Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 179 (2013) 151162

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/agee

Weeds Friend or foe? Increasing forage yield and decreasing nitrate

leaching on a corn forage farm infested by redroot pigweed
Majid Gholamhoseini a , Majid AghaAlikhani a, , Seyed Majid Mirlati b ,
Seyed Ali Mohammad Modarres Sanavy a
a
b

Agronomy Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran

Irrigation and Drainage Engineering Department, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 9 April 2013
Received in revised form 14 August 2013
Accepted 18 August 2013
Available online 11 September 2013
Keywords:
Economic evaluation
Forage quality
Irrigation regimes
N use efciency
Weed management

a b s t r a c t
Various weed management methods have been tested without complete success and still represent a
major nuisance often negatively effecting yields. Therefore, it may be time to change attitudes about
weeds and view them as friends of the agroecosystem rather than as foes. For the rst time, eld experiments were conducted to introduce and evaluate the yield and quality of cornredroot pigweed mixture
forage in a semi-arid region of Iran during 2010 and 2011. A randomized complete block design with
a split factorial arrangement of treatments in four replications was subjected to low irrigation and
full irrigation regimes. Subplots consisted of a factorial combination of four N levels (0, 150, 300 and
450 kg N ha1 ) and two forage mixtures (corn monoculture and cornredroot pigweed mixture). When
averaged over both years, N addition (from 0 to 450 kg N ha1 ) increased corn forage yield by 74 and
42% under full and low irrigation regimes, respectively. The forage yield increased by 121 and 69% in
the cornpigweed mixture for comparable treatments. In corn monoculture, the minimum required forage protein (90 g kg1 ) occurred only where forage yields were lower than 10 t ha1 , whereas in the
cornpigweed mixture, all the treatments with 90 g kg1 protein produced yield more than 11 t ha1 .
N enhancement (0450 kg ha1 ) increased nitrate leaching loss (NLL) by 158 and 107 kg ha1 in corn
monoculture and 100 and 55 kg ha1 in the cornpigweed mixture under full and low irrigation regimes,
respectively. However, an alteration in the NLL trend in response to N application grew in both forage
types, but the NLL severity was reduced in the corn pigweed mixture. The integration of redroot pigweed
(a major weed species on summer crop farms) with corn, rather than its removal, could be recommended
to ensure an acceptable forage yield/quality in a poor sandy soil while also reducing N leaching.
2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Corn forage is an important feed for many dairy and beef operations. The value of forage corn is a function of both its yield and
quality. Corn forage is a high-yielding, palatable forage with high
energy density (Armstrong and Albrecht, 2008). Among the many
agronomic factors that may affect corn forage yield and quality,
the application of water and N are considered to be the most
important. Forage or grain corn reportedly has a high irrigation
requirement (Payero et al., 2006; Farre and Faci, 2009). Additionally, water availability can affect not only crop forage yields but also

Corresponding author at: Agronomy Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Tarbiat

Modares University, Jalal-Al-Ahmad Highway, Nasr Bridge, Zip Code: 1411713116,
P.O. Box 14115-336, Tehran, Iran. Tel.: +98 21 48292099; fax: +98 21 48292200.
E-mail address: maghaalikhani@modares.ac.ir (M. AghaAlikhani).
0167-8809/$ see front matter 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2013.08.016

forage quality. Islam et al. (2012) stated that water availability has
profound effects on the growth and chemical composition of corn
forage as a consequence of effects on plant maturity, leaf to stem
ratios and senescence rate.
While it follows the importance of water, N has a signicant role
in realizing the maximum potential of forage crops. Nitrogen fertilization increases corn dry matter yield by inuencing leaf area
development, leaf area duration and leaf photosynthesis efciency
(Cox and Charney, 2005). Additionally, many investigators have
reported that N fertilization increases corn forage quality, including
crude protein and nutritive value (Lawrence et al., 2008; Ferri et al.,
2004). Because N is a mobile nutrient in soil and when it is combined
with water during excessive application (which often occurs, especially in sandy soils), high levels of ground water N are predictable.
Several studies have investigated the effects of water and N on corn
grain and forage yield (Sexton et al., 1996; Al-Kaisi and Yin, 2003;
Islam et al., 2012). In general, evaluating the response of corn to

152

M. Gholamhoseini et al. / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 179 (2013) 151162

combination of irrigation and N may help to identify an appropriate

application of water and N to maximize prot and reduce ground
water pollution.
In addition to water and N, weeds are a major limitation in corn
production. Weeds can reduce corn dry matter and grain yields
by 3570% in different soil and climatic conditions (Mohammadi,
2007). One of the most aggressive weed species in corn elds is
redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroexus L.). This plant is a smallseeded, broadleaf weed distributed throughout Iran and other areas
of the world. Redroot pigweed is annual and can be difcult to manage in agronomic crops because of high seed production, long seed
viability, extended germination times and relatively fast growth
(Sellers et al., 2003). Another reason that it is successful weed
is its history of developing herbicide-resistance biotypes to commonly used herbicides in row crops. Biotypes of redroot pigweed
have developed resistance to different herbicide modes of action
that once effectively controlled these weeds in row crops (Heap,
2006). For example, pigweed biotypes with resistance to triazine
or acetolactate synthase-inhibiting herbicides have been reported
for redroot pigweed in the USA (Bensch et al., 2003). Additionally,
in many developing countries such as Iran, farmer access to effective herbicides for controlling these weeds is limited and other
weed control methods including mechanical or biological control
have been used to little effect, so weeds are present throughout
the crop growth period. Furthermore, in developed countries such
as the USA where attention is being given to organic and low
input agriculture systems (Zoschke and Quadranti, 2002), herbicide
applications are limited, which results in the presence of weeds
in corn and other crops. Therefore, in recent years redroot pigweed frequency and severity have increased and corn producers
are often confronted with infestation levels of this weed species.
For the rst time, this study has assessed the possibility of integrating redroot pigweed (a common and dormant weed species in
summer crop farms) with corn, rather than weed removal, to produce forage. According to our literature review, there is no actual
information on the effects of water and N on corn and cornredroot
pigweed forage yield and quality, N and water use efciency, N
leaching loss or economic evaluations of these practices. Because
these crucial traits have never been measured in a single experiment, especially in sandy soils, these experiments were conducted
to evaluate the yield and quality of cornredroot pigweed mixture forage and to compare it with the yield and quality of forage
corn.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Experimental location and general methodology
The experiment was conducted in the 2010 and 2011 growing seasons at the research farm of Tarbiat Modares University,
Tehran, Iran (35 41 N, 51 19 E and 1215 masl). The region
is characterized as semi-arid with a mean annual precipitation
of 298 mm, which mostly falls during the autumn and winter
months. Daily meteorological data on precipitation and air temperature (see supplementary le, Table S1) were obtained from
the nearest weather station (500 m from the experimental site).
Several soil samples were taken before planting at depths of
030 and 3060 cm, and composite samples were collected, airdried, crushed, and tested for physical and chemical properties
(see supplementary le, Table S2). The soil texture was sandy
loam based on the texture triangle classication (Gee and Bauder,
1986).
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in
the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2013.08.016.

2.2. Land preparation and treatment

Corn was planted in different sections of the eld each year
following canola (Brassica napus L.) in 2010 and wheat (Triticum
aestivum L.) in 2011. The eld, with 12% slope, was prepared by
shallow plowing followed by disking in late May. Each experimental unit was 8 m long and consisted of 7 rows spaced 0.75 m apart.
There were 2.5 m gaps between the blocks, and a 1.5 m alley was
established between each plot to prevent lateral water movement
and other interference. A polyethylene pipeline and a owmeter
were installed to control irrigation. The experiment was conducted
using a randomized complete block design with a split factorial
arrangement of treatments in four replications (see supplementary
le, Figure S1). The main plots were subjected to irrigation regimes,
which were dened with respect to water shortages as follows: L,
irrigation was initiated after using 80% of the available water (low
irrigation); and F, irrigation was initiated after using 40% of the
available water (full irrigation). The subplots consisted of a factorial combination of four N levels (0, 150, 300, and 450 kg N ha1 ) and
two forage mixtures, namely a corn monoculture and cornredroot
pigweed mixture. These N rates reect feasible inputs (below average, average or conventional and high average) currently used in
Iran. The conventional N treatment (300 kg N ha1 ) represents a
typical farmers practice for similar soils in the region.
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in
the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2013.08.016.
The corn cultivar (hybrid SC 604) was sown by hand at depths
of 45 cm on 28 May 2010 and 26 May 2011. To ensure good emergence, the experimental plots were overseeded and then thinned
(to 17 cm spacing in row) to achieve the recommended plant density of 78,000 plants ha1 at the two-leaf stage (V2, corn growth
stage identied according to Ritchie et al. (1997)). At the same time
the corn was seeded, all weedy plot rows were seeded with redroot pigweed at depths of 1 cm in a 14 cm band over the corn rows.
Redroot pigweed seeds were collected locally, and their viability
was veried in germination tests each year before planting. Redroot
pigweed seeds were planted in excess and thinned to population
densities of 12 plants m2 at the two-leaf stage. The weed population for the experiment had a widespread density similar to what
was observed at infested corn farms (Knezevic et al., 1994; Aguyoh
and Masiunas, 2003). The soil was irrigated immediately after sowing and the irrigation cycle of each plot was closed to avoid runoff.
Irrigation was applied by furrow method and irrigation scheduling
was determined according to daily changes in the soil water content
(SW) at the depth of root development. A decit approach was
used to estimate irrigation requirements, and the soil water content at eld capacity (FC) was dened as no water decit. Available
water was determined by taking the difference between the water
content at eld capacity and permanent wilting point (PWP). Until
the corn two-leaf stage (V2), all plots were irrigated in a similar
manner in which 40% of available water was consumed at the depth
of root development. N fertilizer (from urea [(NH2 )2 CO] source) was
applied by top dressing at the three- to four-leaf stage (1/2 of N
treatment) and seven- to eight-leaf stage (1/2 of the remaining N).
Potassium and P were not applied because the soil had adequate
amounts of these minerals (see supplementary le, Table S2). All
weeds other than redroot pigweed were removed throughout the
growing season with hand hoes.
Time-domain reectometry (TDR) probes with tube access
(TRIME-FM, England) were used to measure soil water content (v)
in the experimental plots (4 points in each plot) at a soil depth of
080 cm (at 20 cm intervals). Data on soil volumetric water content
were collected daily during the growing season. Prior to seed sowing and at the same time of TDR tube access probe installation, soil
water sampler tubes (Model 1900, Soil Moisture Equipment Co.)
were inserted into vertical holes (with a diameter of 56 cm and

M. Gholamhoseini et al. / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 179 (2013) 151162

depth of 80 cm) created with a hand auger in the middle of each

plot (1 point in each plot). To avoid possible contamination, the
ceramic cups of the soil water sampler tubes were washed before
insertion, and to facilitate good contact between the ceramic cup
and the soil, the gaps were lled with soft soil.

153

The mass of NO3 in leachate was determined as follows:

1
NO
3 mass (kg ha ) = NC DWP 0.01

(6)

where NC is the concentrations of nitrate in leachate (mg L1 ), DWP

is the amount of deep water percolation in each plot (mm) and 0.01
is the conversion factor from mg m2 to kg ha1 .

2.3. Soil water sampling and analysis

Determining solute-leaching losses required two sets of information, namely the drainage ux quantity and the solute
concentration of the drainage solution. A portable vacuum pump
(Model 2005 G2, Soil Moisture Equipment Co.) was used to apply
30 kPa of tension to collect water samples every 46 days or
when drainage was expected to have occurred, such as after rain
or irrigation (when soil water content was likely to exceed eld
capacity). Water samples were taken from the soil water sampler
tubes using a thin collection vessel, a vacuum Erlenmeyer ask and
a vacuum hand pump. The samples were acidied with sulfuric
acid (1 ml per liter) and stored in a refrigerator. Water samples
were analyzed via spectrophotometry (Model dr/2500, Hach Co.)
for NO3 concentrations using the cadmium method. For daily measurements of deep percolation, the water balance equation (Errebhi
et al., 1998) was used (Eq. (1)) as follows:
Daily deep percolation = P + I SW ETC R

(1)

where P is precipitation (mm), I is applied irrigation water (mm),

SW is the daily change in soil water content (mm) at the depth of
root development (as measured by TDR), ETC is crop evapotranspiration (mm) and R is runoff (mm). There was no runoff because
the irrigation cycles in each plot were closed. Percolation occurs
whenever the sum (P + I) is higher than (SW + ETC ) (Vazquez et al.,
2005). Water input from irrigation and rainfall were measured at
the experiment site. Crop evapotranspiration was calculated daily
using Eqs. (2) and (3) as follows:
ETC (in monoculture plots) = ET0 KC

(2)

ETC (in mixture plots) = ET0 2KC

(3)

where ET0 refers to evapotranspiration as calculated by the FAOPenman-Monteith method (Allen et al., 1998), which depends on
daily weather conditions at the site, and KC is the crop coefcient. Values of KC calculated by the FAO method (Doorenbos and
Pruitt, 1977; Doorenbos and Kassam, 1979) were used for each corn
growth stage. The initial water storage was equal to the soil water
holding capacity to 80 cm deep (before sowing, when the soil was
fully saturated), and subsequent changes in water storage (SW)
were determined on a daily basis. In the low irrigation regime (L),
the ETC was adjusted and calculated by Equation 4 (Chow et al.,
1988; Allen et al., 1998) as follows:
ETC-adj = KS KC ET0

(4)

where KC and ET0 are the same as in Eq. (2) and (3), and KS is a
correction coefcient (with no dimension) for calculating ETC under
water decient conditions. KS was calculated by Eq. (5) as follows:
KS =

TAW Dr
,
TAW RAW

2.4. Forage measurements

To determine the forage yields, 12 m2 of each plot was hand
harvested at the corn kernel 50% milk stage (Roth and Lauer, 2008).
When corn was at 50% kernel milk, redroot pigweed was often in
the seed lling stage (green-brown seeds). In mixture plots, the
forage yield of corn and redroot pigweed was separately measured
and then the sum of the corn and redroot pigweed yield was used
to nd the total forage yield in mixed plots. In mixture plots and in
different irrigation and N fertilization treatments, the percentage
of participation by each plant (corn or pigweed) in the total forage yield was determined. Sub-samples (2 kg plant biomass) were
taken from each plot and then the samples were oven-dried at
72 C for 48 h until the weight was constant. Dry samples (whole
plant) were ground to 2 mm using an electrical mill and stored at
room temperature for further nutritional value analysis. It should
be stated that sub-samples for forage quality analysis of mixture
plots were taken on the basis of each plants participation percentage from the total forage yield (for example, if the total forage
yield in the A mixture plot was 200 units and the corn and redroot
pigweed portion of the total yield were 60 and 40%, respectively,
the sub-sample for quality analysis was 60% corn biomass and 40%
redroot pigweed biomass). The total forage N concentration was
determined through a titration method using a Kjeltec instrument
(Auto 1030 Analyzer, Tecator). The crude protein (CP) levels were
calculated by multiplying the percentage of N by 6.25 as suggested
by AOAC (1990). In addition, the ash and organic matter were
determined by using an AOAC (1990) method. Neutral detergent
ber (NDF), acid detergent ber (ADF) and lignin were estimated
in accordance with Van Soest et al. (1991). Additionally, the total
digestible nutrients (TDN), concentration of forage NO3 (Singh,
1988) and oxalic acid (Savage et al., 2000) were also determined.
2.5. N use efciency, irrigation water productivity and economic
evaluation
The nitrogen use efciency (NUE) was calculated for each treatment according to the ratio of forage yield to applied N fertilizer
(Lopez-Bellido et al., 2005). Furthermore, the irrigation water productivity (IWP) was estimated by taking the forage yield (kg ha1 )
divided by the total seasonal applied irrigation water (mm ha1 ).
The economic value of the forage was calculated on the basis of
the TDN% and CP%, which are signicant factors in determining
nutritional value (Rostamza et al., 2011). Forage yield revenue is
calculated by multiplying the price of forage based on the CP, TDN
% and dry matter yield production for each treatment. The price for
each treatment was estimated as follows (Rostamza et al., 2011):
P=

KS = 1 if Dr < RAW

(5)

where TAW is the total available water in the root zone (in mm, difference between the water content at FC and PWP), Dr is the amount
of water depletion from the root zone (in mm, monitored on a
daily basis by TDR) and RAW is readily available water in the root
zone (in mm, and calculated by multiplying TAW by MAD (management allowed depletion), which was dened as an 80% depletion
of available soil water in the low irrigation regime).

