Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-ckgrl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-27T23:09:29.628Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Impact of Soil pH on Bahiagrass Competition with Giant Smutgrass (Sporobolus indicus var. pyramidalis) and Small Smutgrass (Sporobolus indicus var. indicus)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Neha Rana ,
Brent A. Sellers ,
Jason A. Ferrell ,
Gregory E. MacDonald ,
Maria L. Silveira  and
Joao M. Vendramini
Neha Rana
Affiliation:
Range Cattle Research and Education Center, University of Florida, 3401 Experiment Station, Ona, FL 33865
Brent A. Sellers*
Affiliation:
Range Cattle Research and Education Center, University of Florida, 3401 Experiment Station, Ona, FL 33865
Jason A. Ferrell
Affiliation:
Agronomy Department, University of Florida, P.O. Box 110500, Gainesville, FL 32611
Gregory E. MacDonald
Affiliation:
Agronomy Department, University of Florida, P.O. Box 110500, Gainesville, FL 32611
Maria L. Silveira
Affiliation:
Range Cattle Research and Education Center, University of Florida, 3401 Experiment Station, Ona, FL 33865
Joao M. Vendramini
Affiliation:
Range Cattle Research and Education Center, University of Florida, 3401 Experiment Station, Ona, FL 33865
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Smutgrass is an invasive, well-rooted perennial that has long been recognized as an aggressive weed throughout Florida and in the subtropical regions of the United States. Small smutgrass and giant smutgrass are the two predominant smutgrass varieties found in Florida. The native soil pH of Florida flatwoods is 4.5 to 5.0 which is lower than the level of soil pH recommended for optimum bahiagrass growth. Therefore, replacement series experiments were conducted in a greenhouse in 2010 and 2011 to compare the competitive ability of bahiagrass with each of the two varieties of smutgrass at three levels of soil pH (4.5, 5.5, and 6.5), two densities; 4 (low) and 8 (high) plants pot−1, and at five planting ratios of 100 : 0, 75 : 25, 50 : 50, 25 : 75, and 0 : 100. Relative competitive ability and aggressivity of giant smutgrass was greater than bahiagrass across all pH levels and densities, whereas relative competitive ability and aggressivity of bahiagrass was greater than small smutgrass in all pH levels and densities, except at pH 6.5. At pH 5.5, biomass accumulation of giant smutgrass was at least 73% higher than bahiagrass, whereas small smutgrass biomass was at least 46% lower than bahiagrass at equal planting ratios of both low and high densities. Differential responses were observed on bahiagrass competitive ability with small and giant smutgrass. Amending soil pH is not a likely option to increase the growth and competitive ability of bahiagrass over giant smutgrass. However, for small smutgrass, it is likely to increase the aggressivity of bahiagrass in bahiagrass–small smutgrass mixture, unless the soil pH is raised above 5.5.

Keywords

Giant smutgrass, Sporobolus indicus (L.) R. Br. var. pyramidalis (P. Beauv.) Veldkampsmall smutgrass, Sporobolus indicus (L.) R. Br. var. indicussmutgrass, Sporobolus indicus (L.) R. Br. SPZIN, bahiagrass, Paspalum notatum Flueggérelative competitive abilityaggressivityWest Indian dropseed
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 61 , Issue 1 , March 2013 , pp. 109 - 116
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: Postdoctoral Research Associate, Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska, Northeast Research and Extension Center, 57905-866 Road, Concord, NE 68728-2828.

