Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T14:43:43.408Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Growth of field horsetail (Equisetum arvense) under low light and low nitrogen conditions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Torsten N. Andersson  and
Bengt Lundegårdh
Bengt Lundegårdh
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Production Science, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field horsetail was grown from rhizome segments for 28 and 52 d under 35, 60, 120, 170, and 320 μmol m–2 s–1 photosynthetic photon flux (PPF) and four continuous nitrogen (N) supply rates corresponding to a total of 1 to 6 kg N ha–1 28 d after planting (DAP) and 6 to 41 kg N ha–1 52 DAP. There was no response to the supply of N in the first growth period, probably due to the mobilization of nitrogen available in the planted rhizomes, and only dry weight (DW) of new belowground production, mostly roots, responded to increased light. Rhizomes were produced during the latter part of the 52-d period. Requirements for light and N during the 52-d period were low, because total new tissue production was only reduced at the lowest levels of light (35 μmol m–2 s–1 PPF) and the two lowest N supply rates (6 and 18 kg N ha–1). The ratio of shoot DW to belowground organ DW increased only as the N supply increased. Shoot height response to an increased N supply was also small. Field horsetail can therefore be considered tolerant of low levels of N but will be overtopped by fast-growing species when competing for increased supplies of N. Both an increase in N supply and a reduction in light increased the reduction of DW of the planted rhizomes, whereas tuber production was favored by low N supply and high light intensities. Field horsetail can tolerate low levels of N but is not likely to be competitive in a dense crop stand.

Keywords

Field horsetail, Equisetum arvense L.EQUARBiomass allocationgrowth analysisEQUAR
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 47 , Issue 1 , February 1999 , pp. 41 - 46
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 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

Andersson, T. N. 1997. Crop rotation and weed flora, with special reference to the nutrient and light demand of Equisetum arvense L. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. Acta Univ. Agric. Agraria 74: 26–32.Google Scholar
Andersson, T. N. and Milberg, P. 1996. Weed performance in crop rotations with and without leys and at different nitrogen levels. Ann. Appl. Biol. 128: 505–518.Google Scholar
Bachthaler, G. 1985. Changes in the weed population of Bavaria. Comparison of the results of regional evaluations for the survey periods 1948–1955 and 1979–1980. Bayer. Landwirtsch. Jahrb. 62: 60–75.Google Scholar
Berendse, F. and Th. Elberse, W. 1990. Competition and nutrient availability in heathland and grassland ecosystems. Pages 93–115 in Grace, J. B. and Tilman, D., eds. Perspectives on Plant Competition. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bryant, J. P., Chapin, F. S. III, and Klein, D. R. 1983. Carbon/nutrient balance of boreal plants in relation to vertebrate herbivory. Oikos 40: 357–368.Google Scholar
Buchli, M. 1936. Oekologi der Ackerunkräuter der Nordostschweiz. Beiträge zur geobotanischen Landesaufnahme der Schweiz, Heft 19. 354 p.Google Scholar
Chapin III, F. S., Bloom, A. J., Field, C. B., and Waring, R. H. 1987. Plant response to multiple environmental factors. BioScience 37: 49–57.Google Scholar
Cloutier, D. and Watson, A. K. 1985. Growth and regeneration of field horsetail (Equisetum arvense). Weed Sci. 33: 358–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cody, W. J. and Wagner, V. 1980. The biology of Canadian weeds. 49. Equisetum arvense L. Can. J. Plant Sci. 61: 123–133.Google Scholar
Coley, P. D. 1986. Cost and benefits of defense by tannins in a neotropical tree. Oecologia 70: 238–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cudney, D. W., Jordan, L. S., and Hall, A. E. 1991. Effect of wild oat (Avena fatua) infestations on light interception and growth rate of wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Sci. 39: 175–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dall'Armellina, A. and Zimdahl, R. 1988. Effect of light and development of field bindweed (Convolovolus arvensis) and Russian knapweed (Centaurea repens). Weed Sci. 36: 779–783.Google Scholar
De Souza, J. G. and Da Silva, J. V. 1987. Partitioning of carbohydrates in annual and perennial cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). J. Exp. Bot. 38: 1211–1218.Google Scholar
Dock Gustavsson, A-M. 1997. Growth and regenerative capacity of Cirsium arvense Weed Res. 37: 229–236.Google Scholar
Erviö, L-R. and Salonen, J. 1987. Changes in the weed population of spring cereals in Finland. Ann. Agric. Fenn. 26: 201–226.Google Scholar
Grime, J. P., Crick, J. C., and Rincon, J. E. 1986. The ecological significance of plasticity. Pages 5–30 in Jennings, D. H. and Trewavas, A. J., eds. Plasticity in Plants. Cambridge, United Kingdom: The Company of Biologists.Google Scholar
Grime, J. P. and Hunt, R. 1975. Relative growth-rate: its range and adaptive significance in a local flora. J. Ecol. 63: 393–422.Google Scholar
Hauke, R. L. 1967. A systematic study of Equisetum arvense . Nowa Hedwigia, Z. Kryptogamenkunde. 13: 69–108.Google Scholar
Holm, L. G., Plucknett, D. L., Pancho, J. V., and Herberger, J. P. 1977. The World's Worst Weeds: Distribution and Biology. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii. 609 p.Google Scholar
Holt, J. S. 1995. Plant responses to light: a potential tool for weed management. Weed Sci. 43: 474–482.Google Scholar
Hultén, E. and Fries, M. 1986. Atlas of North European Vascular Plants North of the Tropic of Cancer. 3 vol. Konigstein: Koeltz Scientific.Google Scholar
Karch, K. and Speri, P. 1979. Weed occurrence and weed control in the “Continuous Rye” trial. Paper given at: Wissenschafliche Tagung 100 Jahre Ewiger Roggenbau, Hall/Saale, 1989. Wiss. Beitr. Martin Luther Univ. Halle-Wittenberg 5: 72–81.Google Scholar
Korsmo, E. 1954. Anatomy of Weeds. Oslo: Kirstes Boktrykkeri. 413 p.Google Scholar
Kvist, M. and Håkansson, S. 1985. Rhythm and Dormancy Periods in the Vegetative Development and Growth of Some Perennial Weeds. Uppsala, Sweden: Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Rep. 156. [In Swedish with English summary]. 110 p.Google Scholar
Lambers, H. and Poorter, H. 1992. Inherent variation in growth rate between higher plants: a search for physiological causes and ecological consequences. Pages 187–261 in Bergon, M. and Fitter, A. H., eds. Advances in Ecological Research. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Marshall, G. 1984. A review of the control of Equisetum arvense L. (field horsetail). Weed control in fruit crops. Aspects Appl. Biol. 8: 33–42.Google Scholar
Marshall, G. 1986. Growth and development of field horsetail (Equisetum arvense L.). Weed Sci. 34: 271–275.Google Scholar
Oscarsson, P., Lundborg, T., Larsson, M., and Larsson, C-M. 1995. Fate and effects on yield components of extra applications of nitrogen on spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) grown in solution culture. Plant Soil 175: 179–188.Google Scholar
Palmer, J. H. and Sagar, G. R. 1963. Biological flora of the British Isles. Agropyron repens (L.) Beauv. (Triticum repens L.; Elytrigia repens (L.) Nevski). J. Ecol. 3: 783–794.Google Scholar
Petterson, S. 1986. Growth, contents of K+ and kinetics of K+ (86Rb) uptake in barley cultured at different low supply rates of potassium. Physiol. Plant. 66: 122–128.Google Scholar
Pysek, P. and Leps, J. 1991. Response of a weed community to nitrogen fertilization: a multivariate analysis. J. Veg. Sci. 2: 237–244.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis System. 1988. User's Guide: Statistics. 6th ed. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute.Google Scholar
Skuterud, R. 1984. Growth of Elymus repens (L.) Gould and Agrostis gigantea Roth. at different light intensities. Weed Res. 24: 51–57.Google Scholar
Uchino, F., Hiyoshi, T., and Yatazawa, M. 1984. Nitrogen-fixing activities associated with rhizomes and roots of Equisetum species. Soil Biol. Biochem. 16: 663–667.Google Scholar
Williams, E. D. 1979. Studies on the depth distribution and on the germination and growth of Equisetum arvense L. (field horsetail) from tubers. Weed Res. 19: 25–32.Google Scholar
Wilson, J. B. 1988. A review of evidence on the control of shoot: root ratio, in relation to models. Ann. Bot. 61: 433–449.Google Scholar
Wright, K. J. 1993. Weed seed production as affected by crop density and nitrogen application. Brighton Crop Prot. Conf. Weed Sci. 1: 275–280.Google Scholar
Zimdahl, R. L., Lin, J., and Dall'Armellina, A. A. 1991. Effect of light, watering frequency, and chlorosulfuron on Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense). Weed Sci. 39: 590–594.Google Scholar