Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-568f69f84b-tcbk7 Total loading time: 0.24 Render date: 2021-09-21T10:50:11.541Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Article contents

Impacts of composted swine manure on weed and corn nutrient uptake, growth, and seed production

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Fabián D. Menalled
Affiliation:
Department of Land Resources and Environmental Sciences, Leon Johnson Hall, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 59717-3120
Douglas D. Buhler
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, 286 Plant and Soil Sciences Building, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824-1325
Thomas L. Richard
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering, 3222 National Swine Research and Information Center, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011-3120
David N. Sundberg
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, 3148 Agronomy Hall, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011-1010
Cynthia A. Cambardella
Affiliation:
310 National Soil Tilth Laboratory, USDA Agricultural Research Service, Ames, IA 50011-3120
Keith A. Kohler
Affiliation:
224 National Soil Tilth Laboratory, USDA Agricultural Research Service, Ames, IA 50011-3120

Abstract

Hoop structures bedded with crop residues are becoming increasingly popular for swine production in the northcentral United States. Compost made from bedding materials and swine manure can be used as a soil amendment. A 3-yr field experiment was conducted in Boone, IA, to determine how composted swine manure affected selected soil characteristics and nutrient uptake, growth, and seed production of corn and three weed species (giant foxtail, velvetleaf, and common waterhemp) grown in mixture with corn. Two soil management systems, designed to provide equivalent amounts of N to corn, were compared: one that received composted manure and an average of 118 kg N ha−1 as synthetic fertilizer and another that received no composted manure and an average of 143 kg N ha−1 as synthetic fertilizer. Soil organic matter, P, K, and early-season NO3-N levels were greater in the (+) compost system. The N concentration of velvetleaf shoots, the P concentration of giant foxtail and common waterhemp shoots, and the K concentration of shoots of all three weed species also were greater in the (+) compost system. Compost application consistently increased common waterhemp height, common waterhemp biomass, and velvetleaf height, but increased velvetleaf biomass in only 1 yr and had no effect on giant foxtail height or biomass. Measurements of weed seed production, conducted in the final year of the study, showed that compost increased velvetleaf and common waterhemp seed production but had no effect on giant foxtail seed production. Compost consistently increased corn height and leaf K concentration but generally had no effect on corn yield. Results of this study indicate that large differences can exist among crop and weed species in their response to soil amendments. Depending on the weed species present, use of composted swine manure may increase requirements for weed management in corn production systems.

Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
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.)

References

Alkämper, J. 1976. Influence of weed infestation on effect of fertilizer dressings. Pflanzen.-Nachr. Bayer 29:191235.Google Scholar
Blackmer, A. M., Voss, R. D., and Mallarino, A. P. 1997. Nitrogen Fertilizer Recommendations for Corn in Iowa. Publication Pm-1714. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Extension. 4 p.Google Scholar
Cerrato, M. E. and Blackmer, A. M. 1991. Relationships between leaf nitrogen concentrations and the nitrogen status of corn. J. Prod. Agric 4:525531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, Y. and Aviad, T. 1990. Effects of humic substances on plant growth. Pages 161186 in MacCarthy, P., Clapp, C. E., Malcolm, R. L., and Bloom, P. R. eds. Humic Substances in Soil and Crop Sciences: Selected Readings. Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy and Soil Science Society of America.Google Scholar
Craft, C. M. and Nelson, E. B. 1996. Microbial properties of composts that suppress damping-off and root rot of creeping bentgrass caused by Pythium graminicola . Appl. Environ. Microbiol 62:15501557.Google ScholarPubMed
DiTomaso, J. M. 1995. Approaches for improving crop competitiveness through manipulation of fertilization strategies. Weed Sci 43:491497.Google Scholar
Fraser, D. G., Doran, J. W., Sahs, W. W., and Lesoing, G. W. 1988. Soil microbial populations and activities under conventional and organic management. J. Environ. Qual 17:585590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Honeyman, M. S. 1996. Overview of system options: economics and production. Pages 4254 in Conference Proceedings: Swine System Options for Iowa. Ames, IA: Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture, Iowa State University.Google Scholar
Honeyman, M. S. and Kent, D. 2001. Performance of a Swedish deep- bedded feeder pig production system in Iowa. Am. J. Altern. Agric 16:5056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobowitz, L. A. and Steenhuis, T. S. 1984. Compost impact on soil moisture and temperature. Biocycle 25:5660.Google Scholar
Keeling, A. A., Paton, I. K., and Mullett, J. A. J. 1994. Germination and growth of plants in media containing unstable refuse-derived compost. Soil Biol. Biochem 26:767772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knezevic, S. Z., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1994. Interference of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) in corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci 42:568573.Google Scholar
Larson, W. E. and Hanway, J. J. 1977. Corn production. Pages 625670 in Sprague, G. F. ed. Corn and Corn Improvement. Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy.Google Scholar
Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture. 2001. Hoop structures change Iowa landscape. www.leopold.iastate.edu/news/hoops.html.Google Scholar
Liebman, M. and Mohler, C. L. 2001. Weeds and the soil environment. Pages 210268 in Liebman, M., Mohler, C. L., and Staver, C. P. eds. Ecological Management of Agricultural Weeds. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindquist, J. L., Mortensen, D. A., Clay, S. A., Schmenk, R., Kells, J. J., Howatt, K., and Westra, P. 1996. Stability of corn (Zea mays)-velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) interference relationships. Weed Sci 44:309313.Google Scholar
Lindquist, J. L., Mortensen, D. A., and Westra, P. et al. 1999. Stability of corn (Zea mays)-foxtail (Setaria) interference relationships. Weed Sci 47:195200.Google Scholar
Loecke, T. D., Liebman, M., Cambardella, C. A., and Richard, T. L. 2004. Corn response to composting and time of application of solid swine manure. Agron. J 96:214223.Google Scholar
Mallarino, A. P. 1995. Evaluation of excess soil phosphorus supply for corn by the ear-leaf test. Agron. J 87:687691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mandelbaum, R. and Hadar, Y. 1990. Effects of available carbon source on microbial activity and suppression of Pythium aphanidermatum in compost and peat container media. Phytopathology 80:794804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menalled, F. D., Liebman, M., and Buhler, D. D. 2004. Impact of composted swine manure and tillage on soybean–common waterhemp interactions. Weed Sci. In press.Google Scholar
Mid-West Plan Service. 1997. Hoop Structures for Grow-Finish Swine. Publication AED-41. Ames, IA: Mid-West Plan Service, Iowa State University. 16 p.Google Scholar
O'Donovan, J. T., de St. Remy, E. A., Ashely O'Sullivan, P., Dew, D. A., and Sharma, A. K. 1985. Influence of the relative time of emergence of wild oat (Avena fatua) on yield loss of barley (Hordeum vulgare) and wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Sci 33:498503.Google Scholar
Qasem, J. R. 1992. Nutrient accumulation by weeds and their associated vegetable crops. J. Hortic. Sci 67:189195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richard, T. L., Harmon, J., Honeyman, M., and Creswell, J. 1998. Hoop structure bedding use, labor, bedding pack temperature, manure nutrient content, and nitrogen leaching potential. Pages 7175 in 1997 ISU Swine Research Rep. AS-638. Publication ASL-R1499. Ames, IA: Department of Animal Science, Iowa State University.Google Scholar
Richard, T. L. and Hinrichs, C. C. 1998. “Normal accidents”: Risk Management in Manure Handling Systems. American Society of Agricultural Engineers (ASAE) Paper MC98-103. St. Joseph, MI: ASAE.Google Scholar
Richard, T. L. and Smits, S. 1998. Management of Bedded-pack Manure from Swine Hoop Structures. American Society of Agricultural Engineers (ASAE) Paper 98-4127. St. Joseph, MI: ASAE.Google Scholar
Sawyer, J. E., Mallarino, A. P., Killorn, R., and Barnhart, S. K. 2002. A General Guide for Crop Nutrient and Limestone Recommendations in Iowa. Publication PM-1688. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Extension.Google Scholar
Serra-Wittling, C., Houot, S., and Barriuso, E. 1996. Modification of soil water retention and biological properties by municipal solid waste compost. Compost Sci. Util 4:4452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tiquia, S. M., Richard, T. L., and Honeyman, M. S. 2000. Effect of windrow turning and seasonal temperatures on composting of hog manure from hoop structures. Environ. Tech 21:10371046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valdrighi, M. M., Pera, A., Agnolucci, M., Frassinetti, S., Lunardi, D., and Vallini, G. 1996. Effects of compost-derived humic acids on vegetable biomass production and microbial growth within a plant (Cichorium intybus)-soil system: a comparative study. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ 58:133144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Acker, R. C., Swanton, C. J., and Weise, S. F. 1993. The critical period of weed control in soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr]. Weed Sci 41:194200.Google Scholar
Vengris, J., Colby, W. G., and Drake, M. 1955. Plant nutrient competition between weeds and corn. Agron. J 47:213216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Impacts of composted swine manure on weed and corn nutrient uptake, growth, and seed production
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Impacts of composted swine manure on weed and corn nutrient uptake, growth, and seed production
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Impacts of composted swine manure on weed and corn nutrient uptake, growth, and seed production
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *