Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T14:44:15.407Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of CO2 Enrichment on Competition Between a C4 Weed and a C3 Crop

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

David T. Patterson ,
Elizabeth P. Flint  and
Jan L. Beyers
David T. Patterson
Affiliation:
Dep. Bot., Duke Univ., Durham, NC 27706
Elizabeth P. Flint
Affiliation:
Dep. Bot., Duke Univ., Durham, NC 27706
Jan L. Beyers
Affiliation:
Dep. Bot., Duke Univ., Durham, NC 27706
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The C4 weed johnsongrass [Sorghum halepense (L.) Pers. ♯3 SORHA] and the C3 crop soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr. ‘Ransom’] were grown separately and in inter- and intraspecific competition at 350 and 675 ppm CO2 in controlled environment chambers with 29/23 C day/night temperatures and 950 μE·m-2 · s-1 PPFD (photosynthetic photon flux density). In the absence of competition, the higher CO2 concentration stimulated dry matter accumulation, leaf area expansion, net assimilation rate, and leaf area duration of soybean more than that of johnsongrass. The plant relative yield (PRY) of soybean in competition with johnsongrass increased, and the PRY of johnsongrass in competition with soybean decreased, as the CO2 concentration was increased from 350 to 675 ppm. Thus, the competitiveness of the C3 crop with the C4 weed increased with increasing CO2 concentration. Relative yield totals were not significantly different from 1.0, indicating that the two species were competing for the same resources. With the increases in global atmospheric CO2 concentration predicted for the next 50 to 100 yr, the competitiveness of C3 crops with C4 weeds could be increased.

Keywords

Glycine maxSorghum halepensegrowth analysisbiomass partitioningSORHA
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 32 , Issue 1 , January 1984 , pp. 101 - 105
Copyright
Copyright © 1984 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. Baes, C. J. Jr., Goeller, H. E., Olson, J. S., and Rotty, R. M. 1976. The global carbon dioxide problem. ORNL-5194. Oak Ridge Nat. Lab., Oak Ridge, TN. 72 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Carter, D. R. and Peterson, K. M. 1982. Effects of elevated CO2 concentration on competition between a C3 grass and a C4 grass. Bull. Ecol. Soc. Am. 63(2): 146.Google Scholar
3. Flint, E. P. and Patterson, D. T. 1983. Interference and temperature effects on growth in soybean (Glycine max) and associated C3 and C4 weeds. Weed Sci. 31:193–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Harlan, J. R. 1975. Crops and Man. Am. Soc. Agron., Madison, WI. 295 pp.Google Scholar
5. Hellmers, H. and Giles, L. J. 1979. Carbon dioxide: Critique I. Pages 229–234 in Tibbitts, T. W. and Kozlowski, T. T., eds. Controlled Environment Guidelines for Plant Research. Academic Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Holm, L. G., Plucknett, D. L., Pancho, J. B., and Herberger, J. P. 1977. The World's Worst Weeds. Distribution and Biology. Univ. Press of Hawaii, Honolulu. 609 pp.Google Scholar
7. Idso, S. B. 1980. The climatological significance of a doubling of earth's atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. Science 207:1462–1463.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Imai, K. and Murata, Y. 1976. Effect of carbon dioxide concentration on growth and dry matter production of crop plants. I. Effects on leaf area, dry matter, tillering, dry matter distribution ratio, and transpiration. Proc. Crop Sci. Soc. Jap. 45:598–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Kramer, P. J. 1981. Carbon dioxide concentration, photosynthesis, and dry matter production. BioScience 31:29–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Kvet, J., Ondok, J. P., Necas, J., and Jarvis, P. G. 1971. Methods of growth analysis. Pages 343–391 in Sestak, Z., Catsky, J., and Jarvis, P. G., eds. Plant Photosynthetic Production. Manual of Methods. Dr. W. Junk, N. V. Publishers, The Hague.Google Scholar
11. McWhorter, C. G. 1971. Introduction and spread of johnsongrass in the United States. Weed Sci. 19:496–500.Google Scholar
12. Patterson, D. T. 1982. Effects of shading and temperature on showy crotalaria (Crotalaria spectabilis). Weed Sci. 30:692–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Patterson, D. T. 1982. Effects of light and temperature on weed/crop growth and competition. Pages 407–420 in Hatfield, J. L. and Thomason, I. J. (eds.). Biometeorology in Integrated Pest Management. Academic Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Patterson, D. T. and Flint, E. P. 1980. Potential effects of global atmospheric CO2 enrichment on the growth and competitiveness of C3 and C4 weed and crop plants. Weed Sci. 28:71–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Patterson, D. T. and Flint, E. P. 1982. Interacting effects of CO2 and nutrient concentration. Weed Sci. 30:389–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Sionit, N., Mortensen, D. A., Strain, B. R., and Hellmers, H. 1981. Growth response of wheat to CO2 enrichment and different levels of mineral nutrition. Agron. J. 73:1023–1027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Sionit, N., Hellmers, H., and Strain, B. R. 1982. Interaction of atmospheric CO2 enrichment and irradiance on plant growth. Agron. J. 74:721–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Strain, B. R. and Bazzaz, F. 1983. Terrestrial plant communities. Pages 176–222 in Lemon, E., ed. CO2 and Plants. The Response of Plants to Rising Levels of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.Google Scholar
19. Trenbath, B. R. 1974. Biomass productivity of mixtures. Adv. Agron. 26:177–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20. deWit, C. T. 1960. On Competition. Versl. landbouwkd. Onderz. No. 66.8. Wageningen, The Netherlands. 82 pp.Google Scholar
21. Wong, S. C. 1980. Elevated atmospheric partial pressure of CO2 and plant growth. I. Interactions of nitrogen nutrition and photosynthetic capacity in C3 and C4 plants. Oecologia 44:68–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar