Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T19:26:24.107Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Changes in competitive ability between a C4 crop and a C3 weed with elevated carbon dioxide

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Lewis H. Ziska
Lewis H. Ziska*
Affiliation:
Climate Stress Laboratory, USDA-ARS, 10300 Baltimore Avenue, Beltsville, MD 20705 USA. [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Using climate-controlled glasshouses, the growth of grain sorghum was evaluated with and without the presence of common cocklebur at current and projected future atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide [CO2]. Single-leaf photosynthetic rates declined for both species in competition; however, elevated CO2 reduced the percentage decline in common cocklebur and increased it in sorghum by 35 d after sowing (DAS) relative to ambient CO2. In monoculture, elevated CO2 significantly stimulated leaf photosynthetic rate, leaf area, and aboveground dry weight of common cocklebur more than that of sorghum. However, the stimulation of aboveground biomass or leaf area for monocultures of sorghum and common cocklebur at elevated CO2 did not adequately predict the CO2 response of aboveground biomass or leaf area for sorghum and common cocklebur grown in competitive mixtures. Overall, by 41 DAS, plant relative yield (PRY), in terms of aboveground biomass and leaf area, increased significantly for common cocklebur and decreased significantly for sorghum in competitive mixtures at elevated CO2. Data from this study indicate that vegetative growth, competition, and potential yield of economically important C4 crops could be reduced by co-occurring C3 weeds as atmospheric carbon dioxide increases.

Keywords

Common cocklebur, Xanthium strumarium L. XANSTsorghum, Sorghum bicolor L. MoenchClimate changecompetitionXANST
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 49 , Issue 5 , October 2001 , pp. 622 - 627
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 C4 crop, rice (Oryza sativa), and a C3 weed (Echinochloa glabrescens). Aust. J. Plant Physiol. 23:793–802.Google Scholar
Bazzaz, F. A. and Carlson, R. W. 1984. The response of plants to elevated CO2. I. Competition among an assemblage of annuals at two levels of soil moisture. Oecologia 62:196–198.Google Scholar
Bazzaz, F.A. and Garbutt, K. 1988. The response of annuals in competitive neighborhoods: effects of elevated CO2. Ecology 69:937–946.Google Scholar
Bazzaz, F. A., Jasienski, M., Thomas, S. C., and Wayne, P. M. 1995. Microevolutionary responses to elevated CO2 environments in experimental populations of plants: parallel results from two model systems. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 92:8161–8165.Google Scholar
Bridges, D. C. 1992. Crop Losses Due to Weeds in the USA. Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of America. 401 p.Google Scholar
Bunce, J. A. 1993. Growth, survival, competition and canopy carbon dioxide and water vapour exchange of first year alfalfa at an elevated CO2 concentration. Photosynthetica 29:557–565.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 Publishing.Google 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. Oecologia 58:188–193.Google Scholar
Harlan, J. R. 1992. Crops and Man. Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy and Crop Science Society of America. pp. 31–60.Google Scholar
Holm, L. G., Plucknett, D. L., Pancho, J. V., and Herberger, J. P. 1977. The World's Worst Weeds: Distribution and Biology. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. pp. 7–145.Google Scholar
Kropff, M. J. and Spitters, C.J.T. 1991. A simple model of crop loss by weed competition from early observations on relative leaf area of the weeds. Weed Res. 31:97–105.Google Scholar
Newton, P.C.D., Clark, H., Bell, C., and Glasgow, E. M. 1996. Interaction of soil moisture and elevated CO2 on the above-ground growth rate, root length density and gas exchange of turves from temperate pasture. J. Exp. Bot. 47:771–779.Google Scholar
Patterson, D. T. 1985. Comparative eco-physiology of weeds and crops. Pages 101–129 In Duke, S. O., ed. Weed Physiology. Volume I. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Patterson, D. T. 1986. Responses of soybean (Glycine max) and three C4 grass weeds to CO2 enrichment during drought. Weed Sci. 34:203–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, D. T. 1993. Implications of global climate change for impact of weeds, insects and plant diseases. Pages 273–280 In Buxton, D. R., ed. Madison, WI: International Crop Science, Crop Science Society of America.Google Scholar
Patterson, D. T. 1995. Weeds in a changing climate. Weed Sci. 43:685–701.Google Scholar
Patterson, D. T. and Flint, E. P. 1980. Potential effects of global atmospheric CO2 enrichment on the growth and competitiveness of C3 and C4 weed and crop plants. Weed Sci. 28:71–75.Google 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., Rosenberg, N. J., and Allen, L. H. Jr., eds. Impact of Carbon Dioxide, Trace Gases and Climate Change on Global Agriculture. American Society of Agronomy Special Publ. 53. Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy.Google Scholar
Patterson, D. T., Flint, 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
Poorter, H. 1993. Interspecific variation in the growth response of plants to an elevated ambient CO2 concentration. Vegetatio 104/105:77–97.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. Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Steinger, T., Lavigne, C., Birrer, A., Groppe, K., and Schmid, B. 1997. Genetic variation in response to elevated CO2 in three grassland perennials—a field experiment with two competition regimes. Acta Oecol. 18:263–268.Google Scholar
Trenbath, B. R. 1974. Biomass productivity of mixtures. Adv. Agron. 26:177–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ziska, L. H. and Bunce, J. A. 1997. Influence of increasing carbon dioxide concentration on the photosynthetic and growth stimulation of selected C4 crops and weeds. Photosynth. Res. 54:199–208.Google Scholar