Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T10:45:00.209Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of Organic Nutrient Amendments on Weed and Crop Growth

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Neith G. Little ,
Charles L. Mohler ,
Quirine M. Ketterings  and
Antonio DiTommaso
Neith G. Little*
Affiliation:
Soil and Crop Sciences Section, School of Integrative Plant Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853
Charles L. Mohler
Affiliation:
Soil and Crop Sciences Section, School of Integrative Plant Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853
Quirine M. Ketterings
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853
Antonio DiTommaso
Affiliation:
Soil and Crop Sciences Section, School of Integrative Plant Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Sufficient fertility is important for crop growth and yield but supplying a balanced amount of N, P, and K with compost and manure is a challenge and nutrient imbalances can benefit weeds more than crops. The goal of this study was to compare the aboveground growth responses of common northeastern U.S. crops and weeds to addition of composted poultry manure (CPM). A secondary goal was to test whether the observed growth responses to CPM could be attributed to the three macronutrients—N, P, and K—supplied in the CPM. Two field experiments were conducted over 2 yr. Species grown were corn, lettuce, kale, Powell amaranth, common lambsquarters, giant foxtail, and velvetleaf. Plants were grown in soil amended with CPM or single-nutrient organic N, P, and K fertility amendments. Single-nutrient P treatments with bone char did not adequately mimic P supply from CPM. In both years, biomass of all weeds studied increased with CPM amendment rate. Powell amaranth was the most responsive to CPM addition, increasing 1,775 and 159% from the control to the highest CPM rate in 2010 and 2011, respectively. Corn biomass increased by 22% with CPM rate in 2010 but did not increase with CPM rate in 2011. Lettuce biomass increased with CPM amendment rate (175% in 2010 and 109% in 2011), but due to the increased weed biomass at high CPM amendment rates, good weed control will be necessary to maintain this yield benefit. The increase in growth of Powell amaranth, common lambsquarters, and giant foxtail with CPM amendment was not due to N or K, and may have been influenced by P or another factor in the CPM. Velvetleaf was the only species that exhibited increased biomass with N addition (as blood meal), similarly to the increase with added CPM, suggesting the velvetleaf growth response to CPM was due to N in the CPM. The results show that nutrient ratios should be considered when applying organic amendments, because application rates of organic amendments that meet the crop's needs for one nutrient may oversupply other nutrients. Overfertilization will not benefit crop yield, but the results of this study show that high organic fertility application rates are likely to increase weed growth.

Keywords

Common lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. CHEALgiant foxtail, Setaria faberi Herrm. SETFAPowell amaranth, Amaranthus powellii S. Wats AMAPOvelvetleaf, Abutilon theophrasti Medik. ABUTHcorn, Zea mays L. ‘VK7610’lettuce, Lactuca sativa L. ‘New Red Fire’kale, Brassica oleracea L. ‘Lacinato’Blood mealbone charcomposted poultry manurefertility managementnitrogenphosphoruspotassiumpotassium sulfate
Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 63 , Issue 3 , September 2015 , pp. 710 - 722
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.)

Footnotes

Current address: University of Minnesota Extension, Farmington, MN 55024.

References

Literature Cited

Andreasen, C, Litz, A-S, Streibig, JC (2006) Growth response of six weed species and spring barley (Hordeum vulgare) to increasing levels of nitrogen and phosphorus. Weed Res. 46:503–512.Google Scholar
AOAC International (1995) Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC International. Chapter 3. Fertilizers. Pages 1–33 in Cunniff, P, ed. Arlington, VA Official Analytical Chemists International.Google Scholar
Bassett, IJ, Crompton, CW (1978) The Biology of Canadian weeds. 32. Chenopodium album L. Can J Plant Sci. 58:1061–1072.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, RE, Brandt, RN (2008) Nitrogen fertilizer rate effects on weed competitiveness is species dependent. Weed Sci. 56:743–747.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, RE, Brandt, RN, Janzen, HH, Entz, T (2004) Weed species response to phosphorus fertilization. Weed Sci. 52:406–412.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, RE, Brandt, RN, Janzen, HH, Entz, T, Grant, CA, Derksen, DA (2003) Differential response of weed species to added nitrogen. Weed Sci. 51:532–539.Google Scholar
Cornell Cooperative Extension (2011a) Cornell Guide for Integrated Field Crop Management. http://ipmguidelines.org/Fieldcrops/default.asp. Accessed April 14, 2011.Google Scholar
Cornell Cooperative Extension (2011b) Integrated Crop and Pest Management Guidelines for Commercial Vegetable Production. http://www.nysaes.cals.cornell.edu/recommends/18frameset.html. Accessed April 14, 2011.Google Scholar
Di Tomaso, JM (1995) Approaches for improving crop competitiveness through the manipulation of fertilization strategies. Weed Sci. 43:491–497.Google Scholar
Eghball, B, Power, JF (1999) Phosphorus- and nitrogen-based manure and compost applications: corn production and soil phosphorus. Soil Sci Soc Am J. 63:895–901.Google Scholar
Gardner, FP, Pearce, RB, Mitchell, RL (1985) Physiology of Crop Plants. Ames, IA University of Iowa Press. 327 pGoogle Scholar
Gomez, KA, Gomez, AA (1984) Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research. 2nd edn. New York J. Wiley. 680 pGoogle Scholar
Hoveland, CS, Buchanan, GA, Harris, MC (1976) Response of weeds to soil phosphorus and potassium. Weed Sci. 24:194–201.Google Scholar
Jordan, NR, Zhang, J, Huerd, S (2000) Arbuscular-mycorrhizal fungi: potential roles in weed management. Weed Res. 40:397–410.Google Scholar
Keeney, DR, Nelson, DW (1982) Nitrogen-inorganic forms. Pages 643–698 in Page, AL, Miller, RH, Keeney, DR, eds. Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 2 – Chemical and Microbiological Properties. 2nd edn. Madison, WI American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, Soil Science Society of America.Google Scholar
Kremer, RJ, Li, J (2003) Developing weed-suppressive soils through improved soil quality management. Soil Till Res. 72:193–202.Google Scholar
Lawrence, JR, Ketterings, QM, Cherney, JH (2008) Effect of nitrogen application on yield and quality of first year corn. Agron J. 100:73–79.Google Scholar
Liebman, M, Menalled, FD, Buhler, DD, Richard, TL, Sundberg, DN, Cambardella, CA, Kohler, KA (2004) Impacts of composted swine manure on weed and corn nutrient uptake, growth, and seed production. Weed Sci. 52:365–375.Google Scholar
Malhi, SS, Nyborg, M (1979) Rate of hydrolysis of urea as influenced by thiourea and pellet size. Plant Soil. 51:177–186.Google Scholar
Mohler, CL, Galford, AE (1997) Weed seedling emergence and seed survival: separating the effects of seed position and soil modification by tillage. Weed Res. 37:147–155.Google Scholar
Morgan, MF (1941) Chemical soil diagnosis by the universal soil testing system. New Haven, CT Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station Bull 450. 78 pGoogle Scholar
NEC-1012 (2011). Recommended Soil Testing Procedures for the Northeastern United States. Northeastern Regional Publication 493.Google Scholar
Ocampo, JA, Martin, J, Hayman, DS (1980) Influence of plant interactions on vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizal infections. I. Host and non-host plants grown together. New Phytol. 84:27–35.Google Scholar
Petersen, SO, Stamatiadis, S, Christofides, C (2004) Short-term oxide emissions from pasture soil as influenced by urea level and soil nitrate. Plant Soil. 267:117–127.Google Scholar
Santos, BM, Dusky, JA, Stall, WM, Gilreath, JP (2004) Influence of common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) densities and phosphorus fertilization on lettuce. Crop Prot. 23:173–176.Google Scholar
Siebers, N, Leinweber, P (2013) Bone char: a clean and renewable phosphorus fertilizer with cadmium immobilization capability. J Environ Qual. 42:405–411 Google Scholar
Stanley, MR, Koide, RT, Shumway, DL (1993) Mycorrhizal symbiosis increases growth, reproduction and recruitment of Abutilon theophrasti Medic. in the field. Oecologia. 94:30–35 Google Scholar
Storer, DA (1984) A simple high sample volume ashing procedure for determination of soil organic matter. Commun Soil Sci Plan Anal. 15:759–772 Google Scholar
Uchimiya, M (2014) Changes in nutrient content and availability during the slow pyrolysis of animal wastes. Pages 53–68 in He, Z, Zhang, H, eds. Applied Manure and Nutrient Chemistry for Sustainable Agriculture and Environment. Dordrecht, Netherlands Springer Science + Business Media Google Scholar
Vatovec, C, Jordan, N, Huerd, S (2005) Responsiveness of certain agronomic weed species to arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. Renew Agr Food Syst. 20:181–189 Google Scholar
Vengris, K, Colby, WG, Drake, M (1955) Plant nutrient competition between weeds and corn. Agron J. 47:213–216 Google Scholar
Warren, GP, Robinson, JS, Someus, E (2009) Dissolution of phosphorus from animal bone char in 12 soils. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst. 84:167–78Google Scholar
Weston, LA, Alsaadawi, IS, Baerson, SR (2013) Sorghum allelopathy—from ecosystem to molecule. J Chem Ecol. 39:142–153 Google Scholar
Weston, LA, Harmon, R, Mueller, S (1983) Allelopathic potential of sorgum–sudangrass hybrid (sudex). J Chem Ecol. 15:1855–1865 Google Scholar