Next Article in Journal
Benefits of Using Pomace from Sea Buckthorn Fruit (Hippophaë rhamnoides L.) in the Production of Rye Bread for a Strategy of Sustainable Production and Consumption
Previous Article in Journal
A Validated High-Performance Thin-Layer Chromatography Method for Analyzing Fat-Soluble Vitamins in Commercial Pharmaceutical Preparations
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Applied Sciences
Volume 14
Issue 23
10.3390/app142311066
applsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Maize Replacement for Controlling Invasive Eupatorium adenophorum

by
Baoqiang Hao
1,
Qingjie Li
2 and
Canbin Ouyang
3,*
1
Department of Chemistry, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China
2
The Institute of Agricultural Resources and Regional Planning, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing 100081, China
3
Institute of Plant Protection, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing 100193, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14(23), 11066; https://doi.org/10.3390/app142311066
Submission received: 30 October 2024 / Revised: 18 November 2024 / Accepted: 25 November 2024 / Published: 28 November 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Agricultural Science and Technology)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Replacement control technology is a sustainable strategy for the control of invasive weeds. Two consecutive years of field experiments were conducted in Xichang city to assess the ecological and economical possibility of replacement control of Eupatorium adenophorum (Spreng.) King & H.Rob. with maize. Four treatment groups were planted with maize at different densities after cutting E. adenophorum. Two reference groups were set by not treating and only cutting the aerial parts of E. adenophorum. All maize replacements in the “after tillage” treatments provided control effects of up to 100% and significantly reduced water and fertilizer use by E. adenophorum. Maize replacement provided a substantial economic benefit of up to 20,273.50 and 23,633.22 yuan/hm2 in two consecutive years and increased incomes. Evaluated in terms of niche theory, the large leaves as well as high plant cover assisted in effectively occupying the available niche and reduced light interception, seed germination and growth of E. adenophorum. This study provided a scientific basis for the sustainable and eco-friendly control of weeds by ecological methods.

1. Introduction

Agricultural lands suffer from several problems, especially the spread of weeds that affect soil productivity [1,2]. Weeds consume the resources and diminish the growth and productivity of economic crops [3,4]. In this regard, crops exposed to nutrient stress and drought caused low yield and quality because nutrients and water were removed by weeds [5]. To maintain soil productivity, some measures should be implemented to confront the adverse impacts of weeds [6,7]. Frankly, herbicides as a chemical method have presented remarkable efficiency in weed control [8]. Herbicides usage achieved more than 90% efficiency in controlling various weed species while enhancing the crop productivity in weed-infested soils [9,10].
Eupatorium adenophorum (Spreng.) King & H.Rob (E. adenophorum) has invaded more than 30 countries, causing environmental deterioration and economic losses [11,12]. Since 2003, it has been ranked first on the list of invasive plant species in China [13]. E. adenophorum is a perennial subshrub, native to regions from Mexico to Costa Rica, and spreads rapidly and can produce biological toxins or allelochemicals. E. adenophorum has purple stems and opposite diamond-shaped leaves with serrated margins. It has many types of habitats such as wetlands, gum lands, open and lightly shaded margins, plantations, shrublands, estuaries, roadsides, coastal forests and disturbed sites. It alters the soil microbial community, interferes with ecosystem structure and function, reduces the biomass of other plant species and accelerates the loss of biodiversity [14,15,16]. The total economic loss caused by E. adenophorum to animal husbandry and grassland ecosystem services reached 3.62 billion yuan per year [17]. The total invaded area in China exceeded 30 million hectares and continues to increase [18,19]. Technologies for the efficient and sustainable control of invasive weeds were needed.
In addition, there was an urgent need to raise awareness of the risks of biological invasions. E. adenophorum management includes artificial, mechanical, chemical, biological and replacement control [20,21]. Hand uprooting is expensive, has poor efficiency and increases the risk of soil erosion. Mechanical cutting is also unsatisfactory due to the rapid asexual reproduction of new individuals from the residual roots and stems after cutting. Herbicides such as pyrazosulfuron-ethyl, thifensulfuron and picloram were effective in controlling weed growth [22]. However, chemical control was limited by the spray amounts required. Control effects are variable, and control only lasts for one year. The two measures (hand uprooting and mechanical cutting) are difficult to conduct in wetlands, open forests and steep slopes where E. adenophorum is essentially uncontrollable. Traditional biological control, when available, is one of the best ways to control invasive plant species [23,24,25]. However, Procecidochares utilis, a parasitic natural enemy, exhibited negligible inhibition of the growth and reproduction of E. adenophorum [11]. Dorylus orientalis mainly feed on the roots and stems of E. adenophorum, interrupting the exchange of nutrients between the roots and shoots, resulting in the death of the plant because the strong and distinctive odor of E. adenophorum is the chemical signal that attracts Dorylus orientalis [13]. Nevertheless, Dorylus orientalis could not function when its habitat was different from that of E. adenophorum.
Replacement control technologies directed against invasive weeds are now receiving more attention [26,27,28]. Ecological theories and the stress-gradient hypothesis have been employed to illustrate the transformation regulations of the interacting relationships of populations [29,30]. In a previous study, the germination and growth of E. adenophorum was substantially inhibited by 90% coverage of a broad-leaved forest (Quercus glauca) or a mixed forest [17]. Yin et al. (2005) reported that when the vegetation coverage was ≥ 85% and the light intensity was reduced, weed growth was reduced [31]. Greater plant coverage limited weed growth and development and also suppressed seed germination [27,32]. The germination rate of weeds was observed to decline as their soil depth increases, which was likely attributable to reduced illumination. This is true for light-loving species such as E. adenophorum [33]. Furthermore, other correlative factors, such as water stress, temperature regimes and light control induction, also had significant effects on weed seed germination and vegetative growth [34,35]. In addition to the visible populations of weeds, sustainable weed control also needs to reduce the populations of weed seed in soil seed banks. Replacement control technology provides a solution for the sustainable control of E. adenophorum. In niche theory, alternative plants fill the ecological niches and leave less living space for invasive weeds [36]. Selecting alternative plants played an important role in replacement control technology.
Maize is an important crop cultivated in 29 provinces in China [37]. The total yield of maize in China was up to 2.89 × 108 t in 2022, and the yields of different producing regions are shown in Figure 1. Maize grows rapidly and its wide leaves provide a large light shielding layer. In addition, the agronomical ploughing used in maize cultivation was also advantageous in reducing the weeds of the soil seed bank [38]. Compared to grasses, crops demonstrated a greater economic benefit in invaded land and did not introduce the potential risks of other weeds [39]. Thus, maize competed with invasive weeds as an alternative plant. In addition, maize, as one of the most important food crops, plays a significant role in human society and life. For example, maize is perceived as a foodstuff capable of sustaining a considerable number of individuals, particularly in developing countries. In developed countries, maize is regarded as forage in graziery and as a source material for biorefineries such as producing ethanol in industry.
The objective of this study was the control of the invasive weed E. adenophorum by cultivating maize. Ecological theory, such as niche theory, was employed to guide the control effect and economic benefit of maize. This study provided a scientific basis for the ecological control of weeds by replacement control of commercial crops, simultaneously enhancing land utilization and increasing agricultural incomes.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experimental Location and Materials