 (0.55 TDN%) + (0.45 CP%) 

35.9

120

(7)

where P is the price (in US$), TDN% and CP% are the percentage
of total digestible nutrients and crude protein for each treatment,
respectively, 0.55, 0.45 and 35.9 are equation constants and 120 is
the lowest local price for 1000 kg of forage. The total costs were calculated by adding the water use water price and N use N price.
The price of 50 kg of urea fertilizer and 1000 m3 of water were considered to be 8 US$ and 12.5 US$, respectively (Mokhtassi-Bidgoli
et al., 2012). It should be stated that other costs were the same for

154

M. Gholamhoseini et al. / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 179 (2013) 151162

Fig. 1. Trends of forage yield in different treatments in response to applied N. In the lower section of the gures, the N treatment in each row (0450 kg N ha1 ) followed by
the same letter are not signicantly different (p 0.05). Abbreviations: C-L ir, corn monoculture under low irrigation regime; C-F ir, corn monoculture under full irrigation
regime; CP-L ir, cornpigweed mixture under low irrigation regime; CP-F ir, cornpigweed mixture under full irrigation regime. F.Y: Forage yield.

all treatments. The prot was calculated by subtracting the costs

from the revenue.
2.6. Data statistical analysis
All data were subjected to an analysis of variance (ANOVA) with
SAS software (SAS Institute, 2002). Nitrate concentration data were
log-transformed before analysis to achieve normal distribution or
homogeneity of variance. Because Bartletts test did not show variance homogeneity among the traits, the data were subjected to an
analysis of variance year by year. When an F-test indicated statistical signicance at p < 0.01 or p < 0.05, the protected least signicant
difference (LSD) was used to separate the means of the main effect,
and the signicant interaction effects were separated by the regression and slicing methods.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Forage yield
In both years, the forage yield of cornpigweed mixture reacted
more to enhanced N application than corn monoculture (Fig. 1).
When averaged over both years, the N application enhancement
(0450 kg N ha1 ) resulted in an increase of 74 and 42% in corn
forage yield under full and low irrigation regimes, respectively.
In contrast, the forage yield increased by 121 and 69% in the
cornpigweed mixture treatment when the N application was
enhanced (0450 kg N ha1 ) in full and low irrigation regimes,
respectively (Fig. 1).
When averaged over the years and irrigation regimes, the differences between the cornpigweed mixture and corn monoculture
forage yields were 206 and 3241 kg ha1 at N0 and N450 , respectively (Fig. 1). It seems that the cornpigweed mixture yield is
superior to corn monoculture, especially at high N applications (300
and 450 kg N ha1 ), which is directly related to the presence of pigweed. It has been reported that some weed species such as redroot
pigweed are considered to be luxury consumers of N (Blackshaw
and Brandt, 2008), and this might contribute to their ability to take
up greater amounts of N when high amounts of N fertilizer were
applied. In this experiment, the enhancement of N at each level

(0450 kg N ha1 ) signicantly increased pigweed dry matter yield

in both irrigation regimes. In contrast, higher amounts of N above
300 kg N ha1 did not signicantly increase the corn dry matter
yield (Fig. 1). Therefore, it is expected that a signicant increase
in the cornpigweed mixture forage yield will appear in relation
to corn monoculture, especially at high levels of N application (300
and 450 kg N ha1 ), which is due to the intense response of pigweed
dry matter yields to N application.
In corn monoculture, a decrease in water (from full irrigation
to low irrigation) and N (from 450 to 150 kg N ha1 ) availability
decreased the forage yield by 3331 and 2586 kg ha1 , respectively. In the cornpigweed mixture, a reduction in the water and
N availability decreased forage yields by 4138 and 4581 kg ha1 ,
respectively (Fig. 1). It seems that the higher soil root density in
the cornpigweed mixture is effective in reducing the sensitivity of the cornpigweed mixture to water deciency. Studies on
corn root distribution showed that root growth occurred in a series
of stages associated with the corn developmental stage (Massinga
et al., 2003). In contrast, the redroot pigweed was observed to have
deep and rapid root expansion (Aldrich and Kremer, 1997), a characteristic that enabled it to successfully extract water. Therefore,
the root system of redroot pigweed allowed it to extract water from
deeper in the soil prole, leaving more water available near the soil
surface for use by corn in the cornpigweed mixture.
Additionally, results showed that an application of 450 kg N ha1
to the cornpigweed mixture in the low irrigation regime resulted
in similar forage yield production with corn monoculture, which
received full irrigation accompanied by 300 kg N ha1 (Fig. 1). These
results demonstrate that if optimum amounts of N are available,
the cornpigweed mixture will have the capacity to produce high
forage yields, even at low water conditions.
According to Figure S2 (see supplementary le, Figure S2) for
both years and irrigation regimes, the corn portion from the total
yield of the cornpigweed mixture was decreased with enhanced
N application, while the pigweed portion increased. However,
more than 50% of the forage yield in the cornpigweed mixture
was attributed to corn at all irrigation regimes and N application treatments during both years, but the proportion of pigweed
in the mixture tended to increase as the N availability increased.
In addition, a water shortage increased the pigweed participation

M. Gholamhoseini et al. / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 179 (2013) 151162

155

Table 1
Mean comparisons of irrigation regimes, forage types and N rates main effects on forage yield and quality.
Treatments

Traits

Irrigation regimes
Low Irrigation (L)
Full Irrigation (F)
F-test
Forage type
Corn
Corn + Pigweed mixture
F-test
1

Nitrogen rates (kg ha

N0
N150
N300
N450
F-test
I W N (F-test)
CV (%)
Year average

Forage yield (kg ha1 )

Crude protein (g kg1 )

2010

2011

2010

2011

2010

2010

2010

2011

2010

2011

8710 a
12,270 a
ns

10,060 b
13,890 a

80.6 a
73.1 b

97.0 a
78.5 b

451 a
463 a
ns

467 a
470 a
ns

297 a
311 a
ns

323 a
327 a
ns

35.5 b
40.6 a

30.1 b
38.0 a

**

9840 b
11,140 a

10,900 b
13,050 a

447 b
467 a

450 b
486 a

279 b
330 a

309 b
341 a

31.6 b
44.5 a

25.9 a
42.2 a

**

**

**

**

**

460 a
455 a
456 a
459 a
ns

474 a
465 a
471 a
460 a
ns

309 a
315 a
310 a
283 a
ns

323 a
330 a
320 a
328 a
ns

36.2 b
35.2 b
40.0 a
40.8 a

33.7 a
31.9 a
33.8 a
36.9 a
ns

ns
13
457 a

ns
4
468 a

ns
7
304 a

ns
10
325 a

ns
9
38.0 a

**

**

**

72.9 b
80.9 a

**

76.3 b
99.2 a

**

NDF (g kg1 )

ADF (g kg1 )

Lignin (g kg1 )

)
7340 d
9880 c
11,480 b
13,260 a

8480 d
11,190 c
13,250 b
14,980 a

41.7 c
75.0 b
94.0 a
96.8 a

58.6 c
87.5 b
103.2 a
101.6 a

**

**

**

**

15
10,490 b

14
11,970 a

9
76.9 b

7
87.7 a

**

ns
12
34.1 b

NDF, neutral detergent ber; ADF, acid detergent ber. Means within each column of each section followed by the same letter are not signicantly different (p 0.05).
*
Statistically signicant effect in 0.05 of probability levels
**
Statistically signicant effect in 0.01 of probability levels.

percentage in forage mixture yields during 2010, but there was no

such trend in 2011 (see supplementary le, Figure S2).
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in
the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2013.08.016.
3.2. Forage quality
3.2.1. Crude protein content
Crude protein is one of the most important types of nutritious
compounds in livestock feed, and its deciency in forage can reduce
livestock production yields (Peyraud and Astiggaraga, 1998). In
both forage types (corn and cornpigweed mixture), N availability
enhancement and water availability reduction increased the forage
protein content (Table 1). The increased forage protein concentration under water shortage conditions did not necessarily result
from a stimulation of protein synthesis (Wang and Frei, 2011), but
rather from a concentration effect due to reduced biomass production under a low irrigation regime. Other investigators also reported
that N application enhancement increased corn forage protein content (Islam et al., 2012; Cox and Charney, 2005). However, the N
application enhancement increased the forage protein contents of
corn and the cornpigweed mixture, but a greater response was
observed in the cornpigweed mixture than the corn monoculture
(Fig. 2). The greater increase of forage protein in the cornpigweed
mixture relative to the corn monoculture is linked to pigweeds
ability to absorb and retain high amounts of N in its biomass, especially when N availability is optimal (300450 kg N ha1 ). The high
N uptake of pigweed may be a consequence of its greater transpiration because soil N is transported primarily by the mass ow of
soil solution (Sleugh et al., 2001). Greater transpiration could result
if pigweed had a smaller root diameter, greater leaf area index, or
more open stomata during daylight hours.
It has been reported that the minimum optimum forage protein content for livestock rations is 90 g kg1 (NRC, 2001). By this
standard, the protein content did not reach its optimum level in
corn monoculture, even when 450 kg N ha1 was applied under
a full irrigation regime (Fig. 2). Other researchers have shown
that a low concentration of crude protein in corn forage is the
most important weakness (Simsek et al., 2011; Armstrong et al.,
2008). Although an N application of more than 300 kg N ha1 under

low irrigation regime increased the corn forage protein content

to 90 g kg1 , the corn forage yield was low under this treatment.
In contrast, when more than 150 kg N ha1 was applied to the
cornpigweed mixture in both irrigation regimes, more forage protein was obtained (90 g kg1 ). In fact, the cornpigweed mixture
supplied the standard amount of forage protein for most irrigation
regimes and fertilizer treatments because pigweed has an optimal
ability to take up and use N. A simultaneous evaluation of yield
as a quantitative trait and protein content as a qualitative trait
of forage showed that the minimum required amount of forage
protein (90 g kg1 ) was obtained in corn monoculture, but only in
treatments with forage yields lower than 10 t ha1 , whereas in the
cornpigweed mixture, all the treatments with 90 g of protein kg1
produced yields higher than 11 t ha1 . The improved protein content of the cornpigweed mixture could reduce the amount of
supplements fed from off-farm sources by livestock producers. In
addition, the increased yield of cornpigweed mixture per unit
area could supply higher quality forage for livestock and reduce
the amount of land needed to produce the required forage.
3.2.2. Neutral detergent ber (NDF), acid detergent ber (ADF)
and lignin
During both experimental years, NDF and ADF amounts of
corn forage were signicantly lower than the cornpigweed mixture (Table 1). When averaged over both years, the NDF and
ADF amounts were 448 and 294 g kg1 in corn, whereas in the
cornpigweed mixture, the NDF and ADF increased by 7 and
14% and reached 476 and 336 g kg1 , respectively (Table 1). The
most important reason for NDF and ADF enhancement in the
cornpigweed mixture is that the NDF and ADF content of pigweed
is higher than in corn. Furthermore, an enhanced plant density (due
to the simultaneous presence of corn and pigweed) also has a direct
effect on forage NDF and ADF increases in the cornpigweed mixture. Plant density affects the amounts of forage NDF and ADF by
altering the plant dry matter allocation to different plant organs.
In dense canopies such as a cornpigweed mixture, the plants
elongate their stems to intercept more light. Forage crop stems
reportedly have a higher concentration of cell walls (NDF and ADF)
than leaves (Buxton, 1996). Therefore, the NDF and ADF amounts
increase because of enhanced shoot to leaf ratios in the denser

156

M. Gholamhoseini et al. / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 179 (2013) 151162

Fig. 2. Trends of crude protein in different treatments in response to applied N. In the lower section of the gures, the N treatment in each row (0450 kg N ha1 ) followed by
the same letter are not signicantly different (p 0.05). Abbreviations: C-L ir, corn monoculture under low irrigation regime; C-F ir, corn monoculture under full irrigation
regime; CP-L ir, cornpigweed mixture under low irrigation regime; CP-F ir, cornpigweed mixture under full irrigation regime; C.P.: crude protein.

canopy of the cornpigweed mixture when compared with corn

monoculture. However, the NDF and ADF amounts were higher in
the cornpigweed mixture than in corn monoculture, but a reduction in forage quality from NDF and ADF increases did not occur in
the cornpigweed mixture. An optimal amount of forage cell wall
content ranged between 410 and 540 g kg1 for NDF and 240 and
350 g kg1 for ADF (NRC, 2001). By this standard, the NDF and ADF
quantities of the cornpigweed mixture forage were optimal (467
and 486 g kg1 for NDF in 2010 and 2011, respectively and 330 and
341 g kg1 for ADF in 2010 and 2011, respectively).
Lignin is one important brous-structural compound in plants
that is accumulated in the cell wall during plant aging, and it is
responsible for the lignication of herbaceous tissues. Lignin is an
indigestible material for ruminant herbivores and it inhibits the
degradation of other cell wall fractions, such as cellulose, by rumen
microbes (Van Soest, 2006). The results of this study showed that
a decrease in water availability under the low irrigation regime
reduced the lignin content of both forage types (Table 1). Water
shortage decreased corn forage lignin content by 20 and 32%
in 2010 and 2011, respectively. In contrast, the lignin content
of the cornpigweed mixture was less affected by water deciency and low irrigation, which reduced the lignin content of the
cornpigweed mixture by 6 and 13% in 2010 and 2011, respectively.
The main reason for the reduction in drought-induced forage lignin
content is the high sensitivity of lignin-producing enzymes, such
as phenylalanine ammonia lyase, to water deciency. Vincent et al.
(2005) used a proteomic method to demonstrate that the level of
lignin biosynthesis enzymes was reduced in maize plants exposed
to water shortage conditions.
When averaged over irrigation and N treatments, the lignin
in the cornpigweed mixture was 41 and 63% higher than in
the corn monoculture in 2010 and 2011, respectively (Table 1).
However, the enhancement of forage lignin concentration brought
about a forage quality reduction, but it was in accordance with
the standards of the U.S. National Research Council (NRC, 2001),
and the forage lignin content of the cornpigweed mixture even at
its maximum (50.3 g kg1 in a 450 kg N ha1 treatment under full
irrigation in 2011) is categorized as high quality forage. The average amount of cornpigweed mixture lignin (44.5 and 42.2 g kg1
in 2010 and 2011, respectively) was considerably lower than the

forage lignin content of alfalfa (90 g kg1 ) (NRC, 1978) and winter
forage grasses such as oats (64 g kg1 ) (NRC, 2001). This result can
be considered as an advantage of the cornpigweed mixture forage
quality.

