Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T07:29:38.336Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of Soil pH on Competitive Ability and Leaf Nutrient Content of Corn (Zea mays L.) and Three Weed Species

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Susan E. Weaver  and
Allan S. Hamill
Susan E. Weaver
Affiliation:
Agric. Canada Res. Stn., Harrow, Ontario, Canada NOR 1GO
Allan S. Hamill
Affiliation:
Agric. Canada Res. Stn., Harrow, Ontario, Canada NOR 1GO
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Effects of soil pH on growth, competitive ability, and leaf nutrient content of corn (Zea mays L.), Powell amaranth (Amaranthus powellii S. Wats. ♯ AMAPO), velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti Medic. ♯ ABUTH), and green foxtail [Setaria viridis (L.) Beauv. ♯ SETVI] were measured in the field. Corn yields were significantly reduced by weed competition at all pH levels, but leaf nutrient content, as a percentage of dry weight, was not affected. Aboveground dry weights of Powell amaranth and velvetleaf were significantly lower at pH 4.8 than at pH 6.0 or 7.3, whereas growth of green foxtail was greater at pH 4.8 than at pH 7.3. Weed competitive ability, as evidenced by reductions in dry weight, varied with soil pH and companion plant. Powell amaranth and velvetleaf had higher levels of S, Zn, and especially Mn, at pH 4.8 than at pH 7.3. N and K in the leaf tissue were greater in the weed species than in corn at all soil pH levels. The dicot species had higher percentages of Ca and Mg in leaf tissue at all soil pH levels and accumulated higher percentages of Mn at low pH than the monocot species.

Keywords

Amaranthus powelliiAbutilon theophrastiSetaria viridisAMAPOABUTHSETVI
Type
Physiology, Chemistry, and Biochemistry
Information
Weed Science , Volume 33 , Issue 4 , July 1985 , pp. 447 - 451
Copyright
Copyright © 1985 by the 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

1. Adams, F. and Lund, Z. F. 1966. Effect of chemical activity of soil solution aluminum on cotton root penetration of acid subsoils. Soil Sci. 101:193–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Adams, F. and Wear, J. I. 1957. Manganese toxicity and soil acidity in relation to crinkle leaf of cotton. Proc. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. 21:305–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Buchanan, G. A., Hoveland, C. S. and Harris, M. C. 1975. Response of weeds to soil pH. Weed Sci. 23:473–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Foy, C. D. and Brown, J. C. 1964. Toxic factors in acid soils. II. Differential aluminum tolerance of plant species. Proc. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. 28:27–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Foy, C. D. and Fleming, A. L. 1978. The physiology of plant tolerance to excess available aluminum and manganese in acid soils. Pages 301–328 in Jung, G. A., ed. Crop Tolerance to Suboptimal Land Conditions. Am. Soc. Agron. Publ. 32.Google Scholar
6. Gilbert, B. E. and Pember, F. R. 1935. Tolerance of certain weeds and grasses to toxic aluminum. Soil Sci. 39:425–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Goldman, J. C. Riley, C. B., and Dennett, M. R. 1982. The effect of pH in intensive microalgal cultures. II. Species competition. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 57:15–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Horwitz, W., ed. 1980. Methods of Analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 13th ed., Washington, DC.Google Scholar
9. McGrath, S. P. and Rorison, I. H. 1982. The influence of nitrogen source on the tolerance of Holcus lanatus L. and Bromus erectus Huds. to manganese. New Phytol. 91:443–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Minotti, P. L. 1977. Differential response of tomato and lambsquarters seedlings to potassium level. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 102:646–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Teem, D. H., Hoveland, C. S., and Buchanan, G. A. 1974. Primary root elongation of three weed species. Weed Sci. 22:47–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Vengris, J., Colby, W. G., and Drake, M. 1955. Plant nutrient competition between weeds and corn. Agron. J. 47:213–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. 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
14. Zimdahl, R. L. 1980. Weed-Crop Competition. A Review. Int. Plant Prot. Center, Oregon. 195 pp.Google Scholar