Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T03:56:34.122Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Adaptive Responses of Field-Grown Common Lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) to Variable Light Quality and Quantity Environments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Greta G. Gramig  and
David E. Stoltenberg
Greta G. Gramig*
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Wisconsin, 1575 Linden Drive, Madison, WI 53706
David E. Stoltenberg
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Wisconsin, 1575 Linden Drive, Madison, WI 53706
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field experiments were conducted to determine whether exposure to reduced red : far-red light ratios (R : FR) typical of crop–weed environments was associated with adaptive changes in morphology, productivity, and fecundity of common lambsquarters. Plants were grown in reduced or ambient R : FR environments (both in full sunlight) until initiation of flowering, after which plants were grown in full sunlight or partial shade. At initiation of flowering, plants that had been exposed to reduced R : FR exhibited greater specific leaf area, stem elongation, main stem leaf area, specific stem length, and main stem mass compared with plants exposed to ambient R : FR. However, biomass allocation to stems, leaves, and roots did not differ between vegetative-stage R : FR treatments. At the end of flowering, morphology and productivity of plants exposed to partial shade did not differ between vegetative-stage R : FR treatments. In contrast, plants exposed to full sunlight during flowering after exposure to reduced R : FR during the vegetative stage had less total plant mass, less total leaf area, greater stem elongation, greater specific stem length, and a greater ratio of main stem to total stem mass compared with plants exposed to ambient R : FR during the vegetative stage. At physiological maturity, plants exposed to reduced R : FR during the vegetative stage and to partial shade during the reproductive stage had less total seed mass and fewer seeds compared with plants exposed to ambient R : FR during the vegetative stage and to partial shade during the reproductive stage. Fecundity of plants exposed to full sunlight during the reproductive stage did not differ between vegetative-stage R : FR treatments. These results indicate that exposure of common lambsquarters to reduced R : FR during the vegetative stage was maladaptive at later stages of growth in competitive environments, and suggest that interactions of light quality and quantity are important determinants of common lambsquarters fecundity.

Keywords

Common lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. CHEAL.Competitionweed–crop interactionslight qualityred : far-red ratiomodeling
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 57 , Issue 3 , June 2009 , pp. 271 - 280
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

