Effect of Cultivated Switchgrass on the Growth of Associated Weed Biomass and Density at Different Growth Stages

doi:10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2013.04.010

›› 2013, Vol. 21 ›› Issue (4): 689-696.DOI: 10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2013.04.010

Previous Articles Next Articles

Effect of Cultivated Switchgrass on the Growth of Associated Weed Biomass and Density at Different Growth Stages

AN Yu¹, MA Yong-qing^1,2, SHUI Jun-feng², ZHONG Wen-jin¹

1. College of Resources and Environment, Northwest A&F University, Yangling, Shaanxi Province 712100, China;
2. State Key Laboratory of Soil Erosion and Dryland Farming on the Loess Plateau, Institute of Soil and Water Conservation, Northwest A&F University, Yangling, Shaanxi Province 712100, China

Received:2013-01-11 Revised:2013-03-11 Online:2013-08-15 Published:2013-08-14

栽培柳枝稷不同生长时期对伴生杂草生物量及密度的影响

安雨¹, 马永清^1,2, 税军峰², 钟雯瑾¹

1. 西北农林科技大学资源环境学院, 陕西杨凌 712100;
2. 西北农林科技大学水土保持研究所黄土高原土壤侵蚀与旱地农业国家重点实验室, 陕西杨凌 712100

通讯作者: 马永清
作者简介:安雨(1984- ),男,吉林长春人,博士研究生,主要从事植物生态学研究,E-mail: anyu04151205@sina.com
基金资助:
国家"十二五"农村领域国家科技计划课题"黄土丘陵沟壑区水土保持与高效农业关键技术集成与示范"(2011BAD31B05)资助

Abstract

Abstract: Eight switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.) varieties (Blackwell, Cave-in-Rock, Dakota, Forestberg, Illinois USA, Nebraska 28, Pathfinder and Sunburst) and their associated weeds were tested in this study. The inhibition rate (IR) and correlation were analyzed to identify the effects of switchgrass on the associated weed growth. Results indicated that most tested switchgrass varieties could suppress weed growth at the earlier growth season. Illinois USA was relatively lower IR (3.4%). Cave-in-Rock and Forestberg suppressed weed growth significantly as IR were 86.0% and 74.9%, respectively. After twice hand hoeing, Cave-in-Rock and Forestberg still suppressed the weed growth significantly (30^th August), as IR were 85.7% and 95.7%, respectively. At the end of growth season (13^th October), only Cave-in-Rock could suppress weed growth, the IR was 88.5%. In addition, there was a significant negative correlation between switchgrass aboveground biomass or root biomass and IR at 30^th August (R² =0.31, 0.54; P<0.05). However, the height, aboveground and root biomass of Cave-in-Rock significantly suppressed the individual weed biomass (r=-0.97,-0.99,-0.99, P<0.05), and the Forestberg mainly suppressed the weed density (r=-0.97, P<0.05).

Key words: Switchgrass, Weed, Biomass, Competition, Correlation analysis

摘要： 以陕西定边县引种的8个柳枝稷(Panicum virgatum L.)品种(Blackwell, Cave-in-Rock, Dakota, Forestberg, Illinois USA, Nebraska 28, Pathfinder和Sunburst)及行间杂草作为研究对象,通过计算柳枝稷对杂草的抑制率(RI),分析其生长指标与杂草生长指标的相关关系,判定不同柳枝稷品种在不同生育期对杂草生长的抑制效应,为其引种及田间杂草管理提供依据。结果表明:在生长初期(6月30日),Illinois USA杂草抑制率仅为3.4%,Cave-in-Rock 和Forestberg对杂草生长抑制率分别为86.0%和74.9%;经过2次人工除草后(8月30日),Cave-in-Rock和Forestberg的杂草抑制率分别为85.7%和95.7%;生长后期(10月13日),仅Cave-in-Rock对杂草生长有88.5%的抑制率。回归分析显示,生长中后期(8月30日),柳枝稷地上部及根系生物量显著影响对杂草的抑制率(R²=0.31, 0.54; P<0.05)。Pearson相关分析发现,Cave-in-Rock的株高、地上及根系生物量均显著降低杂草单株生物量(r=-0.97,-0.99,-0.99; P<0.05);Forestberg的植高与杂草密度显著负相关(r=-0.97, P<0.05)。

关键词: 柳枝稷, 杂草, 生物量, 竞争, 相关性

CLC Number:

Q148
Q948.12

AN Yu, MA Yong-qing, SHUI Jun-feng, ZHONG Wen-jin. Effect of Cultivated Switchgrass on the Growth of Associated Weed Biomass and Density at Different Growth Stages[J]. , 2013, 21(4): 689-696.

安雨, 马永清, 税军峰, 钟雯瑾. 栽培柳枝稷不同生长时期对伴生杂草生物量及密度的影响[J]. , 2013, 21(4): 689-696.

0
/ / Recommend

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://manu40.magtech.com.cn/Jweb_cdxb/EN/10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2013.04.010

https://manu40.magtech.com.cn/Jweb_cdxb/EN/Y2013/V21/I4/689

References

[1] Wolf D D, Fiske D A. Planting and managing switchgrass for forage, wildlife, and conservation. Blacksburg[M]//VA: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Virginia Cooperative Extension. Publication Number,1995:418-013
[2] Nielsen E L. Analysis of variation in Panicum virgatum[J]. Journal of Agricultrue Research,1944,69(4):327-353
[3] Hulquist S J, Vogel K P, Lee D J, et al. Chloroplast DNA content and nuclear DNA content variations among cultivars of switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.)[J]. Crop Science,1996,36(4):1049-1052
[4] Moser L E, Vogel K P. Switchgrass, big bluestem, and Indian grass[C]//Barnes R F, Miller D A, Nelson C J, eds. Forages, an introduction to grassland agriculture, Vol. 1, Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA,1995:409-420
[5] Sharma N, Piscioneri I, Pignatelli V. An evaluation of biomass yield stability of switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.) cultivars[J]. Energy Conversion and Management,2003,44(18):2953-2958
[6] Samson R A, Omielan J A. Switchgrass: A potential biomass energy crop for ethanol production[C]//The thirteenth North American Prairie conference. Windsor, Ontario,1992:253-258
[7] Kim S, Dale B E. Cumulative energy and global warming impact from the production of biomass for biobased products[J]. Journal of Industrial Ecology,2003,7(4):147-162
[8] Ma Y Q, An Y, Shui J F, et al. Adaptability evaluation of switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.) cultivars on the Loess Plateau of China[J]. Plant Science,2011,181(6):638-643
[9] Thomas F C, Peter A. Lack of public awareness of biological invasions by plants[J]. Natural Areas Journal,1998,18(3):262-266
[10] Reichard S H, White P. Horticulture as a pathway of invasive plant introductions in the United States[J]. Bioscience,2001,51(2):103-113
[11] Gill H S, Sandhu K S, Mehra S P, et al. Efficacy of some herbicides for control of weeds in Indian mustard[J]. Indian Journal of Weed Science,1984,10(7):171-175
[12] Yadav R P. Effect of herbicides alone and in combination with cultural methods on weed control in Indian mustard (Brassica napus)[J]. Indian Journal of Agronomy,2004,49(4):268-270
[13] Chauhan Y S, Bhargava M K, Jain V K. Weed management in Indian mustard (Brassica juncea)[J]. Indian Journal of Agronomy,2005,50(2):149-151
[14] Seavers G P, Wright K J. Crop canopy development and structure influences weed suppression[J]. Weed Research,1999,39(4):319-328
[15] Abouziena H F, Sharara Faida A A, El-desoki E R. Efficacy of cultivar selectivity and weed control treatments on wheat yield and associated weeds in sandy soils[J]. World Journal of Agricultural Science,2008,4(3):384-389
[16] Weiner J, Grienpentrog H, Kristensen L. Suppression of weeds by spring wheat (Triticum aestivum) increases with crop density spatial uniformity[J]. Journal of Applied Ecology,2001,38(4):784-790
[17] Whytok G P, Bingham I J, Naylor R E L. Developing cost-effective strategies for weed control in winter oilseed rape[C]//Weeds. Proceeding of Brighton Crop Protection Conference,1995:883-888
[18] Jat R, Giri G. Influence of nitrogen and weed-control measures on weed growth, and seed and oil yields of sunflower (Helianthus annuus)[J]. Indian Journal of Agronomy,2000,45(1):193-198
[19] Gooding M J, Thompson A J, Davies W P. Interception of photosynthetically active radiation, competitive ability and yield of organically grown wheat varieties[J]. Aspects of Applied Biology,1993,34(4):355-362
[20] Lemerle D, Verbeek B, Cousens R D, et al. The potential for selecting wheat varieties strongly competitive against weeds[J]. Weed Research,1996,36(6):505-513
[21] Huel D G, Hucl P. Genotype variation for competitive ability in spring wheat[J]. Plant Breeding,1996,115(5):325-329
[22] Acciaresi H A, Chidichimo H O, Sarondon S J. Traits related to competitive ability of wheat (Triticum aestivum) varieties against Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum)[J]. Biological Agriculture & Horticulture,2001,19(3):275-286
[23] Cousens R D, Barnett A G, Barry G C. Dynamics of competition between wheat and oats: I. Effects of changing the time of phenological events[J]. Agronomy Journal,2003,95(5):1293-1304
[24] Didon U M E, Hansson M L. Competition between six spring barley (Hordeum vulgare ssp. vulgare L.) cultivars and two weed flora in relation to interception of photosyn-thetic active radiation[J]. Biological Agriculture & Horticulture,2002,20(3):257-273
[25] Bertholdsson N O. Early vigour and allelopathy-two useful traits for enhanced barley and wheat competitiveness against weeds[J]. Weed Research,2005,45(2):94-102
[26] Shui J F, An Y, Ma Y Q, et al. Allelopathic potential of switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.) on perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.) and alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.)[J]. Environmental Management,2010,46(4): 590-598
[27] 安雨,税军峰,马永清. 引种牧草柳枝稷对生菜化感作用初探[J]. 西北农业学报,2011,20(2):143-149
[28] Weston L A. History and current trends in the use of allelopathy for weed management[J]. HortTechnology,2005,13(3):529-534
[29] Keddy P A, Fraser L H, Wisheu I. A comparative approach to examine competitive response of 48 wetland plant species[J]. Journal of Vegetation Science,1998,9(6):777-786
[30] Cousens R. An empirical model relating crop yield to weed and crop density and a statistical comparison with other models[J]. Journal of Agricultural Science,1985,105(3):513-521
[31] Wilson B J, Wright K J, Brain P, et al. Predicting the competitive effects of weed and crop density on weed biomass, weed seed production and crop yield in wheat[J]. Weed Research,1995,35(4):265-278
[32] Fukami T, Morin P J. Productivity-biodiversity relationships depend on the history of community assembly[J]. Nature,2003,424(6947):423-426
[33] Connell J H. Diversity in tropical rain forests and coral reefs[J]. Science,1978,199(4332):1302-1310
[34] Huston M A. A general hypothesis of species diversity[J]. American Naturalist,1979,113(1):81-101
[35] Muir J P, Sanderson M A, Ocumpaugh W R, et al. Biomass production of 'Alamo' switchgrass in response to nitrogen, phosphorus, and row spacing[J], Agronomy Journal,2001,93(4):896-901
[36] Weidenhamer J D, Hartnett D C, Romeo J T. Density-dependent phytotoxicity: Distinguishing resource competition and allelopathic interference in plants[J]. Journal of Applied Ecology,1989,26(2):613-624
[37] Einhellig F A, Rasmussen J A. Prior cropping with grain sorghum inhibits weeds[J]. Journal of Chemical Ecology,1989,15(3):951-960
[38] Creamer N G, Bennett M A, Stinner B R, et al. Mechanisms of weed suppression in cover crop-based production systems[J]. HortScience,1996,31(3):410-413
[39] Widmer T L, Abawi G S. Mechanism of suppression of Meloidogyne hapla and its damage by a green manure of sudan grass[J]. Plant Disease,2000,84(5):562-568
[40] Doohan F M, Mentebab A, Nicholson P. Antifungal activity toward Fusarium culmorum in soluble wheat extracts[J]. Phytopathology,2000,90(6):666-671
[41] Del Moral R. Allelopathy: A milestone monograph[J]. Ecology,1975,56(5):1231-1233
[42] Ben-Hammouda M, Kremer R J, Minor H C. Phytotoxicity of extracts from sorghum plant components on wheat seedlings[J]. Crop Science,1995,35(6):1652-1656
[43] Davis J R, Huisman O C, Westermann D T, et al. Effects of green manures on Verticillium wilt of potato[J]. Phytopathology,1996,86(5):444-453
[44] Bussan A J, Burnside O C, Orf J H, et al. Field evaluation of soybean (Glycine max) genotype for weed competitiveness[J]. Weed Science,1997,45(1):31-37
[45] Kruidhof H M, Bastiaans L, Kropff M J. Cover crop residue management for optimizing weed control[J]. Plant and Soil,2009,318(2):169-184
[46] Rietveld W J. Allelopathic effects of juglone on germination and growth of several herbaceous and woody species[J]. Journal of Chemical Ecology,1983,9(2):295-307
[47] Duke S O, Vaughn K C, Croom E M, et al. Artemisinin, a constituent of annual wormwood (Artemisia annua) is a selective phytotoxin[J]. Weed Science,1987,35(4):499-505
[48] Zhao D L, Atlin G N, Bastiaans L, et al. Cultivar weed-competitiveness in aerobic rice: Heritability, correlated traits, and the potential for indirect selection in weed-free environments[J]. Crop Science,2006,46(1):372-380
[49] Hoad S P, Davies D H K, Topp C F E. Designing crops for low input and organic systems: Enhancing wheat competitive ability against weeds[C]//Proceedings of crop protection in Northern Britain,2006:157-162

Effect of Cultivated Switchgrass on the Growth of Associated Weed Biomass and Density at Different Growth Stages

栽培柳枝稷不同生长时期对伴生杂草生物量及密度的影响

PDF

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

References

Related Articles 15

Recommended Articles

Metrics

Comments

[1]	YAO Shi-ting, LU Guang-xin, DENG Ye, FAN Yue-jun, ZHOU Hua-kun, DANG Ning, WANG Ying-cheng, ZHANG Hai-juan, YAN Hui-lin. Effects of Simulated Warming on the Composition and Diversity of Soil Prokaryotic Communities in Alpine Grasslands [J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2021, 29(S1): 27-34.
[2]	SHE Yan-di, YANG Xiao-yuan, MA Li, ZHANG Zhong-hua, WANG Dang-jun, HUANG Xiao-tao, MA Zhen, YAO Bu-qing, ZHOU Hua-kun. Study on the Characteristics and Interrelationship of Plant Community and Soil in Degraded Alpine Meadow [J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2021, 29(S1): 62-71.
[3]	YAO Xi-xi, WANG Li-ya, YAN Zhen-ying, LI Quan-lin, WANG You-bin, MA Bing-yun, LEI Yan-min, ZHOU Rui, XIE Jiu-xiang. Characteristics of Forage Nutritional Quality and Digestibility in Different Types of Grassland in Qinghai Tibet Plateau and their Correlation [J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2021, 29(S1): 113-120.
[4]	ZHANG Zhong-hua, MA Li, ZHOU Bing-rong, SONG Ming-hua, XU Wen-hua, DENG Yan-fang, WANG Fang, SHE Yan-di, ZHANG Qian, YAO Bu-qing, MA Zhen, ZHOU Hua-kun. Esponse of the Functional Diversity of Dominant Plants to Warming and Simulated Grazing in Alpine Meadow [J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2021, 29(S1): 225-232.
[5]	Taiergeli, CAI Jin-hong, CUI Feng-chao, HANG Nan, PU Xin-chun, SUN Yan, WANG Ke-hua. Safe Application of Herbicides in Buffalograss [J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2021, 29(9): 1865-1876.
[6]	MA Ying, ZHANG Hong-jia, KUDUSI Abu-dushalamu, GENG Shu-juan, XUE Ao-ran, ZHAO Han-wei, JIAN Bai-han. Effects of Salt and Alkali Stresses on the Growth,Accumulation of Organic Acids and other Solutes and their Physiological Functions of Suaeda salsa [J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2021, 29(9): 1934-1940.
[7]	HUANG Jia-xing, WU Jing, LI Chun-bin, QIN Ge-xia, QIAN Juan-bing, LI Huai-hai. Remote Sensing Retrieval of grassland Above-Ground Biomass in Tianzhu County based on Sentinel-2 and Landsat 8 Data [J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2021, 29(9): 2023-2030.
[8]	GAO Hong-yuan, HOU Meng-jing, GE Jing, BAO Xu-ying, LI Yuan-chun, LIU Jie, FENG Qi-sheng, LIANG Tian-gang, HE Jin-sheng, QIAN Da-wen. Hyperspectral Estimation of Aboveground Biomass of Alpine Grassland based on Random Forest Algorithm [J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2021, 29(8): 1757-1768.
[9]	DUAN Li-hui, LIU Xiao-li, HAN Bing, WEI Xiao-ting, CAI Ren-cuo, SHAO Xin-qing. Effects of Native Species Reseeding on the Community Stability of Alpine Meadow in the Tibet Plateau [J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2021, 29(8): 1793-1800.
[10]	SUN Yu, ZHANG Feng, ZHENG Jia-hua, ZHAO Tian-qi, ZHAO Meng-li, ZHANG Bin. Effects of Mowing Stubble Height on Species Diversity and Aboveground Biomass of Stipa grandis Steppe [J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2021, 29(8): 1859-1864.
[11]	LIN Chun-ying, LI Xi-lai, SUN Hai-song, SUN Hua-fang, MA Cheng-biao, HAN Hui-bang, ZHANG Yu-Peng, LI Cheng-yi. Responses of Soil Organic Carbon Component on Different Degrees of Degradation of Alpine Wetland in the Source of Yellow River [J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2021, 29(7): 1540-1548.
[12]	WO Ye, HUANG Jia-yuan, YANG Ning, LU Xuan, LIN Zhi-ling, ZHAO Li-xing, LI Tian-qi, GAO Kai. Effects of Phosphorus Addition at Budding Stage on Biomass and Material Distribution of Jerusalem Artichoke [J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2021, 29(7): 1594-1598.
[13]	LI Xing-long, SHI Shang-li, HUANG Zong-chang, LI Ge-ge, WU Fang, ZHANG Hui-hui. Effects of Different Forage Mixed Patterns on Interspecific Relationships in Loess Hilly Areas [J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2021, 29(6): 1318-1326.
[14]	HAN Xue-qin, DENG Hong-shan, PU Tian-lei, LUO Hui-ying, ZHAO Qiong-ling, LIAO Cheng-fei, XUE Shi-ming, FAN Jian-cheng, JIN Jie. The Study on Agronomic Characters of Silage Maize Varieties in Dry-hot Valley Region of Jinsha River [J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2021, 29(6): 1327-1335.
[15]	GUO Chao-fan, CHEN Ze-wei, ZHANG Zhi-gao. Research on Remote Sensing Estimation of Forage Above-ground Biomass Based on Optimal Model Selection [J]. Acta Agrestia Sinica, 2021, 29(5): 946-955.