Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-sxzjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T13:41:26.663Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of Three Weed Residues on Weed and Crop Growth

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

W. Carroll Johnson III  and
Harold D. Coble
W. Carroll Johnson III
Affiliation:
Dep. Crop Sci., North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC 27695–7627
Harold D. Coble
Affiliation:
Dep. Crop Sci., North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC 27695–7627
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Broadleaf signalgrass [Brachiaria platyphylla (Griseb.) Nash # BRAPP has recently become the dominant annual grass in certain fields of the North Carolina Coastal Plains. Previously, fall panicum (Panicum dichotomiflorum Michx. # PANDI) and large crabgrass [Digitaria sanguinalis (L.) Scop. # DIGSA] were the dominant annual grasses in the region. One of the possible reasons for the observed population shift could be production of inhibitors or stimulators by one species that affects the population dynamics of the other species. Studies were initiated to evaluate the effects of broadleaf signalgrass, large crabgrass, and fall panicum residue, applied as a mulch or soil incorporated, on five indicator species: the three weeds themselves, corn (Zea mays L.), and soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.]. At expected residue levels, the degree of inhibition or stimulation from fall panicum and broadleaf signalgrass was determined to be significant for some indicator species. When such responses were seen, the amount of residue necessary to produce these results was usually within the concentrations normally observed in field situations. Based on these results, it appears that the observed population shift is partially mediated by the production of inhibitors or stimulators through plant residue. Other factors such as differential herbicide selectivity and crop rotation are being investigated.

Keywords

Weed population dynamicsallelopathyGlycine maxZea maysBrachiaria platyphyllaDigitaria sanguinalisPanicum dichotomiflorumBRAPPDIGSAPANDI
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 34 , Issue 3 , May 1986 , pp. 403 - 408
Copyright
Copyright © 1986 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. Abdul-Wahab, A. S. and Rice, E. L. 1967. Plant inhibition by johnsongrass and its possible significance in old field succession. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 94:486–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Bell, T. B. and Koepee, D. E. 1972. Noncompetitive effects of giant foxtail on the growth of corn. Agron. J. 64:321–325.Google Scholar
3. Bhowmik, P. C. and Doll, J. D. 1983. Growth analysis of corn and soybean response to allelopathic effects of weed residues at various temperatures and photosynthetic photon flux densities. J. Chem. Ecol. 9:1263–1280.Google Scholar
4. Bonner, J. 1950. The role of toxic substances in the interactions of higher plants. Bot. Rev. 16:51–65.Google Scholar
5. Borner, H. 1960. Liberation of organic substances from higher plants and their role in the soil sickness problem. Bot. Rev. 26: 393–424.Google Scholar
6. Chamblee, R. W., Thompson, L. Jr., and Bunn, T. M. 1982. Management of broadleaf signalgrass (Brachiaria platyphylla) in peanuts (Arachis hypogaea) with herbicides. Weed Sci. 30: 40–44.Google Scholar
7. Chamblee, R. W., Thompson, L. Jr., and Coble, H. D. 1982. Interference of broadleaf signalgrass (Brachiaria platyphylla) in peanuts (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Sci. 30:45–49.Google Scholar
8. Drost, D. C. and Doll, J. D. 1980. The allelopathic effect of yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus) on corn (Zea mays) and soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 28:229–233.Google Scholar
9. Friedman, T. and Horowitz, M. 1971. Biologically active substances in subterranean parts of purple nutsedge. Weed Sci. 19: 398–401.Google Scholar
10. Kommendahl, T., Kotheimer, J. B., and Bernardini, J. V. 1959. The effects of quackgrass on germination and seedling development of certain crop plants. Weeds 7:1–2.Google Scholar
11. LeTourneau, D. and Heggeness, H. G. 1957. Germination and growth inhibitors in leafy spurge foliage and quackgrass rhizomes. Weeds 5:12–19.Google Scholar
12. Lolas, P. C. and Coble, H. D. 1982. Noncompetitive effects of johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) on soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 30:589–593.Google Scholar
13. Muller, C. H. 1966. The role of chemical inhibition (allelopathy) in vegetational composition. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 93:332–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Muller, C. H. 1969. Allelopathy as a factor in ecological process. Vegetatio. 18:348–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Ohman, J. H. and Kommendahl, T. 1960. Relative toxicity of extracts from vegetative organs of quackgrass to alfalfa. Weeds 8:666–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Parenti, R. L. and Rice, E. L. 1969. Inhibitional effects of Digitaria sanguinalis and possible role in old field succession. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club. 96:70–78.Google Scholar
17. Thompson, L. Jr., Lewis, W. M., and Chamblee, R. W. 1981. Identification and management of broadleaf signalgrass. North Carolina Agric. Ext. Serv. AG-251.Google Scholar
18. Tukey, H. B. Jr. 1969. Implications of allelopathy in agricultural plant science. Bot. Rev. 35.1–16.Google Scholar