Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T19:32:12.145Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Impact of composted swine manure and tillage on common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) competition with soybean

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Fabián D. Menalled ,
Matt Liebman  and
Douglas D. Buhler
Matt Liebman
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, 3405 Agronomy Hall, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011-1010
Douglas D. Buhler
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Use of composted swine manure produced in deep-bedded hoop structures is a promising approach for recycling farm waste products and improving soil fertility, but little is known about its effects on crop–weed interactions. A 2-yr study was conducted to evaluate the effect of compost amendments and tillage on soybean–common waterhemp competition. Experiments were conducted in no-tillage and chisel plow main plots with compost applied to one of two types of subplots. Common waterhemp and soybean growth was measured in sub-subplots accommodating weed-free soybean and soybean with common waterhemp sown at soybean planting, soybean emergence (VE), soybean second-node stage (V2), and soybean sixth-node stage (V6). Soybean heights were not influenced by compost or common waterhemp sowing time. Soybean stem diameters were influenced by year, tillage regime, and an interaction between compost and common waterhemp sowing time. In contrast, common waterhemp heights and basal diameters were greater when sown at planting and VE in compost-amended subplots than in compost-free subplots. Overall, there was a negative quadratic relationship between common waterhemp biomass and soybean yield (r 2 = 0.746). The extremely low common waterhemp emergence in V2 and V6 treatments suggested that early-season weed suppression was sufficient to protect soybean from common waterhemp competition. The sex determination of 2,557 common waterhemp plants showed a marginally higher male to female ratio in compost-amended treatments than in compost-free treatments (P = 0.0611). A linear-slope regression indicated that common waterhemp fecundity was positively related to individual plant biomass, with a change in slope occurring at 118.7 g. Under the conditions present in this experiment, compost did not enhance soybean yield but increased the competitive ability of waterhemp. Because composted swine manure can have a major influence on competition of common waterhemp with soybean, effective weed management practices should be in place when this soil amendment is used.

Keywords

Common waterhemp, Amaranthus rudis Sauer AMATAsoybean, Glycine max (L.) MerrCompostcrop–weed competitionfecunditytillage regime
Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 52 , Issue 4 , August 2004 , pp. 605 - 613
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

Bazzoffi, P., Pellegrini, S., Rocchini, A., Morandi, M., and Grasselli, O. 1998. The effect of urban refuse compost and different tractor tires on soil physical properties, soil erosion and maize yield. Soil Till. Res 48:275–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bensch, C. N., Horak, M. J., and Peterson, D. 2003. Interference of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus), Palmer amaranth (A. palmeri), and common waterhemp (A. rudis) in soybean. Weed Sci 51:37–43.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D. and Hartzler, R. G. 2001. Emergence and persistence of seed of velvetleaf, common waterhemp, woolly cupgrass, and giant foxtail. Weed Sci 49:230–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delph, L. E. 1999. Sexual dimorphism in live history. Pages 149–173 in Geber, M. A., Dawson, T. E., and Delph, L. F. eds. Gender and Sexual Dimorphism in Flowering Plants. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Dieleman, A., Hamill, A. S., Weise, S. E., and Swanton, C. J. 1995. Empirical models of pigweed (Amaranthus spp.) interference in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci 43:612–618.Google Scholar
Douds, D. D., Galvez, L., Franke-Snyder, M., Reider, C., and Drinkwater, L. E. 1997. Effect of compost addition and crop rotation point upon VAM fungi. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ 65:257–266.Google Scholar
Eyherabide, J. J. and Cendoya, M. G. 2002. Critical periods of weed control in soybean for full field and in-furrow interference. Weed Sci 50:162–166.Google Scholar
Gauquelin, T., Bertaudière-Montès, V., Badri, W., and Montès, N. 2002. Sex ratio and sexual dimorphism in mountain dioecious thuriferous juniper (Juniperus thurifera L., Cupressaceae). Bot. J. Linn. Soc 138:237–244.Google Scholar
Gonzales, R. F. and Cooperband, L. R. 2002. Compost effects on soil physical properties and field nursery production. Compost Sci. Util 10:226–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hager, A. G., Wax, L. M., Bollero, G. A., and Simmons, F. W. 2002a. Common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis Sauer) management with soil-applied herbicides in soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr). Crop Prot 21:277–283.Google Scholar
Hager, A. G., Wax, L. M., Stoller, E. W., and Bollero, G. A. 2002b. Common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) interference in soybean. Weed Sci 50:607–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartzler, R. G., Buhler, D. D., and Stoltenberg, D. E. 1999. Emergence characteristics of four annual weed species. Weed Sci 47:578–584.Google Scholar
Horak, M. J. and Loughin, T. M. 2000. Growth analysis of four Amaranthus species. Weed Sci 43:347–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knezevic, S. Z., Evans, S. P., Blankenship, E. E., Van Acker, R. C., and Lindquist, J. L. 2002. Critical period for weed control: the concept and data analysis. Weed Sci 50:773–786.Google Scholar
Knezevic, S. Z., Vanderlip, R. L., and Horak, M. J. 2001. Relative time of redroot pigweed emergence affects dry matter partitioning. Weed Sci 49:617–621.Google Scholar
Ligneau, L. A. and Watt, T. A. 1995. The effects of domestic compost upon the germination and emergence of barley and six arable weeds. Ann. Appl. Biol 126:153–162.Google Scholar
Lindquist, J. L., Mortensen, D. A., and Westra, P. et al. 1996. Stability of corn (Zea mays)-foxtail (Setaria spp.) interference relationships. Weed Sci 47:195–200.Google Scholar
Littell, R. C., Milliken, G. A., Stroup, W. W., and Wolfinger, R. D. 1996. SAS® System for Mixed Models. Cary, NC: SAS Institute. Pp. 362–364.Google Scholar
Marambe, B. and Ando, T. 1992. Phenolic-acids as potential seed germination-inhibitors in animal-waste compost. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr 38:727–733.Google Scholar
McLachlan, S. M., Murphy, S. D., Tollenaar, M., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1995. Light limitation of reproduction and variation in the allometric relationship between reproductive and vegetative biomass in Amaranthus retroflexus (redroot pigweed). J. Appl. Ecol 32:157–165.Google Scholar
Mulugeta, D. and Boerboom, C. M. 2000. Critical time of removal in glyphosate-resistant Glycine max . Weed Sci 48:35–42.Google Scholar
Ozores-Hampton, M., Stoffella, P. J., Bewick, T. A., Cantliffe, D. J., and Obreza, T. A. 1999. Effect of age of composted MSW and biosolids on weed seed germination. Compast Sci. Util 7:51–57.Google Scholar
Patzoldt, W. L., Tranel, P. J., and Hager, A. G. 2002. Variable herbicide responses among Illinois waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis and A. tuberculatus) populations. Crop Prot 21:707–712.Google Scholar
Richard, T. L. and Smits, S. 1999. Management of bedded-pack manure from swine hoop structure: 1998 results. Pages 167–171 in 1998 ISU Swine Research Report. ASL-R1595. AS-640. Ames, IA: Department of Animal Science, Iowa State University.Google Scholar
Roe, N. E., Stoffella, P. J., and Bryan, H. H. 1993. Municipal solid waste compost suppresses weeds in vegetable crop alleys. Hortscience 28:1171–1172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sartorato, I., Berti, A., and Zanin, G. 1996. Estimation of economic thresholds for weed control in soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr). Crop Prot 15:63–68.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis System. 1998. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Version 7. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis System Institute. 190 p.Google Scholar
Schabenberger, O. and Pierce, F. J. 2002. Contemporary Statistical Models for the Plant and Soil Science. Boca Raton, FL: CRC. 738 p.Google Scholar
Seibert, A. C. and Pearce, R. B. 1993. Growth analysis of weed and crop species with reference to seed weight. Weed Sci 41:52–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singer, J. W., Kohler, K. A., Liebman, M., Richard, T. L., Cambardella, C. A., and Buhler, D. D. 2004. Tillage and compost affect yield of corn, soybean, and wheat and soil fertility. Agron. J 96:531–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, H. C. and Kelly, W. C. 1957. Vegetable Crops. 5th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. p. 55.Google Scholar
Van Acker, R. C., Swanton, C. J., and Weise, S. F. 1993. The critical period of weed control in soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr). Weed Sci 41:194–200.Google Scholar
Zelaya, I. A. and Owen, M. D. K. 2000. Differential response of common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis Sauer) to glyphosate in Iowa. Page 68 in Proceedings of the North Central Weed Science Society. Volume 55. Kansas City, MO: North Central Weed Science Society.Google Scholar