Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T18:18:24.490Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Composted Swine Manure Effects on Germination and Early Growth of Crop and Weed Species Under Greenhouse Conditions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Fabián D. Menalled ,
Douglas D. Buhler  and
Matt Liebman
Fabián D. Menalled*
Affiliation:
Department of Land Resources and Environmental Sciences, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 59717-3120
Douglas D. Buhler
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824
Matt Liebman
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011-1010
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Composted manure produced in deep-bedded hoop structures constitutes a source of nutrients and organic materials that can influence crop and weed emergence, growth, competitive interactions, and soil physical properties. The impact of composted swine manure on corn, soybean, winter wheat, velvetleaf, giant foxtail, and common waterhemp emergence and early growth were compared at compost rates of 0, 8, 16, or 24 Mg C/ha. Compost amendment had no effect on crop emergence but did reduce weed emergence. Inhibition of seedling emergence ranged between 15 and 57% for giant foxtail, 0 and 23% for velvetleaf, and 16 and 76% for common waterhemp. Soil amendment enhanced weed growth but not crop growth. A response surface regression analysis indicated that, while large-seeded crops have constant relative growth rates, small-seeded weed species increase their relative growth rates with compost amendment (P < 0.0001, r2 = 0.5252).

Keywords

Common waterhemp, Amaranthus rudis Sauer # AMATAcorn, Zea mays L. ‘Pioneer 3563’giant foxtail, Setaria faberi SETFA Hermsoybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr. ‘Pioneer 92B84’velvetleaf, Abutilon theophrasti ABUTH Medicuswinter wheat, Triticum aestivum L. ‘Arapahoe’Compost amendmentrelative growth rategermination inhibitionorganic amendmentseedling emergencesoil qualityEI%, percentage emergence inhibitionMTE, mean time of emergenceRGR, relative growth rateVOA, volatile organic acids
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 19 , Issue 4 , December 2005 , pp. 784 - 789
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

Amin, M. and Flowers, T. H. 2004. Evaluation of Kjeldahl digestion method. J. Res. Science 15:159–179.Google Scholar
Bazzoffi, P., Pellegrini, S., Rocchini, A., Morandi, M., and Grasselli, O. 1998. The effect of urban refuse compost and different tractor tires on soil physical properties, soil erosion and maize yield. Soil Till. Res. 48:275–286.Google Scholar
Birchler, D. R., Milke, M., Marks, A. L., and Luthy, R. G. 1994. Landfill leachate treatment by evaporation. J Environ Engg. 120:1109–1131.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E. 1992. Soil temperature, soil moisture, and seed burial depth effect on redstem filareee (Erodium cicutarium) emergence. Weed Sci. 40:204–207.Google Scholar
Blumenthal, D. N., Jordan, N. R., and Russelle, M. P. 2003. Soil carbon addition controls weeds and facilitates prairie restoration. Ecol. Appl. 13:605–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapin, F. S., Groves, R. H., and Evans, L. T. 1989. Physiological determinants of growth rate in response to phosphorus supply in wild and cultivated Hordeum species. Oecologia 79:96–105.Google Scholar
Douds, D. D., Galvez, L., Franke-Snyder, M., Reider, C., and Drinkwater, L. E. 1997. Effect of compost addition and crop rotation point upon VAM fungi. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 65:257–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eyherabide, J. J. and Cendoya, M. G. 2002. Critical periods of weed control in soybean for full field and in-furrow interference. Weed Sci. 50:162–166.Google Scholar
Fenner, M. 1983. Relationship between seed weight, ash content and seedling growth in twenty-four species of Compositae. New Phytologist 95:697–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, J. B. and Miller, J. H. 2004. Ion chromatography as an alternative to standard methods for analysis of macro-nutrients in Mehlich 1 extracts of unfertilized forest soils. Comm. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 35:2191–2208.Google Scholar
Gonzales, R. F. and Cooperband, L. R. 2002. Compost effects on soil physical properties and field nursery production. Comp. Sci. Utilization 10:226–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grime, J. P. and Hunt, R. 1975. Relative growth-rate: its range and adaptive significance: J. Ecol. 63:393–422.Google Scholar
Hager, A. G., Wax, L. M., Stroller, E. W., and Bollero, G. A. 2002. Common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) interference in soybean. Weed Sci. 50:607–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Honeyman, M. S. and Kent, D. 2001. Performance of Swedish deep-bedded feeder pig production systems in Iowa. Am. J. Alter. Agric. 16:50–56.Google Scholar
Honeyman, M. S., Koenig, F. W., Harmon, J. D., Lay, D. C., Kliebenstein, J. B. Jr., Richard, T. L., and Brumm, M. C. 1999. Managing market pigs in hoop structures. PIH-138. Pork Industry Handbook. West Layfayette, IN: Purdue University. 8 p.Google Scholar
Hunt, R. 1990. Basic Growth Analysis. London, UK: Unwin Hyman Ltd.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klironomos, J. N. 2002. Feedback with soil biota contributes to plant rarity and invasiveness in communities. Nature 417:67–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lambers, H. and Poorter, H. 1992. Inherent variation in growth rate between higher plants: a search for physiological causes and ecological consequences. Adv. Ecol. Res. 23:187–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liebman, M., Menalled, F. D., Buhler, D. D., Richard, T., Sundberg, D., Cambardella, C., and Kohler, K. 2004. Impacts of composted swine manure on weed and corn nutrient uptake, growth, and competitive interactions. Weed. Sci. 52:365–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ligneau, L. A. and Watt, T. A. 1995. The effects of domestic compost upon the germination and emergence of barley and six arable weeds. Ann. Appl. Biol. 126:153–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Littell, R. C., Milliken, G. A., Stroup, W. W., and Wolfinger, R. D. 1996. SAS® System for Mixed Models. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc. Pp. 362–364.Google Scholar
Loecke, T. D., Liebman, M., Cambardella, C. A., and Richards, T. L. 2004a. Corn growth responses to composted and fresh solid swine manure. Crop. Sci. 44:177–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loecke, T. D., Liebman, M., Cambardella, C. A., and Richards, T. L. 2004b. Corn response to composting and time of application of solid swine manure. Agron. J. 96:214–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marambe, B. and Ando, T. 1992. Phenolic acids as potential seed germination-inhibitors in animal-waste compost. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 38:727–733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menalled, F. D., Liebman, M., and Buhler, D. 2002. Impact of composted swine manure on crop and weed establishment and growth. Proceedings of the Fifth Workshop of the European Weed Research Society on Physical and Cultural Weed Control. Pisa, Italy. P. 183.Google Scholar
Menalled, F. D., Liebman, M., and Buhler, D. 2004. Impact of composted swine manure and tillage on soybean—common waterhemp competition. Weed Sci. 52:605–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohler, C. L. 1996. Ecological bases for the cultural control of annual weeds. J. Prod. Agric. 9:468–474.Google Scholar
Mohler, C. L. and Teasdale, J. R. 1993. Response of weed emergence to rate of Vicia villosa Roth and Secale cereale L. residue. Weed. Res. 33:487–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mulugeta, D. and Boerboom, C. M. 2000. Critical time of weed removal in glyphosate-resistant Glycine max . Weed Sci. 48:35–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mulugeta, D. and Stoltenberg, D. E. 1998. Influence of cohorts on Chenopodium album demography. Weed Sci. 46:65–70.Google Scholar
Ozores-Hampton, M., Obreza, T. A., Stoffella, P. J., and Fitzpatrick, G. 2002. Immature compost suppresses weed growth under greenhouse conditions. Comp. Sci. Util. 10:105–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ozores-Hampton, M., Stoffella, P. J., Bewick, T. A., Cantliffe, D. J., and Obreza, T. A. 1999. Effect of age of composted MSW and biosolids on weed seed germination. Comp. Sci. Util. 7:51–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payne, W. A., Lascano, R. J., Hossner, L. R., Wendt, C. W., and Onken, A. B. 1991. Pearl millet growth as affected by phosphorus and water. Agron. J. 83:942–948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richard, T. L., Harmon, J., Honeyman, M., and Creswell, J. 1998. Hoop Structure Bedding Use, Labor, Bedding Pack Temperature, Manure Nutrient Content, and Nitrogen Leaching Potential. R1499. ISU Swine Research Report. Iowa State University, Ames, IA: Department of Animal Science.Google Scholar
Roe, N. E., Stoffella, P. J., and Bryan, H. H. 1993. Municipal solid waste compost suppresses weeds in vegetable crop alleys. HortScience 28:1171–1172.Google Scholar
Seibert, A. C. and Pearce, R. B. 1993. Growth analysis of weed and crop species with reference to seed weight. Weed Sci. 41:52–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singer, J. W., Kohler, K. A., Liebman, M., Richard, T. L., Cambardella, C. A., and Buhler, D. D. 2004. Tillage and compost affect yield of corn, soybean, and wheat and soil fertility. Agron. J. 96:531–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar