Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-04T09:27:08.335Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response of Weeds to Soil pH

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

G. A. Buchanan ,
C. S. Hoveland  and
M. C. Harris
G. A. Buchanan
Affiliation:
Auburn Univ., Agr. Exp. Sta. Auburn, AL 36830
C. S. Hoveland
Affiliation:
Auburn Univ., Agr. Exp. Sta. Auburn, AL 36830
M. C. Harris
Affiliation:
Soil Conser. Agt. Soil Conser. Serv., Ft. Payne, AL 35967
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Ten warm-season and six cool-season weed species were grown in the glasshouse on Hartsells fine sandy loam soil and Lucedale sandy loam soil at pH levels from 4.7 to 6.3. Growth of species varied widely in response to soil pH as measured by herbage yield. Showy crotalaria (Crotalaria spectabilis Roth), coffee senna (Cassia occidentalis L.), and large crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis (L.) Scop.] were highly tolerant to low pH soils. Sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia L.), annual bluegrass (Poa annua L.), Carolina geranium (Geranium carolinianum L.), and buckhorn plantain (Plantago lanceolata L.), were medium to high in tolerance. Jimsonweed (Datura stramonium L.), tall morningglory [Ipomoea purpurea (L.) Roth], crowfootgrass [Dactyloctenium aegyptium (L.) Richter], and prickly sida (Sida spinosa L.) were medium to low in tolerance to low soil pH. Growth of Florida beggarweed [Desmodium tortuosum (Sw.) DC], redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.), chickweed [Stellaria media (L.) Cyrillo], common dandelion (Taraxacum officinale (Weber), and wild mustard [Brassica kaber (DC.) L.C. Wheeler var. pinnatifida (Stokes) L.C. Wheeler] was severely reduced in soils with low pH.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 23 , Issue 6 , November 1975 , pp. 473 - 477
Copyright
Copyright © 1975 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 Wear, John I. 1957. Manganese toxicity and soil acidity in relation to crinkle leaf of cotton. Soil Sci. 21:305–308.Google Scholar
2. Adams, F. and Pearson, R.W. 1967. Crop response to lime in the southeastern United States and Puerto Rico. Pages 161–206 in Pearson, R.W. and Adams, F. eds. Soil acidity and liming. Amer. Soc. of Agron., Madison, Wisconsin.Google Scholar
3. 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
4. Creel, J.M. Jr., Hoveland, C.S., and Buchanan, G.A. 1968. Germination, growth, and ecology of sicklepod. Weeds 16:396–400.Google Scholar
5. Foy, C.D. and Brown, C. 1964. Toxic factors in acid soils: II. Differential aluminum tolerance of plant species. Proc. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. 28:27–32.Google Scholar
6. Foy, C.D., Burns, G.R., Brown, J.C., and Fleming, A.L. 1965. Differential aluminum tolerance of two wheat varieties associated with plant induced pH changes around their roots. Proc. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. 29:64–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Frans, R.E. 1969. Changing ecology of weeds in cotton fields. Proceedings of the beltwide cotton production–mechanization conference. 29–30.Google Scholar
8. Gilbert, B.E. and Pember, F.R. 1935. Tolerance of certain weeds and grasses to toxic aluminum. Soil Sci. 39:425–429.Google Scholar
9. LeFevre, P. 1956. Influence du milieu et des conditions d'exploration sur le development des plantes adventices. Effet particutier du pH et l'etat clacique. Anales Agronomique (Paris) 7:299–347.Google Scholar