The experimental fields were located in Xichang city of Liangshan Prefecture, Sichuan Province (102°23′ E, 22°78′ N). The location is situated on a gentle slope and is predominantly covered by E. adenophorum, with a relatively symmetrical distribution of about 100 individual density/m2 (ind./m2). Xichang has a subtropical plateau monsoon climate; rainy season is from May to July; average annual rainfall is 1471.1 mm; and average temperature is 16.9 °C. The soil type of the experimental fields is sandy loam, and other features are listed in Table 1. Maize is generally used as a food, animal feed and trade commodity. The maize variety was DengHai No.858, a conventional cultivar in Xichang. Fertilizers and pesticides were purchased from local pesticide dealerships. Light intensity was measured by ST-80C digital luxmeter (Beijing Shida Photoelectric Technology Co., Ltd., Beijing, China). The type of leaf area detector was YMJ-A (Zhejiang Top Instrument Co., Ltd., Zhejiang, China). Total nitrogen (N) levels were measured by kjeldahl apparatus skd-2000 and ICP- AES (ThermoFisher Co., Ltd., Waltham, MA, USA). Total phosphorus (P) content and total potassium (K) content were measured by ICP-AES. Water content was measured referred to GB/T 5009.3-2010 [40].

2.2. Experiment Design and Field Management

The experimental fields were divided into 24 plots, each plot 20 m2 (5 m × 4 m), with a 0.3 m interval between plots. The 24 treatment areas were randomly distributed and repeated four times. All sampling and measurements were performed using a diagonal-line, five-point sampling method with four replications. The experimental design is presented in Table 2. The untreated natural E. adenophorum communities were set as the control group (CK). A cutting stem treatment (CS) was established by hand-cutting stems of E. adenophorum at the same elevation as the ground surface. Four treatments (M1, M2, M3 and M4) were established by hand-cutting stems and subsequently planting with maize densities of 0, 4, 6 and 8 ind./m2, respectively. After sufficiently watering (50 kg/m2) of the treatment areas, maize seeds were sowed and then mulched with plastic film on 9 May 2017 and 9 May 2018. Each treatment was fertilized with 1.1 kg urea, 0.5 kg DAP (diammonium phosphate) and 0.3 kg potassium sulfate. Cultivation, fertilization and pest control all used the same manual methods, with the same dose used each time and for each treatment.

2.3. Study Method

To study the soil seed bank of the treatment and control groups, a germination trial was conducted. At the season of E. adenophorum germination, four soil samples (10 cm ×10 cm ×10 cm) were collected from each of the six treatments, and each soil sample was divided into three layers (0–2, 2–5, 5–10 cm). The soil samples were first sieved through a 5 mesh (4 mm) sieve and then a 75 mesh (0.21 mm) sieve to collect seeds [41]. The seeds were placed in a germination dish (on germination filter paper) and placed in the greenhouse (25 °C, relative humidity 75%, light level 200 Lux). Moist soil (water content 30%, and additional details of the soil are shown in Table 1) was used for seed germination to prevent possible external seed interference, and, then, seedling quantity was recorded. The soil was returned after each pull of seedlings until no further emergence occurred within 7 d.
During the growth period, photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) of 10, 25, 50 and 75 above the ground in the experimental field was measured at 11:00–12:30 on 11 July 2017 and 2018 (63 d after sowing) and recorded as PAR10, PAR 25, PAR 50, PAR 75 and PAR air, respectively. Typically, PAR air was adopted as the highest PAR. The light penetration rate (LPR) was calculated as in Equation (1). The leaf areas of maize and E. adenophorum in each group were measured on 11 September. The density, fresh mass (Mfresh) and plant height of E. adenophorum in each group were measured on 24 September 2017 and 2018. In addition, a fresh sample (1 m × 1 m) of E. adenophorum was obtained to determine N, P, K and water content. On harvest day (25 September 2017 and 2018), plant height, stem mass and diameter, panicle length, spike number and cob number of the maize were also randomly measured. Each measurement was repeated four times. The thousand-seed weight was weighed after maize cobs were dried at 130 °C (2 h), and the yield was calculated.
L P R = P A R P A R a i r × 100
where LPR was light penetration rate; LI was light intensity; LIair was adopted as the highest light intensity.

2.4. Data Analysis Method

Data were processed in SPSS 20.0 (IBM, Chicago, IL, USA). Differences in the measured values between treatments were compared with analysis of variance (ANOVA), followed by Duncan’s multiple-range test using a significance level of p < 0.05. All statistical analyses were made using SPSS 20.0.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Soil Seed Bank Study

The depth distribution of E. adenophorum seed in the six treatments was shown in Figure 2a. In the CK and CS groups, 66.2% and 63.3% of E. adenophorum seeds were stored in the 0–2 cm surface layer, respectively; 21.5% to 22.4% of E. adenophorum seeds were in the middle layer of 2–5 cm; and 12.3% to 14.3% of weed seeds were in the deepest (5–10 cm) layer. There was no significant difference between the CK and CS groups. In the plowing treatments of M1, M2, M3 and M4, with or without replacement planting, the weed seeds were distributed evenly among all three layers with no significant difference.
According to the meteorological data for Xichang in 2017 (Meteorological Data, 2017), the accumulated rainy days number was 91 d and the cumulative rainfall from May to September was 807.7 mm (Figure 2b). The average sunshine duration from May to September ranged from 119.1 h to 180.6 h. The average air temperature from May to September ranged from 18.5 °C to 22.2 °C. These data indicated that the seeds could easily get sufficient moisture to germinate and grow vigorously due to the abundant rainfall and suitable sunlight from spring to summer. In comparison with the growth cycle of E. adenophorum, maize in Xichang had a similar germination season of May and June. The vigorous growth stages of maize and E. adenophorum also overlapped during the middle of the June to July rainy season. This suggested that climate and environment conditions were more suitable for controlling E. adenophorum by maize replacement in Xichang.

3.2. Differences of Growth Characters Between Maize and E. adenophorum

E. adenophorum began to sprout or branch out from the seeds and residue roots (or broken stems) due to the favorable climate. E. adenophorum could not grow under the larger leaves and taller stalks of maize because maize competed with E. adenophorum for sunlight resources, leading to inhibition of E. adenophorum growth. E. adenophorum underwent a color change from green to yellow and subsequently withered with the growth of maize. Plant height, stem diameter and leaf area of maize and weeds in each group were measured and calculated (Table 3 and Table 4). Maize plant heights in the M2, M3 and M4 treatments in 2017 and 2018 were up to 220.51 and 207.66 cm, with cornstalk diameters ranging from 2.40 to 2.46 cm and 3.08 to 3.15 cm, respectively. The largest single leaf area (Smax) in the M2, M3 and M4 treatments in 2017 and 2018 ranged from 489.97 to 537.62 cm2 and 479.32 to 516.62 cm2, and total leaf area per square meter (Stotal) ranged from 16,665.61 to 30,468.25 cm2 and 15,985.76 to 29,852.65 cm2, respectively. The maize growth characters of height, stem diameter and leaf area in the M2, M3 and M4 treatments were all larger than the weed growth characters in the CK, CS and M1 treatments. These data indicated that the speed of maize growth was significantly greater than E. adenophorum. Although the Smax of the higher maize planting density in the M4 treatment was lower than the Smax of the lower density M2 and M3 treatments, Stotal in the M4 treatment was the largest of the three treatments. Surprisingly, the density of E. adenophorum in the CS (cutting stem) treatment recovered to a density level (119.5 and 112.88 ind./m2) that was larger than the CK treatment (105.8 and 98.98 ind./m2) in 2017 and 2018, respectively. Therefore, In the absence of replacement, the density of E. adenophorum recovered quickly, and the sequence was M1 << CK < CS.

3.3. Light Competition Between Maize and Eupatorium adenophorum

The field PAR at different height levels above the ground during the vigorous growth stage of maize is shown in Figure 3. The light intensity at the top of plants was higher than 80 kLux (Figure 3a). Combined with the climate parameters shown in Figure 2b, the range of LPR10 (2.32–3.63%) to LPR75 (14.71–19.82%) in the CK, M2, M3 and M4 treatments were lower than in the CS and M1 treatments (Figure 3b). LPR decreased with the decrease in ground clearance (height). The sunlight source in the field experiments was competed for by maize and E. adenophorum. Therefore, it was suitable for maize controlling E. adenophorum.

3.4. Control Effect of Maize Replacement Planting

The control efficiency of Mfresh of E. adenophorum in the M2, M3 and M4 treatments in 2017 and 2018 all reached 100% because sprouting from seed germination and root growth were inhibited by the maize. The consumption of total N, P, K and water content in 2017 (Table 5) were 1.74, 0.70, 3.42 and 727.48 g/m2 in the CS treatment, and 1.30, 0.53, 2.59 and 560.39 g/m2 in the M1 treatment, respectively. In addition, the consumption of total N, P, K and water content in 2018 (Table 6) were 2.07, 0.98, 4.61 and 803.03 g/m2 in the CS treatment, and 1.69, 0.82, 3.89 and 717.55 g/m2 in the M1 treatment, respectively. These values were lower than the corresponding values in the CK treatment. Stem cutting and plowing could significantly reduce E. adenophorum competition for water and fertilizer. Hence, the reduction of the fresh weight of E. adenophorum in the CS and M1 treatments in 2017 reached 95.67% and 96.34%, respectively. Similarly, the reduction of the fresh weight of E. adenophorum in the CS and M1 treatments in 2018 were up to 91.37% and 93.03%, respectively. However, it did not provide sustainable control due to the seedlings produced from asexual and sexual reproduction.

3.5. Production and Economic Benefits of Maize Replacement Planting

The yield per hectare in 2017 increased from 7271.85 kg (M2) to 10,136.75 kg (M4) when the replacement planting density was increased from 4 ind./m2 to 8 ind./m2 (Table 7). The yield per hectare in 2018 increased from 7593.82 kg (M2) to 11,816.61 kg (M4) with replacement planting density from 4 ind./m2 to 8 ind./m2 (Table 8). Assuming a maize price of 2 yuan/kg, the gross incomes per hectare of maize replacement in 2017 and 2018 would range from 14,573.76 to 20,273.50 yuan and 15,187.64 to 23,633.22 yuan. In contrast, income was zero in the in the CK, CS and M1 treatments without plowing or replacement planting. The stem mass (Mstem), corncob core mass (Mcore), grain mass (Mgrain) and thousand-seed mass (TSM) were similar in the M2, M3 and M4 treatments. With the exception of TSM, the parameters decreased with increasing of maize planting density. This indicated that these parameters of replacement planting in maize are affected by the planting density. Replacement planting could provide economic benefits by enhancing the planting density, and higher planting density would result in corresponding increases in yield and income.

3.6. Implications for Agriculture

E. adenophorum could readily propagate by sexual or asexual reproduction [42]. E. adenophorum could produce about 260 to 280 thousand seeds per square meter, and residue rhizomes or stems could also sprout new buds. It had a strong advantage in resource competition for up to 15 years [43]. Subsequently, E. adenophorum decreased dramatically in seed yield and entered a senescence phase, reducing the competition for resources between E. adenophorum and other plants. During this period of natural community succession, E. adenophorum successfully competed with other plants for water and fertilizer, which reduced soil fertility and caused land degradation [44,45,46]. Invasion of E. adenophorum could destroy the local plant ecosystem within several years. The technology of replacement control eliminated E. adenophorum habitat by reducing the seed bank and removing the current community of plants. Many E. adenophorum seeds in the surface soil layer are plowed into deeper soil layers (Figure 2a) because the germination rate is inversely proportional to seed depth [26] and plowing reduced seedling emergence. Ungerminated seeds would be buried deeper in soil and died after many cycles of plowing and replacement planting. The surface seed bank that had potential to become a new population was effectively reduced. Both the plant height and total leaf area in the maize treatments were larger than E. adenophorum in the CK and CS treatments (Table 3 and Table 4). Tall and leafy maize plants effectively intercepted illumination that would have reached the seeds of E. adenophorum. The light penetration rates in the M2, M3 and M4 treatments at 10 cm off the ground ranged from 2.32 to 3.63% (Figure 3b). In comparison, the penetration rates in the M1 treatment at different heights above ground were 100%. According to the control effect (100%) of maize replacement, the seed germination rate of E. adenophorum was greatly inhibited by maize (Table 3 and Table 4). This result was attributed to the large amount of light required for seed germination [47]. Furthermore, replacement planting (in the M2, M3 and M4 treatments) with commercial crops limited weed community recovery, enhanced the control effect and released space to facilitate ecosystem recovery [12].
The control mechanism is shown below: both E. adenophorum and maize germinated with the advent of the rainy season. Maize seedlings broke through the top soil one week after seeds were sowed and entered the jointing stage within 30 d. During the vigorous growth period (about 63 d), maize captured most of the available light resources due to its high stalk and canopy density. This monopoly of light capture was an advantage sustained to harvest (about 130 d). During its growth period, maize sprouted and grew faster than E. adenophorum. Maize gradually formed a shielding, which resulted in the canopy layer suppressing weed germination and seedling emergence. Maize was superior in individual resource competition and became the dominant species, achieving effective weed control [48]. In niche theory, the large leaves and high ground-coverage of maize assisted in effectively occupying the niche. Based on the rule of positive succession, replacement control strategy, using plants to replace weeds, could enhance ecological and economic value. The area formerly occupied by the weeds then recovered to form a healthy ecological system with an appropriate structure, function and self-sustaining ability [27,39].
It is important to select suitable substitute plants in this process. Maize is the most popular grain crop in China because it is drought resistant and simple to grow. Liangshan Prefecture of Sichuan has an arid, hot climate with a rainy season from June to September and a dry season from November to April (Figure 2b). The climate is suitable for the cultivation of maize, and the method of maize replacement for controlling E. adenophorum has sustainability. E. adenophorum seeds are fully mature in mid-April and then disperse via wind, water and traffic to land on soil surfaces. The niche overlap between E. adenophorum and maize could lead to effective inhibition of weed seed germination and vegetative growth. Maize replacement could reduce the resource consumption of E. adenophorum to a negligible level (Table 5 and Table 6). In addition, maize replacement increased income by 20,273.50 and 23,633.22 yuan/hm2 simply by selling corn in 2017 and 2018, and rational close planting could generate greater economic benefit. In addition, the maize stalk and corncob core could also be used as silage. In this study, the weight of fresh straw in 2017 and 2018 (Table 7 and Table 8) were 37.72–73.09 ton/hm2 (3771.64–7308.56 g/m2) and 40.63–77.66 ton/hm2 (4063.58–7766.97 g/m2), respectively. If the price was 100 yuan/ton, maize silage could produce income of 3772–7309 yuan/hm2 and 4064–7767 yuan/hm2, respectively. Therefore, replacement planting could achieve an ecological weed control effect, and it also increased farmers’ income. Maize replacement control was economically feasible and provided sustainable control of E. adenophorum. Since plant species were affected by climate conditions and community succession, replacement planting was a long-term process. The use of fruits or other economically important trees as replacement plants also provided a weed control effect, economic advantages and ecological benefits [31]. Orchards and plantations had a high potential for weed control applications, and their use will be studied in future studies. In conclusion, replacement plants should have the following four features: (1) rapid germination, fast growth in the seeding stage and not being affected by other weeds; (2) providing a lightproof layer due to a long stalk and effective canopy; (3) an economically feasible, low input–output ratio using simple and flexible management; (4) being environmentally friendly. Tillage will decrease the germination rate of seeds and their potential community by inhibiting seed activity.

4. Conclusions

E. adenophorum, as an invasive weed, has invaded many countries and caused environmental deterioration, ecological risk and economic losses in agriculture. Control technologies have played a significant role in preventing losses. In this study, maize, as a replacement plant, occupied the field ecological niche and left fewer resources and space for E. adenophorum. This replacement method of control provided control effects reaching 100%, significantly reduced water and fertilizer consumption and enhanced agricultural incomes. In addition, optimal maize planting density could provide good economic benefits. It was suggested that the planting density was set at 8 ind./m2 to enhance the yield of maize. This study demonstrated maize replacement as an economic and ecological method that could control invasive E. adenophorum and broadened the control measures for invasive weeds.

Author Contributions

Methodology, B.H.; Software, Q.L.; Resources, C.O.; Writing—original draft, B.H.; Writing—review & editing, C.O. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Key Research Development Program of China (2017YFD0201600) and the Key research and development plan of the Ministry of Science and Technology, China (2016YFC1201203).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available in the article.

Acknowledgments

We thank Wenda Zhu for his help with this research.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. El-Metwally, I.M.; Saudy, H.S.; Elewa, T.A. Natural plant by-products and mulching materials to suppress weeds and improve sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) yield and quality. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2022, 22, 5217–5230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. El–Metwally, I.; Geries, L.; Saudy, H. Interactive effect of soil mulching and irrigation regime on yield, irrigation water use efficiency and weeds of trickle–irrigated onion. Archiv. Agron. Soil Sci. 2022, 68, 1103–1116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Saudy, H.S.; El-Metwally, I.M.; Abd El-Samad, G.A. Physio-biochemical and nutrient constituents of peanut plants under bentazone herbicide for broad-leaved weed control and water regimes in dry land areas. J. Arid Land 2020, 12, 630–639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Saudy, H.S.; Mohamed El–Metwally, I. Effect of irrigation, nitrogen sources, and metribuzin on performance of maize and its weeds. Comm. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2023, 54, 22–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Saudy, H.S.; El–Metwally, I.M.; Shahin, M.G. Co–application effect of herbicides and micronutrients on weeds and nutrient uptake in flooded irrigated rice: Does it have a synergistic or an antagonistic effect? Crop Prot. 2021, 149, 105755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. El-Metwally, I.M.; Saudy, H.S. Interactive application of zinc and herbicides affects broad-leaved weeds, nutrient uptake, and yield in rice. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2021, 21, 238–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. El-Bially, M.E.-R.; El-Metwally, I.M.; Saudy, H.S.; Aisa, K.H.; Abd El-Samad, G.A. Mycorrhiza-inoculated biochar as an eco-friendly tool improves the broomrape control efficacy in two faba bean cultivars. Rhizosphere 2023, 26, 100706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Saudy, H.S.; El-Bially, M.; Ramadan, K.A.; Abo El-Nasr, E.K.; Abd El-Samad, G.A. Potentiality of soil mulch and sorghum extract to reduce the biotic stress of weeds with enhancing yield and nutrient uptake of maize crop. Gesunde Pflanzen 2021, 73, 555–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Saudy, H.S. Chlorophyll meter as a tool for forecasting wheat nitrogen requirements after application of herbicides. Archiv. Agron. Soil Sci. 2014, 60, 1077–1090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Saudy, H.S.; Mubarak, M. Mitigating the detrimental impacts of nitrogen deficit and fenoxaprop-p-ethyl herbicide on wheat using silicon. Comm. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2015, 46, 897–907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Li, A.; Gao, X.; Dang, W.; Huang, R.; Deng, Z.; Tang, H. Parasitism of Procecidochares utilis and its effect on growth and reproduction of E. adenophorum. Chin. J. Plant Ecol. 2006, 3, 496–503. [Google Scholar]
  12. Li, Y.P.; Feng, Y.L. Differences in seed morphometric and germination traits of crofton weed (E. adenophorum) from different elevations. Weed Sci. 2009, 57, 26–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Li, X.X.; Zhang, Q.D.; Zhu, X.Z. Progress of the research on invasive plant species Eupatorium adenophorum over the last decade. Partic. Sci. 2017, 34, 283–292. [Google Scholar]
  14. Sun, X.; Lu, Z.; Sang, W. Review on studies of E. adenophorum. J. For. Res. 2004, 4, 319–322+338. [Google Scholar]
