Hostname: page-component-857557d7f7-ktsnh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-11-21T14:13:17.869Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of Nitrogen Supply on Carbon Dioxide–Induced Changes in Competition between Rice and Barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Chunwu Zhu ,
Qing Zeng ,
Lewis H. Ziska ,
Jianguo Zhu ,
Zubing Xie  and
Gang Liu
Chunwu Zhu
Affiliation:
State Key Laboratory of Soil and Sustainable Agriculture, Institute of Soil Science, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Nanjing, 210008, PR China
Qing Zeng
Affiliation:
State Key Laboratory of Soil and Sustainable Agriculture, Institute of Soil Science, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Nanjing, 210008, PR China
Lewis H. Ziska
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, Crop Systems and Global Change Laboratory, Beltsville, MD 20705
Jianguo Zhu*
Affiliation:
State Key Laboratory of Soil and Sustainable Agriculture, Institute of Soil Science, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Nanjing, 210008, PR China
Zubing Xie
Affiliation:
State Key Laboratory of Soil and Sustainable Agriculture, Institute of Soil Science, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Nanjing, 210008, PR China
Gang Liu
Affiliation:
State Key Laboratory of Soil and Sustainable Agriculture, Institute of Soil Science, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Nanjing, 210008, PR China
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: jgzhu@issas.ac.cn
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

As atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration ([CO2]) increases, it is anticipated that the competitive ability of C3 crops could be enhanced relative to C4 weeds in agricultural systems. However, given the different nitrogen use efficiencies of C3 and C4 plants, it is unclear whether any effect of increasing [CO2] on C3/C4 competition is nitrogen dependent. To determine the interaction of [CO2] and N availability on species growth and competitive outcomes, the growth of rice (C3 photosynthetic pathway) was examined in both monoculture and in competition with a common weed, barnyardgrass (C4 photosynthetic pathway) at two levels of N supply (0.357 and 1.071 mmol N L−1) and two levels of [CO2] (ambient and ambient + 200 µmol mol−1) under field conditions in eastern China. In monoculture, the biomass response of rice to elevated [CO2] depended on N supply, whereas the response of barnyardgrass to elevated [CO2] was less dependent on nitrogen. Consequently, when grown in mixture, the proportion of rice biomass increased relative to that of barnyardgrass under elevated [CO2] if the supply of nitrogen was adequate. However, if N was low, elevated [CO2] significantly reduced the proportion of leaf area and root biomass relative to barnyardgrass biomass. Although data from this experiment confirm that competitiveness of rice could be enhanced relative to C4 weeds in response to rising [CO2] in situ, the data also indicate that such a response could be contingent on the supply of nitrogen. This suggests that, for rice cropping systems where N is in limited supply, rising atmospheric CO2 could still exacerbate competitive losses, even from C4 weeds.

Keywords

Barnyardgrass, Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) Beauv. ECHCGrice, Oryza sativa L. ‘Japonica 9915’.Carbon dioxidecompetitionnitrogen stress

Information

Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 56 , Issue 1 , February 2008 , pp. 66 - 71
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

