Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-5r2nc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-11T06:58:39.422Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Composted manure and straw amendments in wheat of a rice–wheat rotation system alter weed richness and abundance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 March 2019

Haiyan Zhang
Affiliation:
Senior Agronomist, Bureau of Agriculture and Forestry of Jintan District, Changzhou, Jiangsu, China
Yicheng Sun
Affiliation:
Agronomist, Bureau of Agriculture and Forestry of Jintan District, Changzhou, Jiangsu, China
Yong Li
Affiliation:
Senior Agronomist, Bureau of Agriculture and Forestry of Jintan District, Changzhou, Jiangsu, China
Guojun Sun*
Affiliation:
Researcher, Bureau of Agriculture and Forestry of Jintan District, Changzhou, Jiangsu, China Professor, College of Horticulture and Plant Protection of Yangzhou University, Jiangsu, China
Fang Yuan
Affiliation:
Agronomist, Bureau of Agriculture and Forestry of Jintan District, Changzhou, Jiangsu, China
Min Han
Affiliation:
Senior Agronomist, Bureau of Agriculture and Forestry of Jintan District, Changzhou, Jiangsu, China
Yunhui Duan
Affiliation:
Senior Agronomist, Bureau of Agriculture and Forestry of Jintan District, Changzhou, Jiangsu, China
Zhong Ji
Affiliation:
Senior Agronomist, Bureau of Agriculture and Forestry of Jintan District, Changzhou, Jiangsu, China
Rongsong Zhu
Affiliation:
Researcher, Bureau of Agriculture and Forestry of Jintan District, Changzhou, Jiangsu, China
Jiahe Shen
Affiliation:
Agronomist, Bureau of Agriculture and Forestry of Jintan District, Changzhou, Jiangsu, China
Wei Ran
Affiliation:
Professor, Jiangsu Provincial Key Laboratory for Solid Organic Waste Utilization, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing, China
*
Author for correspondence: Guojun Sun, Email: jtszbz@163.com
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In a rice (Oryza sativa L.)–wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) rotation system, a study was conducted to determine the effects of different fertilization regimens (no fertilization, replacement of a portion of chemical fertilizer with composted pig manure, chemical fertilizer only, and straw return combined with chemical fertilizer) on the weed communities and wheat yields after 4 and 5 yr. The impact of the long-term recurrent fertilization regimen initiated in 2010 on the composition and diversity of weed communities and the impact of the components and total amount of fertilizer on wheat yields were assessed in 2014 and 2015. Totals of 19 and 16 weed species were identified in experimental wheat fields in 2014 and 2015, respectively, but the occurrence of weed species varied according to the fertilization regimen. American sloughgrass [Beckmannia syzigachne (Steud.) Fernald], water starwort [Myosoton aquaticum (L.) Moench], and lyrate hemistepta (Hemistepta lyrata Bunge.) were adapted to all fertilization treatments and were the dominant weed species in the experimental wheat fields. The greatest number of weed species were observed under the no-fertilization treatment, in which 40% of the weed community was composed of broadleaf weeds and the lowest wheat yields were obtained. With fertilizer application, the number of weed species was reduced, the height of weeds increased significantly, the density of broadleaf weeds was significantly reduced, the biodiversity indices of weed communities decreased significantly, and higher wheat yields were obtained. Only the chemical fertilizer plus composted pig manure treatment and the chemical fertilizer–only treatment increased the density of grassy weeds and the total weed community density. The treatment with chemical fertilizer only also resulted in the highest density of B. syzigachne. Rice straw return combined with chemical fertilizer yielded the lowest total weed density, which suggests that it inhibited occurrence of weeds. The different fertilizer regimens not only affected the weed species composition, distribution, and diversity, but also the weed density. Our study provides new information from a rice–wheat rotation system on the relationship between soil amendments and agricultural weed infestation.

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

Introduction

Farming practices such as application of chemical fertilizers and pesticides, irrigation, and tillage may selectively determine which species predominate in the weed community within a field crop (Barroso et al. Reference Barroso, Miller, Lehnhoff, Hatfield and Menalled2015; Derksen et al. Reference Derksen, Lafond, Thomas, Loeppky and Swanton1993; Hyvönen and Salonen Reference Hyvönen and Salonen2002; Maillet and Lopez-Garcia Reference Maillet and Lopez-Garcia2000). For example, a shift in cropping systems can drastically alter the composition, richness, density, and cover of weeds (Barroso et al. Reference Barroso, Miller, Lehnhoff, Hatfield and Menalled2015; Riar et al. Reference Riar, Norsworthy, Steckel, Stephenson, Eubank, Bond and Scott2013). Infestation by weeds usually causes crop yield losses (Cousens Reference Cousens1985), and chemical control introduces environmental costs (Fletcher et al. Reference Fletcher, Pfleeger and Ratsch1994; Tsai Reference Tsai2013). Thus, it is necessary to identify reasonable farming practices—rotation, application of animal manures, and the return of crop residues to the soil—that are beneficial to soil fertility, crop yields, farmland biodiversity, and ecosystem health.

It is well known that soil properties such as texture, organic carbon content, nutrient content, and pH significantly influence the occurrence of plant species (Andreasen et al. Reference Andreasen, Streibig and Haas1991; Fried et al. Reference Fried, Norton and Reboud2008; Gaston et al. Reference Gaston, Locke, Zablotowicz and Reddy2001). In grasslands, the addition of multiple limiting resources (nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, and other nutrients) reduces species niche dimensionality and grassland diversity and increases living and dead biomass, shifting productivity from being nutrient limited to water or light limited (Harpole et al. Reference Harpole, Sullivan, Lind, Firn, Adler, Borer, Chase, Fay, Hautier, Hillebrand, MacDougall, Seabloom, Williams, Bakker, Cadotte, Chaneton, Chu, Cleland, D’Antonio, Davies, Gruner, Hagenah, Kirkman, Knops, La Pierre, McCulley, Moore, Morgan, Prober, Risch, Schuetz, Stevens and Wragg2016; Harpole and Tilman Reference Harpole and Tilman2007). However, when the total resource supply is maintained at a high level, exploitation of soil nutrients by co-occurring grassland species is individually affected by nutrient type, nutrient distribution, and irrigation (Zaller Reference Zaller2007). These species-specific differences in nutrient acquisition may be related to the ability of a species to exploit nutrient-rich microsites. Thus, the species with a greater relative growth rate will produce more biomass and longer roots, allowing increased nutrient capture in heterogeneous soils (James et al. Reference James, Ziegenhagen and Aanderud2010). Consequently, microsites that affect germination, time of emergence, and seedling establishment in an agricultural soil may potentially influence weed population processes (Bullied et al. Reference Bullied, Van Acker and Bullock2012). However, it is difficult to quantify these properties of soil microsites, which include microclimate, nutrient distribution, microtopography, and residue cover, in fields. Both weed seedbanks and emerged flora respond to the intensity of farming practices (Hawes et al. Reference Hawes, Squire, Hallett, Watson and Young2010); thus, we assumed that different fertilizer application regimens, including treatments of no fertilizer, chemical fertilizer only, compost with chemical fertilizers, and straw return with chemical fertilizers, may result in diversified agrestal habitats for weeds.

The intensive rotation of winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) and summer rice (Oryza sativa L.) along the middle and lower reaches of the Yangtze River in China has been established for several decades (Ju et al. Reference Ju, Xing, Chen, Zhang, Zhang, Liu, Cui, Yin, Christie, Zhu and Zhang2009). Long-term application of chemical fertilizers under rice–wheat rotation not only has already caused severe environmental pollution but also may alter the biodiversity of agroecosystems (Guo et al. Reference Guo, Zhu, Wang, Wu and Zhang2004; Owens et al. Reference Owens, van Keuren and Edwards2000; Yin et al. Reference Yin, Cai and Zhong2005). To remediate the severe environmental pollution caused by excessive application of chemical fertilizers, replacing a portion of chemical fertilizer with organic fertilizer and returning straw to the soil are urged by Chinese governments at all levels (Huang et al. Reference Huang, Gao, W, Tian, Tao and Wang2016a; Li and Wu Reference Li and Wu2008; Zhang et al. Reference Zhang, Wang and Chen2008).

Research into the effects of different fertilizer application regimens on weed composition and species density under the rice–wheat rotation may foster ecologically sound field management. Hence, the objectives of this study were to compare the weed composition and species density within wheat fields subjected to different fertilizer application regimens under a rice–wheat rotation system.

Materials and methods

Experimental site

The experimental field was located in Jianchun Village (31.662°N, 119.473°E), Jiangsu Province, China. The site is 10 m above sea level, and the region has a humid subtropical monsoon climate; the average annual temperature, humidity, and precipitation are 15.3 C, 78%, and 1,084 mm, respectively. The soil is a typical clay loamy Fe-leachic-gleyic-stagnic anthrosol. After continuous application of different fertilizers for nine seasons, the chemical properties of the soil were analyzed in 2015 after wheat harvest and are presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Soil fertility properties in 2015 after wheat harvest.a

a Mean values ± SDs. The values with different capital letters within a column are significantly different at P < 0.05.

b CF, chemical fertilizer; CK, control; PM, composted pig manure plus chemical fertilizer; SF, straw return plus chemical fertilizer.

Experimental design

The field experiment has been ongoing since the wheat season of November 2010, with long-term annual rotation of summer rice and winter wheat, and involving four replicates of four treatments in a randomized block design. During the wheat season, fertilizer treatments consisted of four treatments, as follows (Table 2): (1) a control (CK): no fertilizer applied; (2) chemical fertilizer only (CF): 375 kg ha−1 formulated fertilizer (N:P2O5:K2O, 16:18:8) plus 150 kg ha−1 urea as a basal fertilizer before planting, and 225 kg ha−1 formulated fertilizer (N:P2O5:K2O, 18:7:10) plus 153 kg ha−1 urea as a supplementary fertilizer at the panicle stage; (3) composted pig manure in addition to chemical fertilizers (PM): 6,000 kg ha−1 composted pig manure plus 180 kg ha−1 formulated fertilizer (N:P2O5:K2O, 16:18:8) and 75 kg ha−1 urea as a basal fertilizer, and 110 kg ha−1 formulated fertilizer (N:P2O5:K2O, 18:7:10) plus 76 kg ha−1 urea as a supplementary fertilizer at the panicle stage; and (4) straw from the preceding rice crop plus chemical fertilizers (SF): the rice straw was shredded to less than 5 cm and broadcast back onto the soil surface as a portion of basal input, while the chemical fertilizers were applied in the same quantities as they were in the CF treatment. Each treatment was replicated four times. The plots measured 40 m2 (8 m by 5 m), and adjacent plots were isolated by cement ridges to prevent the interflow of water and fertilizer. Wheat (‘Yangfumai 4’) harvested on June 3 in 2014 and June 4 in 2015 was sown on the same date (November 5) in 2013 and 2014, respectively, while weed control was performed 20 d after wheat sowing by applying 987 g ai ha−1 isoproturon plus 63 g ai ha−1 bensulfuron methyl using 2.1 kg ha−1 of a commercial formulation of 50% bensulfuron methyl + isoproturon WP. Drainage was provided by one 20-cm-deep furrow in the middle of each plot that emptied into the lateral side channels. Additionally, the amounts of composted pig manure during rice season were the same as those during wheat season, and wheat straw was applied during the rice season. The levels of nitrogen and potassium in the rice season proportionally increased, while the level of phosphorus decreased in response to chemical fertilizers in the CF, PM, and SF treatments (e.g., 300 kg N ha−1, 37.5 kg P2O5 ha−1, and 71.25 kg K2O ha−1 for CF).

Table 2. Type and composition of the fertilizers applied as treatments in the study.

a As a basal fertilizer applied before planting.

b As a supplementary fertilizer applied at the panicle stage.

c CF, chemical fertilizer; CK, control; PM, composted pig manure plus chemical fertilizer; SF, straw return plus chemical fertilizer.

d The composted pig manure was composed of 45.4% organic matter, 2.0% N, 2.9% P2O5, 1.2% K2O, and 29.1% water

e The straw from the previous rice crop was carefully harvested from each plot to exclude weed seed. The straw was shredded to a particle size <5 cm and uniformly returned by broadcasting to the plots from which it had been harvested.

Survey method

At the wheat dough stage, the number and species of weeds and plant height of wheat and weed species in each experimental plot were determined from May 13 to 14 of 2014 and May 17 to 18 of 2015 in nine 0.25-m2 (0.5 m by 0.5 m) quadrats positioned in accordance with an inverted W nine-point sampling method (Thomas Reference Thomas1985). Wheat grain in 20 m2 was collected from each plot to measure yield at maturity.

Data processing

The relative abundance (RA) of the weed species in each plot was calculated in accordance with the following formula: RA = (RD% + RF% + RH%)/3, where RD, RF, and RH are the relative density, relative frequency, and relative height, respectively, of a weed species present in a wheat field. The frequency of a weed species is the ratio of the number of quadrats in which a weed species occurs to the total number of quadrats in a plot. The density and height are, respectively, the mean density and mean height of a weed species in a plot. The relative frequency is the ratio of the frequency of a weed species to the sum of the frequency of all weed species. Correspondingly, the relative density and relative height represent the ratio of the density and height of a weed species to the sum of the density or height of all weed species, respectively. The relative abundance of a species indicates its degree of dominance or subordination in the weed community (i.e., the greater the relative abundance of a species in the weed community, the greater its dominance [Poggio Reference Poggio2005]).

The biodiversity of weeds was assessed based on the following parameters: species richness, S (i.e., the number of species included in a quadrat); species diversity, measured using the Simpson index (Lal et al. Reference Lal, Gautam, Raja, Nayak, Shahid, Tripathi, Bhattacharyya, Mohanty, Puri, Kumar and Panda2014; Parish et al. Reference Parish, Lakhani and Sparks1994), D = 1 − ΣPi 2, in which Pi = Ni/N is the proportion of the number of individuals of species i to the total number of individuals of each species in the quadrat; N is the total number of individuals of each weed species; and Ni is the number of individuals of species i; and community evenness, as measured by the evenness index or Pielou index (Santin-Montanyá et al. Reference Santin-Montanyá, Martín-Lammerding, Zambrana and Tenorio2016), J = (−ΣPi lnPi )/lnS.

Once the normal distribution (Shapiro-Wilk test, P > 0.05) and homogeneity of variance (Levene’s test, P > 0.05) of the data were confirmed, parametric tests were used. To assess whether differences in the density, plant height, and yield of wheat as well as the density, plant height, and diversity index of the weed community were due to climatic factors (different sunlight duration, temperature, and rainfall between years), fertilization regimen, or an interaction between the two, two-way ANOVA was used. Multiple comparisons were performed using the LSD test. The probability level was 95%; all analyses were performed using SPSS v. 18.0 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA), and the figures were generated using Origin v. 8.0 (Origin Lab, Hampton, MA, USA). Canonical correspondence analysis (CCA) was performed to explore the relationships among fertilizer resources, pH factors, and species distributions (by the RA of weed species in 2014 and 2015), and a Monte Carlo permutation test was also applied to investigate the statistical significance of the effects of fertilizer resource factors on species distributions using CANNOCO for Windows v. 4.5.

Results and discussion

Wheat height, density, and yield

Compared with the CK treatment, the fertilizer amendment treatments (PM, CF, and SF) significantly increased wheat density, height, and yield (Figure 1). Wheat density and yield with the CF treatment were lower in 2015 than in 2014.

Figure 1. The density (A), height (B), and yield (C) of wheat under different fertilization regimens in 2014 and 2015. CF, chemical fertilizer; CK, control; PM, composted pig manure + chemical fertilizer; SF, rice straw + chemical fertilizer. The different capital letters represent significant differences (P < 0.05) between different fertilization regimens during the same year. The lowercase letters represent significant differences (P < 0.05) in the same fertilization regimen during different years.

Although the different fertilizer regimens (CK, PM, CF, and SF) modified the soil chemical properties (Table 1), soil aggregates, and microbial communities in the plots of this study, as reported by other researchers (Huang et al. Reference Huang, Jiang, Li, Ma, Tang, Ran and Shen2016b; Liu et al. Reference Liu, Guo, Ran, Whalen and Li2015; Zhao et al. Reference Zhao, Ni, Li, Xiong, Ran, Shen, Shen and Zhang2014), wheat density, height, and yield did not differ with the PM, CF, and SF treatments. Our results suggest that the significantly lower crop density and plant height in the CK treatment provided more light and space for weeds than in the PM, CF, and SF treatments.

Number, composition, and distribution of weed species

In total, 19 weed species representing 18 genera and 10 families were recorded in the experimental wheat fields in 2014, and 16 weed species belonging to 16 genera and 11 families were found in 2015 (Table 3). Of the 24 total species found in the two wheat seasons, 21, 15, 13, and 14 species occurred in the CK, PM, CF, and SF plots, respectively. Five species, American sloughgrass [Beckmannia syzigachne (Steud.) Fernald], Japanese foxtail (Alopecurus japonicus Steud.), lyrate hemistepta (Hemistepta lyrata Bunge.), water starwort [Myosoton aquaticum (L.) Moench], and Monnier’s snowparsley [Cnidium monnieri (L.) Cusson ex Juss.], were widely distributed regardless of treatment in 2014 and 2015. Among these weeds, B. syzigachne is the most predominant and troublesome weed in the wheat fields rotated with rice along the middle and lower Yangtze River (Li et al. Reference Li, Bi, Liu, Yuan and Wang2013; Rao et al. Reference Rao, Dong, Li and Zhang2008), and it accounted for at least 35% of total weed density in all treatments in 2014 and 2015. Eight weed species were found in 2014 but not in 2015; five weed species occurred in 2015 but did not occur in 2014. Four species, Asia Minor bluegrass (Polypogon fugax Nees ex Steud.), cudweed [Gamochaeta malvinensis (H. Koyama) T.R. Dudley], annual bluegrass (Poa annua L.), and annual fleabane [Erigeron annuus (L.) Pers.], grew only in the CK plots, whereas three species, shortawn foxtail (Alopecurus aequalis Sobol.), catchweed bedstraw (Galium aparine L.), and hairy bindweed (Calystegia pubescens Lindl.), were absent in the CK plots in the two wheat seasons. Our results (Figure 2A) indicate that the fertilizer treatments significantly reduced the number of broadleaf weed species in the wheat fields, while no significant effect from or interaction with climatic factors occurred. However, there was no significant difference in the number of grassy weed species among the different fertilization regimens averaged over 2014 and 2015 (Figure 2B).

Table 3. Weed community composition in wheat fields under different fertilization regimens.a

a CF, chemical fertilizer; CK, control; PM, composted pig manure plus chemical fertilizer; SF, straw return plus chemical fertilizer. ++++, +++, ++, and + indicate occurrence of the listed weed species in 4, 3, 2, and 1 replication/s, respectively; −, no occurrence of the listed weed species.

b SP1–6, grassy weeds; SP7–24, broadleaf weeds.

Figure 2. Number of broadleaf (A) and grassy (B) weed species in wheat fields under different fertilization regimens. CF, chemical fertilizer; CK, control; PM, composted pig manure + chemical fertilizer; SF, rice straw + chemical fertilizer. Bars indicate mean values ± SDs. Bars with different letters are significantly different at P < 0.05.

That P. annua and E. annuus appeared only in the CK plots indicated that the two weeds were possibly sensitive to canopy shade that resulted from intensive wheat growth under the fertilizer treatments. Poa annua and E. annuus are known to tolerate high solar radiation (Andreasen et al. Reference Andreasen, Hansen and Streibig1999; Guo et al. Reference Guo, Fang, Ni, Chen and Shi2006). In contrast, the absence of A. aequalis and G. aparine in the CK plots implied that these weeds or their seedbanks and seedlings might be sensitive to light or weakly competitive with wheat in the fertilized plots. A previous study showed that covering a field with rice straw when oversowing rice stands made A. aequalis a dominant species in a barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) field (Kim et al. Reference Kim, Son, Kim, Shon, Kang and Shin1996). It is unclear why G. aparine, a weed that is typical in wheat fields (Fahad et al. Reference Fahad, Hussain, Chauhan, Saud, Wu, Hassan, Tanveer, Jan and Huang2015) and that was present in all fertilized plots in 2014 and 2015, was absent in the CK plots. Shorter persistence of G. aparine seeds placed directly on the soil surface, rather than incorporated below 2-cm depth, has been reported (Jensen Reference Jensen2009). The occurrence of B. syzigachne, A. japonicus, H. lyrata, M. aquaticum, and C. monnieri in all plots reflects their role as common weed species in rice–wheat rotation systems.

Height and density of the weed community

The heights of both the broadleaf and grassy weeds and B. syzigachne in the wheat fields under different fertilization regimens are presented in Figure 3. Because there was no significant effect of climatic factors on the heights of grassy (P = 0.557) and broadleaf (P = 0.105) weeds and B. syzigachne (P = 0.094), the data were averaged over both years. However, as seen with wheat (Figure 1), the grassy and broadleaf weeds, in particular, were shorter in the nonfertilized CK treatment than in all the fertilized treatments (PM, CF, and SF; Figure 3), indicating that nutrients were limiting resources for weed growth in the rice–wheat rotation system. When nutrients shifted from poor to rich, as occurred for the PM, CF, and SF treatments (Table 1), the broadleaf and grassy weeds were similar in height, but the height of B. syzigachne was less responsive to the SF treatment than the other fertilizer treatments.

Figure 3. Height of broadleaf weeds, grassy weeds, and Beckmannia syzigachne in wheat fields under different fertilization regimens. CF, chemical fertilizer; CK, control; PM, composted pig manure + chemical fertilizer; SF, rice straw + chemical fertilizer. Bars indicate mean values ± standard deviations. Bars with different letters are significantly different at P < 0.05.

Although significant effects from climatic factors on total weed and grassy weed density were detected, because there was no significant year by fertilizer interaction, the effect of fertilization regimen was averaged over both years. Fertilization regimen significantly affected the density of total, grassy, and broadleaf weeds (Figure 4). Compared with results for the CK treatment, total weed density was higher with the PM and CF treatments but lower with the SF treatment. The increased weed density in the PM might have been caused by weed seeds contained in the applied composted pig manure (Mt Pleasant and Schlather Reference Mt Pleasant and Schlather1994; Tompkins et al. Reference Tompkins, Chaw and Abiola1998). However, there are other studies that suggest that the use of composted pig manure is unlikely to increase weed seedbank abundance, modify seed viability, or affect weed seedling emergence (Menalled et al. Reference Menalled, Kohler, Buhler and Liebman2005). Several studies have reported that the composting process itself can reduce weed seed viability (Eghball and Lesoing Reference Eghball and Lesoing2000; Grundy et al. Reference Grundy, Green and Lennartsson1998; Tompkins et al. Reference Tompkins, Chaw and Abiola1998). All fertilizer treatments significantly reduced the density of broadleaf weeds, but the density of broadleaf weeds was lowest in the CF treatment. The reduction in broadleaf weed density was consistent with the reduced number of broadleaf weed species (Table 3), indicating that application of chemical fertilizers with or without composted manure or rice straw reduced the broadleaf weed diversity.

Figure 4. Density of total weeds (A), broadleaf weeds (B), grassy weeds (C), and Beckmannia syzigachne (D) in wheat fields under different fertilization regimens. CF, chemical fertilizer; CK, control; PM, composted pig manure + chemical fertilizer; SF, rice straw + chemical fertilizer. Bars indicate mean values ± SDs. Bars with different letters are significantly different at P < 0.05.

The grassy weed community in all treatments was dominated by B. syzigachne, and thus densities of both B. syzigachne alone and all grassy weeds were significantly lower in the CK and SF than in the PM and CF treatments (Figure 4C and D). In particular, application of chemical fertilizer only without compost or straw return resulted in the highest infestation of B. syzigachne (Figure 4D). To our knowledge, the occurrence and extent of damage from B. syzigachne was common in the wheat fields of the study region. Because B. syzigachne may be a herbicide-resistant weed (Li et al. Reference Li, Luo and Wang2017), its suppression by means of fertilizer management may prove to be an important method for the integrated management of this species. It has been reported that rice-straw mulching reduced the occurrence of Benghal dayflower (Commelina benghalensis L.) in forage sorghum [Sorghum bicolor Moench × Sorghum sudanense (Piper) Stapf.], forage millet (Pennisetum americanum L.), and finger millet [Eleusine coracana (L.) Gaertn] (Correia et al. Reference Correia, Durigan and Klink2005); extracts of wheat and rice straw have been reported as suppressing the seedling growth of flixweed [Descurainia sophia (L.) Webb ex Prantl] and wild oat (Avena fatua L.) in a rape (Brassica napus L.) field (Sun et al. Reference Sun, Mu and Hu2014). The low density and height of B. syzigachne in SF treatment (straw return with same levels of chemical fertilizers as in CF treatment) implied that returning rice straw to the soil may have inhibited the growth of B. syzigachne. The influence of environmental factors, including temperature, moisture, salinity, and seed placement on both seed germination and seedling emergence of B. syzigachne has been studied (Rao et al. Reference Rao, Dong, Li and Zhang2008), but the effect of rice straw has not been reported thus far.

Relationships between the distribution of weed flora and fertilizer resource cactors

CCA was used to analyze the distribution of weeds (the RA of the weed species) and the soil nutrient indices under different treatments. The Monte Carlo test for both the first canonical axis and overall was significant (P = 0.002, F = 2.327). Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected, and it was concluded that the weed species were not distributed randomly but were significantly correlated with fertilizer source and pH variables (Figure 5). Alopecurus japonicus (SP3) and A. aequalis (SP2) at high density in the PM and CF treatments were positively correlated with organic matter and available potassium; G. aparine (SP7) at high density in the SF and PM treatments was positively correlated with total N, total P, total K, available N, and available P; hardgrass [Sclerochloa dura (L.) Beauv.] (SP4), P. fugax (SP5), P. annua (SP6), horseweed (Erigeron canadensis L.) (SP9), Asian mazus [Mazus japonicus (Thunb.) O. Kuntze] (SP11), G. malvinensis (SP18), and E. annuus (SP19) presence in the CK treatment was positively correlated with pH, and this presence was higher in the CK treatment than in the other treatments; B. syzigachne (SP1), H. lyrata (SP8), M. aquaticum (SP10), C. monnieri (SP12), Carolina geranium (Geranium carolinianum L.) (SP15), wild carrot (Daucus carota L.) (SP21), and cucumber herb [Trigonotis peduncularis (Trev.) Benth. ex Baker et Moore.] (SP24) occurred in the center of the two-dimensional plots, meaning that they occurred regardless of fertilizer treatment. Species such as common nipplewort (Lapsana apogonoides Maxim.) (SP13), pale smartweed [Persicaria lapathifolia (L.) Delarbre] (SP14), shepherd’s-purse (Capsella bursa-pastoris Medik.) (SP16), common vetch (Vicia sativa L.) (SP22), and water speedwell (Veronica anagallis-aquatica L.) (SP23) in all treatments were not sensitive to soil resource factors. Our survey also showed that G. aparine grew well in the fertilized plots and was taller than wheat, while V. sativa and G. carolinianum grew well in the CK plots, indicating that various microsites in the field favored different weed species. By climbing into more favorable light conditions, G. aparine grew well under higher soil fertility by internode elongation, whereas the heights of V. sativa and G. carolinianum increased to acquire light under limited nutrient conditions (Tang et al. Reference Tang, Cheng, Wan, Li, Wang, Tao, Pan, Xie and Chen2014). Different fertilizer treatments altered the soil organic matter, nutrients, and pH (Table 1), while dynamic changes in nutrients in time and space may also have caused variation in weed distribution, composition, and quantity (Table 3; Figure 4), as reported previously (Fried et al. Reference Fried, Norton and Reboud2008; Pinke et al. Reference Pinke, Karácsony, Czúcz, Botta-Dukát and Lengyel2012). However, in other rotation systems, the effect of fertilizer treatments on weed occurrence might differ from results reported in this study. For example, thymeleaf sandwort (Arenaria serpyllifolia L.), blue mustard [Chorispora tenella (Pall.) DC.], wallflower mustard (Erysimum cheiranthoides L.), and Persian speedwell (Veronica persica Poir.) were best adapted to nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium deficiencies or balanced treatments in the wheat fields of a corn (Zea mays L.)–wheat rotation system (Yin et al. Reference Yin, Cai and Zhong2005).

Figure 5. Canonical correspondence analysis of different fertilization regimens and the distribution of the weed community. AK, available K; AN, available N; AP, available P; OM, organic matter; TK, total K; TN, total N; TP, total P. pH values are the same as those in Table 1. Arrows, related to soil nutrient factors; squares, related to different fertilization treatments; triangles, related to weed species. SP1–SP24 are the weeds listed in Table 3. CK (control), PM (composted pig manure + chemical fertilizer), CF (chemical fertilizer), and SF (rice straw + chemical fertilizer) are presented here as nominal variables.

Weed community biodiversity

The Simpson indices (D) and Pielou evenness indices (J) in the wheat fields under different fertilization regimens averaged over both years are presented in Figure 6. Compared with the control (CK), application of fertilizers (PM, CF, and SF treatments) reduced the Simpson index. However, only the CF treatment resulted in a lower Pielou evenness index than the CK treatment (Figure 6). All three fertilizer treatments resulted in a significant decrease in broadleaf weed species (Table 3; Figure 2A), which is in accordance with the decreased Simpson indices indicative of lower biodiversity. In addition, compared with results for the CK treatment, the weed vegetation in the CF treatment was predominantly composed of a few species, such as B. syzigachne (Figure 4), consistent with the lower Simpson and Pielou evenness indices, which indicate high dominance, low biodiversity, and low community evenness. Our results suggest that the negative impact of chemical fertilizers on weed diversity could be remediated by returning rice straw to the soil and provide new information from a rice–wheat rotation on the effects of soil amendments on agricultural weed infestation, which is relevant to no-till and organic cropping systems (Albrecht Reference Albrecht2005; Anderson Reference Anderson2015).

Figure 6. Weed species diversity (A) assessed using the Simpson index (D) and weed species distribution (B) assessed with the Pielou evenness index (J) in wheat fields under different fertilization regimens. CF, chemical fertilizer; CK, control; PM, composted pig manure + chemical fertilizer; SF, rice straw + chemical fertilizer. Bars indicate mean values ± SDs. Bars with different letters are significantly different at P < 0.05.

Although all fertilizer treatments resulted in higher wheat yields than the CK treatment, fertilizer application also resulted lower weed community diversity. This effect was most apparent with the CF treatment, which also exhibited the lowest weed species evenness. Our results show that the high infestation of grassy weeds and the dominant species B. syzigachne that occurred with the application of the CF treatment were reduced by the incorporation of rice straw into the soil. The improvement in weed suppression with less adverse effect on evenness seen with the SF treatment may be due to the high C:N ratio of the rice straw temporarily immobilizing nitrogen and thus affecting weed germination and growth of nitrophilous species.

Author ORCID

Guojun Sun, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7215-5162

Acknowledgments

We thank Bernal E. Valverde (Tropical Agriculture Research and Development, Costa Rica), who helped modify the paper, and Pinglei Gao (Nanjing Agricultural University, China), who helped analyze the data. This work was supported by the Special Fund for Agro-scientific Research in the Public Interest (201103004) and the Independent Innovation Project of Agricultural Science & Technology of Jiangsu Province [CX(14)4044]. No conflicts of interest have been declared.

Footnotes

*

These authors contributed equally to this work.

References

Albrecht, H (2005) Development of arable weed seedbanks during the 6 years after the change from conventional to organic farming. Weed Res 45:339350Google Scholar
Anderson, RL (2015) Integrating a complex rotation with no-till improves weed management in organic farming. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 35:967974CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andreasen, C, Hansen, L, Streibig, JC (1999) The effect of ultraviolet radiation on the fresh weight of some weeds and crops. Weed Technol 13:554560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andreasen, C, Streibig, JC, Haas, H (1991) Soil properties affecting the distribution of 37 weed species in Danish fields. Weed Res 31:181187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barroso, J, Miller, ZJ, Lehnhoff, EA, Hatfield, PG, Menalled, FD (2015) Impacts of cropping system and management practices on the assembly of weed communities. Weed Res 55:426435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bullied, WJ, Van Acker, RC, Bullock, PR (2012) Review: microsite characteristics influencing weed seedling recruitment and implications for recruitment modeling. Can J Plant Sci 92:627650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Correia, NM, Durigan, JC, Klink, UP (2005) Influence of type and amount of straw cover on weed emergence. J Environ Sci Health Part B Pestic Food Contam 40:171175CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cousens, R (1985) A simple model relating yield loss to weed density. Ann Appl Biol 107:239252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derksen, DA, Lafond, GP, Thomas, AG, Loeppky, HA, Swanton, CJ (1993) Impact of agronomic practices on weed communities: tillage Systems. Weed Sci 41:409417Google Scholar
Eghball, B, Lesoing, GW (2000) Viability of weed seeds following manure windrow composting. Compost Sci Util 1:4653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fahad, S, Hussain, S, Chauhan, BS, Saud, S, Wu, C, Hassan, S, Tanveer, M, Jan, A, Huang, JL (2015) Weed growth and crop yield loss in wheat as influenced by row spacing and weed emergence times. Crop Prot 71:101108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fletcher, JS, Pfleeger, TG, Ratsch, HC (1994) Potential environmental risks associated with the new sulfonylurea herbicides. Environ Sci Technol 28:1204CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fried, G, Norton, LR, Reboud, X (2008) Environmental and management factors determining weed species composition and diversity in France. Agric Ecosyst Environ 128:6876CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaston, LA, Locke, MA, Zablotowicz, RM, Reddy, KN (2001) Spatial variability of soil properties and weed populations in the Mississippi Delta. Soil Sci Soc Am J 65:449459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grundy, AC, Green, JM, Lennartsson, M (1998) The effect of temperature on the viability of weed seeds in compost. Compost Sci Util 6:2633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guo, HY, Zhu, JG, Wang, XR, Wu, ZH, Zhang, Z (2004) Case study on nitrogen and phosphorus emissions from paddy field in Taihu region. Environ Geochem Health 26:209219CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guo, SL, Fang, F, Ni, L, Chen, W, Shi, L (2006) Photosynthetic characteristics and coenological survey of Lactuca serriola in its invaded area. Chinese J Appl Ecol 17:23162320. ChineseGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harpole, WS, Sullivan, LL, Lind, EM, Firn, J, Adler, PB, Borer, ET, Chase, J, Fay, PA, Hautier, Y, Hillebrand, H, MacDougall, AS, Seabloom, EW, Williams, R, Bakker, JD, Cadotte, MW, Chaneton, EJ, Chu, CJ, Cleland, EE, D’Antonio, C, Davies, KF, Gruner, DS, Hagenah, N, Kirkman, K, Knops, JMH, La Pierre, KJ, McCulley, RL, Moore, JL, Morgan, JW, Prober, SM, Risch, AC, Schuetz, M, Stevens, CJ, Wragg, PD (2016) Addition of multiple limiting resources reduces grassland diversity. Nature 537:9396CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harpole, WS, Tilman, D (2007) Grassland species loss resulting from reduced niche dimension. Nature 446:791793CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hawes, C, Squire, GR, Hallett, PD, Watson, CA, Young, M (2010) Arable plant communities as indicators of farming practice. Agric Ecosyst Environ 138:1726CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, R, Gao, M, W, YL, Tian, D, Tao, R, Wang, FL, (2016a) Fang-li effects of straw in combination with reducing fertilization rate on soil nutrients and enzyme activity in the paddy-vegetable rotation soils. Environ Sci 37:44464456. ChineseGoogle Scholar
Huang, XL, Jiang, H, Li, Y, Ma, YC, Tang, HY, Ran, W, Shen, QR (2016b) The role of poorly crystalline iron oxides in the stability of soil aggregate-associated organic carbon in a rice–wheat cropping system. Geoderma 279:110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyvönen, T, Salonen, J (2002) Weed species diversity and community composition in cropping practices at two intensity levels a six-year experiment. Plant Ecol 159:7381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, JJ, Ziegenhagen, L, Aanderud, ZT (2010) Exploitation of nutrient-rich soil patches by invasive annual and native perennial grasses. Invasive Plant Sci Manag 3:169177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, PK (2009) Longevity of seeds of four annual grass and two dicotyledon weed species as related to placement in the soil and straw disposal technique. Weed Res 49:592601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ju, XT, Xing, GX, Chen, XP, Zhang, SL, Zhang, LJ, Liu, XJ, Cui, ZL, Yin, B, Christie, P, Zhu, ZL, Zhang, FS (2009) Reducing environmental risk by improving N management in intensive Chinese agricultural systems. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106:30413046CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kim, DH, Son, BY, Kim, SK, Shon, GM, Kang, DJ, Shin, WK (1996) Effect of over-sowing for labour-saving and on growth response as affected by different barley and wheats. RDA J Agric Sc, Upland and Ind Crops 38:106116. KoreanGoogle Scholar
Lal, B, Gautam, P, Raja, R, Nayak, AK, Shahid, M, Tripathi, R, Bhattacharyya, P, Mohanty, S, Puri, C, Kumar, A, Panda, BB (2014) Weed community composition after 43 years of long-term fertilization in tropical rice–rice system. Agric Ecosyst Environ 197:301308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, DP, Wu, ZJ (2008) Impact of chemical fertilizers application on soil ecological environment. Chinese J Appl Ecol 19:11581165. ChineseGoogle ScholarPubMed
Li, LX, Bi, YL, Liu, WT, Yuan, GH, Wang, JX (2013) Molecular basis for resistance to fenoxaprop-P-ethyl in American sloughgrass (Beckmannia syzigachne Steud.). Pestic Biochem Physiol 105:118121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, LX, Luo, XY, Wang, JX (2017) Resistance level and target-site mechanism to fenoxaprop-p-ethyl in Beckmannia syzigachne (Steud.) Fernald populations from China. Chil J Agr Res 77:150154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, T, Guo, R, Ran, W, Whalen, JK, Li, HX (2015) Body size is a sensitive trait-based indicator of soil nematode community response to fertilization in rice and wheat agroecosystems. Soil Biol Biochem 88:275281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maillet, J, Lopez-Garcia, C (2000) What criteria are relevant for predicting the invasive capacity of a new agricultural weed? The case of invasive American species in France. Weed Res 40:1126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menalled, FD, Kohler, KA, Buhler, DD, Liebman, M (2005) Effects of composted swine manure on weed seedbank. Agric Ecosyst Environ 111:6369Google Scholar
Mt Pleasant, J, Schlather, KJ (1994) Incidence of weed seed in cow (Bos sp.) manure and its importance as a weed source for cropland. Weed Technol 8:304310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owens, LB, van Keuren, RW, Edwards, W (2000) Non-nitrogen nutrient inputs and outputs for fertilized pastures in silt loam soils in four small Ohio watersheds. Agric Ecosyst Environ 97:117130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parish, T, Lakhani, KH, Sparks, TH (1994) Modeling the relationship between bird population variables and hedgerow and other field margin attributes. 1. Species richness of winter, summer and breeding birds. J Appl Ecol 31:764775CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinke, G, Karácsony, P, Czúcz, B, Botta-Dukát, Z, Lengyel, A (2012) The influence of environment, management and site context on species composition of summer arable weed vegetation in Hungary. Appl Veg Sci 15:136144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poggio, SL (2005) Structure of weed communities occurring in monoculture and intercropping of field pea and barley. Agric Ecosyst Environ 109:4858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rao, N, Dong, LY, Li, J, Zhang, HJ (2008) Influence of environmental factors on seed germination and seedling emergence of American sloughgrass (Beckmannia syzigachne). Weed Sci 56:529533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riar, DS, Norsworthy, JK, Steckel, LE, Stephenson, DO, Eubank, TW, Bond, J, Scott, RC (2013) Adoption of best management practices for herbicide-resistant weeds in Midsouthern United States cotton, rice, and soybean. Weed Technol 27:788797CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Santin-Montanyá, MI, Martín-Lammerding, D, Zambrana, E, Tenorio, JL (2016) Management of weed emergence and weed seed bank in response to different tillage, cropping systems and selected soil properties. Soil Till Res 161:3846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sun, XY, Mu, XQ, Hu, SW (2014) Research on different effects of extracts of wheat and rice straw on the growth of rape and two weeds in rape field. Acta Agric Boreali-Occidentalis Sin 23:6369. ChineseGoogle Scholar
Tang, LL, Cheng, CP, Wan, KY, Li, RH, Wang, DZ, Tao, Y, Pan, JF, Xie, J, Chen, F (2014) Impact of fertilizing pattern on the biodiversity of a weed community and wheat growth. PLoS ONE 9:e84370CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thomas, AG (1985) Weed survey system used in Saskatchewan for cereal and oilseed crops. Weed Sci 33:3443Google Scholar
Tompkins, DK, Chaw, D, Abiola, AT (1998) Effects of windrow composting on weed seed germination and viability. Compost Sci Util 6:3034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsai, WT (2013) A review on environmental exposure and health risks of herbicide paraquat. Toxico Environ Chem 95:197206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yin, LC, Cai, ZC, Zhong, WH (2005) Changes in weed composition of winter wheat crops due to long-term fertilization. Agric Ecosyst Environ 107:181186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaller, JG (2007) Effect of patchy distribution of soil nutrients on root morphology and biomass allocation of selected grassland species: experimental approach. Pol J Ecol 55:731747Google Scholar
Zhang, G, Wang, DJ, Chen, XM (2008) Effects of reduced fertilizer application on environmental quality of paddy field. Chinese J Eco-Agric 16: 327330. ChineseCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhao, J, Ni, T, Li, Y, Xiong, W, Ran, W, Shen, B, Shen, QR, Zhang, RF (2014) Responses of bacterial communities in arable soils in a rice–wheat cropping system to different fertilizer regimes and sampling times. PLoS ONE 9:e85301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Table 1. Soil fertility properties in 2015 after wheat harvest.a

Figure 1

Table 2. Type and composition of the fertilizers applied as treatments in the study.

Figure 2

Figure 1. The density (A), height (B), and yield (C) of wheat under different fertilization regimens in 2014 and 2015. CF, chemical fertilizer; CK, control; PM, composted pig manure + chemical fertilizer; SF, rice straw + chemical fertilizer. The different capital letters represent significant differences (P < 0.05) between different fertilization regimens during the same year. The lowercase letters represent significant differences (P < 0.05) in the same fertilization regimen during different years.

Figure 3

Table 3. Weed community composition in wheat fields under different fertilization regimens.a

Figure 4

Figure 2. Number of broadleaf (A) and grassy (B) weed species in wheat fields under different fertilization regimens. CF, chemical fertilizer; CK, control; PM, composted pig manure + chemical fertilizer; SF, rice straw + chemical fertilizer. Bars indicate mean values ± SDs. Bars with different letters are significantly different at P < 0.05.

Figure 5

Figure 3. Height of broadleaf weeds, grassy weeds, and Beckmannia syzigachne in wheat fields under different fertilization regimens. CF, chemical fertilizer; CK, control; PM, composted pig manure + chemical fertilizer; SF, rice straw + chemical fertilizer. Bars indicate mean values ± standard deviations. Bars with different letters are significantly different at P < 0.05.

Figure 6

Figure 4. Density of total weeds (A), broadleaf weeds (B), grassy weeds (C), and Beckmannia syzigachne (D) in wheat fields under different fertilization regimens. CF, chemical fertilizer; CK, control; PM, composted pig manure + chemical fertilizer; SF, rice straw + chemical fertilizer. Bars indicate mean values ± SDs. Bars with different letters are significantly different at P < 0.05.

Figure 7

Figure 5. Canonical correspondence analysis of different fertilization regimens and the distribution of the weed community. AK, available K; AN, available N; AP, available P; OM, organic matter; TK, total K; TN, total N; TP, total P. pH values are the same as those in Table 1. Arrows, related to soil nutrient factors; squares, related to different fertilization treatments; triangles, related to weed species. SP1–SP24 are the weeds listed in Table 3. CK (control), PM (composted pig manure + chemical fertilizer), CF (chemical fertilizer), and SF (rice straw + chemical fertilizer) are presented here as nominal variables.

Figure 8

Figure 6. Weed species diversity (A) assessed using the Simpson index (D) and weed species distribution (B) assessed with the Pielou evenness index (J) in wheat fields under different fertilization regimens. CF, chemical fertilizer; CK, control; PM, composted pig manure + chemical fertilizer; SF, rice straw + chemical fertilizer. Bars indicate mean values ± SDs. Bars with different letters are significantly different at P < 0.05.