  15. Niu, H.B.; Liu, W.X.; Wan, F.H.; Liu, B. An invasive aster (Ageratina adenophora) invades and dominates forest understories in China: Altered soil microbial communities facilitate the invader and inhibit natives. Plant Soil 2007, 294, 73–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Zhu, L.; Sun, O.J.; Sang, W.G.; Li, Z.Y.; Ma, K.P. Predicting the spatial distribution of an invasive plant species (E. adenophorum) in China. Landsc. Ecol. 2007, 22, 1143–1154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Weber, E.; Sun, S.G.; Li, B. Invasive alien plants in China: Diversity and ecological insights. Biol. Invasions 2008, 10, 1411–1429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Lu, Z.J.; Ma, K.P. Spread of the exotic croftonweed (E. adenophorum) across southwest China along roads and streams. Weed Sci. 2006, 54, 1068–1072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Sang, W.G.; Zhu, L.; Axmacher, J.C. Invasion pattern of E. adenophorum Spreng in southern China. Biol. Invasions 2010, 12, 1721–1730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Xu, H.G.; Ding, H.; Li, M.Y.; Qiang, S.; Guo, J.Y.; Han, Z.M.; Huang, Z.G.; Sun, H.Y.; He, S.P.; Wu, H.R.; et al. The distribution and economic losses of alien species invasion to China. Biol. Invasions 2006, 8, 1495–1500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Wang, C.; Lin, H.L.; Feng, Q.S.; Jin, C.Y.; Cao, A.C.; He, L. A new strategy for the prevention and control of E. adenophorum under climate change in China. Sustainability 2017, 9, 2037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Cao, A.; Rui, C.; Guo, M.; Yuan, H.; Yang, D.; Chen, F. Chemical control of E. adenophorum Spreng and the effect on the ecological recovery. J. Saf. Environ. 2006, 3, 80–85. [Google Scholar]
  23. Hoffmann, J.H.; Moran, V.C.; Hill, M.P. Conceptualizing, categorizing and recording the outcomes of biological control of invasive plant species, at a population level. Biol. Control. 2019, 133, 134–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Zhang, H.; Jiang, K.; Zhao, Y.; Xing, Y.T.; Ge, H.J.; Cui, J.; Liu, T.D.; Wang, C. A trait-based protocol for the biological control of invasive exotic plant species. Front. Ecol. Evol. 2021, 9, 586948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Martos-Martins, R. A native raptor contributing to the biological control of an invasive species. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2022, 20, 178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Zhu, W.; He, Y.; Li, L. Competitive effects between Ageragina adenophora and Giycine max. Chin. J. Oil Crop Sci. 2015, 37, 214–219. [Google Scholar]
  27. Li, L.; Cao, A.; Yu, D.; Zhu, W.; Yan, D.; Ouyang, C. Effect of Brassica napus L. on replacement control of E. adenophorum Spreng. Chin. J. Oil Crop Sci. 2016, 38, 513–517. [Google Scholar]
  28. Zhu, W.; Yan, D.; He, Y.; Li, L.; Ouyang, C.; Cao, A. Study on cultivation pattern of pomegranate (Punica granatum) for replacement and control of E. adenophorum. Acta Agric. Jiangxi 2018, 30, 65–69. [Google Scholar]
  29. Crain, C.M.; Kroeker, K.; Halpern, B.S. Interactive and cumulative effects of multiple human stressors in marine systems. Ecol. Lett. 2008, 11, 1304–1315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Miller, E.; Coll, M. Effects of local interaction range and mobility on the spatio-temporal dynamics of competing animals in uniform habitats. Popul. Ecol. 2012, 54, 205–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Yin, J.; Ma, X.; Deng, J. Investigation on harmful bio-organisms of grassland in Yunnan. J. Grassl. Forage Sci. 2005, 12, 19–24. [Google Scholar]
  32. Zhu, W.; Cao, A.; Yan, D.; Li, L.; Liu, X.; Guo, Z. Vegetative and reproductive growth of E. adenophorum Spreng in different forest communities. Ecol. Environ. Sci. 2013, 22, 1790–1794. [Google Scholar]
  33. Soltani, E.; Gruber, S.; Oveisi, M.; Salehi, N.; Alahdadi, I.; Javid, M.G. Water stress, temperature regimes and light control induction, and loss of secondary dormancy in Brassica napus L. seeds. Seed Sci. Res. 2017, 27, 217–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Singh, K.; Singh, S.; Pannu, R.K. Temperature, pH and light effect on germination and growth behavior of grassy weeds of direct-seeded rice. Indian J. Weed Sci. 2020, 52, 21–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Singh, M.; Thapa, R.; Kukal, M.S.; Irmak, S.; Mirsky, S.; Jhala, A.J. Effect of water stress on weed germination, growth characteristics, and seed production: A global meta-analysis. Weed Sci. 2022, 70, 621–640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Connolly, J. On difficulties with replacement-series methodology in mixture experiments. J. Appl. Ecol. 1986, 23, 125–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Zhang, A.; Zeng, Q.P.; Tian, F.; Luo, H.B.; Liu, S.Q.; Deng, M. Analysis on the changes of maize sown area and yield in China from 1997 to 2020. Crop Res. 2024, 38, 329–333. [Google Scholar]
