Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T17:25:03.837Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Acclimation of Palmer Amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) to Shading

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Prashant Jha ,
Jason K. Norsworthy ,
Melissa B. Riley ,
Douglas G. Bielenberg  and
William Bridges Jr.
Prashant Jha*
Affiliation:
Clemson University, Department of Entomology, Soils, and Plant Sciences, 277 Poole Agricultural Center, Clemson, SC 29634
Jason K. Norsworthy
Affiliation:
University of Arkansas, Department of Crop, Soil and Environmental Sciences, 1366 West Altheimer Drive, Fayetteville, AR 72704
Melissa B. Riley
Affiliation:
Clemson University, Department of Entomology, Soils, and Plant Sciences, 120 Long Hall, Clemson, SC 29634
Douglas G. Bielenberg
Affiliation:
Clemson University, Departments of Horticulture and Biological Sciences, 152 Poole Agricultural Center, Clemson, SC 29634
William Bridges Jr.
Affiliation:
Clemson University, Department of Applied Economics and Statistics, 243 Barre Hall, Clemson, SC 29634
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Experiments were conducted to investigate the acclimation of Palmer amaranth to shading. Plants were grown in the field beneath black shade cloths providing 47 and 87% shade and in full sunlight (no shading). All photosynthetic measurements were taken 4 wk after initiating the shade treatments. Photosynthetic rates of Palmer amaranth grown under 47% shade increased with increasing photosynthetic active radiation (PAR) similar to 0% shade-grown plants. Light-saturated photosynthetic rates were predicted beyond the highest measured PAR of 1,200 µmol m−2 s−1 for plants grown under 0 and 47% shade. Plants acclimated to increased shading by decreasing light-saturated photosynthetic rates from 60.5 µmol m−2 s−1 under full sun conditions to 26.4 µmol m−2 s−1 under 87% shade. Plants grown under 87% shade lowered their light compensation point. Rate of increase in plant height was similar among shade treatments. Plants responded to increased shading by a 13 to 44% reduction in leaf appearance rate (leaf number growing degree days [GDD]−1) and a 22 to 63% reduction in main-stem branch appearance rate (main-stem branch number GDD−1) compared with full sunlight. Palmer amaranth specific leaf area increased from 68 to 97 cm2 g−1 as shading increased to 87%. Plants acclimated to 47% shade by increasing total leaf chlorophyll from 22.8 µg cm−2 in full sunlight to 31.7 µg cm−2 when shaded; however, the increase was not significant at 87% shading. Thus, it is concluded that Palmer amaranth shows photosynthetic and morphological acclimation to 87% or less shading.

Keywords

Palmer amaranth, Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats. AMAPA.Chlorophyll contentdark respirationlight compensation pointphotosynthetic rateplant growth rateshade acclimation
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 56 , Issue 5 , October 2008 , pp. 729 - 734
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

