Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-19T00:05:30.621Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Soybean and common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) growth in monoculture and mixture

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 March 2019

Ethann R. Barnes*
Affiliation:
Graduate Student, Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, USA
Amit J. Jhala
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, USA
Stevan Z. Knezevic
Affiliation:
Professor, Northeast Research and Extension Center, Haskell Agricultural Laboratory, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Concord, NE, USA
Peter H. Sikkema
Affiliation:
Professor, University of Guelph Ridgetown Campus, Ridgetown, ON, Canada
John L. Lindquist
Affiliation:
Professor, Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, USA
*
Authors for correspondence: Ethann R. Barnes, Email: [email protected] and John L. Lindquist, Email: [email protected]

Abstract

Understanding how plants alter their growth in response to interplant competition is an overlooked but complex problem. Previous studies have characterized the effect of light and water stress on soybean or common ragweed growth in monoculture, but no study has characterized soybean and common ragweed growth in mixture. A field study was conducted in 2015 and 2016 at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln to characterize the growth response of soybean and common ragweed with different irrigation levels and intraspecific and interspecific interference. The experiment was arranged in a split-plot design with irrigation level (0, 50%, 100% replacement of simulated evapotranspiration) as the main plot and common ragweed density (0, 2, 6, 12 plants m−1 row) as the subplot. Crop- and weed-free controls and three mixture treatments were included as subplots. Periodic destructive samples of leaf area and biomass of different organ groups were collected, and leaf area index (LAI), aboveground biomass partitioning, specific leaf area (SLA), and leaf area ratio (LAR) were calculated. Additionally, soybean and common ragweed yield were harvested, and 100-seed weight and seed production were determined. Soybean did not alter biomass partitioning, SLA, or LAR in mixture with common ragweed. Soybean LAI, biomass, and seed size were affected by increasing common ragweed density. Conversely, common ragweed partitioned less new biomass to leaves and increased SLA in response to increased interference. Common ragweed LAI, biomass, and seed number were reduced by the presence of soybean and increasing common ragweed density; however, seed weight was not affected. Results show that adjustment in biomass partitioning, SLA, and LAR is not the method that soybean uses to remain plastic under competition for light. Common ragweed demonstrated plasticity in both biomass partitioning and SLA, indicating an ability to maintain productivity under intra- and inter-specific competition for light or soil resources.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2019 

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

Akyuz, FA, Kandel, H, Morlock, D (2017) Developing a growing degree day model for North Dakota and northern Minnesota soybean. Agric For Meteorol 239:134140 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrade, FH, Abbate, PE (2005) Response of maize and soybean to variability in stand uniformity. Agron J 97:12631269 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andriani, JM, Andrade, FH, Suero, EE, Dardanelli, JL (1991) Water deficits during reproductive growth of soybeans. I. Their effects of dry matter accumulation, seed yield and its components. Agronomie, EDP Sciences 11:737746 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anten, NPR (2005) Optimal photosynthetic characteristics of individual plants in vegetation stand and implications for species coexistence. Ann Bot 95:495506 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barnes, ER, Jhala, AJ, Knezevic, SZ, Sikkema, PH, Lindquist, JL (2018) Common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia L.) interference with soybean in Nebraska. Agron J 110:646653 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bassett, IJ, Crompton, CW (1975) The biology of Canadian weeds. 11. Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. and A. pslostachya DC. Can J Plant Sci 55:463476 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloom, AJ, Chapin, FS, Mooney, HA (1985) Resource limitation in plants––an economic analogy. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 16:363392 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Board, J (2000) Light interception efficiency and light quality affect yield compensation of soybean at low plant populations. Crop Sci 40:12851294 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowes, G, Ogren, L, Hageman, RH (1972) Light saturation, photosynthesis rate, RuBP carboxylase activity, and specific leaf weight in soybeans grown under different light intensities. Crop Sci 12:7779 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradshaw, AD (1965) Evolutionary significance of phenotypic plasticity in plants. Adv Genet 13:115155 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brainard, DC, Bellinder, RR, DiTommaso, A (2005) Effects of canopy shade on the morphology, phenology, and seed characteristics of Powell amaranth (Amaranthus powellii). Weed Sci 53:175186 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandes, D, Nitzsche, J (2006) Biology, introduction, dispersal, and distribution of common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia L.) with special regard to Germany. Nachrichtenbl Deut Pflanzenschutzd 58:286291 Google Scholar
Clewis, SB, Askew, SD, Wilcut, JW (2001) Common ragweed interference in peanut. Weed Sci 49:768772 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coble, HD, Williams, FM, Ritter, RL (1981) Common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) interference in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci 29:339342 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowbrough, MJ, Brown, RB, Tardif, FJ (2003) Impact of common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) aggregation on economic thresholds in soybean. Weed Sci 51:947954 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Mendiburu, F (2016) Agricolae: statistical procedures for agricultural research. R package version 1.2-4. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=agricolae. Accessed: January 1, 2017Google Scholar
Dickerson, CT Jr., Sweet, RD (1971) Common ragweed ecotypes. Weed Sci 19:6466 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eaton, BJ, Feltner, KC, Russ, OG (1973) Venice mallow competition in soybeans. Weed Sci 21:8994 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Egli, DB (1993) Relationship of uniformity of soybean seedling emergence to yield. J Seed Technol 17:2228 Google Scholar
Elmore, RW (1998) Soybean cultivar response to row spacing and seeding rates in rainfed and irrigated environments. J Prod Agric 11:326331 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilmore, EC, Rogers, JS (1958) Heat units as a method of measuring maturity in corn. Agron J 50:611615 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gustafson, TC, Knezevic, SZ, Hunt, TE, Lindquist, JL (2006) Simulated insect defoliation and duration of weed interference affected soybean growth. Weed Sci 54:735742 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagood, ES, Bauman, TT, Williams, JL Jr., Schreiber, MM (1980) Growth analysis of soybeans (Glycine max) in competition with velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti). Weed Sci 28:729734 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunt, R (1982) Plant Growth Curves. The Functional Approach to Plant Growth Analysis. London: Edward Arnold. 260 pGoogle Scholar
Junior, CP, Kawakami, J (2013) Efficiency of leaf disc method for estimating the leaf area index of soybean plants. Acta Sci Agron 35. http://dx.doi.org/10.4025/actasciagron.v35i4.16290. Accessed: April 15, 2017Google Scholar
Kasperbauer, MJ (1987) Far-red light reflection from green leaves and effects of phytochrome-mediated partitioning under field conditions. Plant Physiol 85:350354 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Knezevic, SZ, Evans, SP, Mainz, M (2003) Row spacing influences the critical timing for weed removal in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol 17:666673 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knezevic, SZ, Vanderlip, RL, Horak, MJ (2001) Relative time of redroot pigweed emergence affects dry matter partitioning. Weed Sci 49:617621 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kropff, MJ, van Laar, HH, eds. (1993) Modelling crop–weed interactions. Wallingford, UK: CABI. Pp. 2530, 157.Google Scholar
Leskovšek, R, Datta, A, Knezevic, SZ, Simončič, A (2012a) Common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) dry matter allocation and partitioning under different nitrogen and density levels. Weed Biol Manag 12:98108 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leskovšek, R, Eier, K, Batič, F, Simončič, A (2012b) The influence of nitrogen, water and competition on the vegetative and reproductive growth of common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia L.). Plant Ecol 213:769781 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lugg, DG, Sinclair, TR (1979) A survey of soybean cultivars for variability in specific leaf weight. Crop Sci 19:887892 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Major, DJ, Johnson, DR, Tanner, JW, Anderson, IC (1975) Effects of daylength and temperature on soybean development. Crop Sci 15:174179 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McConnaughay, KDM, Coleman, JS (1999) Biomass allocation in plants: ontogeny or optimality? A test along three resource gradients. Ecology 80:25812593 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmblad, IG (1968) Competition in experimental populations of weeds with emphasis on the regulation of population size. Ecology 49:2634 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patracchini, C, Vidotto, F, Ferrero, A (2011) Common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) growth as affected by plant density and clipping. Weed Technol 25:268276 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, DT (1995) Effects of environmental stress on weed/crop interactions. Weed Sci 43:483490 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, DT, Flint, EP (1983) Comparative water relations, photosynthesis, and growth of soybean (Glycine max) and seven associated weeds. Weed Sci 31:318323 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Core Team (2016) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/. Accessed: January 1, 2017Google Scholar
Setiyono, TD, Weiss, A, Specht, JE, Cassman, KG, Dobermann, A (2008) Leaf area index simulation in soybean grown under near-optimal conditions. Field Crops Res 108:8292 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shurtleff, JL, Coble, HD (1985) Interference of certain broadleaf weeds species in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci 33:654657 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Specht, JE, Chase, K, Macrander, M, Graef, GL, Chung, J, Markwell, JP (2001) Soybean response to water: AQTL analysis of drought tolerance. Crop Sci 41:493509 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Specht, JE, Torrion, JA, Setiyono, TD, Cassman, KG, Suat, I, Hubbard, K, Schulski, M, Li, J, Sorensen, W (2010) Station-specific weather and crop water use: A decision-aid webpage to schedule irrigation in soybeans. Univ. of Nebraska, Lincoln. http://hprcc-agron0.unl.edu/cornsoywater/public_html/Home.php Google Scholar
Specht, JE, Williams, JH, Weidenbenner, CJ (1986) Differential responses of soybean genotypes subjected to a seasonal soil water gradient. Crop Sci 26:922934 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stoller, EW, Woolley, JT (1985) Competition for light by broadleaf weeds in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci 33:199202 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, JA, Nelson, RL, Schweitzer, LE (1995) Relationships among specific leaf weight, photosynthetic rate, and seed yield in soybean. Crop Sci 35:15751581 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vega, CR, Sadras, VO (2003) Size-dependent growth and the development of inequality in maize, sunflower and soybean. Ann Bot-London 91:795805 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vega, CR, Sadras, VO, Andrade, FH, Uhart, SA (2000) Reproductive allometry in soybean, maize and sunflower. Ann Bot (London) 85:461468 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weaver, SE (2001) Impact of lamb’s-quarters, common ragweed and green foxtail on yield of corn and soybean in Ontario. Can J Plant Sci 81:821828 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wyse, DL, Young, FL, Jones, RJ (1986) Influence of Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus) density and duration of interference on soybean (Glycine max) growth and yield. Weed Sci 34:243247 CrossRefGoogle Scholar