Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T12:16:14.291Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Common bean canopy characteristics and N assimilation as affected by weed pressure and nitrogen rate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2015

S. F. SABERALI ,
S. A. M. MODARRES-SANAVY ,
M. BANNAYAN ,
M. AGHAALIKHANI ,
G. HAGHAYEGH  and
G. HOOGENBOOM
S. F. SABERALI*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Agriculture and Animal Science, Torbat-e Jam Educational Complex, khorasan Razavi, Iran
S. A. M. MODARRES-SANAVY
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Faculty of Agriculture, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
M. BANNAYAN
Affiliation:
Faculty of Agriculture, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, P.O.Box 91775-1163, Mashhad, Iran
M. AGHAALIKHANI
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Faculty of Agriculture, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
G. HAGHAYEGH
Affiliation:
Department of Food Sciences and Technology, University of Zabol, Zabol, Iran
G. HOOGENBOOM
Affiliation:
AgWeatherNet, Washington State University, Prosser, Washington 99350, USA
*
*To whom all correspondence should be addressed. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Crop canopy characteristics and management factors that affect the canopy structure can influence crop competitive ability against weeds. The goal of the current study was to understand the interaction between nitrogen (N) fertilizer rate and redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) density on common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) canopy characteristics and N assimilation. Experiments were conducted to determine the growth responses of two bean genotypes with contrasting growth habits to different N fertilizer rates under no, low and high redroot pigweed pressure. Nitrogen was applied at rates of 0, 50, 100 and 200 kg/ha for a semi-erect variety and 0, 35, 70 and 140 kg/ha for an erect bean variety. Leaf area index (LAI), leaf area duration (LAD), leaf chlorophyll, N assimilation and N assimilation rate for both bean growth habits increased with N application rate at no and low weed density. The negative effect of redroot pigweed competition on LAI, LAD, N assimilation and N assimilation rate increased with redroot pigweed density, and with N application rate for the high weed density. Stepwise multiple regression analysis showed that N assimilation and chlorophyll concentration accounted for 0·73–0·87, overall, of the variation in yield loss due to weed competition. It is concluded that greater N assimilation in the semi-erect growth habit compared with the erect growth habit is the cause of its higher competitive ability against the weed, as it improves the effective canopy traits that confer potential for resource pre-emption.

Type
Crops and Soils Research Papers
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 154 , Issue 4 , May 2016 , pp. 598 - 611
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

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

REFERENCES

Angonin, C., Caussanel, J. P. & Meynard, J. M. (1996). Competition between winter wheat and Veronica hederifolia: influence of weed density and the amount and timing of nitrogen application. Weed Research 36, 175–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnon, D. I. (1949). Copper enzymes in isolated chloroplasts. Polyphenol oxidases in Beta vulgaris. Plant Physiology 24, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E. (1991). Hairy nightshade (Solanum sarrachoides) interference in dry beans (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Science 39, 48–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E. & Brandt, R. N. (2008). Nitrogen fertilizer rate effects on weed competitiveness is species dependent. Weed Science 56, 743–747.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E., Semach, G. & Janzen, H. H. (2002). Fertilizer application method affects nitrogen uptake in weeds and wheat. Weed Science 50, 634–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E., Molnar, L. J. & Janzen, H. H. (2004). Nitrogen fertilizer timing and application method affect weed growth and competition with spring wheat. Weed Science 52, 614–622.Google Scholar
Bliss, F. A. (1993). Breeding common bean for improved biological nitrogen fixation. Plant and Soil 152, 71–79.Google Scholar
Carlson, H. L. & Hill, J. E. (1986). Wild oat (Avena fatua) competition with spring wheat: effects of nitrogen fertilization. Weed Science 34, 29–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casper, B. B. & Jackson, R. B. (1997). Plant competition underground. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 28, 545–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corre-hellou, G. & Crozat, Y. (2005). N2 fixation and N supply in organic pea (Pisum sativum L.) cropping systems as affected by weeds and peaweevil (Sitona lineatus L.). European Journal of Agronomy 22, 449–458.Google Scholar
Corre-hellou, G., Fustec, J. & Crozat, Y. (2006). Interspecific competition for soil N and its interaction with N2 fixation, leaf expansion and crop growth in pea–barley intercrops. Plant and Soil 282, 195–208.Google Scholar
Di Tomaso, J. M. (1995). Approaches for improving crop competitiveness through the manipulation of fertilization strategies. Weed Science 43, 491–497.Google Scholar
Dorcinvil, R., Sotomayor-ramírez, D. & Beaver, J. (2010). Agronomic performance of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) lines in an Oxisol. Field Crops Research 118, 264–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, P. H. & Ranalli, P. (1997). Common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Field Crops Research 53, 131–146.Google Scholar
Harbur, M. M. & Owen, M. D. K. (2004). Light and growth rate effects on crop and weed responses to nitrogen. Weed Science 52, 578–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunt, R. (1990). Basic Growth Analysis: Plant Growth Analysis for Beginners. London: Unwin Hyman.Google Scholar
Laing, D. R., Jones, P. G. & Davis, J. H. C. (1984). Common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris). In The Physiology of Tropical Field Crops (Eds Goldsworthy, P. R. & Fisher, N. M.), pp. 305–351. London: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Liebman, M. & Gallandt, E. R. (2002). Differential responses to red clover residue and ammonium nitrate by common bean and wild mustard. Weed Science 50, 521–529.Google Scholar
Liebman, M. & Robichaux, R. H. (1990). Competition by barley and pea against mustard: effects on resource acquisition, photosynthesis and yield. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 31, 155–172.Google Scholar
Liebman, M., Corson, S., Rowe, R. J. & Halteman, W. A. (1995). Dry bean responses to nitrogen fertilizer in two tillage and residue management systems. Agronomy Journal 87, 538–546.Google Scholar
Lindquist, J. L., Barker, D. C., Knezevic, S. Z., Martin, A. R. & Walters, D. T. (2007). Comparative nitrogen uptake and distribution in corn and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti). Weed Science 55, 102–110.Google Scholar
Lynch, J. & van Beem, J. J. (1993). Growth and architecture of seedling roots of common bean genotypes. Crop Science 33, 1253–1257.Google Scholar
Pate, J. S. & Layzell, D. B. (1990). Energetics and costs of nitrogen assimilation. In Biochemistry of Plants. Vol. 16 (Eds Miflin, B. J. & Lea, P. J.), pp. 1–42. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Ramírez-vallejo, P. & Kelly, J. D. (1998). Traits related to drought resistance in common bean. Euphytica 99, 127–136.Google Scholar
Saberali, S. F., Modarres-Sanavy, S. A. M., Bannayan, M., Baghestani, A. M., Rahimian Mashhadi, H. & Hoogenboom, G. (2012). Dry bean competitiveness with redroot pigweed as affected by growth habit and nitrogen rate. Field Crops Research 135, 38–45.Google Scholar
Salvagiotti, F., Cassman, K. G., Specht, J. E., Walters, D. T., Weiss, A. & Dobermann, A. (2008). Nitrogen uptake, fixation and response to fertilizer N in soybeans: a review. Field Crops Research 108, 1–13.Google Scholar
Sas Institute (2003). The SAS System for Windows. Release 9.1. Cary, NC: SAS Inst.Google Scholar
Schubert, S. (1995). Nitrogen assimilation by legumes-processes and ecological limitations. Fertilizer Research 42, 99–107.Google Scholar
Schwartz, H. F. (2004). Growth and developmental stages of the bean plant. In Dry Bean Production and Integrated Pest Management 2nd edn. (Eds Schwartz, H. F., Brick, M. A., Harveson, R. M. & Franc, G. D.), pp. 3–11. St. Paul, MN: APS Press. Available from: http://legume.ipmpipe.org/sbr/CommonBeanGrowthStages.pdf (accessed March 2015).Google Scholar
Silim, S. N. & Saxena, M. C. (1992). Comparative performance of some faba bean (Vicia faba) cultivars of contrasting plant types. 1. Yield, yield components and nitrogen fixation. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 118, 325–332.Google Scholar
Songsri, P., Jogloy, S., Holbrook, C. C., Kesmala, T., Vorasoot, N., Akkasaeng, C. & Patanothai, A. (2009). Association of root, specific leaf area and SPAD chlorophyll meter reading to water use efficiency of peanut under different available soil water. Agricultural Water Management 96, 790–798.Google Scholar
Tanaka, A. & Fujita, K. (1979). Growth, photosynthesis and yield components in relation to grain yield of the field bean. Journal of the Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University 59, 145–238.Google Scholar
Ten Berge, H. F. M., Thiyagarajan, T. M., Shi, Q., Wopereis, M. C. S., Drenth, H. & Jansen, M. J. W. (1997). Numerical optimization of nitrogen application to rice. Part I. Description of manage-N. Field Crops Research 51, 29–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thies, J. E., Singleton, P. W. & Bohlool, B. B. (1991). Influence of the size of indigenous rhizobial populations on establishment and symbiotic performance of introduced rhizobia on field-grown legumes. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 57, 19–28.Google Scholar
Tollenaar, M., Nissanka, S. P., Aguilera, A., Weise, S. F. & Swanton, C. J. (1994). Effect of weed interference and soil nitrogen on four maize hybrids. Agronomy Journal 86, 596–601.Google Scholar
Ugen, M. A., Wien, H. C. & Wortmann, C. S. (2002). Dry bean competitiveness with annual weeds as affected by soil nutrient availability. Weed Science 50, 530–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Kessel, C. & Hartley, H. (2000). Agricultural management of grain legumes: has it led to an increase in nitrogen fixation? Field Crops Research 65, 165–181.Google Scholar
Wahua, T. A. T. & Miller, D. A. (1978). Effects of intercropping on soybean N2 fixation and plant composition on associated sorghum and soybeans. Agronomy Journal 70, 292–295.Google Scholar
Wallace, A. (1990). Moisture levels, nitrogen levels–clue to the next limiting factor on crop production. Journal of Plant Nutrition 13 (Special Issue), 451–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, G., McGiffen, M. E., Lindquist, J. L., Ehlers, J. D. & Sartorato, I. (2007). Simulation study of the competitive ability of erect, semi-erect and prostrate cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) genotypes. Weed Research 47, 129–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westermann, D. T., Kleinkopf, G. E., Porter, L. K. & Leggett, G. E. (1981). Nitrogen sources for bean seed production. Agronomy Journal 73, 660–664.Google Scholar
Westermann, D. T., Porter, L. K., O'Deen, W. A. (1985). Nitrogen partitioning and mobilization patterns in bean plants. Crop Science 25, 225–229.Google Scholar
Westermann, D., Terán, H., Muñoz-Perea, C. & Singh, S. (2011). Plant and seed nutrient uptake in common bean in seven organic and conventional production systems. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 91, 1089–1099.Google Scholar
Wilson, J. B. (1988). Shoot competition and root competition. Journal of Applied Ecology 25, 279–296.Google Scholar
Wortmann, C. S. (1993). Contribution of bean morphological characteristics to weed suppression. Agronomy Journal 85, 840–843.Google Scholar