Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T21:58:24.446Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Differential response of weed species to added nitrogen

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Randall N. Brandt
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lethbridge Research Centre, P.O. Box 3000, Lethbridge, AB, Canada T1J 4B1
H. Henry Janzen
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lethbridge Research Centre, P.O. Box 3000, Lethbridge, AB, Canada T1J 4B1
Toby Entz
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lethbridge Research Centre, P.O. Box 3000, Lethbridge, AB, Canada T1J 4B1
Cynthia A. Grant
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Brandon Research Centre, P.O. Box 1000A RR#3, Brandon, MB, Canada R7A 5Y3
Douglas A. Derksen
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Brandon Research Centre, P.O. Box 1000A RR#3, Brandon, MB, Canada R7A 5Y3

Abstract

Information on responses of weeds to various soil fertility levels is required to develop fertilizer management strategies as components of integrated weed management programs. A controlled environment study was conducted to determine shoot and root growth response of 23 agricultural weeds to N fertilizer applied at 0, 40, 80, 120, 180, or 240 mg kg−1 soil. Wheat and canola were included as control species. Shoot and root growth of all weeds increased with added N, but the magnitude of the response varied greatly among weed species. Many weeds exhibited similar or greater responses in shoot and root biomass to increasing amounts of soil N, compared with wheat or canola. With increasing amounts of N, 15 weed species showed a greater increase in shoot biomass, and 8 species showed a greater increase in root biomass, compared with wheat. Ten weed species exhibited increases in shoot biomass similar to that exhibited by canola, and five weed species showed greater increases in root biomass than did canola, as N dose was increased. All crop and weed species extracted > 80% of available N at low soil N levels. At the highest N dose, 17 of 23 weed species took up similar or greater amounts of soil N than did wheat, and 6 weed species took up N in amounts similar to that taken up by canola. These findings have significant implications as to how soil fertility affects crop–weed competition. The high responsiveness of many weed species to N may be a weakness to be exploited through development of fertilizer management methods that enhance crop competitiveness with weeds.

Type
Research Article
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.)

References

Literature Cited

Ampong-Nyarko, K. and de Datta, S. K. 1993. Effects of nitrogen application on growth, nitrogen use efficiency and rice-weed interaction. Weed Res. 33:269276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E. and Entz, T. 1995. Day and night temperature effects on vegetative growth of Erodium cicutarium . Weed Res. 35:471476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E., Semach, G., Li, X., O’Donovan, J. T., and Harker, K. N. 2000. Tillage, fertiliser and glyphosate timing effects on foxtail barley (Hordeum jubatum) management in wheat. Can. J. Plant Sci. 80:655660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlson, H. L. and Hill, J. E. 1985. Wild oat (Avena fatua) competition with spring wheat: effects of nitrogen fertilization. Weed Sci. 34:2933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dhima, K. V. and Eleftherohorinos, I. G. 2001. Influence of nitrogen on competition between winter cereals and sterile oat. Weed Sci. 49:7782.Google Scholar
Di Tomaso, J. M. 1995. Approaches for improving crop competitiveness through the manipulation of fertilization strategies. Weed Sci. 43:491497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gates, C. E. and Bilbro, J. D. 1978. Illustration of a cluster analysis method for mean separation. Agron. J. 70:462465.Google Scholar
Gill, K. S., Arshad, M. A., and Moyer, J. R. 1997. Cultural control of weeds. Pages 237275 In Pimentel, D., ed. Techniques for Reducing Pesticide Use. New York: J. Wiley.Google Scholar
Grant, C. A. and Bailey, L. D. 1993. Fertility management in canola production. Can. J. Plant Sci. 73:651670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haas, H. and Streibig, J. C. 1982. Changing patterns of weed distribution as a result of herbicide use and other agronomic factors. Pages 5779 In LeBaron, H. M. and Streibig, J. C., eds. Herbicide Resistance in Plants. New York: J. Wiley.Google Scholar
Henson, J. F. and Jordan, L. S. 1982. Wild oat (Avena fatua) competition with wheat (Triticum aestivum and T. turgidum durum) for nitrate. Weed Sci. 30:297300.Google Scholar
Iqbal, J. and Wright, D. 1997. Effects of nitrogen supply on competition between wheat and three annual weed species. Weed Res. 37:391400.Google Scholar
Jackson, G. D. 2000. Effects of nitrogen and sulfur on canola yield and nutrient uptake. Agron. J. 92:644649.Google Scholar
Kirkland, K. J. and Beckie, H. J. 1998. Contribution of nitrogen fertilizer placement to weed management in spring wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Technol. 12:507514.Google Scholar
Liebman, M. and Janke, R. J. 1990. Sustainable weed management practices. Pages 111143 In Francis, C. A., Flora, C. B., and King, L. D., eds. Sustainable Agriculture in Temperate Zones. New York: J. Wiley.Google Scholar
Mesbah, A. O. and Miller, S. D. 1999. Fertilizer placement affects jointed goatgrass (Aegilops cylindrica) competition in winter wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Technol. 13:374377.Google Scholar
Milliken, G. A. and Johnson, D. A. 2001. Analysis of Messy Data. Volume 3, Analysis of Covariance. London: Chapman and Hill. 605 p.Google Scholar
Mohler, C. L. 2001. Enhancing the competitive ability of crops. Pages 269374 In Liebman, M., Mohler, C. L., and Staver, C. P., eds. Ecological Management of Agricultural Weeds. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mohr, R. M., Janzen, H. H., Bremer, E., and Entz, M. H. 1998. The fate of symbiotically-fixed 15N2 as influenced by method of alfalfa termination. Soil Biol. Biochem. 30:13591367.Google Scholar
O’Donovan, J. T., Harker, K. N., Clayton, G. W., Robinson, D., Blackshaw, R. E., and Hall, L. 2001. Implementing integrated weed management in barley (Hordeum vulgare). Pages 7589 In Blackshaw, R. E. and Hall, L. M., eds. Integrated Weed Management: Explore the Potential. Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue, Quebec: Expert Committee on Weeds.Google Scholar
Patterson, D. T. 1995. Effects of environmental stress on weed/crop interactions. Weed Sci. 43:483490.Google Scholar
Qasem, J. R. 1993. Root growth, development and nutrient uptake of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) and Chenopodium album . Weed Res. 33:3542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rasmussen, P. E. 1995. Effects of fertilizer and stubble burning on downy brome competition in winter wheat. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 26:951960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raun, W. R. and Johnson, G. V. 1999. Improving nitrogen use efficiency for cereal production. Agron. J. 9:357363.Google Scholar
Santos, B. M., Morales-Payan, J. P., Stall, W. M., and Bewick, T. A. 1998. Influence of purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus) density and nitrogen rate on radish (Raphanus sativus) yield. Weed Sci. 46:661664.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1999. SAS User's Guide. Version 8. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 3884 p.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. 76:11011110.Google Scholar
Teyker, R. H., Hoelzer, H. D., and Liebl, R. A. 1991. Maize and pigweed response to nitrogen supply and form. Plant Soil. 135:287292.Google Scholar
Vengris, J., Drake, M., Colby, W. G., and Bart, J. 1953. Chemical composition of weeds and accompanying crop plants. Agron. J. 45:213218.Google Scholar
Zimdahl, R. L. 1980. Weed-Crop Competition. Corvallis, OR: International Plant Protection Center, Oregon State University. pp. 83126.Google Scholar