References

Literature Cited

Adjei, M. B., Mullahey, J. J., Mislevy, P., and Kalmbacher, R. S. 2003. Smutgrass control in perennial grass pastures. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida, Florida Cooperative Extension Service. SS-AGR-18. 4 p.Google Scholar
Adjei, M. B. and Rechcigl, J. E. 2004. Interactive effect of lime and nitrogen on bahiagrass pasture. Pages 52–56 in Proceedings of the 63rd Soil Crop Science Society of Florida. Gainesville, FL: Soil and Crop Science Society of Florida.Google Scholar
Buchanan, G. A., Hoveland, C. S., and Harris, M. C. 1975. Response of weeds to soil pH. Weed Sci. 23: 437–477.Google Scholar
Chambliss, C. G. 1996. Bahiagrass. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida, Florida Cooperative Extension Service. SS-AGR-36. 6 p.Google Scholar
Cousens, R. 1991. Aspects of the design and interpretation of competition (Interference) experiments. Weed Technol. 5: 664–673.Google Scholar
Ferrell, J. A., Mullahey, J. J., Dusky, J. A., and Roka, F. M. 2006. Competition of giant smutgrass (Sporobolus indicus) in a bahiagrass pasture. Weed Sci. 54: 100–105.Google Scholar
Hanlon, E. A., Mylavarapu, R., Mackowiak, C. L., and Silveira, M. L. 2009. Development of bahiagrass fertilization recommendations: 1998–2008. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida, Florida Cooperative Extension Service. SL-237. 15 p.Google Scholar
Harper, J. L. 1977. Population biology of plants. New York: Academic. 892 p.Google Scholar
Johnson, B. J. and Burns, R. E. 1985. Effects of soil pH, fertility, and herbicides on weed control and quality of bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) turf. Weed Sci. 33: 366–370.Google Scholar
Kellogg, C. E., Allaway, W. H., Barnes, C. P., Harper, V. L., Heisig, C. P., Pierre, W. H., Pinches, H. E., Quisenbery, K. S., Ritchie, R. G., Thorne, W., Stefferud, A., Wadleigh, C. H., and Winters, E. 1957. The Year Book of Agriculture: Soil. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. 164 p.Google Scholar
Mackowiak, C. L., Blount, A. R., Hanlon, E. A., Silveira, M. L., Adjei, M. B., and Myer, R. O. 2008. Getting the most out of bahiagrass fertilization. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida, Florida Cooperative Extension Service. SL249. 6 p.Google Scholar
McCaleb, J. E., Hodges, E. M., and Kirk, W. G. 1963. Smutgrass control. Florida Agricultural Experiment Station, Ona. Circular S-149.10 p.Google Scholar
McGilchrist, C. A. and Trenbath, B. R. 1971. A revised analysis of plant competition experiments. Biometrics 27: 659–671.Google Scholar
Mislevy, P. and Martin, F. G. 1985. Smutgrass control and subsequent forage production with fall application of dalapon. Pages 203–205 in Proceedings of the 44th Soil and Crop Science Society of Florida. Gainesville, FL: Soil and Crop Science Society of Florida.Google Scholar
Mislevy, P., Martin, F. G., and Hall, D. W. 2002. West Indian dropseed/giant smutgrass (Sporobolus indicus var. pyramidalis) control in bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum) pastures. Weed Technol. 16: 707–711.Google Scholar
Mullahey, J. J. 2000. Evaluating grazing management systems to control giant smutgrass (Sporobolus indicus var. pyramidalis). Pages 59–60 in Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 53: 59–60.Google Scholar
Mylavarapu, R., Wright, D., Kidder, G., and Chambliss, C. G. 2009. UF/IFAS standardized fertilization recommendations for agronomic crops. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida, Florida Cooperative Extension Service. SL129. 9 p.Google Scholar
Newman, Y., Vendramini, J., and Blount, A. 2010. Bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum): Overview and Management. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida, Florida Cooperative Extension Service. SS-AGR-332. 9 p.Google Scholar
Patterson, D. T. 1995. Effects of environmental stress on weed/crop interactions. Weed Sci. 43: 483–490.Google Scholar
Radford, A. E., Ahles, H. E., and Bell, C. R. 1968. Manual of the vascular Flora of Carolinas. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press. 1183 p.Google Scholar
Radovsevich, S. R. 1987. Interactions among crops and weeds. Weed Technol. 1: 190–198.Google Scholar
Rana, N. 2012. Biology of small smutgrass (Sporobolus indicus var. indicus) and giant smutgrass (Sporobolus indicus var. pyramidalis) and long term management of giant smutgrass. Ph.D. dissertation. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida. 97 p.Google Scholar
Rechcigl, J. E., Mislevy, P., and Ibrikci, H. 1995. Response of established bahiagrass to broadcast lime and phosphorus. J. Prod. Agric. 8: 249–253.Google Scholar
Rejmanek, M., Robinson, G. R., and Rejmankova, E. 1989. Weed–crop competition: Experimental designs and models for data analysis. Weed Sci. 37: 276–284.Google Scholar
Roush, M. L. and Radosevich, S. R. 1985. Relationship between growth and competitiveness of four annual weeds. J. Appl. Ecol. 22: 895–905.Google Scholar
Sellers, B. A., Ferrell, J. A., and Mullahey, J. J. 2011. Smutgrass Control in Perennial Grass Pastures. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida, Florida Cooperative Extension Service. SS-AGR-18. 4 p.Google Scholar
Silveira, M. L., Vendramini, J., Rechcigl, J. E., and Adjei, M. B. 2007. Soil pH and liming issues affecting bahiagrass pastures. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida, Florida Cooperative Extension Service. SS-AGR-29. 5 p.Google Scholar
Smith, J. E., Cole, A. W., and Watson, V. H. 1974. Selective smutgrass control and forage quality response in bermudagrass – dallisgrass pastures. Agron. J. 66: 424–426.Google Scholar
Stephenson, R. J. and Rechcigl, J. E. 1991. Effects of dolomite and gypsum on weeds. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 22: 1569–1579.Google Scholar
Tran, T. S. and Lierop, W. V. 1981. Evaluation and improvement of buffer-pH lime requirement methods. Soil Sci. 131: 178–188.Google Scholar
Trenholm, L. E. 2000. Growing turfgrass in the shade. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida, Florida Cooperative Extension Service. ENH151. 2 p.Google Scholar
[USDA] United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2012. Plants Profile for Sporobolus indicus (L.) R. Br. var. indicus (smutgrass) http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=SPINI2, and Sporobolus indicus (L.) R. Br. var. pyramidalis (P. Beauv.) Veldkamp. (West Indian dropseed)http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=SPINP2, and Sporobolus indicus (L.) R. Br. var. pyramidalis (P. Beauv.) Veldkamp. (West Indian dropseed)http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=SPINP2. Accessed: July, 25, 2012.Google Scholar
Weaver, S. E. and Hamill, A. S. 1985. Effect of soil pH on competitive ability and leaf nutrient content of corn (Zea mays L.) and three weed species. Weed Sci. 33: 447–451.Google Scholar
Weigelt, A. and Jolliffe, P. 2003. Indices of plant competition. J. Ecol. 91: 707–720.Google Scholar
Wilder, B. J. 2009. Seed biology and chemical control of giant and small smutgrass. . Gainesville, FL: University of Florida. 66 p.Google Scholar
Wunderlin, R. P. and Hansen, B. F. 2003. Guide to the vascular plants of Florida. 2nd ed. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida. 816 p.Google Scholar
Zimdahl, R. L. 2004. Weed–crop competition. 2nd ed. Ames, Iowa: Blackwell publishing. Pp. 131–141.Google Scholar