3.3. Antinutritional factors

Two important antinutritional factors in pigweed are nitrate
and oxalic acid (Sleugh et al., 2001). Hence, investigating the concentration of these two substances in cornpigweed forage under
different irrigation regimes and N treatments is of critical importance.
Nitrate toxicity occurs in forages when the rate of nitrate conversion to nitrite is higher than the conversion of nitrate to ammonia
(Sleugh et al., 2001). Once absorbed into the blood, nitrate will bind
to hemoglobin, forming methemoglobin. Because methemoglobin
is less efcient in oxygen transport, animals can literally suffocate
(Vough et al., 1991). The results showed that although an increase
in N application and decrease in water availability increased the
nitrate concentration of both forage types, the response of the
cornpigweed mixture, especially in 2011, was more severe than
in corn (Table 2). Applied N enhancement (0450 kg ha1 ) caused
2.15 and 2-fold increases in forage nitrate concentration in corn
monoculture under a low irrigation regime in 2010 and 2011,
respectively (Fig. 3). In the cornpigweed mixture, N enhancement
resulted in 2.25 and 4.45-fold increases in forage nitrate concentration under low water conditions in 2010 and 2011, respectively
(Fig. 3). After applying N fertilizers, the plant N uptake increased.
The assimilation of absorbed N within plant protein structures is
an energy-consuming process and its necessary energy is provided
by plant photosynthesis. Therefore, under low water conditions in
which photosynthesis capability declines (Andrade et al., 2002),
a portion of absorbed N accumulates in plant vacuoles in the
form of nitrate, and the forage nitrate concentration consequently
increases. This effect is more severe in pigweed, which is a luxury N
consumer. It seems that two factors have an effect on the enhanced
nitrate concentration in the cornpigweed mixture relative to the
corn monoculture when different water and N treatments are
applied as follows: (1) the pigweed presence, results showed that

M. Gholamhoseini et al. / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 179 (2013) 151162

157

Table 2
Mean comparisons of irrigation regimes, forage types and N rates main effects on forage quality, efciency and leaching traits.
Treatments

Traits

Irrigation regimes
Low Irrigation (L)
Full Irrigation (F)
F-test

Forage Oxalic acid

Concentration (g kg1 )

NUE# (kg kg1 )

IWP (kg m3 )

NO3 leaching loss

(kg ha1 )

2010

2011

2010

2011

2010

2010

2010

2010

2011

5.62 a
4.79 a
ns

19.3 a
14.7 b

18.4 a
14.8 b

37 a
52 a
ns

42 b
59 a

1.6 a
1.3 a
ns

2.0 a
1.6 b

51 5 b
93 9.2 a

27 2.4 b
54 4.6 a

4.33 b
7.61 a

3.40 b
7.01 a

5.9 b
28.0 a

42 b
47 a

46 b
55 a

1.3 b
1.5 a

1.6 b
2.0 a

**

**

**

**

**

4.07 d
5.18 c
6.67 b
7.95 a

2.60 d
4.38 c
6.21 b
7.63 a

66 a
38 b
29 c

75 a
44 b
33 c

1.0 d
1.4 c
1.6 b
1.8 a

1.3 d
1.7 c
2.0 b
2.2 a

**

**

**

**

**

ns
14
51 a

**

25
72 a

24
40 b

7.12 a
4.82 b
**

Forage type
Corn
Corn + Pigweed mixture
F-test
1

Nitrogen rates (kg ha

N0
N150
N300
N450
F-test
I W N (F-test)
CV (%)
Year average

Forage Nitrate
Concentration (g kg1 )

**

**

**

5.4 b
27.8 a
**

2011

**

91 7.3 a
53 4.7 b
**

**

51 4.7 a
30 2.7 b
**

)
15.6 b
16.3 ab
17.1 ab
19.0 a

14.6 b
17.2 ab
17.0 ab
17.7 a

**

**

13
5.90 a

15
5.20 a

9
17.0 a

4
16.6 a

ns
16
45 b

12
1.4 b

14
1.8 a

16 0.9 d
39 2.2 c
80 3.6 b
152 6.3 a

7 0.3 d
17 1.2 c
52 2.7 b
85 3.9 a
**

NUE, nitrogen use efciency; IWP, irrigation water productivity. Means within each column of each section followed by the same letter are not signicantly different (p 0.05).
*
Statistically signicant effect in 0.05 of probability levels
**
Statistically signicant effect in 0.01 of probability levels.

pigweed had higher biomass nitrate concentrations than in corn at

all levels of applied N, and (2) decreased light availability, which
resulted from higher plant density in cornpigweed mixture than
in corn monoculture.
It has been reported that the formation, stability and activity of nitrate reductive enzymes (nitrate reductase) are directly
dependent on the amount of light received by leaves (Marschner,
1995; Aslam and Huffaker, 1984). Therefore, when low level of light
intensity and amount penetrates into the lower layers of a denser
canopy of cornpigweed mixture (relative to the corn monoculture
canopy), the nitrate reduction ability of plant leaves (a consequence
of reduced nitrate reductase enzyme activity) declines, and a high
amount of nitrate is accumulated in cornpigweed forage.
Although enhanced N (0450 kg N ha1 ) increased forage nitrate
concentrations in both forage types, especially under a low

irrigation regime, this nitrate increase did not result in a severe

reduction in forage quality. While the actual nitrate concentrations
that cause toxicity are not clearly dened, Adams et al. (1992),
Vough et al. (1991) and Sleugh et al. (2001) noted that a forage
nitrate concentration of more than 17.60 g kg1 presents a potential
livestock health concern. In this experiment, the maximum nitrate
concentration in corn forage was 6.35 and 4.47 g kg1 in 2010 and
2011, respectively. In the cornpigweed mixture, the maximum
nitrate concentrations were 12.62 and 12.48 g kg1 in 2010 and
2011, respectively (Fig. 3). When averaged over years and treatments, the corn monoculture and cornpigweed mixture forage
had 78 and 48% reductions in nitrate content, respectively, when
compared with the forage nitrate standard value (17.60 g kg1 ).
Thus, the nitrate level is not critical for toxicity in both forage
types.

Fig. 3. Trends of forage nitrate concentration in different treatments in response to applied N. In the lower section of the gures, the N treatment in each row (0450 kg N ha1 )
followed by the same letter are not signicantly different (p 0.05). Abbreviations: C-L ir, corn monoculture under low irrigation regime; C-F ir, corn monoculture under full
irrigation regime; CP-L ir, cornpigweed mixture under low irrigation regime; CP-F ir, cornpigweed mixture under full irrigation regime; N.C., nitrate concentration.

158

M. Gholamhoseini et al. / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 179 (2013) 151162

Fig. 4. Trends of oxalic acid concentration in different treatments in response to applied N. In the lower section of the gures, the N treatment in each row (0450 kg N ha1 )
followed by the same letter are not signicantly different (p 0.05). Abbreviations: C-L ir, corn monoculture under low irrigation regime; C-F ir, corn monoculture under full
irrigation regime; CP-L ir, cornpigweed mixture under low irrigation regime; CP-F ir, cornpigweed mixture under full irrigation regime; O.A., oxalic acid.

The study of oxalic acid concentrations as an antinutritional

factor in different species of pigweed forage is of critical importance. Oxalic acid exists in minute amounts in many plants, but
its high quantity (>40 g kg1 ) in forage could negatively affect the
availability of high value nutrients to livestock (Teutonica and
Knorr, 1985). Oxalic acid is bound with calcium in livestock rations
and forms a non-absorbable complex in the digestion system of
livestock (Judparsong et al., 2006). The results showed that the
oxalic acid concentration was very low in corn forage (Fig. 4).
In contrast, the concentration of oxalic acid in cornpigweed
forage was signicantly higher than in the corn monoculture
during both experimental years (Table 2). Additionally, different irrigation and N treatments did not signicantly affect the
oxalic acid concentration in corn forage, whereas enhanced N
application and decreased water availability led to a signicant
increase in the oxalic acid concentration of cornpigweed mixture forage (Fig. 4). Oxalic acid concentration increases in different
species of pigweed under low water conditions were reported
by Bressani (1993). In addition, other investigators showed that
oxalic acid distribution inside pigweed plants is not homogeneous,
and its highest and lowest amounts were observed in the leaves
and stems, respectively (Savage et al., 2000). The results of this
study showed that enhanced N application to the cornpigweed
mixture resulted in increased leaf area and leaf number in pigweed (data not shown). The high density of pigweed leaves in
response to N application is likely accompanied by an increase
in the oxalic acid concentration of the cornpigweed mixture forage.
However, the concentration of oxalic acid in the cornpigweed
mixture was signicantly higher than in the corn monoculture,
but the oxalic acid concentration in the cornpigweed forage did
not have any severe antinutritional effects on livestock. It was
reported that when animals were provided with feed containing high amounts of oxalic acid (>70 g oxalic acid kg1 forage
dry weight), acute poisoning occurs (James and Panter, 1993;
Ayub Shah, 2000). In this experiment, the maximum concentration of oxalic acid in the cornpigweed forage was 34.2 and
33.8 g kg1 in 2010 and 2011, respectively (Fig. 4). This quantity
was 50% lower than the toxicity threshold (70 g kg1 ) for this substance.

