4.8 Article

The impact of elevated CO on yield loss from a C3 and C4 weed in field-grown soybean

Journal

GLOBAL CHANGE BIOLOGY
Volume 6, Issue 8, Pages 899-905

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2486.2000.00364.x

Keywords

carbon dioxide; climate change; competition; lambsquarters; pigweed; yield

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Soybean (Glycine max) was grown at ambient and enhanced carbon dioxide (CO2, + 250 muL L-1 above ambient) with and without the presence of a C3 weed (lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L.) and a C4 weed (redroot pigweed, Amaranthus retroflexus L.), in order to evaluate the impact of rising atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration [CO2] on crop production losses due to weeds. Weeds of a given species were sown at a density of two per metre of row. A significant reduction in soybean seed yield was observed with either weed species relative to the weed-free control at either [CO2]. However, for lambsquarters the reduction in soybean seed yield relative to the weed-free condition increased from 28 to 39% as CO2 increased, with a 65% increase in the average dry weight of lambsquarters at enhanced [CO2]. Conversely, for pigweed, soybean seed yield losses diminished with increasing [CO2] from 45 to 30%, with no change in the average dry weight of pigweed. In a weed-free environment, elevated [CO2] resulted in a significant increase in vegetative dry weight and seed yield at maturity for soybean (33 and 24%, respectively) compared to the ambient CO2 condition. Interestingly, the presence of either weed negated the ability of soybean to respond either vegetatively or reproductively to enhanced [CO2]. Results from this experiment suggest: (i) that rising [CO2] could alter current yield losses associated with competition from weeds; and (ii) that weed control will be crucial in realizing any potential increase in economic yield of agronomic crops such as soybean as atmospheric [CO2] increases.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available