Alberto, A. M., Ziska, L. H., Cervancia, C. R., and Manalo, P. A. 1996. The influence of increasing carbon dioxide and temperature on competitive interactions between a C3 crop and a C4 weed. Austral. J. Plant Physiol. 23:795–802.Google Scholar
Anten, N. P., Hirose, T., Onoda, Y., Kinugasa, T., Kim, Y. H., and Okada, M. 2003. Elevated CO2 and nitrogen availability have interactive effects on canopy carbon gain in rice. New Phytol. 161:459–471.Google Scholar
Arp, W. J., Van, M. J., Berndse, F., and Snijders, W. 1998. Interactions between elevated CO2 concentration, nitrogen and water: effects on growth and water use of six perennial plant species. Plant Cell Environ. 21:1–11.Google Scholar
Bowes, G. 1996. Photosynthetic responses to changing atmosphere carbon dioxide concentration. in Baker, N.R., ed. Photosynthesis and Environment. Dordrecht, The Netherlands Kluwer. 397–407.Google Scholar
Bunce, J. A. and Ziska, L. H. 2000. Crop ecosystem responses to climatic change: crop/weed interactions. in Reddy, K.R. and Hodges, H.F., eds. Climate Change and Global Crop Productivity. New York CABI. 333–352.Google Scholar
Cousins, A. B. and Bloom, A. J. 2003. Influence of elevated CO2 and nitrogen nutrition on photosynthesis and nitrate photo-assimilation in maize (Zea mays L). Plant Cell Environ. 26:1525–1530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghannoum, O., Von Caemmerer, S., Ziska, L. H., and Conroy, J. P. 2000. The growth response of C4 plants to rising atmospheric CO2 partial pressure: a reassessment. Plant Cell Environ. 23:931–942.Google Scholar
Hocking, P. and Meyer, C. P. 1991. Carbon dioxide enrichment decreases critical nitrate and nitrogen concentrations in wheat. J. Plant Nutr. 14:571–584.Google Scholar
Holm, L. G., Pluckett, D. L., Pancho, J. V., and Herberger, J. P. 1977. The World's Worst Weeds. Distribution and Biology. Honolulu, HI University of Hawaii Press. 478.Google Scholar
Israel, D. W., Rufty, T. W., and Cure, J. D. 1990. Nitrogen and phosphorus nutritional interactions in a CO2 enriched environment. J. Plant Nutr. 13:1419–1433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerr, R. A. 2001. It's official: humans are behind most of global warming. Sci. 291:566.Google Scholar
Kim, H. Y., Lieffering, M., Miura, S., Kobayashi, K., and Okada, M. 2001. Growth and nitrogen uptake of CO2-enriched rice under field conditions. New Phytol. 50:223–229.Google Scholar
Kobayashi, K. 2001. The experimental study of FACE. Jpn. J. Crop Sci. 70:1–16.Google Scholar
Kropff, M. J. and Spitters, C. J. T. 1991. A simple model of crop loss by weed competition from early observations on relative leaf area of the weeds. Weed Res. 31:97–105.Google Scholar
National Field Research Group 1989. China's field weeds by region. J. Weed Sci. 3:1–5. [In Chinese with English abstract].Google Scholar
Okada, M., Lieffering, M., Nakamura, H., Yoshimoto, M., Kim, H. Y., and Kobayashi, K. 2001. Free-air CO2 enrichment (FACE) using pure CO2 injection: system description. New Phytol. 150:251–260.Google Scholar
Patterson, D. T. 1985. Comparative eco-physiology of weeds and crops. in Duke, S.O., ed. Weed Physiology. Volume 1. Boca Raton, FL CRC. 101–129.Google Scholar
Patterson, D. T. 1986. Responses of soybean (Glycine max) and three C4 grass weeds to CO2 enrichment during drought. Weed Sci. 34:203–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, D. T. 1993. Implications of global climate change for impact of weeds, insects and plant diseases. Int. Crop Sci. 1:273–280.Google Scholar
Patterson, D. T. and Flint, E. P. 1990. Implications of increasing carbon dioxide and climate change for plant communities and competition in natural and managed ecosystems. in Kimball, B.A., ed. Impact of Carbon Dioxide, Trace Gases and Climate Change on Global Agriculture. Madison, WI American Society of Agronomy (ASA) Special Publication 53. 83–110.Google Scholar
Patterson, D. T., Flint, E. P., and Beyers, J. L. 1984. Effects of CO2 enrichment on competition between a C4 weed and a C3 crop. Weed Sci. 32:101–105.Google Scholar
Potvin, C. and Strain, B. R. 1985. Effects of CO2 enrichment and temperature on growth in two C4 weeds, Echinochloa crus-galli, and Eleusine indica . Can. J. Bot. 63:1495–1499.Google Scholar
Sage, R. F. and Pearcy, R. W. 1987. The nitrogen use efficiency of C3 and C4 plants. I. Leaf nitrogen, growth and biomass partitioning in Chenopodium album and Amaranthus retroflexus. Plant Physiol. 84:954–958.Google Scholar
Sauage, R. F. 1994. Acclimation of photosynthesis to increasing atmospheric CO2: the gas exchange perspective. Photosynth. Res. 39:351–368.Google Scholar
Wand, S. J., Midgley, G., Jones, M., and Curtis, P. S. 1999. Response of wild C4 and C3 grass (Poaceae) species to elevated atmospheric CO2 concentration: a meta-analytic test of current theories and perceptions. Glob. Change Biol. 5:723–741.Google Scholar
Weerakoon, W. M., Olszyk, D. M., and Moss, D. N. 1999. Effects of nitrogen nutrition on responses of rice seedlings to carbon dioxide. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 72:1–8.Google Scholar
Yoshida, S., Forno, D. A., Cook, J. H., and Gomez, K. A. 1976. Laboratory Manual for Physiological Studies of Rice. 3rd ed. Manila, Philippines International Rice Research Institute. 1–50.Google Scholar
Zhu, Z. L., Xiong, Z. Q., and Xing, G. G. 2005. Impact of population growth and economic development on the nitrogen cycle in Asia. Chin. Life Sci. 48:729–737.Google Scholar
Ziska, L. H. 2004. Rising carbon dioxide and weed ecology. in Interjit, ed. Weed Biology and Management. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic. 159–176.Google Scholar
Ziska, L. H., Weerakoon, W., Namuco, O. S., and Pamplona, R. 1996. The influence of nitrogen on the elevated CO2 response in field grown rice. Aust. J. Plant Physiol. 23:45–52.Google Scholar