Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T08:30:43.788Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Fertilizer and Population Affects Nitrogen Assimilation of Common Lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) and Redroot Pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Laura E. Lindsey ,
Darryl D. Warncke ,
Kurt Steinke  and
Wesley J. Everman
Laura E. Lindsey*
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824
Darryl D. Warncke
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824
Kurt Steinke
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824
Wesley J. Everman
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, North Carolina State University, Box 7620, Raleigh, NC 27695
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Weed growth and N assimilation usually increase with N application rate. With the increasing price of N fertilizer, a better understanding N assimilation by weeds is necessary to maximize economic return. Total plant yield is generally independent of population density, except when plants are very small or at very low population density. If plant yield is independent of population density, weed N assimilation may also be independent of population density. However, the effect of weed population density on N assimilation has not been thoroughly investigated. A 2011 controlled-environment study was established in East Lansing, MI, to evaluate the effect of weed population density and N application rate on growth and N assimilation by common lambsquarters and redroot pigweed. Study factors included four weed densities (1, 2, 4, and 8 plants pot−1), three N application rates (0, 67, and 134 kg N ha−1), and two weed species (redroot pigweed and common lambsquarters). Weeds were destructively harvested 3 wk after emergence, and shoot height, biomass, total N concentration, N use efficiency, and N assimilation were measured. Redroot pigweed was taller, had greater shoot biomass, and a greater shoot N assimilation than did common lambsquarters. With similar environmental conditions, redroot pigweed is expected to be more competitive than common lambsquarters. Shoot N assimilation increased with increasing weed population density, indicating that N assimilation was not independent of population density 3 wk after emergence because weeds were small or at low population density.

Keywords

Common lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. CHEALredroot pigweed, Amaranthus retroflexus L. AMAREC3 : C4 plant metabolismintraspecific weed competitionnitrogen concentrationroot : shoot
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 61 , Issue 1 , March 2013 , pp. 131 - 135
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: Department of Horticulture and Crop Science, Ohio State University, 2021 Coffey Road, Columbus, OH 43210.