  38. Renton, M.; Flower, K.C. Occasional mouldboard ploughing slows evolution of resistance and reduces long-term weed populations in no-till systems. Agri. Syst. 2015, 139, 66–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Fayolle, A.; Violle, C.; Navas, M.L. Differential impacts of plant interactions on herbaceous species recruitment: Disentangling factors controlling emergence, survival and growth of seedlings. Oecologia 2009, 159, 817–825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. GB/T 5009.3-2010; National Food Safety Standard, Determination of Moisture in Foods. Ministry of Health of the People’s Republic of China: Beijing, China, 2010.
  41. TerHeerdt, G.N.J.; Verweij, G.L.; Bekker, R.M.; Bakker, J.P. An improved method for seed-bank analysis: Seedling emergence after removing the soil by sieving. Funct. Ecol. 1996, 10, 144–151. [Google Scholar]
  42. Wang, X.; Li, G.; Li, J.; Wu, Z.; Cao, A. Effects of seed age, intraspecific competition, ambient condition on seed germination of E. adenophorum Spreng. Ecol. Environ. Sci. 2013, 22, 1471–1475. [Google Scholar]
  43. Liu, L.; Liu, W.; Zheng, z.; Jing, G. The characteristic research of autecology ecology of pamakani (E. adenophorum). Acta Ecol. Sin. 1989, 1, 66–70. [Google Scholar]
  44. Jin, Y.; Hou, L.Y.; Zhang, M.Z.; Tian, Z.F.; Cao, A.C.; Xie, X.M. Antiviral activity of E. adenophorum leaf extract against tobacco mosaic virus. Crop Prot. 2014, 60, 28–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Ouyang, C.; Liu, X.; Liu, Q.; Bai, J.; Li, H.; Li, Y.; Wang, Q.; Yan, D.; Mao, L.; Cao, A.; et al. Toxicity assessment of cadinene sesquiterpenes from E. adenophorum in mice. Nat. Prod. Bioprospect. 2015, 5, 29–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Ouyang, C.B.; Liu, X.M.; Yan, D.D.; Li, Y.; Wang, Q.X.; Cao, A.C.; Guo, M.X. Immunotoxicity assessment of cadinene sesquiterpenes from E. adenophorum in mice. J. Integr. Agr. 2016, 15, 2319–2325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Jiang, Y.; Li, Y.; Wang, W.; Bao, S.; Zu, Y.; Wang, H. Impacts on seed germination features of E. adenophorum from variable light stimulation and traditional dormancy-broken methods. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2013, 33, 302–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Fat’yanov, V.A.; Kislinskii, K.N. Competitiveness of maize in weed control. Zemledelie 1994, 2, 14–15. [Google Scholar]
Applsci 14 11066 g001
Figure 1. The maize yields of different producing regions in 2022.
Figure 1. The maize yields of different producing regions in 2022.
Applsci 14 11066 g001
Applsci 14 11066 g002
Figure 2. (a) Depth distribution of Eupatorium adenophorum seeds in different groups. (b) Monthly average rainfall, sunshine duration and air temperature of Xichang in 2017.
Figure 2. (a) Depth distribution of Eupatorium adenophorum seeds in different groups. (b) Monthly average rainfall, sunshine duration and air temperature of Xichang in 2017.
Applsci 14 11066 g002
Applsci 14 11066 g003
Figure 3. (a) PAR and (b) light penetration rate at different height in six field treatments.
Figure 3. (a) PAR and (b) light penetration rate at different height in six field treatments.
Applsci 14 11066 g003
Table 1. The basic properties of the experimental soil.
Table 1. The basic properties of the experimental soil.
Silt (%)Sand (%)Clay (%)N (mg/kg)P (mg/kg)K (mg/kg)Organic Matter (mg/kg)Electrical Conductivity (μS/cm)pH (1:2.5)
8.161.330.640.647.3557.216.5288.96.8
Table 2. Experiment design of replacement control of Eupatorium adenophorum with maize.
Table 2. Experiment design of replacement control of Eupatorium adenophorum with maize.
TreatmentPlowingPlantingWeed DensityReplacement Density
CKNoNo100 ind./m2——
CSNoNo————
M1YesYes——0 ind./m2
M2YesYes——4 ind./m2, (50 cm × 50 cm)
M3YesYes——6 ind./m2, (50 cm × 33.3 cm)
M4YesYes——8 ind./m2, (50 cm × 25 cm)
Table 3. Plant traits of replacement plants and Eupatorium adenophorum in different treatments in 2017.
Table 3. Plant traits of replacement plants and Eupatorium adenophorum in different treatments in 2017.
No.Height (cm)Density (ind./m2)Diameter (cm)Smax (cm2)Stotal (cm2/m2)
CK143.75 ± 11.23 b105.80 ± 13.890.85 ± 0.06 b29.96 ± 2.12 b10,692.79 ± 1146.25 d
CS33.40 ± 2.71 c119.50 ± 9.910.24 ± 0.02 d2.93 ± 1.05 c831.34 ± 67.55 de
M126.15 ± 1.26 c0/68.50 ± 5.17 *0.22 ± 0.02 d2.33 ± 1.72 c336.23 ± 367.58 de
M2210.63 ± 11.66 a4/0 *2.46 ± 0.20 a537.62 ± 66.53 a16,665.61 ± 1862.23 c
M3220.51 ± 16.38 a6/0 *2.43 ± 0.16 a513.52 ± 58.96 a23,325.11 ± 2755.92 b
M4217.83 ± 29.19 a8/0 *2.40 ± 0.17 a489.97 ± 55.64 a30,468.25 ± 3628.63 a
Note: Different letters followed by data in the same column indicate significant difference (p < 0.05). * Left side data of slash indicates density of replacement plants, and right side indicates E. adenophorum.
Table 4. Plant traits of replacement plants and Eupatorium adenophorum in different treatments in 2018.
Table 4. Plant traits of replacement plants and Eupatorium adenophorum in different treatments in 2018.
TreatmentHeight (cm)Density (ind./m2)Diameter (cm)Smax (cm2)Stotal (cm2/m2)
CK131.68 ± 15.65 b98.98 ± 10.230.79 ± 0.06 b36.68 ± 3.31 b9688.38 ± 1077.65 d
CS28.46 ± 3.37 c112.88 ± 6.910.22 ± 0.02 c3.52 ± 0.25 c766.51 ± 80.26 de
M125.76 ± 2.12 c0/68.50 ± 5.57 *0.27 ± 0.03 c4.27 ± 0.50 c563.23 ± 43.11 de
M2196.37 ± 21.31 a4/0 *3.15 ± 0.33 a516.62 ± 61.03 a15,985.76 ± 1698.30 c
M3205.18 ± 22.68 a6/0 *3.11 ± 0.26 a500.67 ± 44.61 a20,133.27 ± 2435.72 b
M4207.66 ± 27.66 a8/0 *3.08 ± 0.29 a479.32 ± 51.22 a29,852.65 ± 3139.35 a
Note: Different letters followed by data in the same column indicate significant difference (p < 0.05). * Left side data of slash indicates density of replacement plants, and right side indicates E. adenophorum.
Table 5. The absorption of nutrient elements and water of Eupatorium adenophorum in 2017.
Table 5. The absorption of nutrient elements and water of Eupatorium adenophorum in 2017.
TreatmentMfresh * (g/m2)Effect * (%)Total N (g/m2)Total P (g/m2)Total K (g/m2)Water (g/m2)
CK26,936.35 ± 3078.62 c0.00 c63.38 ± 6.32 c16.61 ± 1.77 c69.72 ± 7.67 c19,042.52 ± 2021.65 c
CS1310.55 ± 155.32 b95.67 ± 11.27 b1.74 ± 0.19 b0.70 ± 0.08 b3.42 ± 0.38 b727.48 ± 80.32 b
M1986.67 ± 110.31 b96.34 ± 8.64 b1.30 ± 0.12 b0.53 ± 0.04 b2.59 ± 0.31 b560.39 ± 60.63 b
M20 a100.00 a0 a0 a0 a0 a
M30 a100.00 a0 a0 a0 a0 a
M40 a100.00 a0 a0 a0 a0 a
Note: * The fresh weight of E. adenophorum and the calculated control effect of the fresh weight. Different letters in the same column indicate significant difference (p < 0.05).
Table 6. The absorption of nutrient elements and water of Eupatorium adenophorum in 2018.
Table 6. The absorption of nutrient elements and water of Eupatorium adenophorum in 2018.
CodeMfresh * (g/m2)Effect * (%)Total N (g/m2)Total P (g/m2)Total K (g/m2)Water (g/m2)
CK29,863.66 ± 3155.36 c0.00 c77.63 ± 8.31 c20.65 ± 2.11 c72.88 ± 7.86 c21,412.03 ± 2250.32 c
CS1517.21 ± 163.32 b91.37 ± 8.96 b2.07 ± 0.25 b0.98 ± 0.10 b4.61 ± 0.055 b803.03 ± 88.36 b
M11180.59 ± 106.9 b93.03 ± 6.67 b1.69 ± 0.19 b0.82 ± 0.08 b3.89 ± 0.41 b717.55 ± 77.69 b
M20 a100.00 a0 a0 a0 a0 a
M30 a100.00 a0 a0 a0 a0 a
M40 a100.00 a0 a0 a0 a0 a
Note: * The fresh weight of E. adenophorum and the calculated control effect of the fresh weight. Different letters in the same column indicate significant difference (p < 0.05).
Table 7. The parameters, yield and economic benefit of maize in 2017.
Table 7. The parameters, yield and economic benefit of maize in 2017.
CodeMstem (g)Mcore (g)Mgrain (g)TSM (g)Mfresh (g)Yields (kg/hm2)Income (yuan/hm2)
CK0000000
CS0000000
M10000000
M2740.42 ± 80.32 a65.75 ± 6.88 a129.16 ± 14.69 a281.45 ± 30.21 a3771.64 ± 386.65 c7271.85 ± 757.11 c14,573.76 c
M3732.11 ± 77.68 a62.84 ± 5.52 a126.05 ± 14.35 a283.26 ± 29.98 a5526.00 ± 498.33 b8874.12 ± 911.82 b17,748.24 b
M4728.0073.61 a60.34 ± 5.39 a125.23 ± 15.28 a278.72 ± 29.61 a7308.56 ± 559.27 a10,136.75 ± 1173.87 a20,273.50 a
Note: Different letters in the same column indicate significant difference (p < 0.05).
Table 8. The parameters, yield and economic benefit of maize in 2018.
Table 8. The parameters, yield and economic benefit of maize in 2018.
CodeMstem (g)Mcore (g)Mgrain (g)TSM (g)Mfresh (g)Yields (kg/hm2)Income (yuan/hm2)
CK0000000
CS0000000
M10000000
M2773.05 ± 80.36 a67.18 ± 7.27 a137.03 ± 14.11 a292.33 ± 31.62 a4063.58 ± 411.97 c7593.82 ± 776.55 c15,187.64 ± 1661.22 c
M3751.76 ± 79.66 a65.66 ± 5.56 a131.95 ± 15.20 a287.51 ± 27.15 a5833.53 ± 602.16 b9384.58 ± 1018.02 b18,769.16 ± 2027.19 b
M4733.08 ± 66.18 a62.62 ± 6.07 a128.77 ± 13.37 a283.37 ± 31.09 a7766.97 ± 8002.77 a11,816.61 ± 1022.36 a23,633.22± 2510.63 a
Note: Different letters in the same column indicate significant difference (p < 0.05).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Hao, B.; Li, Q.; Ouyang, C. Maize Replacement for Controlling Invasive Eupatorium adenophorum. Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 11066. https://doi.org/10.3390/app142311066

AMA Style

Hao B, Li Q, Ouyang C. Maize Replacement for Controlling Invasive Eupatorium adenophorum. Applied Sciences. 2024; 14(23):11066. https://doi.org/10.3390/app142311066

Chicago/Turabian Style

Hao, Baoqiang, Qingjie Li, and Canbin Ouyang. 2024. "Maize Replacement for Controlling Invasive Eupatorium adenophorum" Applied Sciences 14, no. 23: 11066. https://doi.org/10.3390/app142311066

APA Style

Hao, B., Li, Q., & Ouyang, C. (2024). Maize Replacement for Controlling Invasive Eupatorium adenophorum. Applied Sciences, 14(23), 11066. https://doi.org/10.3390/app142311066

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop