Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T10:19:56.121Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of relative time of emergence on nitrogen responses of corn and velvetleaf

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 access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Nitrogen (N) management markedly affects weed competition with crops. The effect of N availability on plant competition varies with a plant's abilities to capture and use N. Accordingly, we expected the N effect on plant competition to change with the relative emergence time of competing individuals. This hypothesis was tested by growing corn and velvetleaf plants in target and neighbor roles and comparing their N responses. Sowing times were varied, so that target plant emergent dates were constant, whereas neighbor plants were sown to emerge 7 d before, with, or 7 d after targets. Seedlings were fertilized daily with 2.5 mmol (“low N”) or 10.0 mmol (“high N”) ammonium nitrate (NH4NO3). Corn had greater total weight, leaf area, and root-to-shoot ratio (RSR) than velvetleaf. Different dry weights may have reflected seed weights; corn seed weight was greater than velvetleaf. Regardless of role, corn and velvetleaf dry weight and leaf area were greater with high N than low N; in contrast, RSR was lower with high N than low N. The RSR response to N availability suggested plant resources were shifted from N foraging, toward competition for photosynthetically active radiation (PAR). In target plants of each species, dry weight and leaf area increased linearly with time between target and neighbor emergence. Conversely, dry weight and leaf area of neighbor plants decreased with time between target and neighbor emergence. The N response of neighbor plants increased with time of emergence between target and neighbor emergence. Larger plants likely required more N to sustain growth than smaller plants; plants that emerged earlier likely had greater daily N requirements than those that emerged later. These results support factoring in emergence when predicting N effects on plant competition. Optimal N provisioning for integrated weed management may differ with emergence times of competing plants.

Keywords

Velvetleaf, Abutilon theophrasti (L.) Medicus ABUTHcorn, Zea mays L. ‘Garst 5850’Critical weed-free periodemergenceleaf areanitrogenphotosynthetically active radiation
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 54 , Issue 5 , October 2006 , pp. 917 - 922
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

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
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, A. S. and Liebman, M. 2001. Nitrogen source influences wild mustard growth and competitive effect on sweet corn. Weed Sci. 49:558–566.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forcella, F., Benech Arnold, R. L., Sanchez, R., and Ghersa, C. 2000. Modeling seedling emergence. Field Crops Res. 67:123–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, D. J., Connolly, J., Hartnett, D. C., and Weidenhamer, J. D. 1999. Designs for greenhouse studies of interactions between plants. J. Ecol. 87:1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, M. R., Swanton, C. J., and Anderson, G. W. 1992. The critical period of weed control in grain corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 40:441–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harbur, M. M. and Owen, M. D. K. 2004a. Response of three annual weeds to corn population density and nitrogen fertilization timing. Weed Sci. 52:845–853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harbur, M. M. and Owen, M. D. K. 2004b. Shade and growth rate effects on crop and weed responses to nitrogen. Weed Sci. 52:578–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartzler, R. G., Buhler, D. D., and Stoltenberg, D. E. 1999. Emergence characteristics of four annual weed species. Weed Sci. 47:578–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, B. C., Young, B. G., and Matthews, J. L. 2002. Effect of postemergence application rate and timing of mesotrione on corn (Zea mays) response and weed control. Weed Technol. 16:414–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirkland, K. J. and Beckie, H. J. 1998. Contribution of nitrogen fertilizer placement to weed management in spring wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Technol. 12:507–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knezevic, S. Z., Horak, M. J., and Vanderlip, R. L. 1997. Relative time of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.) emergence is critical in pigweed–sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench] competition. Weed Sci. 45:502–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knezevic, S. Z., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1994. Interference of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) in corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 42:568–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuchinda, N. C., Ndahi, W. B., Lagoke, S. T. O., and Ahmed, M. K. 2001. The effects of nitrogen and period of weed interference on the fibre yield of kenaf (Hisbiscus cannabinus L.) in the northern Guinea Savanna of Nigeria. Crop Prot. 20:229–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindquist, J. 2001a. Light-saturated CO2 assimilation rates of corn and velvetleaf in response to leaf nitrogen and development stage. Weed Sci. 49:706–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindquist, J. L. 2001b. Performance of INTERCOM for predicting corn-velvetleaf interference across north-central United States. Weed Sci. 49:195–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindquist, J. L. and Mortensen, D. A. 1998. Tolerance and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) suppressive ability of two old and two modern corn (Zea mays) hybrids. Weed Sci. 46:569–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mickelson, J. A. and Harvey, R. G. 1999. Effects of Eriochloa villosa density and time of emergence on growth and seed production in Zea mays . Weed Sci. 47:687–692.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pyšek, P. and Lepš, J. 1991. Response of a weed community to nitrogen fertilization: a multivariate analysis. J. Veg. Sci. 2:237–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritchie, S. W., Hanway, J. J., and Benson, G. O. 1997. How a Corn Plant Develops. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Cooperative Extension Service Special Report 48. 21 p.Google Scholar
Ritchie, S. W., Hanway, J. J., Thompson, H. E., and Benson, G. O. 1982. How a Soybean Plant Develops. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Cooperative Extension Service Special Report 53. 53 p.Google Scholar
Scheiner, S. M. 2001. MANOVA: Multiple Response Variables and Multispecies Interactions. New York: Oxford University Press. Pp. 99–115.Google Scholar
Scursoni, J. A. and Benech Arnold, R. 2002. Effect of nitrogen fertilization timing on the demographic processes of wild oat (Avena fatua) in barley (Hordeum vulgare). Weed Sci. 50:616–621.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snedecor, G. W. and Cochran, W. G. 1989. Statistical Methods. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press. Pp. 64–82, 273–296.Google Scholar
Sprague, C. L., Penner, D., and Kells, J. J. 1999. Weed control and Zea mays tolerance as affected by timing of RP-201772 application. Weed Sci. 47:375–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teyker, R. H. and Hobbs, D. C. 1992. Growth and root morphology of corn as influenced by nitrogen form. Agron. J. 84:694–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thornley, J. H. M. 1972. A balanced quantitative model for root: shoot ratios in vegetative plants. Ann. Bot. (Lond.) 36:431–441.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
Weaver, S. E., Kropff, M. J., and Groeneveld, R. M. W. 1992. Use of ecophysiological models for crop–weed interference: the critical period of weed interference. Weed Sci. 40:302–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woolley, B. L., Michaels, T. E., Hall, M. R., and Swanton, C. J. 1993. The critical period of weed control in white bean (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Sci. 41:180–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar