Meta-Analysis of Crop and Weed Growth Responses to Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi: Implications for Integrated Weed Management

Li, Meng; Jordan, Nicholas R.; Yannarell, Anthony C.; Davis, Adam S.

doi:10.1614/ws-d-16-00050.1

Cited by 29 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 72 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The current study is aimed at providing a quantitative review on how these management practices could influence the impact of cover crops on weed suppression through an analytical approach: meta-analysis. The adoption of metaanalysis for quantitative review is becoming more popular among agronomy researchers, as this approach provides a summarized quantitative estimate or information from data extracted through a comprehensive survey of previous studies (Egan et al, 2014;Pittelkow et al, 2015;Li et al, 2016;Himmelstein et al, 2017;Osipitan et al, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of Cover Crop Management on Level of Weed Suppression: A Meta‐Analysis

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We conducted a previous systematic and meta‐analysis review that showed differences in results from studies that evaluated the effectiveness of cover crops for weed suppression in cropping systems; these differences were largely due to management approaches used in growing the cover crop and main crop. The current meta‐analysis provides a quantitative review on how cover crop and main crop management practices influence the impact of cover crops on weed suppression. The meta‐analysis used observations from 53 studies published from 1990 to 2018. Cover crop biomass was inversely related to the amount of weed biomass (r2 = 0.67) and weed density (r2 = 0.64). In general, the meta‐analysis shows that cover crops provided a range of weed suppression depending on management decisions such as choice of cover crop species, cover crop sowing season (fall or spring), sowing dates within seasons, seeding rate, termination date, delay in main crop planting date after cover crop termination, tillage system under which the cover crop was produced, and integrating the cover crop with other weed control inputs. For example, grass cover crop species provided greater weed suppression than broadleaf species. Fall‐sown cover crops provided greater weed suppression (weighted mean of response ratio [R*] = 0.19) than spring‐sown cover crops (R* = 0.48) by the summer. Weed suppression increased by increasing seeding rate of cover crops from 1× (R* = 0.50) to 2× (R* = 0.27) or 3× (R* = 0.10). In addition, cover crops provided greater weed suppression in reduced tillage systems (R* = 0.19) than no tillage (R* = 0.29). The differential weed suppression provided by these management approaches suggests that a cover crop management approach should be rightly selected for weed suppression benefits.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of Cover Crop Management on Level of Weed Suppression: A Meta‐Analysis

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Indirect facilitation through the soil microbial community has also been documented (Van der Heijden et al 1998;Bennett, Daniell and White 2013). A meta-analysis indicated that arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi can directly suppress weeds that are weak hosts for the fungi, but also can indirectly suppress some strong host weeds in the presence of strong host crops that ultimately obtain the advantage (Li et al 2016). These facilitative processes can differentially provide advantage to the weeds or crop in any given system at any particular time, so their interpretation must be made with caution and careful understanding of the drivers in variation before applying what appears to be a definitive outcome or assumption about the outcome of the interaction (e.g.…”

Section: Indirect Effects Of Competitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Weed-plant interactions

Maxwell¹

2017

Burleigh Dodds Series in Agricultural Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Crops or desired plant species co-occur with undesired species, and the co-occurring species thereby come to be classed as weeds. This human-imposed classification is based on the perception that there is an interaction that results in some negative effect of the weed on the crop or desired species. This chapter offers an evolutionary perspective on crop–weed interactions and examines the nature of shared resource pools between desired crops and weeds. The chapter addresses the effects of direct competition between weeds and crops for resources, the indirect effects of competition and the spatial and temporal dynamics of crop–weed interaction.

show abstract

“…Another factor influencing weed-crop competition dynamics is the function of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF), which may increase the availability of immobile nutrients such as P (Harley 1989;Jeffries and Rhodes 1987;Stanley et al 1993) and improve crop yield (Zhang et al 2019). Most plants can host AMF, but several important weed species are characterized as weak or non-AMF hosts (Jordan et al 2000;Li et al 2016;Vatovec et al 2005). AMF can have a negative effect on the growth of these weed species, especially in the presence of a crop (Veiga et al 2011).…”

Section: Directions For Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of fertility amendments on weed growth and weed–crop competition: a review

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Macronutrient inputs to annual cropping systems can benefit weeds as well as crops, sometimes decreasing or eliminating the benefits of fertilization. This interaction between fertility management and integrated weed management is becoming increasingly important as these fields focus on efficiency and prevention, respectively. The risk of increased weed competition reflects the fact that weed biomass and height may be highly responsive to nitrogen, phosphorus, and/or potassium. This generalization is supported by monoculture studies of species such as redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.), common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album L.), and barnyardgrass [Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) P. Beauv.], and by ecological theory. However, field studies indicate variation in the effects of macronutrients on weed-crop competition and crop yield, even within species groups. To address challenges in interpreting, comparing, and extrapolating from these diverse reports, we propose a conceptual framework that summarizes the mechanisms underlying observed variation within and between studies. The framework highlights functional traits and trends that help predict yield outcomes in binary weed-crop interactions. Important factors include timing of emergence, maximum heights of the weed and crop, and relative responsiveness to the added nutrient. We also survey recent work on the effects of nutrient source (for example, the composition of organic amendments) on weed-crop competition. Because different sources vary in their nutrient release dynamics and supplied nutrient ratios, they may have dramatically different effects on weed-crop competition and crop yield. Finally, we offer a guide to best practices for studies of fertility effects on weed-crop competition. Although this review highlights several topics requiring further research, including fertility effects on multispecies interactions and interactions with other environmental factors, emerging methods offer considerable promise. Ultimately, an improved understanding of nutrient effects on weed-crop competition will contribute to the efficient and effective management of diverse cropping systems.

show abstract

Meta-Analysis of Crop and Weed Growth Responses to Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi: Implications for Integrated Weed Management

Cited by 29 publications

References 72 publications

Impact of Cover Crop Management on Level of Weed Suppression: A Meta‐Analysis

Impact of Cover Crop Management on Level of Weed Suppression: A Meta‐Analysis

Weed-plant interactions

Effects of fertility amendments on weed growth and weed–crop competition: a review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About