 d after emergence (DAE) when grown in high PAR; in low PAR, most species did not respond until 11 DAE. Dry weight and leaf area of all species at 18 DAE were greater with high than with low N. These responses to high N were also greater in high than in low PAR for all species. Dry weights with high N were up to 100% greater in low PAR and up to 700% greater in high PAR than dry weights with low N. These responses suggest that low PAR reduced the benefit of N to the plants. The regression of relative growth rate (RGR) with high N to RGR with low N had a slope that was less than unity (β = 0.79), indicating that species with a higher RGR with high N experienced greater decreases in RGR with low N. Similarly, the sensitivity (change in RGR) of plants grown with high and low N was positively related to RGR with high N. RGR differences among crop and weed species may be related to differences in N requirement that could be exploited for weed management. RGR and seed size were negatively correlated, which may explain previous observations that small-seeded weeds were more sensitive to environmental stress.

Keywords

Common lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. CHEALcommon waterhemp, Amaranthus rudis Sauer AMATAgiant foxtail, Setaria faberi Herrm. SETFAvelvetleaf, Abutilon theophrasti Medicus ABUTHwild mustard, Brassica kaber (DC.) L. C. Wheeler SINARwoolly cupgrass, Eriochloa villosa (Thunb.) Kunth ERBVIcorn, Zea mays ZEAMAsoybean, Glycine max L. GLYMXLeaf arearelative growth rateseed weightshading

Information

Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 52 , Issue 4 , August 2004, pp. 578 - 583
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

Anderson, R. L., Tanaka, D. L., Black, A. L., and Schweizer, E. E. 1998. Weed community and species response to crop rotation, tillage, and nitrogen fertility. Weed Technol 12:531–536.Google Scholar
Andersson, T. N. and Lundegardh, B. 1999. Field horsetail (Equisetum arvense)—effects of potassium under different light and nitrogen conditions. Weed Sci 47:47–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bello, I. A., Owen, M. D. K., and Hatterman-Valenti, H. M. 1995. Effect of shade on velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) growth, seed production, and dormancy. Weed Technol 9:452–455.Google Scholar
Berkowitz, A. R. 1988. Competition for resources in weed-crop mixtures. Pages 89–119 in Altieri, M. A. and Liebman, M. L. eds. Weed Management in Agroecosystems: Ecological Approaches. Boca Raton, FL: CRC.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E. 1993. Safflower (Carthamus tinctorius) density and row spacing effects on competition with green foxtail (Setaria viridis). Weed Sci 41:403–408.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E., Semach, G., and Janzen, H. H. 2003. Fertilizer application method affects nitrogen uptake in weeds and wheat. Weed Sci 59:634–641.Google Scholar
Brown, R. H. 1978. A difference in N use efficiency in C3 and C4 plants and its implications in adaptation and evolution. Crop Sci 18:93–98.Google Scholar
Carlson, H. L. and Hill, J. E. 1986. Wild oat (Avena fatua) competition with spring wheat: effects of nitrogen fertilization. Weed Sci 34:29–33.Google Scholar
DiTomaso, J. M. 1995. Approaches for improving crop competitiveness through the manipulation of fertilization strategies. Weed Sci 43:491–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, S. P., Knezevic, S. Z., Lindquist, J. L., Shapiro, C. A., and Blankenship, E. E. 2003. Nitrogen application influences the critical period for weed control in corn. Weed Sci 51:408–417.Google Scholar
Fenner, M. 1983. Relationships between seed weight, ash content and seedling growth in twenty-four species of compositae. New Phytol 95:697–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gastal, F. and Lemaire, G. 2002. N uptake and distribution in crops: an agronomical and ecophysiological perspective. J. Exp. Bot 53:789–799.Google Scholar
Grime, J. P. and Hunt, R. 1975. Relative growth rate: its range and adaptive significance in a local flora. J. Ecol 63:393–422.Google Scholar
Gunsolus, J. L. and Buhler, D. D. 1999. A risk management perpective on integrated weed management. J. Crop Prod 2:167–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heldt, H-W. 1997. Plant Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. New York: Oxford University Press. Pp. 175–191.Google Scholar
Hoagland, D. R. and Arnon, D. I. 1950. The water-culture method for growing plants without soil. Circ.—Calif. Univ. Agric. Exp. Sta 347:1–39.Google Scholar
Hunt, R. 1990. Basic Growth Analysis: Plant Growth Analysis for Beginners. London: Unwin Hyman. Pp. 25–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liebman, M. and Davis, A. S. 2000. Integration of soil, crop and weed management in low-external-input farming systems. Weed Res 40:27–47.Google Scholar
Liebman, M. and Gallandt, E. R. 1997. Many little hammers: Ecological approaches for management of crop-weed interactions. Pages 291–343 in Jackson, L. E. ed. Ecology in Agriculture. San Diego, CA: Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liebman, M. and Ohno, T. 1998. Crop rotation and legume residue effects on weed emergence and growth: applications for weed management. Pages 181–221 in Hatfield, J. L., Buhler, D. D., and Stewart, B. A. eds. Integrated Weed and Soil Management. Chelsea, MI: Ann Arbor Press.Google Scholar
Limon-Ortega, A., Mason, S. C., and Martin, A. R. 1998. Production practices improve grain sorghum and pearl millet competitiveness with weeds. Agron. J 90:227–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindquist, J. 2001. Light-saturated CO2 assimilation rates of corn and velvetleaf in response to leaf nitrogen and development stage. Weed Sci 49:706–710.Google Scholar
Mashingaidze, A. B. 1990. Comparison of Leaf Area Expansion Rates in Four Crops and Seven Weeds under Two Temperature Regimes. M.S. thesis. Iowa State University, Ames, IA.Google Scholar
Mohler, C. L. 1996. Ecological bases for the cultural control of annual weeds. J. Prod. Agric 9:468–474.Google Scholar
Oaks, A. 1994. Efficiency of nitrogen utilization in C3 and C4 cereals. Plant Physiol 106:407–414.Google Scholar
O'Donovan, J. T., McAndrew, D. W., and Thomas, A. G. 1997. Tillage and nitrogen influence weed population dynamics in barley (Hordeum vulgare). Weed Technol 11:502–509.Google Scholar
Patterson, D. T. 1982. Shading responses of purple and yellow nutsedges (Cyperus rotundus and Cyperus esculentus). Weed Sci. 30:25–30.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 2001. The SAS System for Windows. Release Version 8.02. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute.Google Scholar
Seibert, A. C. and Pearce, R. B. 1993. Growth analysis of weed and crop species with reference to seed weight. Weed Sci 41:52–56.Google Scholar
Shipley, B. and Keddy, P. A. 1988. The relationship between relative growth rate and sensitivity to nutrient stress in twenty-eight species of emergent macrophytes. J. Ecol 76:1101–1110.Google Scholar
Shrefler, J. W., Dusky, J. A., Shilling, D. G., Brecke, B. J., and Sanchez, C. A. 1994. Effects of phosphorus fertility on competition between lettuce (Lactuca sativa) and spiny amaranth (Amaranthus spinosus). Weed Sci 42:556–560.Google Scholar
Snedecor, G. W. and Cochran, W. G. 1989. Statistical Methods. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press. Pp. 64–82. 273–296.Google Scholar
Stoller, E. W. and Myers, R. A. 1989. Response of soybeans (Glycine max) and four broadleaf weeds to reduced irradiance. Weed Sci 37:570–574.Google Scholar
Teasdale, J. R. and Frank, J. R. 1983. Effect of row spacing on weed competition with snap beans (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Sci 31:81–85.Google Scholar
Tilman, D. 1990. Constraints and tradeoffs: toward a predictive theory of competition and succession. Oikos 58:3–15.Google Scholar
Troeh, F. R. and Thompson, L. M. 1993. Soils and Soil Fertility. New York: Oxford University Press. Pp. 193–213.Google Scholar
Valenti, S. A. and Wicks, G. A. 1992. Influence of nitrogen rates and wheat (Triticum aestivum) cultivars on weed control. Weed Sci 40:115–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vengris, J., Colby, W. G., and Drake, M. 1955. Plant nutrient competition between weeds and corn. Agron. J 47:213–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wyse, D. L. 1992. Future of weed science research. Weed Technol 6:162–165.Google Scholar