Bello, I. A., Owen, M. D. K., and Hatterman-Valenti, H. M. 1995. Effect of shading on velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) growth, seed production, and dormancy. Weed Technol. 9:452–455.Google Scholar
Bensch, C. N., Horak, M. J., and Peterson, D. 2003. Interference of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus), Palmer amaranth (A. palmeri), and common waterhemp (A. rudis) in soybean. Weed Sci. 51:37–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brainard, D. C., Bellinder, R. R., and DiTommaso, A. 2005. Effects of canopy shade on the morphology, phenology, and seed characteristics of Powell amaranth (Amaranthus powellii). Weed Sci. 53:175–186.Google Scholar
Colquhoun, J., Boerboom, C. M., Binning, L. K., Stoltenberg, D. E., and Norman, J. M. 2001. Common lambsquarters photosynthesis and seed production in three environments. Weed Sci. 49:334–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpepper, A. S., Grey, T. L., Vencill, W. K., Kichler, J. M., Webster, T. M., Brown, S. M., York, A. C., Davis, J. W., and Hanna, W. W. 2006. Glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) confirmed in Georgia. Weed Sci. 54:620–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deen, W., Hunt, L. A., and Swanton, C. J. 1998. Photothermal time describes common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia L.) phenological development and growth. Weed Sci. 46:561–568.Google Scholar
Dias-Filho, M. B. 2002. Photosynthetic light response of the C4 grasses Brachiaria brizantha and B. humidicola under shade. Scientia Agricola. 59:65–68.Google Scholar
Ehleringer, J. 1983. Ecophysiology of Amaranthus palmeri, a Sonoran Desert summer annual. Oecologia. 57:107–112.Google Scholar
Gossett, B. J., Murdock, E. C., and Toler, J. E. 1992. Resistance of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) to dinitroaniline herbicides. Weed Technol. 6:587–591.Google Scholar
Guo, P. and Al-Khatib, K. 2003. Temperature effects on germination and growth of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus), Palmer amaranth (A. palmeri), and common waterhemp (A. rudis). Weed Sci. 51:869–875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heap, I. M. 1997. International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. Corvallis, OR Weed Science Society of America/Herbicide Resistance Action Committee Weed Smart Annual Repor. 3.Google Scholar
Horak, M. J. and Loughin, T. M. 2000. Growth analysis of four Amaranthus species. Weed Sci. 48:347–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horak, M. J. and Peterson, D. E. 1995. Biotypes of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) are resistant to imazethapyr and thifensulfuron. Weed Technol. 9:192–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jha, P., Norsworthy, J. K., and Malik, M. S. 2007. Effect of tillage and soybean canopy formation on temporal emergence of Palmer amaranth from a natural seed bank. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 60:11.Google Scholar
Keeley, P. E., Carter, C. H., and Thullen, R. J. 1987. Influence of planting date on growth of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri). Weed Sci. 35:199–204.Google Scholar
Keeley, P. E. and Thullen, R. J. 1989. Growth and competition of black nightshade (Solanum nigrum) and Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. 37:326–334.Google Scholar
Klingaman, T. E. and Oliver, L. R. 1994. Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) interference in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 42:523–527.Google Scholar
Lindquist, J. L. 2001. Light-saturated CO2 assimilation rates of corn and velvetleaf in response to leaf nitrogen and development stage. Weed Sci. 49:706–710.Google Scholar
Louwerse, W., Sibma, L., and van Kleef, J. 1990. Crop photosynthesis, respiration, and dry matter production in maize. Can. J. Plant Sci. 74:479–484.Google Scholar
Massinga, R. A., Currie, R. S., and Trooien, T. P. 2003. Water use and light interception under Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and corn competition. Weed Sci. 51:523–531.Google Scholar
McLachlan, S. M., Swanton, C. J., Weise, S. F., and Tollenaar, M. 1993a. Effect of corn-induced shading and temperature on rate of leaf appearance in redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.). Weed Sci. 41:590–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLachlan, S. M., Tollenaar, M., Swanton, C. J., and Weise, S. F. 1993b. Effect of corn-induced shading on dry matter accumulation, distribution, and architecture of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus). Weed Sci. 41:568–573.Google Scholar
Muchow, R. C. and Sinclair, T. R. 1994. Nitrogen response of leaf photosynthesis and canopy radiation use efficiency in field-grown maize and sorghum. Crop Sci. 34:721–727.Google Scholar
Mueller, T. C., Steckel, L. E., McElroy, J. S., and Teuton, T. C. 2006. An update on herbicide resistance in Tennessee. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 59:133.Google Scholar
Norsworthy, J. K. 2003. Use of soybean production surveys to determine weed management needs of South Carolina farmers. Weed Technol. 17:195–201.Google Scholar
Norsworthy, J. K., Griffith, G. M., Scott, R. C., Smith, K. L., and Oliver, L. R. 2008. Confirmation and control of glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth in Arkansas. Weed Technol. 22:108–113.Google Scholar
Patton, L. and Jones, M. B. 1989. Some relationships between leaf anatomy and photosynthetic characteristics of willows. New Phytol. 111:657–661.Google Scholar
Pearcy, R. W. and Ehleringer, J. 1984. Comparitive ecophysiology of C3 and C4 plants. Plant Cell Environ. 7:1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pook, E. W. 1983. The effect of shade on the growth of variegated thistle (Silybum marianum L.) and cotton thistle (Onopordum sp.). Weed Res. 23:11–17.Google Scholar
Regnier, E. E. and Harrison, S. K. 1993. Compensatory responses of common cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium) and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) to partial shading. Weed Sci. 41:541–547.Google Scholar
Regnier, E. E., Salvucci, M. E., and Stoller, E. W. 1988. Photosynthesis and growth responses to irradiance in soybean (Glycine max) and three broadleaf weeds. Weed Sci. 36:487–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sage, R. F. and Seemann, J. R. 1993. Regulation of ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase activity in response to reduced light intensity in C4 plants. Plant Physiol. 102:21–28.Google Scholar
Santos, B. M., Morales-Payan, J. P., Stall, W. M., Bewick, T. A., and Shilling, D. G. 1997. Effects of shading on the growth of nutsedges (Cyperus spp.). Weed Sci. 45:670–673.Google Scholar
Sellers, B. A., Smeda, R. J., Johnson, W. G., Kendig, J. A., and Ellersieck, M. R. 2003. Comparative growth of six Amaranthus species in Missouri. Weed Sci. 51:329–333.Google Scholar
Sinclair, T. R. and Horie, T. 1989. Leaf nitrogen, photosynthesis, and crop radiation use efficiency: a review. Crop Sci. 29:90–98.Google Scholar
Singh, M., Ogren, W. L., and Widholm, J. M. 1974. Photosynthetic characteristics of several C3 and C4 plant species grown under different light intensities. Crop Sci. 14:563–566.Google Scholar
Steckel, L. E., Sprague, C. L., Hager, A. G., Simmons, F. W., and Bollero, G. A. 2003. Effects of shading on common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) growth and development. Weed Sci. 51:898–903.Google Scholar
Stoller, E. W. and Myers, R. A. 1989. Response of soybeans (Glycine max) and four broadleaf weeds to reduced irradiance. Weed Sci. 37:570–574.Google Scholar
Usuda, H., Ku, M. S. B., and Edwards, G. E. 1985. Influence of light intensity during growth on photosynthesis and activity of several key photosynthetic enzymes in a C4 plant (Zea mays). Physiologia Plantarum. 63:65–70.Google Scholar
Weaver, S. E. 1984. Differential growth and competitive ability of Amaranthus retroflexus, A. powellii and A. hybridus . Can. J. Plant Sci. 64:715–724.Google Scholar
Webster, T. M. and MacDonald, G. E. 2001. A survey of weeds in various crops in Georgia. Weed Technol. 15:771–790.Google Scholar
Winterman, J. F. G. M. and De Mots, A. 1965. Spectrophotometric characteristics of chlorophylls a and b and their pheophytins in ethanol. Biochim. Biophys. Acta. 109:448–453.Google Scholar
Winzeler, M., McCullough, D. E., and Hunt, L. A. 1989. Leaf gas exchange and plant growth of winter rye, triticale, and wheat under contrasting temperature regimes. Crop Sci. 29:1256–1260.Google Scholar
York, A. C., Whitaker, J. R., Culpepper, A. S., and Main, C. L. 2007. Glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth in the southeastern United States. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 60:225.Google Scholar