Paper · 1992 · Weed Research

Root growth and the relative importance of root and shoot competition in interactions between rice (Oryza sativa) and Echinochloa crus‐galli

K. K. PERERA; P. G. AYRES; H. P. M. GUNASENA

12
claims
20
verbatim quotes
43
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Summary: Résumé: Zusammenfassung Competition between rice ( Oryza sativa ) and Echinochloa crus‐galli (L.) Beauv. (barnyard‐grass or cockspur) was studied experimentally in the field in Sri Lanka. By growing rice in bags sunk in the paddy soil such.that the roots of the plants were either separated from or free to mingle with those of neighbouring weeds, or by growing rice in the same bags but in the absence of weeds, it was possible to calculate the relative importance of interference below ground (root competition) and above ground (shoot competition). Three rice varieties with different above‐ground morphology were inhibited to different extents by E. crus‐galli but in each case root competition was more important than shoot competition. In the variety that was most sensitive to root competition, Bg 400–1, inhibition of total growth due to root competition increased with increasing weed density. When grown in monocultures in pots in the field, the two species exhibited similar growth rates whether or not the soil was fertilized, but in 1:1 mixtures growth of E. crus‐galli was greater, particularly if fertilizer was added, as this promoted the growth of the weed, while having no effect on the rice. In mixture, relative yield totals were close to 1.0, with the relative yield of E. crus‐galli being consistently greater than 0.5, particularly with added nutrients, while the relative yield of rice was always less than 0.5. The relative crowding coefficient for rice with respect to E. crus‐galli (K eb ), when based on total plant dry weight, was lower in fertilized than in non‐fertilized soil, falling in the former case from 0.4 to 0.2 during the experiments Kroot rb , based on root dry weight, decreased with increasing soil depth and was lower in fertilized than in non‐fertilized soil, most notably after 62 days of growth, when root dry weight was at its maximum. It is concluded that inhibition of root growth of rice, leading to a reduced ability to obtain resources from the soil, was the major factor contributing to the decline in the growth of rice in the presence of E. crus‐galli . Croissance racinaire et importance relative de la compétition racinaire et aérienne dans les interactions entre le riz (Oryza sativa) et le panic (Echinochloa crus‐galli) La competition entre le riz ( Oryza sativa ) et le panic ( Echinochloa crus‐galli ) a étéétudiée dans une expérimentation de plein champ au Sri Lanka. En cultivant du riz dans des sachets immergés dans la riziére de telle façon que ses racines soient soil séparées, soil libres de se mé1anger avec celles des adventices voisines, ou en cultivant du riz dans des sachets analogues mais en 1'absence de mauvaises herbes, il est possible de calculer 1'importance relative de 1'interférence sous le sol (compétition racinaire) et de celle au dessus du sol (compétitionaérienne). 3 variétés de riz ayant une morphologie aérienne différente ont été inhibées par le panic à des niveaux différents mais chaque fois la compétition racinaire a été plus importante que l'aérienne. Chez la variété la plus sensible à la compétition racinaire, Bg 400–1, le ralentissement de la croissance totale due à la compétition racinaire augmenta avec l'augmentation de la densité de mauvaises herbes. Quand elles sont cultivées en pots dans les champs, les deux espèces ont des taux de croissance similaires que le sol soit ou non fertilisé, mais dans un mélange 1/1 la croissance du panic est plus forte surtout si l'on ajoute de l'engrais puisque celui‐ci favorise la croissance de l'adventice sans avoir d'effet sur le riz. En mélange, le total des poids relatifs était très proche de 1, avec un poids relatif de panic conséquemment plus grand que 0,5, surtout dans le cas d'adjonction d'engrais, tandis que celui du riz était toujours inférieur à 0,5. Le coefficient de tassement relatif du riz en regard du panic (K rb ), basé sur le poids sec de la plante entière était plus faible dans les sols fertilisés que dans les autres, tombant de 0,4 à 0,2 pendant l'expérimentation. KracinC rb , basé sur le poids sec de racine, diminue avec l'augmentation de la profondeur du sol et est plus bas dans les sols fertilisés que dans les autres, surtout après 62 jours de croissance quand le poids sec de racine est à son maximum. Il est conclu que le ralentissement de la croissance des racines de riz, aboutissant à une capacité moindre à prélever les ressources du sol, était le facteur principale de la réduction de la croissance du riz en présence de panic. Wurzelwachstum von und Wurzel‐ sowie Sproßkonkurrenz zwischen Reis (Oryza sativaj und Echinochloa crus‐galli In Freilandversuchen in Sri Lanka zur Wurzelund Sproßkonkurrenz zwischen Reis ( Oryza sativa L.) und Hühnerhirse ( Echinochloa crus‐galli (L.) Beauv.) wurde Reis so in Beuteln gepflanzt, daß seine Wurzeln sich entweder getrennt oder mit denen des Unkrauts zusammen wachsend entwickeln konnten. Andere Parzellen blieben unkrautfrei. E. crus‐galli konkurrierte mit 3 Reissorten von unterschiedlicher Sproßmorphologie verschieden stark, doch die Wurzelkonkurrenz war immer bedeutender als die Sproßkonkurrenz. Bei der gegen Wurzelkonkurrenz empfindlichsten Sorte “Bg 400–1” war die Gesamthemmung auf die mit der Unkrautdichte zunehmende Wurzelkonkurrenz zurückzuführen. In Monokultur hatten beide Arten unabhängig von der Düngung ähnliche Wachstumsraten, aber in l:l‐Mischkulturwuchs E. crus‐galli stärker, besonders bei Düngung, die auf den Reis wirkungslos blieb. In Mischkultur lag der relative Gesamtertrag nahe 1,0, wobei der Ertrag von E. crus‐galli stets über 0,5, der des Reises jedoch immer unter 0,5 lag. Für die Wechselbeziehung zwischen Reis und E. crus‐galli auf die Gesamttrockenmasse wurde ein ‘crowding coefficient’ (K rb ) für Reis berechnet, der mit Düngung kleiner war als ohne. K rb nahm während des Versuchs von 0,4 auf 0,2 ab. Der auf die Wurzeltrockenmasse bezogene ‘crowding coefficient’ (Kroot rb ) nahm mit zunehmender Bodentiefe ab. Kroot rb war niedriger in gedüngtem verglichen mit ungedüngtem Boden. Dieser Unterschied war nach 62 Tagen Wachstum besonders deutlich, als die Wurzeltrockenmasse ein Maximum erreichte. Die Hemmung des Wurzelwachstums des Reises wurde als wichtiger Faktor für seine Wachtum‐shemmung in der Gegenwart von E. crus‐galli angesehen, weil sie die Fähigkeit des Reises zur Nährstoffaufnahme aus dem Boden verringert.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 12

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

E. crus‐galli inhibited three rice varieties differently, with root competition more important than shoot competition in each.

Treatment
E. crus‐gallie0
Interactor
E. crus‐gallie0weed
Outcome
root competitione0
Direction
more importante0
Comparator
shoot competitione0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Three rice varieties with different above‐ground morphology were inhibited to different extents by E. crus‐galli but in each case root competition was more important than shoot competition”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 561–749 · show in text ↑
t0

“rice (Oryza sativa)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 94–113 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

In Bg 400–1, inhibition of total growth from root competition increased with weed density.

Material
Bg 400–1e0
Treatment
root competitione0
Outcome
inhibition of total growthe0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedInteractor

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“In the variety that was most sensitive to root competition, Bg 400–1, inhibition of total growth due to root competition increased with increasing weed density”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 751–910 · show in text ↑
t0

“rice (Oryza sativa)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 94–113 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

In monoculture pots the two species had similar growth rates irrespective of fertilization.

Interactor
Echinochloa crus‐galliEchinochloa crus-gallit0weed
Outcome
similar growth ratese0
Comparator
whether or not the soil was fertilizede0
Setting
pots in the fielde0

Not reportedDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Echinochloa crus-galli
Echinochloa crus-galli · InteractorMichael Becker · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“When grown in monocultures in pots in the field, the two species exhibited similar growth rates whether or not the soil was fertilized”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 912–1046 · show in text ↑
t0

“rice (Oryza sativa) and Echinochloa crus‐galli”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 94–140 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

In 1:1 mixtures, E. crus‐galli growth was greater, especially with fertilizer.

Treatment
fertilizer was addede0
Interactor
E. crus‐gallie0weed
Outcome
growth of E. crus‐gallie0
Direction
greatere0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“in 1:1 mixtures growth of E. crus‐galli was greater, particularly if fertilizer was added, as this promoted the growth of the weed, while having no effect on the rice”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1052–1218 · show in text ↑
t0

“rice (Oryza sativa)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 94–113 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Added fertilizer had no effect on rice growth in mixtures.

Treatment
fertilizer was addede0
Interactor
E. crus‐gallie0weed
Outcome
growth of the weed, while having no effect on the ricee0
Direction
no effecte0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“in 1:1 mixtures growth of E. crus‐galli was greater, particularly if fertilizer was added, as this promoted the growth of the weed, while having no effect on the rice”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1052–1218 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Relative yield totals in mixtures were close to 1.0.

Outcome
relative yield totalse0
Direction
close toe0
Value
1.0e0
Qualifier
In mixturee0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“In mixture, relative yield totals were close to 1.0”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1220–1271 · show in text ↑
t0

“rice (Oryza sativa)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 94–113 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

E. crus‐galli relative yield was consistently above 0.5, especially with nutrients.

Interactor
E. crus‐gallie0weed
Outcome
relative yield of E. crus‐gallie0
Direction
greater thane0
Value
0.5e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the relative yield of E. crus‐galli being consistently greater than 0.5, particularly with added nutrients”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1278–1384 · show in text ↑
t0

“rice (Oryza sativa)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 94–113 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Rice relative yield was always below 0.5 in mixture.

Outcome
relative yield of ricee0
Direction
less thane0
Value
0.5e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“while the relative yield of rice was always less than 0.5”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1386–1443 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The rice relative crowding coefficient based on total dry weight was lower in fertilized soil and fell from 0.4 to 0.2.

Interactor
E. crus‐gallie0weed
Outcome
relative crowding coefficient for rice with respect to E. crus‐gallie0
Direction
lowere0
Value
0.4 to 0.2e0
Comparator
non‐fertilized soile0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The relative crowding coefficient for rice with respect to E. crus‐galli (K eb ), when based on total plant dry weight, was lower in fertilized than in non‐fertilized soil, falling in the former case from 0.4 to 0.2 during the experiments”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1445–1683 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The root dry weight crowding coefficient decreased with soil depth.

Organ / stage
roote0
Outcome
Kroot rbe0
Direction
decreasede0
Setting
soil depthe0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Kroot rb , based on root dry weight, decreased with increasing soil depth”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1684–1757 · show in text ↑
t0

“rice (Oryza sativa)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 94–113 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The root dry weight crowding coefficient was lower with fertilization, especially after 62 days.

Outcome
root dry weighte0
Direction
lowere0
Qualifier
after 62 days of growthe0
Comparator
non‐fertilized soile0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“was lower in fertilized than in non‐fertilized soil, most notably after 62 days of growth, when root dry weight was at its maximum”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1762–1892 · show in text ↑
t0

“rice (Oryza sativa)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 94–113 · show in text ↑
Mechanismauthor interpretationoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The authors concluded that inhibited rice root growth reduced soil resource uptake and thus rice growth with the weed.

Organ / stage
roote0
Interactor
E. crus‐gallie0weed
Outcome
decline in the growth of ricee0
Qualifier
reduced ability to obtain resources from the soile0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Oryza sativa
Oryza sativa · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryDesmanthus4food · CC BY-SA 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“inhibition of root growth of rice, leading to a reduced ability to obtain resources from the soil, was the major factor contributing to the decline in the growth of rice in the presence of E. crus‐galli”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1915–2117 · show in text ↑

fertilization · weed · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results

68 papers: 53 positive, 15 negative or no effect

14 papers in the same direction as this paper · 53 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

64 papers more in this group

See all 68 papers →

fertilization · growth · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results

759 papers: 670 positive, 89 negative or no effect

88 papers in the same direction as this paper · 670 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

755 papers more in this group

See all 759 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.