References

Literature Cited

Andreasen, C., Litz, A.-S., and Streibig, J. C. 2006. Growth response of six weed species and spring barley (Hordeum vulgare) to increasing levels of nitrogen and phosphorus. Eur. Weed Res. Soc. 46:503–512.Google Scholar
Abouziena, H. F., El-Karmany, M. F., Singh, M., and Sharma, S. D. 2007. Effect of nitrogen rates and weed control treatments on maize yield and associated weeds in sandy soils. Weed Technol. 21:1049–1053.Google Scholar
Ampong-Nyarko, K. and De Datta, S. K. 1993. Effects of nitrogen application on growth, nitrogen use efficiency and rice-weed interaction. Weed Res. 33:269–276.Google Scholar
Baligar, V. C., Fageria, N. K., and He, Z. L. 2001. Nutrient use efficiency in plants. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 32:921–950.Google Scholar
Barker, D. C., Knezevic, S. Z., Martin, A. R., Walters, D. T., and Lindquist, J. L. 2006. Effect of nitrogen addition on the comparative productivity of corn and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti). Weed Sci. 54:354–363.Google Scholar
Berger, A., McDonald, A. J., and Riha, S. J. 2007. Does soil nitrogen affect early competitive traits of annual weeds in comparison with maize? Weed Res. 47:509–516.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E. and Brandt, R. N. 2008. Nitrogen fertilizer rate effects on weed competition on weed competitiveness is species dependent. Weed Sci. 56:743–747.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., Molnar, L. J., and Janzen, H. H. 2004. Nitrogen fertilizer timing and application method affect weed growth and competition with spring wheat. Weed Sci. 52:614–622.Google Scholar
Bloom, A. J., Chapin, F. S., and Mooney, H. A. 1985. Resource limitation in plants- an economic analogy. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 16:363–392.Google Scholar
Bonifas, K. D., Walters, D. T., Cassman, K. G., and Lindquist, J. L. 2005. Nitrogen supply affects root : shoot ratio in corn and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti). Weed Sci. 53:670–675.Google Scholar
Bradley, P. R., Johnson, W. G., Hart, S. E., Buesinger, M. L., and Massey, R. E. 2000. Economics of weed management in glufosinate-resistant corn (Zea mays L.). Weed Technol. 14:495–501.Google Scholar
Brainard, D. C., Bellinder, R. R., and DiTommaso, A. 2005. Effects of canopy shade on the morphology, phenology, and seed characteristics of Powell amaranth (Amaranthus powellii). Weed Sci. 53:175–186.Google Scholar
Brown, R. H. 1978. A difference in N use efficiency in C3 and C4 plants and its implications in adaptation and evolution. Crop Sci. 18:93–98.Google Scholar
Brown, R. H. 1985. Growth of C3 and C4 grasses under low N levels. Crop Sci. 25:954–957.Google Scholar
Chapin, F. S. 1980. The mineral nutrition of wild plants. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 11:233–260.Google Scholar
Chu, C., Ludford, P. M., Ozbun, J. L., and Sweet, R. D. 1978. Effects of temperature and competition on the establishment and growth of redroot pigweed and common lambsquarters. Crop Sci. 18:308–310.Google Scholar
Craswell, E. T. and Vlek, P. L. G. 1979. Fate of fertilizer nitrogen applied to wetland rice. Pp. 175–92 in Nitrogen and Rice. Baños, Philippines International Rice Research Institute.Google Scholar
Dalley, C. D., Bernards, M. L., and Kells, J. J. 2006. Effect of weed removal and row spacing on soil moisture in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 20:399–409.Google Scholar
Davidson, S. 1984. Wheat and ryegrass competition for nitrogen. Rural Res. 122:4–6.Google Scholar
Di Tomaso, J. 1995. Approaches for improving crop competitiveness through the manipulation of fertilization strategies. Weed Sci. 43:491–497.Google Scholar
Fausey, J. C., Kells, J. J., Swinton, S. M., and Renner, K. A. 1997. Giant foxtail (Setaria faberi) interference in nonirrigated corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 45:256–260.Google Scholar
Gower, S. A., Loux, M. M., Cardina, J., and Harrison, S. K. 2002. Effect of planting date, residual herbicide, and postemergence application timing on weed control and grain yield in glyphosate-tolerant corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 16:488–494.Google Scholar
Gower, S. A., Loux, M. M., Cardina, J., Harrison, S. K., Sprankle, P. L., Probst, N. J., Bauman, T. T., Bugg, W., Curran, W. S., Currie, R. S., Harvey, R. G., Johnson, W. G., Kells, J. J., Owen, M. D. K., Regehr, D. L., Slack, C. H., Spaur, M., Sprague, C. L., VanGessel, M., and Young, B. G. 2003. Effect of postemergence glyphosate application timing on weed control and grain yield in glyphosate-resistant corn: results of a 2-yr multistate study. Weed Technol. 17:821–828.Google Scholar
Gramig, G. G. and Stoltenberg, D. E. 2009. Adaptive responses of field-grown common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) to variable light quality and quantity environments. Weed Sci. 57:271–280.Google Scholar
Harper, J. L. 1977. Population Biology of Plants. New York Academic. 892 p.Google Scholar
Iqbal, J. and Wright, D. 1997. Effects of nitrogen supply on competition between wheat and three annual weed species. Weed Res. 37:391–400.Google Scholar
Jackson, W. A. and Volk, R. J. 1970. Photorespiration. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. 21:385–432.Google Scholar
Joern, B. and Sawyer, J. 2006. Nitrogen and corn use. Pp. 6–8 in Concepts and Rationale for Regional Nitrogen Rate Guidelines for Corn. Ames, IA Iowa State University Extension.Google Scholar
Jung, S., Rickert, D. A., Deak, N. A., Aldin, E. D., Recknor, J., Johnson, L. A., and Murphy, P. A. 2003. Comparison of Kjeldahl and Dumas methods for determining protein contents of soybean products. J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc. 80:1169–1173.Google Scholar
McConnaughay, K. D. M. and Coleman, J. S. 1999. Biomass allocation in plants: ontogeny or optimality? a test along three resource gradients. Ecology. 80:2581–2593.Google Scholar
Mesbah, A. O. and Miller, S. D. 1999. Fertilizer placement affects jointed goatgrass (Aegilops cylindrical) competition in winter wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Technol. 13:374–377.Google Scholar
Morgan, D. C. and Smith, H. 1976. Linear relationship between phytochrome photoequilbrium and growth in plants under simulated natural radiation. Nature. 262:210–212.Google Scholar
Oaks, A. 1994. Efficiency of nitrogen utilization in C3 and C4 cereals. Plant Physiol. 106:407–414.Google Scholar
Pearcy, R. W., Tumosa, N., and Williams, K. 1981. Relationships between growth, photosynthetic, and competitive interactions for a C3 and a C4 plant. Oecologia. 48:371–376.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
Radosevich, S. R. 1987. Methods to study interactions among crops and weeds. Weed Technol. 1:190–198.Google Scholar
Rajcan, I., AghaAlikhani, M., Swanton, C. J., and Tollenaar, M. 2002. Development of redroot pigweed is influenced by light spectral quality and quantity. Crop Sci. 42:1930–1936.Google Scholar
Roush, M. L. and Radosevich, S. R. 1985. Relationships between growth and competitiveness of four annual weeds. J. Applied Ecol. 22:895–905.Google Scholar
Sage, R. F. and Pearcy, R. W. 1987. The nitrogen use efficiency of C3 and C4 plants. Plant Physiol. 84:954–958.Google Scholar
SAS Institute. 2001. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Version 9.1. Cary, NC SAS Institute.Google Scholar
Schultz, B. B. 1985. Levene's test for relative variation. Syst. Biol. 34:449–456.Google Scholar
Teyker, R. H., Hoelzer, H. D., and Liebl, R. A. 1991. Maize and pigweed response to nitrogen supply and form. Plant Soil. 135:287–292.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.Google Scholar