3.4. Nitrogen use efciency (NUE), irrigation water productivity

(IWP) and nitrate leaching loss (NLL)
In both experimental years, the NUE was signicantly higher in
the cornpigweed mixture than in the corn monoculture (Table 2).
In the cornpigweed mixture, 47 and 55 kg of dry matter were
obtained for each kg of N applied during 2010 and 2011, respectively. In contrast, each kg of N produced 42 and 46 kg dry matter in
corn monoculture during 2010 and 2011, respectively. The results
also showed that N uptake was higher in the cornpigweed mixture
(175 kg ha1 ) than in corn monoculture (123 kg ha1 ). Associations
between plants with different root systems in the cornpigweed
forage could cause greater N extraction from different depths of
soil than would normally be observed in corn monoculture. Therefore, the superiority of the cornpigweed mixture in terms of N
uptake relative to corn resulted in a higher NUE.
Moreover, the results demonstrated that enhanced N application increased the IWP of both forage types (Table 2). When
averaged over the years, the N increase (0450 kg ha1 ) in corn
monoculture led to an enhanced IWP by 73 and 43% in full and low
irrigation regimes, respectively (Fig. 5). In the cornpigweed mixture, a greater IWP response to N was observed, so the enhanced
N application resulted in a 120 and 69% increase in the IWP
over full and low irrigation regimes, respectively (Fig. 5). According to Fig. 6, results showed that the difference between the
IWP of the cornpigweed mixture and the corn monoculture was
insignicant at low levels of applied N, and this difference became
signicant when the N was increased. The IWP superiority of the
cornpigweed mixture over corn monoculture, especially at high
applied N, could be presented as follows: (1) many reports have
shown that pigweed drought tolerance is higher than that of corn
because of its stronger root system (Putnam, 1990) and lower
transpiration coefcient (Johnson and Henderson, 2002). Hence,
pigweed is an effective drought tolerant plant that is directly
affected by the IWP enhancement in cornpigweed mixtures. (2)
A denser canopy of cornpigweed mixture relative to the corn
monoculture decreased soil water loss via reduced soil surface
evaporation, which consequently increased the IWP.
The nitrate leaching loss (NLL) was more than 80% higher in
2010 than in 2011 because the nitrate concentration and water

M. Gholamhoseini et al. / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 179 (2013) 151162

159

Fig. 5. Trends of irrigation water productivity in different treatments in response to applied N. In the lower section of the gures, the N treatment in each row (0450 kg N ha1 )
followed by the same letter are not signicantly different (p 0.05). Abbreviations: C-L ir, corn monoculture under low irrigation regime; C-F ir, corn monoculture under full
irrigation regime; CP-L ir, cornpigweed mixture under low irrigation regime; CP-F ir, cornpigweed mixture under full irrigation regime; I.W.P., irrigation water productivity.

percolation were higher in 2010 than in 2011. This difference may

be attributed to higher irrigation in 2010, which was necessary
due to the higher temperature relative to 2011 (see supplementary le, Table S1). When averaged over forage types, the seasonal
average nitrate concentration at 80 cm depths was different for
irrigation regimes and N levels. The minimum nitrate concentration was observed for the LN0 (without N application at low
irrigation regime) treatment (8.63 and 4.87 mg l1 in 2010 and
2011, respectively) and the maximum occurred for the FN450 (application of 450 kg N ha1 at full irrigation regime) treatment (109.17
and 77.67 mg l1 in 2010 and 2011, respectively). Other studies

have reported that leachate nitrate concentrations range from 20

to 30 mg l1 at or below the corn root zone (Gheysari et al., 2009;
Cameira et al., 2003). Comparing with other studies (Cameira et al.,
2003; Mack et al., 2005), observed leachate nitrate concentration
in the present experiment was high (average over years and treatments, 41.57 mg l1 ). This is mainly due to sandy soil and irrigation
system (furrow irrigation method) of the experimental site. Moreover, the results showed that the highest NLL during the both
years was concurrent with the highest irrigation and N fertilizer
application (FN450 treatment, 186 and 112 kg ha1 in 2010 and
2011, respectively). These results indicate that as more water was

Fig. 6. Trends of nitrate leaching loss in different treatments in response to applied N. In the lower section of the gures, the N treatment in each row (0450 kg N ha1 )
followed by the same letter are not signicantly different (p 0.05). Abbreviations: C-L ir, Corn monoculture under low irrigation regime; C-F ir, Corn monoculture under
full irrigation regime; CP-L ir, cornpigweed mixture under low irrigation regime; CP-F ir, cornpigweed mixture under full irrigation regime; N.L.L., nitrate leaching loss.

160

M. Gholamhoseini et al. / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 179 (2013) 151162

Table 3
Mean comparisons of interaction effect between irrigation regimes forage types N rates sliced by N on economic traits.
Forage type

2010
Corn
Corn + pigweed mixture
2011
Corn
Corn + pigweed mixture

Irrigation regimes

Revenue (US$ ha1 )

N (kg ha1 )

Costs (US$ ha1 )

N (kg ha1 )

Prot (US$ ha1 )

N (kg ha1 )

150

300

450

150

300

450

Low irrigation (L)

Full irrigation (F)
Low irrigation (L)
Full irrigation (F)

832 b
1048 c
860 c
1038 d

1163 a
1369 b
1093 bc
1597 c

1211 a
1732 a
1317 b
1946 b

1378 a
2059 a
1677 a
2284 a

67
120
67
120

119
173
119
173

171
225
171
225

223
277
223
277

Low irrigation (L)

Full irrigation (F)
Low irrigation (L)
Full irrigation (F)

993 b
1212 c
1059 b
1110 d

1193 ab
1558 b
1337 b
1828 c

1390 a
1825 ab
1660 a
2327 b

1412 a
2045 a
1830 a
2732 a

64
107
64
107

116
160
116
160

168
212
168
212

220
264
220
264

150

300

450

765 b
928 c
793 c
918 c

1044 ab
1196 bc
974 bc
1424 b

1040 ab
1507 ab
1141 ab
1721 ab

1155 a
1782 a
1454 a
2007 a

929 a
1105 c
995 c
1003 d

1077 a
1398 bc
1221 bc
1668 c

1222 a
1613 ab
1492 ab
2115 b

1192 a
1781 a
1610 a
2468 a

Means within each row of each section (0450 kg N ha1 ) followed by the same letter are not signicantly different (p 0.05).

applied, it induced more drainage and eventually NLL increased. On

the other hand, the effect of irrigation on NLL was amplied by an
increase in the amount of N applied. Additionally, the results indicated that enhanced N (0450 kg ha1 ) increased the NLL by 158
and 107 kg ha1 in corn monoculture and 100 and 55 kg ha1 in
the cornpigweed mixture under full and low irrigation regimes,
respectively (Fig. 6). In the corn monoculture, from 150, 300 and
450 kg ha1 applied N; 35, 37 and 42% at full irrigation and 13, 18
and 25% at low irrigation regime, N was wasted as NLL. These values for the cornpigweed mixture were 19, 22 and 24% under full
irrigation and 8, 11 and 14% in the low irrigation regime. According
to Fig. 6, although the NLL alteration in response to N application
was ascending in both forage types, the severity of NLL was reduced
in the cornpigweed mixture. In the cornpigweed mixture, N
absorption by pigweed accounts for the NLL decline relative to the
corn monoculture treatment. Generally, these results suggested
that an increase in the plant density and/or use of mixed culture
methods could be adapted as an efcacious strategy for decreasing
the NLL in sandy soils. On the other hand, the results demonstrated
that the cornpigweed mixture did not have noticeable effects on
the NLL reduction when low levels of N (0150 kg ha1 ) and water
(low irrigation regime) were applied (Fig. 6). It seems that the major
NLL potentials such as soil nitrate concentration and deep water
percolation are low under low input conditions, so any secondary
factors (in this experiment they would include the simultaneous
presence of corn and pigweed) are not able to signicantly reduce
nitrate leaching.
3.5. Economic evaluation
Before explaining the results, it is necessary to note here that
prot means the gross margin because the xed costs have not
been excluded. However, the xed costs were the same for all
treatments. The results revealed that the maximum revenues from
corn monoculture (2059 and 2045 US$ ha1 in 2010 and 2011,
respectively) and cornpigweed mixture (2248 and 2735 US$ ha1
in the rst and second year, respectively) were obtained when
450 kg N ha1 and full irrigation were applied (Table 3). In corn
monoculture, N applications higher than 150 (under low irrigation
regime) and 300 kg ha1 (under full irrigation regime) did not signicantly increase revenue. In contrast, each greater level of applied
N signicantly increased the revenue in the cornpigweed mixture
under both irrigation regimes (Table 3).
When averaged over years and treatments, the enhanced N
(from 0 to 450 kg ha1 ) increased revenue and prot by 89 and
79%, respectively (Table 3). In corn monoculture and cornpigweed
forage, enhanced N application improved revenue by 702 and
1115 US$ ha1 , respectively. A comparison between the corn
monoculture and cornpigweed mixture showed the resulting

