Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T01:51:11.150Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparative Nitrogen Uptake and Distribution in Corn and Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

John L. Lindquist ,
Darren C. Barker ,
Stevan Z. Knezevic ,
Alexander R. Martin  and
Daniel T. Walters
John L. Lindquist*
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583-0915
Darren C. Barker
Affiliation:
Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc., York, NE, 68467
Stevan Z. Knezevic
Affiliation:
Haskell Agricultural Laboratory, University of Nebraska, Concord, NE 68728
Alexander R. Martin
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583-0915
Daniel T. Walters
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583-0915
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Weeds compete with crops for light, soil water, and nutrients. Nitrogen (N) is the primary limiting soil nutrient. Forecasting the effects of N on growth, development, and interplant competition requires accurate prediction of N uptake and distribution within plants. Field studies were conducted in 1999 and 2000 to determine the effects of variable N addition on monoculture corn and velvetleaf N uptake, the relationship between plant N concentration ([N]) and total biomass, the fraction of N partitioned to leaves, and predicted N uptake and leaf N content. Cumulative N uptake of both species was generally greater in 2000 than in 1999 and tended to increase with increasing N addition. Corn and velvetleaf [N] declined with increasing biomass in both years in a predictable manner. The fraction of N partitioned to corn and velvetleaf leaves varied with thermal time from emergence but was not influenced by year, N addition, or weed density. With the use of the [N]–biomass relationship to forecast N demand, cumulative corn N uptake was accurately predicted for three of four treatments in 1999 but was underpredicted in 2000. Velvetleaf N uptake was accurately predicted in all treatments in both years. Leaf N content (NL, g N m−2 leaf) was predicted by the fraction of N partitioned to leaves, predicted N uptake, and observed leaf area index for each species. Average deviations between predicted and observed corn NL were < 88 and 12% of the observed values in 1999 and 2000, respectively. Velvetleaf NL was less well predicted, with average deviations ranging from 39 to 248% of the observed values. Results of this research indicate that N uptake in corn and velvetleaf was driven primarily by biomass accumulation. Overall, the approaches outlined in this paper provide reasonable predictions of corn and velvetleaf N uptake and distribution in aboveground tissues.

Keywords

Velvetleaf, Abutilon theophrasti Medic. ABUTHcorn, Zea mays L. ‘Pioneer 33A14’Growth analysisfunctional equilibriumleaf area indexnitrogen nutritionN use efficiency
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 55 , Issue 2 , April 2007 , pp. 102 - 110
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

Baldwin, J. P., Nye, P. H., and Tinker, P. B. 1973. Uptake of solutes by multiple root systems from soil. III. A model for calculating the solute uptake by a randomly dispersed root system developing in a finite volume of soil. Plant Soil. 38:621–635.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
Benbi, D. and Richter, J. F. 2002. A critical review of some approaches to modeling nitrogen mineralization. Biol. Fertil. Soils. 35:168–183.Google Scholar
ten Berge, H. F. M., Wopereis, M. C. S., Riethoven, J. J. M., and Drenth, H. 1994. Description of the ORYZA_0 modules (version 2.0). Pages 43–55. in Drenth, H., ten Berge, H.F.M., Riethoven, J.J.M. eds. ORYZA Simulation Modules for Potential and Nitrogen Limited Rice Production. Simulation and Systems Analysis for Rice Production (SARP) Research Proceeding. Wageningen, The Netherlands DLO-Research Institute for Agrobiology and Soil Fertility, WAU-Department of Theoretical Production Ecology; Los Banos, Philippines: International Rice Research Institute.Google Scholar
ten Berge, H. F. M., Thiyagarajan, T. M., Shi, Q., Wopereis, M. C. S., Drenth, H., and Jansen, M. J. W. 1997. Numerical optimization of nitrogen application to rice. Part I. Description of MANAGE-N. Field Crops Res. 51:29–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonifas, K. D. and Lindquist, J. L. 2006. Predicting biomass partitioning to root versus shoot in corn and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti). Weed Science. 54:133–137.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
Brown, J. R. 1998. Recommended chemical soil test procedures for the North Central region. North Central Regional Publ. 221 (Revised). Columbia, MO Missouri Agric. Exp. Stn.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burns, I. G. 1980. Influence of the spatial distribution of nitrate on the uptake of N by plants: a review and a model for rooting depth. J. Soil Sci. 3:155–173.Google Scholar
Coleman, J. S., McConnaughay, K. D. M., and Bazzaz, F. A. 1993. Elevated CO2 and plant nitrogen-use: is reduced tissue nitrogen concentration size-dependent. Oecologia. 93:195–200.Google Scholar
Davis, A. S. and Liebman, M. 2001. Nitrogen source influences wild mustard growth and competitive effect on sweet corn. Weed Sci. 49:558–566.Google Scholar
Ehleringer, J. R. and Monson, R. K. 1993. Evolutionary and ecological aspects of photosynthetic pathway variation. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 24:411–439.Google Scholar
Gastal, F. and Lemaire, G. 2002. N uptake and distribution in crops: an agronomical and ecophysiological perspective. J. Exp. Bot. 53:789–799.Google Scholar
Goldberg, D. E. 1990. Components of resource competition in plant communities. Pages 27–49. in Grace, J.B., Tilman, D. eds. Perspectives on Plant Competition. San Diego, CA Academic.Google Scholar
Graf, B., Gutierrez, A. P., Rakotobe, O., Zahner, P., and Delucchi, V. 1990. A simulation model for the dynamics of rice growth and development. Part II. The competition with weeds for nitrogen and light. Agric. Sys. 32:367–392.Google Scholar
Greenwood, D. J., Lemaire, G., Gosse, G., Cruz, P., Draycott, A., and Neeteson, J. J. 1990. Decline in percentage N of C3 and C4 crops with increasing plant mass. Ann. Bot. 66:425–436.Google Scholar
Grime, J. P. 1979. Plant Strategies and Vegetation Processes. London Wiley.Google Scholar
Harbur, M. M. and Owen, M. D. K. 2004. Light and growth rate effects on crop and weed responses to nitrogen. Weed Sci. 52:578–583.Google Scholar
Hasegawa, T. and Horie, T. 1996. Leaf nitrogen, plant age and crop dry matter production in rice. Field Crops Res. 47:107–116.Google Scholar
Jeuffroy, M. H., Ney, B., and Ourry, A. 2002. Integrated physiological and agronomic modeling of N capture and use within the plant. J. Exp. Bot. 53:809–823.Google Scholar
Kropff, M. J. 1993. Mechanisms of competition for nitrogen. Pages 77–82. in Kropff, M.J., van Laar, H.H. eds. Modelling Crop–Weed Interactions. Wallingford, UK CAB International; Los Banos, Philippines: International Rice Research Institute.Google Scholar
Lawlor, D. W. 2002. Carbon and nitrogen assimilation in relation to yield: mechanisms are the key to understanding production systems. J. Exp. Bot. 53:773–787.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lindquist, J. L. 2001a. Mechanisms of crop loss due to weed competition. Pages 233–253. in Peterson, R.K.D., Higley, L.G. eds. Biotic Stress and Yield Loss. Boca Raton, FL CRC.Google Scholar
Lindquist, J. L. 2001b. Light-saturated CO2 assimilation rates of corn and velvetleaf in response to leaf nitrogen and development stage. Weed Sci. 49:706–710.Google Scholar
Lindquist, J. L. and Mortensen, D. A. 1999. Ecophysiological characteristics of four maize hybrids and Abutilon theophrasti . Weed Res. 39:271–285.Google Scholar
Lindquist, J. L., Mortensen, D. A., Clay, S. A., Schmenk, R., Kells, J. J., Howatt, K., and Westra, P. 1996. Stability of corn (Zea mays)—velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) interference relationships. Weed Sci. 44:309–313.Google Scholar
McCullough, D. E., Aguilera, A., and Tollenaar, M. 1994. N uptake, N partitioning, and photosynthetic N-use efficiency of an old and a new corn hybrid. Can. J. Plant Sci. 74:479–484.Google Scholar
Montgomery, D. C. 1991. Design and analysis of experiments. 3rd ed. New York John Wiley and Sons. 42–45.Google Scholar
Muchow, R. C. and Sinclair, T. R. 1994. Nitrogen response of leaf photosynthesis and canopy radiation use efficiency in field-grown corn and sorghum. Crop Sci. 34:721–727.Google Scholar
Nye, P. H. and Tinker, P. B. 1977. Solute movement in the soil-root system. Oxford, UK Blackwell Scientific.Google Scholar
Radin, J. W. 1983. Control of plant growth by nitrogen: differences between cereals and broadleaf species. Plant Cell Environ. 6:65–68.Google Scholar
Sage, R. F. and Pearcy, R. W. 1987a. The nitrogen use efficiency of C3 and C4 plants. I. Leaf nitrogen, growth, and biomass partitioning in Chenopodium album (L.) and Amaranthus retroflexus (L.). Plant Physiol. 84:954–958.Google Scholar
Sage, R. F. and Pearcy, R. W. 1987b. The nitrogen use efficiency of C3 and C4 plants. II. Leaf nitrogen effects on the gas exchange characteristics of Chenopodium album (L.) and Amaranthus retroflexus (L.). Plant Physiol. 84:959–963.Google Scholar
Sage, R. F., Pearcy, R. W., and Seeman, J. R. 1987. The nitrogen use efficiency of C3 and C4 plants. III. Leaf nitrogen effects on the activity of carboxylating enzymes in Chenopodium album (L.) and Amaranthus retroflexus (L.). Plant Physiol. 85:355–359.Google Scholar
Sheehy, J. E., Dionora, M. J. A., Mitchell, P. L., Peng, S., Cassman, K. G., Lemaire, G., and Williams, R. L. 1998. Critical nitrogen concentrations: implications for high yielding rice (Oryza sativa L.) cultivars in the tropics. Field Crops Res. 59:31–41.Google Scholar
Sinclair, T. R. and Horie, T. 1989. Leaf nitrogen, photosynthesis, and crop radiation use efficiency: a review. Crop Sci. 29:90–98.Google Scholar
Sinclair, T. R. and Muchow, R. C. 1995. Effect of nitrogen supply on maize yield: I. Modeling physiological responses. Agronomy J. 87:632–641.Google Scholar
Tilman, D. 1990. Mechanisms of plant competition for nutrients: the elements of a predictive theory of competition. Pages 117–141. in Grace, J.B., Tilman, D. eds. Perspectives on Plant Competition. San Diego, CA Academic.Google Scholar
Wallace, A. 1990. Moisture levels, nitrogen levels—clue to the next limiting factor on crop production. J. Plant Nutr. 13:451–457.Google Scholar
Willigen, Pde 1991. Nitrogen turnover in the soil–crop system; comparison of fourteen simulation models. Nutr. Cycl. AgroecoSyst. 27:141–149.Google Scholar
Zhou, X. M., Madramootoo, C. A., MacKenzie, A. F., and Smith, D. L. 1997. Biomass production and nitrogen uptake in corn–ryegrass systems. Agron. J. 89:749–756.Google Scholar