Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T05:03:21.329Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Decay and Nutrient Release Patterns of Weeds Following Post-Emergent Glyphosate Control

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Nick T. Harre ,
Jon E. Schoonover  and
Bryan G. Young
Nick T. Harre*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant, Soil, and Agricultural Systems, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL 62901
Jon E. Schoonover
Affiliation:
Department of Forestry, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL 62901
Bryan G. Young
Affiliation:
Department of Plant, Soil, and Agricultural Systems, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL 62901
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The role of weed biomass in the nutrient balance of agro-ecosystems remains poorly understood. To measure the rate of decomposition and nutrient release of common weeds, litterbag methodology was employed using waterhemp and giant foxtail desiccated by glyphosate at heights of 10, 20, 30, and 45 cm in two southern Illinois soybean fields. Losses were then expressed as a decay constant (k) regressed over time according to the single exponential decay model. Concentrations of the recalcitrant cell wall components (cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin) were generally greatest as weed height (maturity) increased in giant foxtail compared with waterhemp. Sixteen weeks after desiccation by glyphosate, 10-cm waterhemp and giant foxtail detritus had lost 10 and 12% more mass, respectively, compared to the 45-cm height of each species. Decomposition rates revealed mass loss was highest for 10-cm waterhemp (kD = 0.022) and lowest for 45-cm giant foxtail (kD = 0.011) and this process was negatively correlated to the overall amount of cell wall constituents (r = −0.73). Nutrient release rates followed a similar trend in that both shorter (younger) weeds and waterhemp liberated nutrients more readily. Across all tested plant material, K was the nutrient most rapidly released, whereas, Ca was the most strongly retained nutrient.

Keywords

Glyphosatecommon waterhemp, Amaranthus tuberculatus (Moq.) Sauer var. rudis (Sauer) Costea and Tardif AMATUgiant foxtail, Setaria faberi Herrm. SETFASoybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr.Decompositionnutrient releaseweed residue
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 62 , Issue 4 , December 2014 , pp. 588 - 596
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 Botany and Plant Pathology, Purdue University, 915 West State Street, West Lafayette, IN 47907.

References

Literature Cited

Aerts, R (1997) Climate, leaf litter chemistry and leaf litter decomposition in terrestrial ecosystems: a triangular relationship. Oikos. 79:439–449 Google Scholar
Aerts, R (2006) The freezer defrosting: global warming and litter decomposition rates in cold biomes. J Ecol. 94:713–724 Google Scholar
Baker, WH, Plank, CO (1992) Sample preparation. Pages 1–9 in Plank, CO, ed. Plant Analysis Reference Procedures for the Southern Region of the United States. Athens, GA University of Georgia Press Google Scholar
Bailey, RM, Davis, VM (2013) Nitrous oxide emissions as influenced by nitrogen and weeds before and after postemergence glyphosate application. Pages 53 in Proceedings of the North Central Weed Science Society. Columbus, OH North Central Weed Science Society Google Scholar
Berg, B, ed (2008) Plant Litter: Decomposition, Humus Formation, Carbon Sequestration. Berlin Springer. 338 pGoogle Scholar
Cobo, JG, Barrios, E, Kass, DCL, Thomas, RJ (2002) Decomposition and nutrient release by green manures in a tropical hillside agroecosystem. Plant Soil. 240:331–342 Google Scholar
Gilbert, HJ (2010) The biochemistry and structural biology of plant cell wall deconstruction. Plant Phys. 153:444–455 Google Scholar
Gupta, SR, Singh, JS (1981) The effect of plant species, weather variables, and chemical composition of plant material on decomposition in a tropical grassland. Plant Soil. 59:99–117 Google Scholar
Johnson, WG, Ott, EJ, Gibson, KD, Nielsen, RL, Bauman, TT (2007) Influence of nitrogen application timing on low density giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida) interference in corn. Weed Technol. 21:763–767 Google Scholar
Knezevic, SZ, Evans, SP, Blankenship, EE, Van Acker, RC, Lindquist, JL (2002) Critical period for weed control: the concept and data analysis. Weed Sci. 50:773–786 Google Scholar
Lambers, H, Chapin, FS, Pons, TL, eds (2008) Plant Physiological Ecology. New York Springer Google Scholar
Lindsey, LE, Steinke, K, Warncke, DD, Everman, WJ (2013) Nitrogen release from weed residue. Weed Sci. 61:334–340 Google Scholar
Majumder, M, Shukla, AK, Arunachalam, A (2008) Nutrient release and fungal succession during decomposition of weed residues in a shifting cultivation system. Com Biom Crop Sci. 3:45–59 Google Scholar
Marten, GC, Andersen, RN (1975) Forage nutritive value and palatability of 12 common annual weeds. Crop Sci. 15:821–827 Google Scholar
Meentemeyer, V (1978) Macroclimate and lignin control of litter decomposition rates. Ecology. 59:465–472 Google Scholar
Müller, MM, Sundman, V, Soininvaara, O, Merilainen, A (1988) Effect of chemical composition on the release of nitrogen from agricultural plant materials decomposing in soil under field conditions. Biol Fertil Soils. 6:78–83 Google Scholar
Murungu, FS, Chiduza, P, Muchaonyerwa, P, Mnkeni, PNS (2011) Decomposition, nitrogen and phosphorus mineralization from winter-grown cover crop residues and suitability for a smallholder farming system in South Africa. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst. 89:115–123 Google Scholar
Musha, Y, Goring, DAI (1975) Cell dimensions and their relationship to the chemical nature of the lignin from the wood of broad-leaved trees. Can J Forest Res. 5:259–268 Google Scholar
Olson, JS (1963) Energy storage and balance of producers and decomposers in ecological systems. Ecology. 44:322–331 Google Scholar
Palm, CA, Sanchez, PA (1990) Decomposition and nutrient release patterns of the leaves of three tropical legumes. Biotropica. 22:330–338 Google Scholar
Prescott, CE (2005) Decomposition and mineralization of nutrients from litter and humus. Pages 15–41 in Hormoz, BR, ed. Nutrient Acquisition by Plants. Berlin Springer Google Scholar
Swift, MJ, Heal, OW, Anderson, KM, eds (1979) Decomposition in terrestrial ecosystems. Berkeley, CA University of California Press. 372 pGoogle Scholar
Undersander, D, Mertens, DR, Thiex, N (1993) Determination of acid detergent fiber by refluxing. Forage Analyses Procedures. Lincoln, NE National Forage Testing Association. 95 pGoogle Scholar
Vanholme, R, Demedts, B, Morreel, K, Ralph, J, Boerjan, W (2010) Lignin biosynthesis and structure. Plant Physiol. 153:895–905 Google Scholar
Van Soest, PJ, Robertson, JB, Lewis, BA (1991) Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber and non-starch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J Dairy Sci. 74:3583–3597 Google Scholar
Vivanco, L, Austin, AT (2006) Intrinsic effects of species on leaf litter and root decomposition: a comparison of temperate grasses from North and South America. Oecologia. 150:97107 Google Scholar