Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T00:09:37.160Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Integrating Management of Soil Nitrogen and Weeds

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Sam E. Wortman ,
Adam S. Davis ,
Brian J. Schutte  and
John L. Lindquist
Sam E. Wortman*
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583-0915
Adam S. Davis
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS Global Change and Photosynthesis Research Unit, 1102 South Goodwin Avenue, Urbana, IL 61801
Brian J. Schutte
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS Global Change and Photosynthesis Research Unit, 1102 South Goodwin Avenue, Urbana, IL 61801
John L. Lindquist
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583-0915
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: sam.wortman@huskers.unl.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Knowledge of the soil nitrogen (N) supply and the N mineralization potential of the soil combined with an understanding of weed-crop competition in response to soil nutrient levels may be used to optimize N fertilizer rates to increase the competitive advantage of crop species. A greenhouse study (2006) and field studies (2007 to 2008) in Illinois and Nebraska were conducted to quantify the growth and interference of maize and velvetleaf in response to varying synthetic N fertilizer rates in soils with high and low N mineralization potential. Natural soils were classified as having “low mineralization potential” (LMP), while soils amended with composted manure were classified as having “high mineralization potential” (HMP). Maize and velvetleaf were grown in monoculture or in mixture in both LMP and HMP soils and fertilized with zero, medium, or full locally recommended N rate. In the greenhouse, velvetleaf interference in maize with respect to plant biomass increased as N rate increased in the HMP soil, whereas increasing N rate in the LMP soil reduced velvetleaf interference. In contrast, velvetleaf interference in maize decreased as N rate increased regardless of soil class in the field experiment. With respect to grain yield, velvetleaf interference in maize was unaffected by N rate or soil class. In both greenhouse and field experiments, velvetleaf biomass was greater in the HMP soil class, whereas maize interference in velvetleaf was generally greater in the LMP soil class. While soil N levels influenced weed-crop interference in the greenhouse, the results of the field study demonstrate the difficulty of controlling soil nutrient dynamics in the field and support a maize fertilization strategy independent of weed N use considerations.

Keywords

Velvetleaf, Abutilon theophrasti Medic. ABUTHmaize, Zea mays LIntegrated weed managementamino sugar nitrogencrop-weed interferenceIllinois soil N test
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 59 , Issue 2 , June 2011 , pp. 162 - 170
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

Alkämper, J., Pessips, E., and Long, D. V. 1979. Einfluss der Düngung auf die Entwickelung und Nahrstoffnahme verschiedener Unkräuter in Mais. European Weed Research Society Symposium, Mainz, Germany. Paris European Weed Research Society.Google Scholar
Azam, F., Simmons, F. W., and Mulvaney, R. L. 1993. Mineralization of N from plant residues and its interaction with native soil N. Soil Biol. and BioChem. 25:1787–1792.Google Scholar
Baker, H. G. 1974. The evolution of weeds. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 5:1–24.Google Scholar
Barker, D. C., Knezevic, S. Z., Martin, A. R., Walters, D. T., and Lindquist, J. L. 2006a. Effect of nitrogen addition on the comparative productivity of corn and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti). Weed Sci. 54:354–363.Google Scholar
Barker, D. W., Sawyer, J. E., Al-Kaisi, M. M., and Lundvall, J. P. 2006b. Assessment of the amino sugar-nitrogen test on Iowa soils: II. Field correlation and calibration. Agron. J. 98:1352–1358.Google Scholar
Berkowitz, A. R. 1988. Competition for resources in weed crop mixtures. 1st ed. Pages 89–119 in Altieri, M. A., and Liebman, M., eds. Weed Management in Agroecosystems: Ecological Approaches. Boca Raton, FL CRC Press.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E., Semach, G., and Janzen, H. H. 2003. Fertilizer application method affects nitrogen uptake in weeds and wheat. Weed Sci. 50:634–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonifas, K. D., Walters, D. T., Cassman, K. G., and Lindquist, J. L. 2005. Nitrogen supply affects root∶shoot ratio in corn and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti). Weed Sci. 53:670–675.Google Scholar
Burger, M. and Jackson, L. E. 2003. Microbial immobilization of ammonium and nitrate in relation to ammonification and nitrification rates in organic and conventional cropping systems. Soil Biol. and BioChem. 35:29–36.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.Google Scholar
DiTomaso, J. M. 1995. Approaches for improving crop competitiveness through the manipulation of fertilization strategies. Weed Sci. 43:491–497.Google Scholar
Dyck, E., Liebman, M., and Erich, M. S. 1995. Crop-weed interference as influenced by a leguminous or synthetic fertilizer nitrogen source: I. Doublecropping experiments with crimson clover, sweet corn, and lambsquarters. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 56:93–108.Google Scholar
Harbur, M. M. and Owen, M. D. K. 2004a. Light and growth rate effects on crop and weed responses to nitrogen. Weed Sci. 52:578–583.Google Scholar
Harbur, M. M. and Owen, M. D. K. 2004b. Response of three annual weeds to corn population density and nitrogen fertilization timing. Weed Sci. 52:845–853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holm, R. E. and Miller, M. R. 1972. Weed seed germination responses to chemical and physical treatments. Weed Sci. 20:150–153.Google Scholar
[ISU] Iowa State University Cooperative Extension Service. 1993. How a Corn Plant Develops. Special Rep. No. 48.Google Scholar
Klapwyk, J. H. and Ketterings, Q. M. 2006. Soil tests for predicting corn response to nitrogen fertilizer in New York. Agron. J. 98:675–681.Google Scholar
Laboski, C. A. M., Sawyer, J. E., Walters, D. T., Bundy, L. G., Hoeft, R. G., Randall, G. W., and Andraski, T. W. 2008. Evaluation of the Illinois soil nitrogen test in the North Central region of the United States. Agron. J. 100:1070–1076.Google Scholar
Lawrence, J. R., Ketterings, Q. M., Goler, M. G., Cherney, J. H., Cox, W. J., and Czymmek, K. J. 2009. Illinois soil nitrogen test with organic matter correction for predicting nitrogen responsiveness of corn in rotation. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 73:303–311.Google Scholar
Lindquist, J. L., Mortensen, D. A., Clay, S. A., Schmenk, R., Kells, J. J., Howatt, K., and Westra, P. 1996. Stability of corn (Zea mays)-velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) relationships. Weed Sci. 44:309–313.Google Scholar
Lindquist, J. L., Mortensen, D. A., Westra, P., et al. 1999. Stability of corn (Zea mays)-foxtail (Setaria spp.) interference relationships. Weed Sci. 47:195–200.Google Scholar
Lord, E. I. and Mitchell, R. D. J. 1998. Effect of nitrogen inputs to cereals on nitrate leaching from sandy soils. Soil Use Manag. 17:78–83.Google Scholar
Mary, B., Recous, S., Darwis, D., and Robin, D. 1996. Interactions between decomposition of plant residues and nitrogen cycling in soil. Plant Soil. 181:71–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menalled, F. D., Liebman, M., and Buhler, D. D. 2004. Impact of composted swine manure and tillage on common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) competition with soybean. Weed Sci. 52:605–613.Google Scholar
Mulvaney, R. L., Khan, S. A., and Ellsworth, T. R. 2006. Need for a soil-based approach in managing nitrogen fertilizers for profitable corn production. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 70:172–182.Google Scholar
Mulvaney, R. L., Khan, S. A., Hoeft, R. G., and Brown, H. M. 2001. A soil organic nitrogen fraction that reduces the need for nitrogen fertilization. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 65:1164–1172.Google Scholar
Osterhaus, J. T., Bundy, L. G., and Andraski, T. W. 2008. Evaluation of the Illinois soil nitrogen test for predicting corn nitrogen needs. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 72:143–150.Google Scholar
Rasmussen, K. 2002. Influence of liquid manure application method on weed control in spring cereals. Weed Res. 42:287–298.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
Shapiro, C. A., Ferguson, R. B., Hergert, G. W., Wortmann, C. S., and Walters, D. T. 2008. Fertilizer Suggestions for Corn. Lincoln, NE University of Nebraska–Lincoln Extension Publication EC 117.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spitters, C. J. T. 1983. An alternative approach to the analysis of mixed cropping experiments. 1. Estimation of competition effects. Neth. J. Agric. Sci. 31:1–11.Google Scholar
Stanford, G. and Smith, S. J. 1972. Nitrogen mineralization potential of soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 36:465–472.Google Scholar
Williams, J. D., Crozier, C. R., White, J. G., Heiniger, R. W., Sripada, R. P., and Crouse, D. A. 2007. Illinois soil nitrogen test predicts southeastern U.S. corn economic optimum nitrogen rates. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 71:735–744.Google Scholar