Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T04:31:54.387Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of yield loss in field sorghum from a C3 and C4 weed with increasing CO2

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

L. H. Ziska
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Dwarf sorghum (C4) was grown at ambient and at projected levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide (250 mol mol−1 above ambient) with and without the presence of a C3 weed (velvetleaf) and a C4 weed (redroot pigweed), to quantify the potential effect of rising atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration [CO2] on weed–crop interactions and potential crop loss. In a weed-free environment, increased [CO2] resulted in a significant increase in leaf weight and leaf area of sorghum but no significant effect on seed yield or total aboveground biomass relative to the ambient CO2 condition. At ambient [CO2] the presence of velvetleaf had no significant effect on either sorghum seed yield or total aboveground biomass; however, at elevated [CO2], yield and biomass losses were significant. The additional loss in sorghum yield and biomass was associated with a significant (threefold) increase in velvetleaf biomass in response to increasing [CO2]. Redroot pigweed at ambient [CO2] resulted in significant losses in total aboveground biomass of sorghum but not in seed yield. However, as [CO2] increased, significant losses in both sorghum seed yield and total biomass were observed for sorghum–redroot pigweed competition. Increased [CO2] was not associated with a significant increase in redroot pigweed biomass (P = 0.17). These results indicate potentially greater yield loss in a widely grown C4 crop from weedy competition as atmospheric [CO2] increases.

Keywords

Dwarf sorghum, Sorghum bicolor cv. ‘Martin,’ redroot pigweed, Amaranthus retroflexus L. AMAREsorghum, Sorghum bicolor L. Moenchvelvetleaf, Abutilon theophrasti Medicus ABUTHCarbon dioxideclimate changecompetitionsorghumyield
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 51 , Issue 6 , December 2003 , pp. 914 - 918
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

Alberto, A. M., Ziska, L. H., Cervancia, C. R., and Manalo, P. A. 1996. The influence of increasing carbon dioxide and temperature on competitive interactions between a C3 crop, rice (Oryza sativa) and a C4 weed (Echinochloa glabrescens). Austr. J. Plant Physiol 23:795–802.Google Scholar
Bowes, G. 1996. Photosynthetic responses to changing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. Pages 387–407 in Baker, N. R. ed. Photosynthesis and the Environment. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
Bridges, D. C. 1992. Crop Losses Due to Weeds in the United States. Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of America. 401 p.Google Scholar
Bunce, J. A. and Ziska, L. H. 2000. Crop ecosystem responses to climatic change: crop/weed interactions. Pages 333–352 in Reddy, K. R. and Hodges, H. F. eds. Climate Change and Global Crop Productivity. New York: CABI.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, D. R. and Peterson, K. M. 1983. Effects of a CO2 enriched atmosphere on the growth and competitive interaction of a C3 and C4 grass. Oecology 58:188–193.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. H., Craufurd, P. Q., Summerfield, R. J., and Roberts, E. H. 1995. Linear relations between carbon dioxide concentration and rate of development towards flowering in sorghum, cowpea and soybean. Ann. Bot 75:194–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holm, L. G., Plucknett, D. L., Pancho, J. V., and Herberger, J. P. 1977. The Worlds Worst Weeds. Distribution and Biology. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press. 609 p.Google Scholar
Keeling, C. D. and Whorf, T. P. 2001. Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change. Oak Ridge, TN: Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy. Pp 18–19.Google Scholar
Marc, J. and Gifford, R. M. 1984. Floral initiation in wheat, sunflower, and sorghum under carbon dioxide enrichment. Can. J Bot 62:9–14.Google Scholar
Ottman, M. J., Kimball, B. A., Pinter, P. J., Wall, G. W., Vanderlip, R. L., Leavitt, S. W., LaMorte, R. L., Matthias, A. D., and Brooks, T. J. 2001. Elevated CO2 increases sorghum biomass under drought conditions. New Phytol 150:261–273.Google Scholar
Patterson, D. T. 1993. Implications of global climate change for impact of weeds, insects and plant diseases. Int. Crop Sci 1:273–280.Google Scholar
Patterson, D. T. 1995. Weeds in a changing climate. Weed Sci 43:685–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, D. T. and Flint, E. P. 1990. Implications of increasing carbon dioxide and climate change for plant communities and competition in natural and managed ecosystems. Pages 83–110 in Kimball, B. A., Rosenburg, N. J., and Allen, L. H. Jr. eds. Impact of Carbon Dioxide, Trace Gases and Climate Change on Global Agriculture. ASA Special Publication No. 53. Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy.Google Scholar
Patterson, D. T., Flint, E. P., and Beyers, J. L. 1984. Effects of CO2 enrichment on competition between a C4 weed and a C3 crop. Weed Sci 32:101–105.Google Scholar
Rosenzweig, C. and Hillel, D. 1998. Effects on weeds, insects and diseases. Pages 101–122 in Rosenzweig, C. and Hillel, D. eds. Climate Change and the Global Harvest. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schimel, D., Alves, D., and Enting, I. et al. 1996. Radiative forcing of climate change. Pages 65–131 in Houghton, J. T., Meira-Filho, L. G., Callander, B. A., Harris, N, Kattenberg, A., and Maskell, K. eds. Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change. Cambridge, Great Britain: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Treharne, K. 1989. The implications of the ‘greenhouse effect’ for fertilizers and agrochemicals. Pages 67–78 in Bennet, R. C. ed. The Greenhouse Effect and UK Agriculture, CAS Paper 19. Reading, UK: University of Reading Press.Google Scholar
Ziska, L. H. 2000. The impact of elevated CO2 on yield loss from a C3 and C4 weed in field-grown soybean. Glob. Change Biol 6:899–905.Google Scholar
Ziska, L. H. 2001. Changes in competitive ability between a C4 crop and a C3 weed with elevated carbon dioxide. Weed Sci 49:622–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ziska, L. H. and Teasdale, J. R. 2000. Sustained growth and increased tolerance to glyphosate observed in a C3 perennial weed, quackgrass (Elytrigia repens), grown at elevated carbon dioxide. Aust. J. Plant Physiol 27:159–166.Google Scholar
Ziska, L. H., Teasdale, J. R., and Bunce, J. A. 1999. Future atmospheric carbon dioxide may increase tolerance to glyphosate. Weed Sci 47:608–615.Google Scholar