revenue from cornpigweed forage was 13 and 39% higher than

the corn monoculture during 2010 and 2011, respectively (Table 3).
These results revealed that the revenue difference between the
cornpigweed mixture and corn monoculture under low input
conditions (150 kg N ha1 under low irrigation regime) was 70
and 144 US$ ha1 in 2010 and 2011, respectively. This difference
reached 225 and 687 US$ ha1 at full input conditions (i.e., an application of 450 kg N ha1 at full irrigation regime) in the rst and
second years, respectively. On the other hand, the economic superiority of the cornpigweed mixture relative to the corn monoculture
was noticeable when high amounts of water and N were applied.
According to this nding, forage production costs in both forage
types were assumed to be equal (the costs of pigweed control such
as herbicide application to corn monoculture must be added to
the total costs of this treatment), so the results conrmed that the
cornpigweed mixture signicantly increased the revenue and net
prot of the farmer because of the high forage yield, use of effective input and production of forage containing higher amounts of
protein.
4. Conclusions
In general, in both forage types (corn and cornpigweed mixture), water and N availability enhancement increased the forage
yield and protein content. Additionally, the results showed that
although an increase in N application and decrease in water availability increased the nitrate concentration (as an antinutritional
factor) of both forage types, the response of the cornpigweed mixture was more severe than in corn. When compared with the forage
nitrate standard value (17.60 g kg1 ), the corn monoculture and
cornpigweed mixture forage had 78 and 48% reductions in nitrate
content, respectively. Thus, the nitrate level is not critical for toxicity in both forage types. The results indicate that the cornpigweed
mixture forage had a higher yield and quality than did corn alone. In
addition, the cornpigweed mixture used inputs (water and N) with
more efciency than that of corn. The superiority of cornpigweed
in terms of forage yield and quality resulted in an improvement
in farmer economic conditions (revenue and net prot) compared
with corn. Therefore, the results suggest that instead of removing the weeds from corn farms infested by redroot pigweed, which
is mainly done by applying large amounts of herbicides, farmers
can harvest cornpigweed as a mixed forage. This new strategy not
only increased forage yields but also enhanced input use efciency,
forage quality and net prot. Additionally, our results revealed
that the presence of pigweed in corn farm, can be benecial for
decreasing N leaching loss and improving the sustainability of
agricultural systems. Therefore, forage producers may be able to
improve the economic and environmental sustainability of their
operations by replacing corn monoculture with a cornpigweed

M. Gholamhoseini et al. / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 179 (2013) 151162

mixture. However, more research (such as evaluating increase or

decrease of diseases and pests load in the following crops, effect on
farm machinery and effect on the following crop weed density) is
necessary to more precisely determine how cornpigweed mixture
affects corn farms and following crops.Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge Dr. Yaghoub Fathollahi
Vice-Chancellor for Research Affairs of Tarbiat Modares University for his supports and assistance. Appreciation extended to
Hamed Zakikhani, Aydin Khodaie Joghan, Aria Dolatabadian and
Javad Rezaei for their technical assistance. We also thank Mr.
Jebreil, Sefolah, Mostafa and Davoud for their help in conducting
eld experiments. The two anonymous reviewers are also gratefully acknowledged for their comments, which helped the authors
improve the manuscript.

References
Adams, R.S., McCarty, T., Hutchinson, L.J., 1992. Prevention and Control of Nitrate
Toxicity in Cattle. Penn. State Dairy Animal Science Publishing, pp. 92107, Penn.
State University. Coop. Ext. Serv. University Park, PA.
Aguyoh, J.N., Masiunas, J.B., 2003. Interference of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus
retroexus) with snap beans. Weed Science 51, 202207.
Aldrich, R.J., Kremer, R.J., 1997. Principles in Weed Management, 2nd ed. Iowa State
University Press, Ames, IA, pp. 171181.
Al-Kaisi, M.M., Yin, X., 2003. Effects of nitrogen rates, irrigation rate, and plant population on corn yield and water use efciency. Agronomy Journal 95, 14751482.
Allen, R.G., Raes, L.S., Smith, D.M., 1998. Crop Evapotranspiration: Guidelines for
Computing Crop Water Requirements. Irrigation and Drainage Paper 56. Food
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, pp. p300.
Andrade, F.H., Echarte, L., Rizzalli, R., Della Maggiora, A., Casanovas, M., 2002. Kernel
number prediction in maize under nitrogen or water stress. Crop Science 42,
11731179.
AOAC, 1990. Ofcial Methods of Analysis, 15th ed. Association of Ofcial and Analytical Chemists, Washington, DC, USA.
Armstrong, K.L., Albrecht, K.A., 2008. Effect of plant density on forage yield and
quality of intercropped corn and lablab bean. Crop Science 48, 814822.
Armstrong, K.L., Albrecht, K.A., Lauer, J.G., Riday, H., 2008. Intercropping corn with
lablab bean, velvet bean, and scarlet runner bean for forage. Crop Science 48,
371379.
Aslam, M., Huffaker, R.C., 1984. Dependency of nitrate reduction on soluble carbohydrates in primary leaves of barely under aerobic conditions. Plant Physiology
75, 623628.
Ayub Shah, M.A., 2000. Plants containing oxalate. In: Garg, S.K. (Ed.), Veterinary
Toxicology. CBS Publishing, New Delhi.
Bensch, C.N., Horak, M.J., Peterson, D., 2003. Interference of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroexus), palmer amaranth (A. palmeri), and common waterhemp (A.
rudis) in soybean. Weed Science 51, 3743.
Blackshaw, R.E., Brandt, R.N., 2008. Nitrogen fertilizer rate effects on weed competitiveness are species dependent. Weed Science 56, 743747.
Bressani, R., 1993. Amaranth: In Encyclopedia of Food Science. Food Technology and
Nutrition. Academic Press, London, pp. 135140.
Buxton, D.R., 1996. Quality-related characteristic of forages as inuenced by plant
environment and agronomic factors. Animal Feed Science and Technology 59,
3749.
Cameira, M.R., Fernando, R.M., Pereira, L.S., 2003. Monitoring water and NO3 -N
in irrigated maize elds in the Sorraia watershed, Portugal. Agriculture Water
Management 60, 199216.
Chow, V.T., Maidment, D.R., Mays, L.W., 1988. Applied Hydrology. McGraw-Hill, New
York.
Cox, W.J., Charney, D.J.R., 2005. Row spacing, plant density, and nitrogen effect on
corn silage. Agronomy Journal 93, 597602.
Doorenbos, J., Kassam, A.H., 1979. Yield Response to Water, FAO Irrigation and
Drainage Paper 33. FAO, Rome.
Doorenbos, J., Pruitt, W.O., 1977. Guidelines for Predicting Crop Water Requirements, FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper 24. FAO, Rome.
Errebhi, M., Rosen, C.J., Gupta, S.G., Birong, D.E., 1998. Potato yield response and
nitrate leaching as inuenced by nitrogen management. Agronomy Journal 20,
1015.
Farre, I., Faci, J.M., 2009. Decit irrigation in maize for reducing agriculture water use
in a Mediterranean environment. Agricultural Water Management 96, 383394.
Ferri, C.M., Stritzler, N.P., Pagella, J.H., 2004. Nitrogen fertilization on rye pasture: effect on forage chemical compositions, voluntary intake, digestibility and
rumen degradation. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 190, 347354.
Gee, G.W., Bauder, J.W., 1986. Particle size analysis. In: Klute, A. (Ed.), Methods of
Soil Analysis. Part 1. , 2nd ed. Am. Soc. Agron., Madison, WI, p. 411.
Gheysari, M., Mirlati, S.M., Homaee, M., Asadi, M.E., Hoogenboom, G., 2009. Nitrate
leaching in a silage maize eld under different irrigation and nitrogen fertilizer
rates. Agricultural Water Management 96, 946954.
Heap, I., 2006. The international survey of herbicide-resistant weeds.
http://www.weedscience.com (accessed 20.06.13).

161

Islam, M.R., Garcia, S.C., Horadagoda, A., 2012. Effect of irrigation and rates
and timing of nitrogen fertilizer on dry matter yield, proportions of plant
fractions of maize and nutritive value and in vitro gas production characteristic of whole crop maize silage. Animal Feed Science and Technology 172,
125135.
James, L.E., Panter, K.E., 1993. Oxalate accumulators. In: Howard, J.L. (Ed.), Current
Veterinary Therapy, Food Animal Practice. Saunders Company, Philadelphia.
Johnson, B.L., Henderson, T.L., 2002. Water use patterns of grain amaranth in the
Northern Great Plains. Agronomy Journal 94, 14371443.
Judparsong, K., Charoenkiatkul, S., Sungpuag, P., Vasanachitt, K., Nakjamanong, Y.,
2006. Total and soluble oxalate contents in Thai vegetables, cereal grains and
legume seeds and their changes after cooking. Journal of Food Composition and
Analysis 19, 340347.
Knezevic, S.Z., Weise, S.F., Swanton, C.J., 1994. Interference of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroexus) in corn (Zea mays L.). Weed Science 42,
568573.
Lawrence, J.R., Ketterings, Q.M., Cherney, J.H., 2008. Effect of nitrogen application
on yield and quality of silage corn after forage legume-grass. Agronomy Journal
100, 7379.
Lopez-Bellido, L., Lopez-Belido, R.J., Redondo, R., 2005. Nitrogen efciency in wheat
under rainfed Mediterranean condition as affected by spilt nitrogen application.
Field Crops Research 94, 8697.
Mack, U.D., Feger, K.H., Gong, Y., Stahr, K., 2005. Soil water balance and nitrate leaching in winter wheat-summer maize double-cropping systems with different
irrigation and N fertilization in the North China Plain. Journal of Plant Nutrition
and Soil Science 168, 454460.
Marschner, H., 1995. Mineral Nutrition of Higher Plants, 2nd ed. Academic Press Ltd.,
London, pp. 888.
Massinga, R.A., Currie, R.S., Trooien, T.P., 2003. Water use and light interception
under Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and corn competition. Weed Science 51, 523531.
Mohammadi, G.R., 2007. Growth parameters enhancing the competitive ability of
corn (Zea mays L.) against weeds. Weed Biology and Management 7 (4), 232236.
Mokhtassi-Bidgoli, A., AghaAlikhani, M., Nassiri-Mahallati, M., Zand, E., GonzalezAndujar, J.L., Azari, A., 2012. Agronomic performance, seed quality and nitrogen
uptake of Descurainia sophia in response to different nitrogen rates and water
regimes. Industrial Crops and Products 44, 583592.
NRC, 1978. Nutrient Requirement of Dairy Cattle, 7th ed. National Research Council.
National Academic Press, Washington, DC, USA.
NRC, 2001. Nutrient Requirement of Dairy Cattle, 7th ed. National Research Council.
National Academic Press, Washington, DC, USA.
Payero, J.O., Melvin, S.R., Irmak, I., Tarkalson, D., 2006. Yield response of corn to decit
irrigation in a semiarid climate. Agricultural Water Management 84, 101112.
Peyraud, J.L., Astiggaraga, L., 1998. Review of the effect of nitrogen fertilization on the
chemical composition, intake, digestion and nutritive of fresh herbage: consequences on animal nutrition and N balance. Animal Feed Science and Technology
72, 235259.
Putnam, D.H., 1990. Agronomic practices for grain amaranth. In: Proc. Natl.
Amaranth Symp., 4th, Minneapolis, MN. 2325 August, 1990. University of Minnesota, pp. 151162.
Ritchie, S.W., Hanway, J.J., Benson, G.O., 1997. How a Corn Plant Develops, Special
Report No. 48. Iowa State University Cooperative Extension Service, Ames, IA.
Rostamza, M., Chaichi, M.R., Jahansouz, M.R., Alimadadi, A., 2011. Forage quality,
water use and nitrogen utilization efciencies of pearl millet (Pennisetum americanum L.) grown under different soil moisture and nitrogen levels. Agricultural
Water Management 98, 16071614.
Roth, G.W., Lauer, J.G., 2008. Impact of defoliation on corn forage quality. Agronomy
Journal 100, 651657.
SAS Institute Inc., 2002. The SAS System for Windows, Release 9.0. Statistical Analysis
Systems Institute, Cary, NC, USA.
Savage, G.P., Vanhanen, L., Mason, S.M., Ross, A.B., 2000. Effect of cooking on the
solube and insolube oxalic acid content of some New Zealand foods. Journal of
Food Composition and Analysis 13, 201206.
Sellers, B.A., Smeda, R.J., Johnson, W.G., Ellersieck, M.R., 2003. Comparative growth
of six Amaranthus species in Missouri. Weed Science 51, 329333.
Sexton, B.T., Moncrief, J.F., Rosen, C.J., Gupta, S.C., Cheng, H.H., 1996. Optimizing N
and irrigation inputs for corn based on nitrate leaching and yield on a coarsetextured soil. Journal of Environment Quality 25, 982992.
Simsek, M., Can, A., Denek, N., Tonkaz, T., 2011. The effect of different irrigation
regimes on yield and silage quality of corn under semi-arid conditions. African
Journal of Biotechnology 10 (31), 58695877.
Singh, J.P., 1988. Arapid method for determination of nitrate in soil and plant extract.
Plant and Soil 110, 137139.
Sleugh, B.B., Moore, K.J., Brummer, E.C., Knapp, A.D., Russell, J., Gibson, L., 2001.
Forage nutritive value of various amaranth species at different harvest dates.
Crop Science 41, 466472.
Teutonica, R.A., Knorr, D., 1985. Amaranth: composition, properties, and application
of a rediscovered food crop. Food Technology 39, 4960.
Van Soest, P.J., Robertson, J.B., Lewis, B.A., 1991. Methods for dietary ber, neutral
detergent ber and non-starch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition.
Journal of Dairy Science 74, 35833597.
Van Soest, P.J., 2006. Rice straw, the role of silica and treatments to improve quality.
Animal Feed Science and Technology 130, 137171.
Vazquez, N.A., Pardo, M.L., Suso, G., Quemada, M., 2005. A methodology for measuring drainage and nitrate leaching in unevenly irrigated vegetable crops. Plant
and Soil 269, 297308.

162

M. Gholamhoseini et al. / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 179 (2013) 151162

Vincent, D., Lapierre, C., Pollet, B., Cornic, G., Negroni, L., Zivy, M., 2005. Water decits
affect caffeate O-methyltransferase, lignication, and related enzymes in maize
leaves. A proteomic investigation. Plant Physiology 137, 949960.
Vough, L.R., Cassel, E.K., Barao, S.M., 1991. Nitrate poisoning in livestock. Animal
Agriculture Update Newsletter, Cooperative Extension Service, University of
Maryland 6, 711.

Wang, Y., Frei, M., 2011. Stressed food-The impact of abiotic environmental stresses on crop quality. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 141,
271286.
Zoschke, A., Quadranti, M., 2002. Integrated weed management: Quo vadis? Weed
Biology and Management 2, 110.