Crop Protection 103 (2018) 65e72

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Crop Protection
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cropro

Understanding crop-weed-fertilizer-water interactions and their

implications for weed management in agricultural systems
Simerjeet Kaur a, Ramanjit Kaur b, Bhagirath S. Chauhan c, *
a
Department of Agronomy, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, 141004, Punjab, India
b
Division of Agronomy, ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi, 110 012, India
c
The Centre for Plant Science, Queensland Alliance for Agriculture and Food Innovation (QAAFI), The University of Queensland, Gatton 4343, Queensland,
Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Crops and weeds share the same aboveground/aerial (sunlight, space, atmospheric gases, etc.) and un-
Received 19 July 2017 derground/soil (water and nutrients) resources. Competition is a predictable response of organisms
Received in revised form living in communities, and is a struggle between two organisms for a limited resource that is essential for
11 September 2017
their growth. Crop-weed competition causes an alteration in the utilization of various resources and also
Accepted 19 September 2017
affects complex interactions between plants and environmental factors. Water, nutrients, light, and space
are the major factors for which organisms compete. Light and space are the main aboveground resources,
and the effects of competition for these resources can be visually observed. This article focusses on crop-
Keywords:
Weed-fertilizer interactions
weed interactions for underground resources - nutrients and water. Weeds, being more aggressive,
Weed-water interactions adaptive and persistent than crops, pose a serious threat to crop production as they have the ability to
Crop-weed competition survive under adverse conditions and extract more water and nutrients from the soil; thereby, reducing
Cultural weed control crop yields. Fertilizer application and inherent soil fertility have a definite influence on weed diversity,
emergence, growth, dormancy, persistence, and crop-weed competition. Weed suppression with
balanced fertilization through increased competition for light has been regarded as one of the most
important determinants of the yield advantage of a crop, and the effect on yield depends upon the
interaction of crop and weed flora. The elimination of weeds from crops is the most efficient and practical
means of reducing transpiration and thus saving water for crop use. Additional fertilizer and water
amounts cannot compensate fully for yield losses due to weed competition, but appropriate fertilizer and
water management could be used as an important tool in integrated weed management systems, which
may prove helpful for achieving higher net returns.
© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
2. Weed-fertilizer interactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
2.1. N fertilization and weeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
2.2. P fertilization and weeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
2.3. Bulky organic manure and weeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
2.4. Fertilizer and weed control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
2.4.1. Time of fertilizer application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
2.4.2. Method of fertilizer application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
2.5. Weeds as a source of nutrients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
2.6. Fertilizer and herbicide efficacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
3. Weed-water interactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
4. Weed-fertilizer-water interactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: b.chauhan@uq.edu.au (B.S. Chauhan).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2017.09.011
0261-2194/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
66 S. Kaur et al. / Crop Protection 103 (2018) 65e72

5. Conclusions and future research directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

1. Introduction Soil resources or agricultural inputs, nutrients/fertilizers and

water, are vital for crop production and involve a huge investment
Weeds are unwanted plants that interfere with the utilization of by farmers. Soil, water and nutrients play a decisive role in crop-
land and thus adversely affect crop production. The developing weed interactions. Weeds have high photosynthetic rates and
world is facing the ramifications of four inter-related problems viz; relative growth rates, and the capacity for rapid phenotypic
the energy crisis, food shortages, poverty, and under-employment adjustment under stress conditions (Radosevich et al., 1997). The
as a consequence of population explosion. To meet the rise in nutrient and water extraction ability of any plant depends upon the
food demand, global food production needs to be increased by over depth and density of its root system, and inherent growth charac-
40% by 2030 (FAO, 2009). The dynamic nature of weed problems teristics of the roots. Micronutrients and macro-nutrients, like ni-
requires continuous development of novel weed management trogen (N), phosphorus (P) and potassium (K), are essential for
technologies which can be mechanical/physical, chemical, cultural/ production of crops used for food, animal feed, fibre, and fuel. Most
agronomic, biological and integrated ones (Clements et al., 2014). of these nutrients are absorbed by the crop, but the absorption
Chemical weed management measures have wider acceptance pattern differs when applied in the presence of weeds. Before the
amongst growers due to the ease of application, low prices, time- advent of mineral fertilizers in the 19th century, soil fertility was
liness and efficiency. However, an acute rise in cases of herbicide maintained by the use of bulky organic manures and inclusion of N-
resistance in weeds and emerging concerns about environmental fixing crops in crop rotation. It has been estimated that animal
pollution due to indiscriminate use of herbicides have necessitated manure provides about 11% of the total N required for global food
a shift and/or focus on other control measures and integrated weed production (Smil, 1999). Over the past 50 years, approximately 40%
management (Chauhan et al., 2017). The key principle of integrated of the world's dietary protein has been contributed through
weed management is to manage the crop habitat in such a way as to applying N fertilizers to increase per-capita food production (Smil,
exploit biological differences between crops and weeds (Chauhan, 2002). Water is a scarce, exhaustible and expensive resource, and
2012). The objective of integrated weed management is to main- the renewable quantity of water is finite; thus, necessitating its use
tain weed densities at manageable levels and to place the crops at a in the most efficient way. Global water projections made by several
competitive advantage over the weeds (Zimdahl, 2017). Weeds, researchers have indicated major shortfalls in the future. In Asia, it
being well adopted, highly competitive, persistent and hardy as has been estimated that 17 million ha of irrigated rice may expe-
compared to cultivated crops, interfere with agricultural operations rience “physical water scarcity” and 22 million ha may have “eco-
and reduce resource-use efficiency. This imbalance of nature can be nomic water scarcity” by 2025 (Bouman et al., 2002). Ground water
manipulated in favour of crops by suitably modifying soil and in the major rice growing areas of North-West India is declining at a
cropping conditions, leading to selective stimulation of crop rate of 0.1e1.0 m year
1 (Hira et al., 2004). Water is an essential
growth. Vigorous crop plants compete better with weeds and cover factor in agricultural production, and strongly affects various plant
the ground more quickly. This can be achieved by timely and physiological processes like photosynthesis, respiration, absorp-
judicious use of various external applied inputs like water and tion, translocation, utilization of mineral nutrients, and cell
nutrients (Walia, 2010). A comprehensive understanding of in- division.
teractions between crops and associated weeds for these resources Nutrient and water management plays a significant role in weed
is a must for the development of a sound framework for combating management, as crop and weed species require sufficient soil
weed problems. moisture for their germination, growth, and establishment
Various positive and negative interactions between two species (Baltazar and De Datta, 1992). A greater understanding of weed-
sharing the same niche are observed in a mixed agroecosystem. fertilizer-water interactions would facilitate the development of
Interactions between crops and weeds are mainly for nutrients, soil effective cultural management practices in field crops, which
moisture, light, and space (carbon dioxide). Luca et al. (2014) favour the growth of crops while inhibiting weed germination and
summarized different interferences and divided them into two growth.
types, positive and negative. Positive interferences are mutualism
(both organisms benefit) and commensalism (one is neutral and
2. Weed-fertilizer interactions
the other benefits). Negative interferences are competition (one
benefits, while the other is harmed) and amensalism (one is
Application of fertilizer may benefit weeds to a greater extent
neutral, and the other is harmed). Allelopathy is also considered a
than crops, because nutrient absorption is faster and higher in
negative form of interference. Competition is the most important
weeds than in crop plants (Balasubramanian and Palaniappan,
interaction for determining crop productivity. It is the mutual
2004). For each kilogram of dry matter production by wheat (Tri-
adverse effect of two organisms utilizing common resources, which
ticum aestivum L.), 5.5 kg N and 1.2 kg P are required; while Che-
are essential for their growth and development, and are in short
nopodium album L. required 7.6 kg N and 1.6 kg P (Balasubramanian
supply. Inter- and intraspecific competition starts when any of the
and Palaniappan, 2004). For every gram of dry matter produced by
resources become limiting and affect plant growth and biomass
weeds, there is a corresponding loss of yield by the crop. Weeds in
production, and the plant cannot effectively utilize other available
the first three weeks of growth take one-third of fertilizer nutrients
resources. The principle of plant competition is that the plants
applied to crops, and weeds can deprive a rice crop of 47% N, 42% P,
which are first to occupy any area of soil, small or large, tend to
50% K, 39% calcium, and 24% magnesium. Some weeds consume
exclude others. This article focuses on the various interactions for
more nutrients than they need for their growth, and may accu-
underground resources observed in the crop-weed complex, and
mulate higher mineral nutrient concentrations (1.0e3.8% N, 0.5% P
the implications for weed management.
and 1.0e5.0% K) than crop plants (Alkamper, 1976). Such ‘luxury
 S. Kaur et al. / Crop Protection 103 (2018) 65e72
consumers’ actually get more benefit from fertilization compared
with the crop plants. Weeds can be used as a soil indicator, and
keen observation of weeds growing in a specific area can provide an
indication of soil fertility, pH, and texture. Some weeds flourish in
low-fertility soils, whereas other weeds predominate in well-fed
soils. The growth advantages of weeds at less than optimum
applied fertilizer N could be attributed to higher N uptake, a higher
photosynthetic rate, rapid growth, and a higher absorptive capacity
than that of cultivated crops at low N (Chapin, 1980).
Fertilizer management may play a significant role in reducing
weed interference in crops (DiTomaso, 1995). The dose, method,
timing, and type of fertilizer may affect weed emergence, persis-
tence, distribution, dormancy, dynamics, and growth attributes
(Bajwa et al., 2014), along with affecting herbicide performance
(Mithila et al., 2008). In the case of high weed density, weed
biomass may increase with fertilization (Guza et al., 2008). N fer-
tilizer can be used to break the dormancy of weed seeds (Agenbag
and Villiers, 1989). Fertilization may also affect weed populations
through its influence on selection pressures (Murphy and Lemerle,
2006). Increased nutrient levels may reduce weed abundance,
depending on weed type. Differences among annual crops and
weed species in seedling size and initial relative growth rate due to
seed size may form the basis of their relative response to the
abundance of nutrients (Liebman and Davis, 2000). Due to greater
maximal relative growth rate and greater specific root lengths
under adequate nutrient supply, small-seeded weed species
compete with large-sized seed crops. As weeds show greater
sensitivity to nutrient supply, this faster growth of weeds can be
counterbalanced, and so these weeds can be controlled by reducing
early-season soil fertility (Seibert and Pearce, 1993). The emergent
macrophyte species with the highest growth rate under fertile
conditions suffered the largest decline in growth rate under
decreased nutrient supply (Shipley and Keddy, 1988); thus, nutrient
responsive weeds can be disadvantaged the most by fertilization
strategies that limit their ability to extract nutrients.
Optimum N, P, and K fertilization for crop growth and yield
would promote a closed and uniform crop canopy, and reduce the
intensity of light available to the weed communities growing un-
derneath, thus affecting weed species diversity (O'Donovan et al.,
1997; Yin et al., 2006). The penetration of radiation into vegeta-
tion depends on differences in height between crops and weeds,
characteristics of the incident radiation, spectral characteristics of
the foliage, and canopy structure, including leaf area index and the
position, distribution, size, and shape of leaves. The availability of
light and N interacts positively to intensify weed competition. High
N levels do not prevent yield reductions in rice under conditions of
weed competition, because high N increases the canopy light ab-
sorption coefficient (extinction coefficient) and reduces the sunlit
leaf area index (LAI), resulting in increased shading (Ampong-
Nyarko and De Datta, 1993). The sunlit LAI of rice is increased by
delayed weed emergence or low soil N, which limit the weed
canopy structure. So, differences in the ability of different crop
species to compete for nutrients, and their response to fertilization
in terms of growth, can change the proportion of incident photo-
synthetically active radiation (PAR) reaching the ground and thus
the availability of light for the under-growing weed species.
Fertilization may influence weed composition indirectly by
influencing competition for resources between crops and weeds,
namely nutrients and radiation. A multivariate analysis of a weed
community indicated that weed composition was primarily
affected by available N, followed by light intensity on the soil sur-
face and soil available P (Nie et al., 2009). Some weed species prefer
N or P, while others are more sensitive to different macro- and
micro-nutrients (Pinke et al., 2011). Both the dose and the form of N
fertilizer can affect weed community composition. Tang et al.
67
(2014) reported that weed species diversity and total weed den-
sity was higher in the control and P-K treated plots compared with
the N-P-K treated plots. The residual weed community congrega-
tion was influenced primarily by available nutrients in the order
P > N > K in the topsoil, and weed community density and diversity
was favoured by P-K fertilization. The composition and density of
weed flora varied with different fertilization treatments due to
shifts in soil carbon (C), N and P.
The effect of fertilization on crop yield depends upon crop-weed
competition in the field. With higher fertilization levels, crop yield
loss due to weeds may either increase (Vengris et al., 1955; Carlson
and Hill, 1986) or decrease due to increased crop competitiveness
(Shrefler et al., 1994; Anderson et al., 1998). In a coarse-textured soil
with low organic matter, weeds impose additional stress on crop
plants for applied fertilizers; making intensive weed management a
mandatory requirement if the fertilizer rate is reduced in crops
(Cathcart and Swanton, 2004). Moreover, a poorly-fed crop is less
competitive in nature as compared to weeds (Valenti and Wicks,
1992). Some weeds benefit more from fertilization than crops,
owing to being more aggressive than crops in extracting nutrients.
Extensive case studies on crop-weed behaviour in different fertil-
ization scenarios are necessary to provide deeper insight into the
response of crops to fertilization in the presence of weeds.
2.1. N fertilization and weeds
N is the principal nutrient that becomes limited as a result of
crop-weed competition (Moody, 1981). Crop-weed competition
becomes severe under low N than at high N rates. The response to N
fertilization will vary between weed species. Awan et al. (2014b)
observed that without N fertilization Ischaemum rugosum Salisb.
was 100% taller than rice, but was only 50% taller than rice with N
fertilization. In contrast, Rottboellia cochinchinensis (Lour.) W.D.
Clayton was 174% taller than rice without N fertilization, but was
233% taller with added N (Awan et al., 2015a). With an increase in N
dose from 110 to 220 mg N kg
1 soil, Amaranthus retroflexus L.
biomass increased by 6.5% compared with only 1.9% in maize
(Teyker et al., 1991). At the lowest rate of 60 mg N kg
1 soil,
A. retroflexus was less competitive than spring wheat, but with an
increase in N level to 240 mg N kg
1 soil an inverse relationship was
observed; that is, the weed became more competitive than the crop
(Blackshaw and Brandt, 2008). With the application of 50e150 kg N
ha
1, weed biomass increased 82e160%, whereas a 92e229% in-
crease was observed in rice biomass, indicating that added N
benefitted the crop more than the weed (Awan et al., 2014b). In
vegetable crops, Cyperus esculentus L. and Cyperus rotundus L.
compete more aggressively at higher N rates (Morales-Payan et al.,
1997; Santos et al., 1998a,b). Mahajan and Timsina (2011) reported
that increasing the N application rate up to 150 kg ha
1 caused a
significant improvement in the grain yield of direct-seeded rice
when weeds were well controlled; however, under poor weed
control conditions, it resulted in a drastic reduction in the crop
yield. So, fertilization alone, without weed management, will not
help with achieving higher net returns, and additional fertilizer
application cannot compensate for yield losses due to weed
competition.
The form of N fertilizer has a varied effect on weed community.
In a previous study, the weed community differed in plots treated
with liquid urea fertilizer from those receiving either the sulfate or
nitrate form of N fertilizer (Cathcart et al., 2004) whereas Stevensen
et al. (1997) observed no such effect. Balanced fertilization can
improve interception of solar radiation by a crop, inhibiting the
potential growth of weeds. In C. esculentus, Garg et al. (1967) re-
ported that high N increased vegetative growth or shoot production
(Ransom et al., 2009), as opposed to tuber formation. In a barley
68 S. Kaur et al. / Crop Protection 103 (2018) 65e72
field, increased availability of N was observed to favour erect spe-
cies, such as Avena fatua L. and Apera spica-venti (L.) Beauv.,
compared with laterally spreading species, such as Vicia augustifolia
L. and Medicago lupulina L. (Py
sek and Lep
s, 1991). The abundance
of many arable weed species that have rare weed trait syndrome
(short stature, large seed, and late flowering) decreased with N
fertilization in the UK (Storkey et al., 2010). So, an understanding of
the response traits of arable plants to fertilization will be important
to predict future weed shifts in response to fertilizer management.
2.2. P fertilization and weeds
P, an expensive input, is a key factor in crop production, since
most of the soils lack sufficient P for optimum crop production. P
fertilization promotes crop growth and development, but also
benefits weeds, which grow in between the crop rows (DiTomaso,
1995). Soil P may have long-term effects on weed populations.
For example, Andreasen et al. (1991) found that the existence of
Solanum nigrum L. populations was positively related with soil P
levels. Oenothera laciniata Hill. has been reported to prefer low soil
fertility conditions, while Mollugo verticillata L. and Lamium
amplexicaule L. are favoured by P fertilization alone or by N þ P
application (Banks et al., 1976). Application of P fertilizer increased
seed production of weed plants growing in cereal crops, namely
A. fatua and Brassica kaber (DC.) L.C. Wheeler (Godel, 1938). The P
concentration in barley plants are decreased in the presence of
A. fatua (Konesky et al., 1989).
Soil P content affects the level of crop-weed competition. Weed
growth and competitiveness increased with higher soil P levels in
fenugreek (Verma et al., 1999). In a lettuce crop, the competitive
ability of Portulaca oleracea L. was increased at high soil P compared
with low P status, whereas Amaranthus hybridus L. was unaffected
(Santos et al., 1998a,b). Also in lettuce, the start of the critical period
of weed control was found to be delayed at 293 kg P ha
1, whereas
the end of the period was hastened at the same P fertilization level
(Odero and Wright, 2013).
Blackshaw et al. (2004a) observed that shoot and root growth of
22 common agricultural weed species increased with added P, but
the magnitude of the response varied greatly among species. With
increasing amounts of P, 17 weed species had a greater increase in
shoot biomass than wheat, whereas 19 weed species had larger
increases in shoot biomass than canola. Depending upon weed
species, shoot biomass increased 2e20 fold as P fertilizer was
increased from 0 to 60 mg kg
1 soil; thus, crop-weed competition
for light may be affected by soil P levels. Only 10 weed species
exhibited a greater increase in root biomass than canola, and no
weed species had higher increases in root biomass than wheat with
added P. Further, only four weed species extracted more P than
wheat at low P levels; however, 17 weed species withdrew more P
at high soil P levels, suggesting that high P fertilization may not be a
good agronomic practice in the presence of certain weed species,
and may have important implications in terms of how P fertilizer
affects competition for soil resources between crops and weeds.
2.3. Bulky organic manure and weeds
Organic sources of nutrients can also add weed seeds, depend-
ing upon the source of manure used and the method of its prepa-
ration. Undecomposed farmyard manure can act as a potential
source of weed seeds. Bulky organic manures may also affect weed
community composition and density through the modification of
soil physical and chemical properties, such as organic carbon, soil
water holding capacity, aggregate stability, bulk density, and soil
fertility (Singer et al., 2004). Weed density and biomass were
higher in fields fertilized with farmyard manure and poultry
manure compared with an inorganic source of nutrients (Hammad
et al., 2010). Bulky organic manures release nutrients slowly, and
this can promote more weed growth than crop growth (Blackshaw,
2005). Compost releases phytotoxic compounds like short chain
fatty acids, phenols, ammonia, etc.; and thus, may affect the weed
seed bank, germination, and seedling growth through allelopathic
effects (Ligneau and Watt, 1995). In terms of growth, composted
swine manure benefitted Amaranthus rudis Sauer more than soy-
bean (Menalled et al., 2004). There was a significant effect of
mineral N fertilization on the weed seed bank, but organic manure
had no such effect (De Cauwer et al., 2010). Balanced application of
chemical fertilizers and improving soil fertility using bulky organic
manures will certainly boost crop growth and increase crop
competitiveness against weeds.
2.4. Fertilizer and weed control
Fertilization is an important component of integrated weed
management programs (Blackshaw and Molnar, 2009). Manipula-
tion of crop fertilization is a promising cultural practice to reduce
weed interference in crops so that nutrient uptake by crops can be
maximized. Agricultural practices that reduce the growth potential
of weeds may also lessen their responses to nutrient accessibility
(Harbur and Owen, 2004). Fertilization is one of the primary factors
in the crop-weed interaction and may increase the competitive
ability of crops against weeds (Blackshaw et al., 2002). Proper
management of fertilizers assists effective weed management
through provision of applied inputs that favour crop growth. The
timing of fertilizer application may be adjusted to reduce the
extraction of nutrients by weeds; thus, minimizing the associated
reduction in the crop yields. The time and method of fertilizer
application are of utmost important in managing weeds. Custom-
ized, slow release fertilizers may prove more useful for weed con-
trol and to meet crop demand at different times.
2.4.1. Time of fertilizer application
N fertilizer timing affects weed growth and competition. The
response of a plant species to applied N declines with age; so, the
timing of N application may be exploited in weed management
programs. A change in fertilizer timing may reduce nutrient uptake
by weeds, owing to stress imposed due to improper timing. Time of
fertilizer application can affect the critical period of crop-weed
competition. Lolium rigidum Gaudin was found to be less compet-
itive when N was applied before the three-leaf stage of wheat as
compared to its late applications (Forcella, 1984). In spring wheat,
weed density and biomass of grasses like A. fatua and Setaria viridis
L. Beauv., and broad leaf weeds such as B. kaber and C. albumi, were
lower with spring applied N compared with its application in
(Blackshaw et al., 2004b). The timing of fertilizer application should
be adjusted in such a way that crops can extract maximum quan-
tities of nutrients but weeds cannot.
2.4.2. Method of fertilizer application
Weed competition with crops can be affected by the placement
of N fertilizer, and it has more profound and consistent effects than
application timing (Blackshaw et al., 2004b). Most annual weeds
germinate from the soil surface; thus, surface broadcast application
of fertilizers allows weeds to utilize nutrients along with the crop
(Melander et al., 2005). Nutrient availability near the soil surface
determines the emergence of weeds; so, the surface application of
fertilizer affects weed emergence (Guza et al., 2008). Banding fer-
tilizer has been shown to reduce the competitive potential of some
weeds (Blackshaw et al., 2002). However, the impact of fertilizer
placement appears to be crop- and weed-specific, as some studies
have found that N application method has little influence on crop-
 S. Kaur et al. / Crop Protection 103 (2018) 65e72
weed competition (Cochran et al., 1990). N application method to
the 0e15 cm soil profile has little influence on weeds with a tap
root system (e.g. C. album and B. kaber), which feed extensively from
different soil layers, but has a pronounced effect on weeds with
fibrous root systems (e.g. A. fatua and S. viridis) and small-seeded
weeds (e.g. Euphorbia supina Raf. ex. Boiss.). Shoot N concentra-
tion and weed biomass were often lower with sub-surface banding,
or point-injection, compared with surface applied N (Blackshaw
et al., 2004b, 2005). The banding application method may result
in better weed control as compared with broadcasting fertilizer.
2.5. Weeds as a source of nutrients
Weeds are an important sink and can act as a potential N source,
a crucial limiting nutrient. The biomass of some summer annual
nitrophiles, or luxury N consumers, including C. album, P. oleracea
and A. retroflexus, was increased by N fertilization (Abouziena et al.,
2007). Mixed populations of grass and broadleaf weeds grown with
spring wheat assimilated 32 kg N ha
1 at harvest (Kirkland and
Beckie, 1998). The retention of weed residue in the field con-
serves up to 20% of soil nutrients (Ramakrishnan, 1992). The field
mineralization of N is dependent upon moisture, temperature and
tillage, and a 65% reduction in the total N content of C. album,
Setaria faberi Herrm. and A. hybridus residues was observed after
seven months of decomposition (Vazquez et al., 2003).
Following application of post-emergence herbicides for weed
control, young annual weeds decompose and subsequently release
N. In herbicide-resistant crops, applying knock-down herbicides
(namely glyphosate or glufosinate) to 10e15 cm tall weeds releases
nutrients (Majumdar et al., 2008). Weed residue with a C:N ratio of
<19 (weeds grown under an ample supply of N and knocked down
when 10 cm tall) released 25e45% of the total N concentration
within 2 weeks and contributed to the N pool within the growing
season itself; whereas weed residue with a C:N ratio greater than
19 (weeds grown without N and knocked down when 20 cm tall)
immobilized N, which was not released until after the growing
season and may be lost to the environment through leaching and/or
denitrification (Lindsey et al., 2013). The amount and rate of N
released from residue depends upon its chemical composition,
including total N, total C, hemicellolose, cellulose, and lignin con-
centration. Recently, useful effects are being made to study weeds
for their medicinal, nutritional and bioremediation properties.
Further investigations need to be done to ascertain the beneficial
functions of weeds in agro-ecosystems.
2.6. Fertilizer and herbicide efficacy
The efficacy of herbicides on weed communities is influenced by
several variables, including weed biology (genetics, morphology,
life form, growth phases, etc.), weed ecology (e.g. the effect of
temperature on plant growth rate and cuticle development, as well
as volatilization and degradation of chemical compounds), soil
fertility (effect on exchangeable cation exchange capacity OR CEC
sites), soil moisture, and selection of N source as an adjuvant
(Dickson et al., 1990; Morton and Harvey, 1994). Fine-textured soils,
or soils with high organic matter (humic substances), have an
adsorptive surface due to high CEC; thus, organic manure/biochar
addition (Graber et al., 2012) and residue retention (Chauhan et al.,
2006) can make soil-applied herbicide less available and hence less
effective for weed control. Likewise, in less adsorptive soils,
leaching losses of applied herbicide would be higher, also leading to
low availability and efficacy of herbicides. N has been used as an
activator adjuvant for enhancing herbicide efficacy, facilitating
herbicide absorption and movement into the leaf tissue (Nalewaja
et al., 1998).
69
The herbicide susceptibility of different weed species is
affected by soil management practices like fertilization and
mulching. High levels of organic matter in soil reduces the activity
of pre-emergence herbicides like thiobencarb, diethatyl, cinme-
thylin, clomazone, and chloramben (Dusky et al., 1988). Wheat
strawmulch intercepted herbicides and decreased the efficacy of
chloro-acetamide herbicide like acetochlor, alachlor, and meto-
lachlor (Banks and Robinson, 1986). Surface retention of crop
residue as mulch affects weed seed mortality through its direct
effect on the predation of weed seeds, and indirect effect on the
alteration in seed germination behaviour (Davis, 2007). In an N-
rich environment, microbial decomposition of herbicides may also
become very fast, and reduces herbicide efficacy. The efficacy of
bispyribac-sodium against Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) Beauv. was
enhanced with the addition of urea ammonium nitrate (Koger
et al., 2007).
Herbicide persistence may be affected by the surface application
of fertilizers, thus influencing herbicide activity. The surface
application of fertilizer causes acidification, and therefore reduces
persistence. The effect of N application is highly variable and de-
pends upon the herbicide and weed species. Under a low N supply,
glyphosate at 169 g ha
1 caused a significant reduction in the
biomass of Abutilon theophrasti Medic. and C. album; but under high
N fertilization, a smaller quantity of glyphosate (84 g ha
1) was
sufficient for a similar reduction in weed biomass. However, no
effect of N fertilization was observed on the efficacy of glyphosate
on Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. (Mithila et al., 2008). N did not affect
the efficacy of atrazine, mesotrione, and glufosinate on
A. theophrasti, whereas higher doses of nicosulfuron, glufosinate,
mesotrione or glyphosate were required to achieve a 50% reduction
in A. retroflexus biomass grown under low N. For the control of
S. viridis under low N, approximately six times the dose of nic-
osulfuron was required as compared with plants grown under high
N (Cathcart et al., 2004). Oats (Avena sativa L.) were more tolerant to
fluazifop and glyphosate under low N conditions (Dickson et al.,
1990). However, the interactions between herbicide efficacy and
N were only noticed at the low application rates, from 0 to 45 kg N
ha
1 (Sønderskov et al., 2012). The difference in herbicide efficacy
under different soil N levels may potentially explain possible weed
control failures on agricultural farms with different soil fertility
status.
Herbicide phytotoxicity or crop injury may be caused by a
change in soil fertility. Increased injury to rice with fenoxaprop was
observed after N fertilization (Oosterhuis et al., 1990). The inter-
action between herbicide and fertilizer may influence herbicide
efficacy and phytotoxicity. Thus, herbicide efficacy needs to be
studied more extensively at different soil fertility levels so that the
maximum benefit can be achieved from applied herbicides.
3. Weed-water interactions
Weeds are serious competitors for water and are a major cause
of reduced crop yield or crop failure worldwide. Water is a primary
resource for crop-weed competition in non-irrigated areas or
dryland farming systems. Weeds are estimated to extract 1250
tonnes of water from one hectare of soil in a wet season. Soil
infested with weeds was found to contain only 5 ha-cm of water
compared with weed-free fallow land, which had 10 ha-cm of
water (Baruah, 2008). Aquatic weeds block the flow of water in
river/canals/drainage channels due to increased sedimentation,
harm aquatic flora-fauna due to eutrophication, and render navi-
gation difficult. Weeds have a higher rate of growth and transpire
greater amounts of water per unit dry matter produced than the
associated crop plants. Maize had a transpiration coefficient value
of 352 as compared to 813 for the associated weed Cynodon
70 S. Kaur et al. / Crop Protection 103 (2018) 65e72
dactylon (Kantikar et al., 1960). Weed-water interactions are the
least studied aspect of crop production in irrigated systems, and are
considered important only in dryland farming.
Water stress affects weed seed germination (Chauhan and
Johnson, 2009; Open ~ a et al., 2014; Awan et al., 2014a; Lim et al.,
2015). Terrestrial weeds prefer an aerobic soil environment
whereas semi-aquatic (rice weeds in paddies) and aquatic weeds
germinate and establish in saturated to flooding conditions. Cype-
rus difformis germinates and grows well in soil flooded to 1.0 cm
depth, whereas E. crus-galli grows well in soils having 75e90% soil
water content. Leptochloa chinensis (L.) Nees grew taller than rice
and produced 107% more biomass and 183% more inflorescence
biomass under aerobic conditions than in saturated conditions
(Awan et al., 2015a,b).
Weeds may have a higher leaf water potential than crops in
water stress conditions, indicating that a limited supply of water in
the soil would benefit weeds more than crops. Relative leaf area
index and light interception by crops and weeds determines cu-
mulative soil water depletion, crop water productivity and crop
yield loss under non-limiting soil water conditions (Massinga et al.,
2003; Berger et al., 2010). Some weeds are less sensitive to drought
than crops and other weed species; thus, any increase in the
competitive ability of such weeds due to climate change will be
problematic. C4 weeds like R. cochinchinensis produced similar
biomass at field capacity ranging from 50 to 100%, and responded to
water stress by increasing leaf weight ratio (Chauhan, 2013). Weeds
benefit from their deep roots. An increase in resource allocation to
roots was observed in Rumex obtusifolius L. under drought condi-
tions (Gilgen and Feller, 2013).
The growth of sedges is best under high soil moisture condi-
tions. A single C. esculentus plant produced 3000 shoots and 19,000
tubers when plots were irrigated at
20 kPa, and the crop growth
rate was found to be exponential (Ransom et al., 2009). Under wet
conditions, C. rotundus posed more intense competition against
cotton (Cinco-Castro and McCloskey, 1997). Frequent watering
often results in intense weed competition with crops. When water
becomes limiting, crops with fibrous root systems show wilting
symptoms earlier than associated weeds. More studies need to be
carried out to ascertain the interaction between water and weed
species in different ecosystems.
4. Weed-fertilizer-water interactions
Fertilizer use efficiency is dependent upon soil moisture avail-
ability. N is a mobile nutrient so availability of soil moisture may
influence crop-weed interactions in response to applied N. Leach-
ing of N with excessive water may lead to underground water
pollution. Like fertilizer application, irrigation or water added
through rainfall may partially compensate for the crop yield loss
due to weeds (Young et al., 1983). However, weeds may be favoured
because of their high water requirements and well-developed root
systems. For judging potential yield, soil moisture is the most
critical factor followed by weed density and N rate. N application
resulted reduced maize yield loss due to the presence of Amar-
anthus palmeri S. Wats. only in an irrigated environment (Ruf-
Pachta et al., 2013). More soil moisture and N may increase crop
growth (Chauhan and Abugho, 2013). N loss may be higher in
saturated soils due to denitrification and leaching losses, leading to
eutrophication. Warm and wet conditions can lead to N loss
through denitrification (through microbial conversion of nitrate to
N gas) and leaching. These complex phenomena of weed-water-
fertilizer interactions need to be studied for designing sustainable
weed management programs and achieving maximum resource
use efficiency.
5. Conclusions and future research directions
Different soil factors, like clay content, soil organic matter,
cation exchange capacity of the soil, and soil reaction (directly and
indirectly) influence water and nutrient availability. The availability
of water and nutrients will affect the management of crops and
weeds in a particular situation. Optimum use of water with the
right method and source, and fertilisers at the right time with the
right method, helps in arresting weed growth. Improved fertilizer
and water management practices help to improve crop productiv-
ity, preventing soil and underground water pollution. In an era of
climate change, weed flora is changing in response to agronomic
management practices. Therefore, research into the interactions
between weeds, fertilisers, and water play an important role in
devising agronomic practices for crop cultivation, so that weeds can
be kept below the economic threshold level, thereby improving
crop productivity.
References
Abouziena, H.F., El-Karmany, M.F., Singh, M., Sharma, S.D., 2007. Effect of nitrogen
rates and weed control treatments on maize yield and associated weeds in
sandy soils. Weed Technol. 21, 1049e1053.
Agenbag, G.A., Villiers, O.T., 1989. The effect of nitrogen fertilizers on the germi-
nation and seedling emergence of wild oat (Avena fatua L.) seed in different soil
types. Weed Res. 29, 239e245.
Alkamper, J., 1976. Influence of the amount of weed infestation on effect of fertilizer
dressings. Pflanzenschutz nachr. Bayer. 29, 191e235.
Ampong-Nyarko, K., De Datta, S.K., 1993. Effects of light and nitrogen and their
interaction on the dynamics of rice-weed competition. Weed Res. 33, 1e8.
Anderson, R.L., Tanaka, D.L., Black, A.L., Schweizer, E.E., 1998. Weed community and
species response to crop rotation, tillage and nitrogen fertility. Weed Technol.
12, 531e536.
Andreasen, C., Streibig, J.C., Hass, H., 1991. Soil properties affecting the distribution
of 37 weed species in Danish fields. Weed Res. 31, 181e187.
Awan, T.H., Chauhan, B.S., Cruz, P.C.S., 2014a. Influence of environmental factors on
the germination of Urena lobata L. and its response to herbicides. PLoS One 9
(3), e90305. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone0090305. PMID: 24658143.
Awan, T.H., Chauhan, B.S., Cruz, P.C.S., 2014b. Physiological and morphological re-
sponses of Ischaemum rugosum Salisb. (wrinkled grass) to different nitrogen
rates and rice seeding rates. PLoS One 9 (6), e98255. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pone0098255.
Awan, T.H., Cruz, P.C.S., Chauhan, B.S., 2015a. Ecological significance of rice (Oryza
sativa) planting density and nitrogen rates in managing the growth and
competitive ability of itchgrass (Rottboellia cochinchinensis) in direct seeded rice
systems. J. Pest Sci. 88, 427e438.
Awan, T.H., Cruz, P.C.S., Ahmed, S., Chauhan, B.S., 2015b. Effect of nitrogen appli-
cation, rice planting density and water regime on the morphological plasticity
and biomass partitioning of Chinese sprangletop (Leptochloa chinensis). Weed
Sci. 63, 448e460.
Bajwa, A.A., Ehsanullah, Anjum, S.A., Nafees, W., Tanveer, M., Saeed, H.S., 2014.
Impact of fertilizer use on weed management in conservation agriculture- a
review. Pak J. Agric. Res. 27 (1), 69e78.
Balasubramanian, P., Palaniappan, S.P., 2004. Principles and Practices of Agronomy.
Agrobios Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi, pp. 306e364.
Baltazar, A.M., De Datta, S.K., 1992. Weed management in rice. Weed Abstr. 41,
308e495.
Banks, P.A., Robinson, E.L., 1986. Soil reception and activity of acetochlor, alachlor,
and metolachlor as affected by wheat (Triticum aestivum) straw and irrigation.
Weed Sci. 34, 607e611.
Banks, P.A., Santelmann, P.W., Tucker, B.B., 1976. Influence of long-term fertility
treatments on weed species in winter wheat. Agron. J. 68, 825e827.
Baruah, S.C., 2008. Agriculture. Pearson Education, India, pp. 88e94.
Berger, A., McDonald, A., Riha, S., 2010. A coupled view of above and below-ground
resource capture explains different weed impacts on soil water depletion and
crop water productivity in maize. Field Crops Res. 119, 314e321.
Blackshaw, R.E., Brandt, R.N., 2008. Nitrogen fertilizer rate effects on weed
competitiveness is species dependent. Weed Sci. 56, 743e747.
Blackshaw, R.E., Brandt, R.N., Janzen, H.H., Entz, T., 2004a. Weed Species response to
phosphorus fertilization. Weed Sci. 52, 406e412.
Blackshaw, R.E., Molnar, L.J., Janzen, H.H., 2004b. Nitrogen fertilizer timing and
application method affect weed growth and competition with spring wheat.
Weed Sci. 52, 614e622.
Blackshaw, R.E., 2005. Nitrogen fertilizer, manure and compost effects on weed
growth and competition with spring wheat. Agron. J. 97, 1612e1621.
Blackshaw, R.E., Molnar, L.J., 2009. Phosphorus fertilizer application method affects
weed growth and competition with wheat. Weed Sci. 57, 311e318.
Blackshaw, R.E., Semach, G., Janzen, H.H., 2002. Fertilizer application method affects
nitrogen uptake in weeds and wheat. Weed Sci. 50, 634e641.
 S. Kaur et al. / Crop Protection 103 (2018) 65e72
Bouman, B.A.M., Hengsdijk, H., Hardy, B., Bindraban, P.S., Tuong, T.P., Ladha, J.K.
(Eds.), 2002. Water-wise Rice Production, Volume 1, Proceedings of the Inter-
national Workshop on Water-wise Rice Production. IRRI, Philippines, Los Ban ~ os,
p. 356, 8-11 April, 2002.
Carlson, H.L., Hill, J.E., 1986. Wild oat (Avena fatua) competition with spring wheat:
effects of nitrogen fertilization. Weed Sci. 34, 29e33.
Cathcart, R.J., Swanton, C.J., 2004. Nitrogen and green foxtail (Setaria viridis)
competition effects on corn growth and development. Weed Sci. 52,
1039e1049.
Cathcart, R.J., Chandler, C.J., Swanton, C.J., 2004. Fertilizer nitrogen rate and the
response of weeds to herbicides. Weed Sci. 52, 291e296.
Chapin III, F.S., 1980. The mineral nutrient of wild plants. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 11,
233e260.
Chauhan, B.S., 2012. Weed ecology and weed management strategies for dry-
seeded rice in Asia. Weed Technol. 26, 1e13.
Chauhan, B.S., 2013. Growth response of itchgrass (Rottboellia cochinchinensis) to
water stress. Weed Sci. 61, 98e103.
Chauhan, B.S., Abugho, S.B., 2013. Effect of water regime, nitrogen fertilization and
rice plant density on growth and reproduction of lowland weed Echinochloa
crus-galli. Crop Prot. 54, 142e147.
Chauhan, B.S., Gill, G.S., Preston, C., 2006. Tillage system effects on weed ecology,
herbicide activity and persistence: a review. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 46, 1557e1570.
Chauhan, B.S., Johnson, D.E., 2009. Seed germination ecology of junglerice (Echi-
nochloa colona): a major weed of rice. Weed Sci. 57, 235e240.
Chauhan, B.S., Matloob, A., Mahajan, G., Aslam, F., Florentine, S.K., Jha, P., 2017.
Emerging challenges and opportunities for education and research in weed
science. Front. Plant Sci. 8 (1537) http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.01537.
Cinco-Castro, R., McCloskey, W.B., 1997. Purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus L.)
competition with cotton under wet and dry soil moistures. Weed Sci. Soc. Am.
Abstr. 37, 55.
Clements, D.R., DiTommaso, A., Hyvo €nen, T., 2014. Ecology and management of
weeds in a changing climate. In: Chauhan, B.S., Mahajan, G. (Eds.), Recent Ad-
vances in Weed Management. Springer, New York, pp. 13e37.
Cochran, V.L., Morrow, L.A., Schirman, R.D., 1990. The effect of N placement on grass
weeds and winter wheat response in three tillage systems. Soil till. Res. 18,
347e355.
Davis, A.S., 2007. Nitrogen fertilizer and crop residue effects on seed mortality &
germination of eight annual weed species. Weed Sci. 55, 123e128.
De Cauwer, B., Berge, K.V.D., Cougnon, M., Bulcke, R., Reheul, D., 2010. Weed seed
bank responses to 12 years of applications of composts, animal slurries or
mineral fertilizers. Weed Res. 50 (5), 425e435.
Dickson, R.L., Andrews, R., Field, J., Dickson, E.L., 1990. Effect of water stress, ni-
trogen and gibberellic acid on fluazifop and glyphosate activity on oats (Avena
sativa). Weed Sci. 38, 54e61.
DiTomaso, J.M., 1995. Approaches for improving crop competitiveness through the
manipulation of fertilization strategies. Weed Sci. 43, 491e497.
Dusky, J.A., Stall, W.M., White, J.M., 1988. Evaluation of herbicides for weed control
in Florida lettuce production. In: Proceedings of the 101st Florida State Horti-
cultural Society. Citrus Research and Education Centre, Florida State Horticul-
tural Society, Lake Alfred, FL, pp. 367e370.
FAO., 2009. www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/wsfs/docs/expert_paper/How to feed
the world in 2050.pdf (accessed on 21 February, 2017).
Forcella, F., 1984. Wheat and ryegrass competition for pulses of mineral nitrogen.
Aust. J. Exp. Agric. Anim. Husb. 24, 421e425.
Garg, D.K., Bendixen, L.E., Anderson, S.R., 1967. Rhizome differentiation in yellow
nutsedge. Weed Sci. 15, 124e128.
Gilgen, A.K., Feller, U., 2013. Drought stress alters solute allocation in broadleaf dock
(Rumex obtusifolius). Weed Sci. 61, 104e108.
Godel, G.L., 1938. Cereal growing on weedy land in North Eastern Saskatatchewan:
effect of heavy seeding with the use of fertilizer on the development of weeds
and crops. Sci. Agric. 19, 21e32.
Graber, E.R., Tsechansky, L., Gerstl, Z., Lew, B., 2012. High surface area biochar
negatively impacts herbicide efficacy. Plant Soil 353, 95e106.
Guza, A.E., Renner, K.A., Laboski, C., Davis, A.S., 2008. Effect of early spring fertilizer
nitrogen on weed emergence and growth. Weed Sci. 56, 714e721.
Hammad, H.M., Khaliq, A., Ahmad, A., Aslam, M., Khaliq, T., Wajid, S.A., Hussain, A.,
Usman, M., Nassm, W., Farhad, W., Sultana, R., 2010. Influence of organic ma-
nures on weed dynamics and wheat productivity under low rainfed areas. Crop
Environ 1 (1), 13e17.
Harbur, M.M., Owen, M.D.K., 2004. Light and growth rate effects on crop and weed
responses to nitrogen. Weed Sci. 52, 578e583.
Hira, G.S., Jalota, S.K., Arora, V.K., 2004. Efficient Management of Water Resources
for Sustainable Cropping in Punjab. Tech. Bull. Department of Soils, Punjab
Agricultural University, Ludhiana, p. 20.
Kantikar, N.V., Gokhale, D.H., Sirur, S.S., 1960. Dry Farming in India, second ed.,
p. 470 New Delhi.
Kirkland, K.J., Beckie, H.J., 1998. Contribution of nitrogen fertilizer placement to
weed management in spring wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Technol. 12,
507e514.
Koger, C.H., Dodds, D.M., Reynolds, D.B., 2007. Effect of adjuvants and urea
ammonium nitrate on bispyribac efficacy, absorption and translocation in
barnyard grass (Echinochloa crus-galli) I. efficacy, rainfastness and soil moisture.
Weed Sci. 55, 399e407.
Konesky, D.W., Siddiqi, M.Y., Glass, A.D.M., 1989. Wild oat and barley interactions:
varietal differences in competitiveness in relation to phosphorus supply. Can. J.
71
Bot. 67, 3366e3371.
Liebman, M., Davis, A.S., 2000. Integration of soil, crop and weed management in
low-external-input farming system. Weed Res. 40, 27e47.
Ligneau, L.A., Watt, T.A., 1995. The effects of domestic compost upon the germi-
nation and emergence of barley and six arable weeds. Ann. Appl. Biol. 126,
153e162.
Lim, C.A.A., Awan, T.H., Sta Cruz, P.C., Chauhan, B.S., 2015. Influence of environ-
mental factors, cultural practices and herbicide application on seed germination
and emergence ecology of Ischaemum rugosum Salisb. PLoS One 10 (9),
e0137256. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0137256.
Lindsey, L.E., Steinke, K., Warncke, D.D., Everman, W.J., 2013. Nitrogen release from
weed residue. Weed Sci. 61, 334e340.
Luca, P., Barausse, A., Jørgensen, S.E., 2014. Ecological Processes Handbook. CRC
Press, Taylor & Francis Group LLC, Boca Raton, p. 375.
Mahajan, G., Timsina, J., 2011. Effect of nitrogen rates and weed control methods on
weeds abundance and yield of direct-seeded rice. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci. 57,
239e250.
Majumdar, M., Shukla, A.K., Arunachalam, A., 2008. Nutrient release and fungal
succession during decomposition of weed residues in a shifting cultivation
system. Comm. Biometry Crop Sci. 3, 45e59.
Massinga, R.A., Currie, R.S., Trooien, T.P., 2003. Water use and light interception
under Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and corn competition. Weed Sci.
51, 523e531.
Melander, B., Rasmussen, I.A., Barberi, P., 2005. Integrating physical and cultural
methods of weed control-examples from European research. Weed Sci. 53,
369e381.
Menalled, F.B., Liebman, M., Buhler, D.D., 2004. Impact of composted swine manure
and tillage on common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) competition with soy-
bean. Weed Sci. 52, 605e613.
Mithila, J., Swanton, C.J., Blackshaw, R.E., Cathcart, R.J., Hall, C.J., 2008. Physiological
basis for reduced glyphosate efficacy on weeds grown under low soil nitrogen.
Weed Sci. 56, 12e17.
Moody, K., 1981. Weed fertilizer Interactions in Rice. IRRI Research Paper Series, vol.
68, pp. 1e36.
Morales-Payan, J.P., Stall, W.M., Shilling, D.G., Dusky, J.A., Bewick, T.A., 1997. Influ-
ence of nitrogen on the interference of purple and yellow nutsedge (Cyperus
rotundus and Cyperus esculentus) with tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum).
HortScience 32, 431.
Morton, C.A., Harvey, R.G., 1994. Simulated environments influence primsulfuron
efficacy. Weed Sci. 42, 424e429.
Murphy, C., Lemerle, D., 2006. Continuous cropping systems and weed selection.
Euphytica 148, 61e73.
Nalewaja, J.D., Praczyk, T., Matysiak, R., 1998. Nitrogen fertilizer, oil and surfactant
adjuvants with nicosulfuron. Weed Technol. 12, 585e589.
Nie, J., Yin, L.C., Liao, Y.L., Zheng, S.X., Xie, J., 2009. Weed community composition
after 26 years of fertilization of late rice. Weed Sci. 57, 256e260.
O'Donovan, J.T., McAndrew, D.W., Thomas, A.G., 1997. Tillage and nitrogen in-
fluences weed population dynamics in barley (Hordeum vulgare). Weed Tech-
nol. 11, 502e509.
Odero, D.C., Wright, A.L., 2013. Phosphorus application influences the critical period
of weed control in lettuce. Weed Sci. 61, 410e414.
Oosterhuis, D.M., Wullschieger, S.D., Hampton, R.E., Ball, R.A., 1990. Physiological
response of rice (Oryza sativa) to fenoxaprop. Weed Sci. 38, 459e462.
Open ~ a, J.L., Chauhan, B.S., Baltazar, A.M., 2014. Seed germination ecology of Echi-
nochloa glabrescens and its implication for management in rice (Oryza sativa L.).
PLoS One 9 (3), e92261. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone0092261. PMID:
24642568.
Pinke, G., Pa l, R.W., To
th, K., Kara
csony, P., Czúcz, B., Botta-Duk at, Z., 2011. Weed
vegetation of poppy (Papaver somniferum) fields in Hungary: effects of man-
agement and environmental factors on species composition. Weed Res. 51,
621e630.
Py
sek, P., Lep
s, J., 1991. Response of a weed community to nitrogen fertilization: a
multivariate analysis. J. Veg. Sci. 2, 237e244.
Radosevich, S., Holt, J., Ghersa, C., 1997. Weed Ecology: Implications for Manage-
ment, second ed. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, p. 573.
Ramakrishnan, P.S., 1992. Shifting agriculture and sustainable development. In: Man
and the Biosphere Series. Parthenon, Paris, pp. 154e155.
Ransom, C.V., Rice, C.A., Shock, C.C., 2009. Yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus)
growth and reproduction in response to nitrogen and irrigation. Weed Sci. 57,
21e25.
Ruf-Pachta, E.K., Rule, D.M., Dille, J.A., 2013. Corn and Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus
palmeri) interactions with nitrogen in dryland and irrigated environments.
Weed Sci. 61, 249e258.
Santos, B.M., Dusky, J.A., Stall, W.M., Shilling, D.G., Bewick, T.A., 1998a. Phosphorus
effects on competitive interactions of smooth pigweed (Amaranthus hybridus)
and common purslane (Portulaca oleracea) with lettuce (Lactuca sativa). Weed
Sci. 46, 307e312.
Santos, B.M., Morales-Payan, J.P., Stall, W.M., Bewick, T.A., 1998b. Influence of purple
nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus) density and nitrogen rate on radish (Raphanus
sativus) yield. Weed Sci. 46, 661e664.
Seibert, A.C., Pearce, R.B., 1993. Growth analysis of weed and crop species with
reference to seed weight. Weed Sci. 41, 52e56.
Shipley, B., Keddy, P.A., 1988. The relationship between relative growth rate and
sensitivity to nutrient stress in twenty-eight species of emergent macrophytes.
J. Ecol. 76, 1101e1110.
72 S. Kaur et al. / Crop Protection 103 (2018) 65e72
Shrefler, J.W., Dusky, J.A., Shilling, D.G., Brecke, B.J., Sanchez, C.A., 1994. Effects of
phosphorus fertility on competition between lettuce (Lectuca sativa) and spiny
amaranth (Amaranthus spinosus). Weed Sci. 42, 556e560.
Singer, J.W., Kohler, K.A., Liebman, M., Richard, T.L., Cambardella, C.A., Buhler, D.D.,
2004. Tillage and compost affect yield of corn, soybean and wheat and soil
fertility. Agron. J. 96, 531e537.
Smil, V., 1999. Nitrogen in crop production: an account of global flows. Glob. Bio-
geochem. Cyc 13, 647e662.
Smil, V., 2002. Nitrogen and food production: proteins for human diets. Ambio 31,
126e131.
Sønderskov, M., Swanton, C.J., Kudsk, P., 2012. Influence of nitrogen rate on the
efficacy of herbicides with different modes of action. Weed Res. 52, 169e177.
Stevensen, F.C., Legere, A., Simard, R.R., Angers, D.A., Pegeau, D., Lafond, J., 1997.
Weed species diversity in spring barley varies with crop rotation and tillage, but
not with nutrient source. Weed Sci. 45, 798e806.
Storkey, J., Moss, S.R., Cussans, J.W., 2010. Using assembly theory to explain changes
in a weed flora in response to agricultural intensification. Weed Sci. 58, 39e46.
Tang, L., Wan, K., Cheng, C., Li, R., Wang, D., Pan, J., Tao, Y., Xie, J., Chen, F., 2014. Effect
of fertilization patterns on the assemblage of weed communities in an upland
winter wheat field. J. Plant Ecol. 7 (1), 39e50.
Teyker, R.H., Hoelzar, H.D., Liebl, R.A., 1991. Maize and pigweed response to nitrogen
supply and form. Plant Soil 135, 287e292.
Valenti, S.A., Wicks, G.A., 1992. Influence of nitrogen rates and wheat (Triticum
aestivum) cultivars on weed control. Weed Sci. 40, 115e121.
Vazquez, R.I., Stinner, B.R., McCartney, D.A., 2003. Corn and weed residue decom-
position in NorthEast Ohio organic and conventional dairy farms. Agric. Ecosyst.
Environ. 95, 559e565.
Vengris, J., Colby, W.G., Drake, M., 1955. Plant nutrition competition between weeds
and corn. Agron. J. 47, 213e216.
Verma, R., Agarwal, H.R., Nepalia, V., 1999. Effect of weed control and phosphorus
on crop-weed competition in fenugreek (Trigonella foenum-graecum). Indian J.
Weed Sci. 31, 265e266.
Walia, U.S., 2010. Weed Management, third ed. Kalyani Publishers, Ludhiana, p. 373.
Yin, L.C., Cai, Z.C., Zhong, W.H., 2006. Changes in weed community diversity of
maize crops due to long-term fertilization. Crop Prot. 25, 910e914.
Young, F.L., Wyse, D.L., Jones, R.L., 1983. Effect of irrigation on quackgrass (Agropyron
repens) interferences in soybeans. Weed Sci. 31, 720e727.
Zimdahl, B. (Ed.), 2017. Integrated Weed Management for Sustainable Agriculture.
Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, Cambridge, p. 480. ISBN-13:
9781786761644.