Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T03:21:33.408Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed species response to phosphorus fertilization

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Robert E. Blackshaw ,
Randall N. Brandt ,
H. Henry Janzen  and
Toby Entz
Randall N. Brandt
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lethbridge Research Center, P.O. Box 3000, Lethbridge, AB, Canada T1J 4B1
H. Henry Janzen
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lethbridge Research Center, P.O. Box 3000, Lethbridge, AB, Canada T1J 4B1
Toby Entz
Affiliation:
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lethbridge Research Center, P.O. Box 3000, Lethbridge, AB, Canada T1J 4B1
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Information on weed responses to soil fertility levels is needed to aid development of fertilizer management strategies as components of integrated weed management programs. A controlled environment study was conducted to determine shoot and root growth response of 22 agricultural weeds to fertilizer phosphorus (P) applied at 5, 10, 20, 40, or 60 mg kg−1 soil. An unfertilized control was included. Wheat and canola were included as control species. Shoot and root growth of all weeds increased with added P, but the magnitude of the response varied greatly among species. Many weeds exhibited similar or greater responses in shoot and root biomass to increasing amounts of soil P compared with wheat or canola. With increasing amounts of P, 17 weed species increased shoot biomass more than wheat, and 19 weed species increased shoot biomass more than canola. However, only 10 weed species exhibited greater increases in root biomass than canola, and no weed species increased root biomass more than wheat with added P. Canola was among species taking up the greatest percentage of available P at all P doses. However, percentage P uptake by wheat relative to other species varied with P dose. Only four weed species extracted more P than wheat at low P levels, but 17 weed species extracted more P at high soil P levels. These findings have significant implications as to how soil fertility may influence crop–weed competition.

Keywords

Canola, Brassica napus L. ‘Excel’spring wheat, Triticum aestivum L. ‘Katepwa’Fertilizerphosphorusweed biomassweed phosphorus concentrationweed phosphorus uptake
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 52 , Issue 3 , June 2004 , pp. 406 - 412
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

Andreasen, C., Streibig, J. C., and Hass, H. 1991. Soil properties affecting the distribution of 37 weed species in Danish fields. Weed Res 31:181–187.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1977. Technicon Industrial Method No. 334-74W/B+. Tarrytown, NY: Technicon Industrial Systems.Google Scholar
Banks, P. A., Santelmann, P. W., and Tucker, B. B. 1976. Influence of long- term soil fertility treatments on weed species in winter wheat. Agron. J 68:825–827.Google Scholar
Belnap, J., Sherrod, S. K., and Miller, M. E. 2003. Effects of soil amendments on germination and emergence of downy brome (Bromus tectorum) and Hilaria jamesii . Weed Sci 51:371–378.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E., Brandt, R. N., Janzen, H. H., Entz, T., Grant, C. A., and Derksen, D. A. 2003. Differential response of weed species to added nitrogen. Weed Sci 51:532–539.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E. and Entz, T. 1995. Day and night temperature effects on vegetative growth of Erodium cicutarium . Weed Res 35:471–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blue, E. N., Mason, S. C., and Sander, D. H. 1990. Influence of planting date, seeding rate, and phosphorus rate on wheat yield. Agron. J 82:762–768.Google Scholar
Bolland, M. D. A. 1997. Comparative phosphorus requirement of canola and wheat. J. Plant Nutr 20:813–829.Google Scholar
Bolland, M. D. A. 1999. Comparing canola and wheat seedling use of different sources of phosphorus. J. Plant Nutr 22:1197–1210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dakheel, A. J., Radosevich, S. R., and Barbour, M. G. 1993. Effect of nitrogen and phosphorus on growth and interference between Bromus tectorum and Taeniatherum asperum . Weed Res 33:415–422.Google Scholar
DiTomaso, J. M. 1995. Approaches for improving crop competitiveness through the manipulation of fertilization strategies. Weed Sci 43:491–497.Google Scholar
Gates, C. E. and Bilbro, J. D. 1978. Illustration of a cluster analysis method for mean separation. Agron. J 70:462–465.Google Scholar
Gill, K. S., Arshad, M. A., and Moyer, J. R. 1997. Cultural control of weeds. Pages 237–275 in Pimentel, D. ed. Techniques for Reducing Pesticide Use. New York: J Wiley.Google Scholar
Godel, G. L. 1938. Cereal growing on weedy land in northeastern Saskatchewan: effect of heavy seeding with the use of fertilizer on the development of weeds and crops. Sci. Agric 19:21–32.Google Scholar
Grant, C. A. and Bailey, L. D. 1993. Fertility management in canola production. Can. J. Plant Sci 73:651–670.Google Scholar
Grant, C. A., Flaten, D. N., Tomasiewicz, D. J., and Sheppard, S. C. 2001. The importance of early season phosphorus nutrition. Can. J. Plant Sci 81:211–224.Google Scholar
Hoveland, C. S., Buchanan, G. A., and Harris, M. C. 1976. Response of weeds to soil phosphorus and potassium. Weed Sci 24:194–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janzen, H. H., Entz, T., and Ellert, B. H. 2002. Correcting mathematically for soil adhering to root samples. Soil Biol. Biochem 34:1965–1968.Google Scholar
Konesky, D. W., Siddiqi, M. Y., and Glass, A. D. M. 1989. Wild oat and barley interactions: varietal differences in competitiveness in relation to phosphorus supply. Can. J. Bot 67:3366–3371.Google Scholar
Milliken, G. A. and Johnson, D. A. 2001. Analysis of Messy Data, Vol. 3: Analysis of Covariance. London: Chapman and Hill. 605 p.Google Scholar
Mohler, C. L. 2001. Enhancing the competitive ability of crops. Pages 269–374 in Liebman, M., Mohler, C. L., and Staver, C. P. eds. Ecological Management of Agricultural Weeds. Cambridge, Great Britain: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nyborg, M., Malhi, S. S., Mumey, G., Penney, D. C., and Laverty, D. H. 1999. Economics of phosphorus fertilization of barley as influenced by concentration of extractable phosphorus in the soil. Comm. Soil Sci. Plant Anal 30:1789–1795.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 75–89 in Blackshaw, R. E. and Hall, L. M. eds. Integrated Weed Management: Explore the Potential. Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue, QC: Expert Committee on Weeds.Google Scholar
O'Halloran, I. P. 1993. Total and organic phosphorus. Pages 213–229 in Carter, M. R. ed. Soil Sampling and Methods of Analysis. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis.Google Scholar
Ozanne, P. G. 1980. Phosphate nutrition of plants—A general treatise. Pages 559–589 in Khasawneh, F. E., Sample, E. C., and Kamprath, E. J. eds. The Role of Phosphorus in Agriculture. Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy.Google Scholar
Qasem, J. R. 1993. Root growth, development and nutrient uptake of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) and Chenopodium album . Weed Res 33:35–42.Google Scholar
Racz, G. J., Webber, M. D., Soper, R. J., and Hedlin, R. A. 1965. Phosphorus and nitrogen utilization by rape, flax, and wheat. Agron. J 57:335–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Santos, B. M., Dusky, J. A., Stall, W. M., Shilling, D. G., and Bewick, T. A. 1998. Phosphorus effects on competitive interactions of smooth pigweed (Amaranthus hybridus) and common purslane (Portulaca oleracea) with lettuce (Lactuca sativa). Weed Sci 46:307–312.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1999. SAS User's Guide. Version 8. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 3884 p.Google Scholar
Schjorring, J. K. and Jensen, P. 1984. Phosphorus nutrition of barley, buckwheat and rape seedlings. I. Influence of seed-borne P and external P levels on growth, P content and 32P/31P-fractionation in shoots and roots. Physiol. Plant 61:577–583.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
Vengris, J., Drake, M., Colby, W. G., and Bart, J. 1953. Chemical composition of weeds and accompanying crop plants. Agron. J 45:213–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verma, R., Agarwal, H. R., and Nepalia, V. 1999. Effect of weed control and phosphorus on crop-weed competition in fenugreek (Trigonella foenum-graecum). Indian J. Weed Sci 31:265–266.Google Scholar