Alokam, S., Chinnappa, C. C., and Reid, D. M. 2002. Red/far-red mediated stem elongation and anthocyanin accumulation in Stellaria longpipes: differential response of alpine and prairie ecotypes. Can. J. Bot. 80:72–81.Google Scholar
Aphalo, P. J. and Ballaré, C. L. 1995. On the importance of information-acquiring systems in plant–plant interactions. Funct. Ecol. 9:5–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aphalo, P. J., Ballaré, C. L., and Scopel, A. L. 1999. Plant–plant signalling, the shade avoidance response and competition. J. Exp. Bot. 50:1629–1634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ballaré, C. L. 1999. Keeping up with the neighbours: phytochrome sensing and other signalling mechanisms. Trends Plant Sci. 4:97–102.Google Scholar
Ballaré, C. L. and Casal, J. J. 2000. Light signals perceived by crop and weed plants. Field Crops Res. 67:149–160.Google Scholar
Board, J. 2001. Reduced lodging for soybean in low plant population is related to light quality. Crop Sci. 41:379–384.Google Scholar
Brown, M. B. 1974. Modified Levene's test. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 69:364–367.Google Scholar
Casal, J., Sanchez, R., and Botto, J. 1998. Modes of action of phytochromes. J. Exp. Bot. 49:127–138.Google Scholar
Casal, J. J. and Smith, H. 1988. Persistent effects of changes in phytochrome status on internode growth in light-grown mustard: occurrence, kinetics, and locus of perception. Planta. 175:214–220.Google Scholar
Causin, H. F. and Wulff, R. D. 2003. Changes in the responses to light quality during ontogeny in Chenopodium album. Can. J. Bot. 81:152–163.Google Scholar
Cavero, J., Zaragoza, C., Bastiaans, L., Suso, M. L., and Pardo, A. 2000. The relevance of morphological plasticity in the simulation of competition between maize and Datura stramonium. Weed Res. 40:163–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, B. and Wein, G. 2000. Stem elongation response to neighbour shade in sprawling and upright Polygonum species. Ann. Bot. 86:739–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornelissen, J. H. C., Lavorel, S., Garnier, E., et al. 2003. A handbook of protocols for standardized and easy measurement of plant functional traits worldwide. Aust. J. Bot. 51:335–380.Google Scholar
Dale, M. P. and Causton, D. R. 1992. The ecophysiology of Veronica chamaedrys, V. montana and V. officinalis. 1. Light quality and light quantity. J. Ecol. 80:483–492.Google Scholar
Deregibus, V. A., Sanchez, R. A., and Casal, J. J. 1983. Effects of light quality on tiller production in Lolium spp. Plant Physiol. 72:900–902.Google Scholar
Deregibus, V. A., Sanchez, R. A., Casal, J. J., and Trlica, M. J. 1985. Tillering responses to enrichment of red light beneath the canopy in a humid natural grassland. J. Appl. Ecol. 22:199–206.Google Scholar
Dudley, S. A. and Schmitt, J. 1996. Testing the adaptive plasticity hypothesis: density-dependent selection on manipulated stem length in Impatiens capensis. Am. Nat. 147:445–465.Google Scholar
Franklin, K. A. and Whitelam, G. C. 2004. Light signals, phytochromes and cross-talk with other environmental cues. J. Exp. Bot. 55:271–276.Google Scholar
Grace, J. 1991. Physical and ecological evaluation of heterogeneity. Funct. Ecol. 5:192–201.Google Scholar
Heraut-Bron, V., Robin, C., Varlet-Grancher, C., Afif, D., and Guckert, A. 1999. Light quality (red:far-red ratio): does it affect photosynthetic activity, net CO2 assimilation, and morphology of young white clover leaves. Can. J. Bot. 77:1425–1431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heraut-Bron, V., Robin, C., Varlet-Grancher, C., and Guckert, A. 2001. Phytochrome mediated effects on leaves of white clover: consequences for light interception by the plant under competition for light. Ann. Bot. 88:737–743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holt, J. S. 1995. Plant responses to light: a potential tool for weed management. Weed Sci. 43:474–482.Google Scholar
Huber, H. and Stuefer, J. F. 1997. Shade-induced changes in the branching pattern of a stoloniferous herb: functional response or allometric effect. Oecologia. 110:478–486.Google Scholar
Jaffe, M. J. and Forbes, S. 1993. Thigmomorphogenesis: the effect of mechanical perturbation on plants. Plant Growth Reg. 12:313–324.Google Scholar
Kasperbauer, M. J. 1971. Spectral distribution of light in a tobacco canopy and effects of end-of-day light quality on growth and development. Plant Physiol. 47:775–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kasperbauer, M. J. 1987. Far-red light reflection from green leaves and effects on phytochrome-mediated assimilate partitioning under field conditions. Plant Physiol. 85:350–354.Google Scholar
Kasperbauer, M. J. 2000. Phytochrome in crop production. Pages 407–436. In Wilkinson, R. E. Plant–Environment Interactions. 2nd. ed. New York Marcel Dekker.Google Scholar
Lee, D. W., Oberbauer, S. F., Krishnapilay, B., Mansor, M., Mohamad, H., and Yap, S. K. 1997. Effects of irradiance and spectral quality on seedling development of two Southeast Asian Hopea species. Oecologia. 110:1–9.Google Scholar
Mahoney, K. J. and Swanton, C. J. 2008. Nitrogen and light affect the adaptive traits of common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album). Weed Sci. 56:81–90.Google Scholar
Marcuvitz, S. and Turkington, R. 2000. Differential effects of light quality, provided by different grass neighbors, on the growth and morphology of Trifolium repens L. (white clover). Oecologia. 125:293–300.Google Scholar
Markham, M. Y. and Stoltenberg, D. E. 2009. Red : far-red light effects on corn growth and productivity in field environments. Weed Sci. 57:208–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McConnaughay, K. D. M. and Coleman, J. S. 1999. Biomass allocation in plants: ontogeny or optimality? A test along three resource gradients. Ecology. 80:2581–2593.Google Scholar
Morgan, D. C. and Smith, H. 1981. Control of development in Chenopodium album L. by shadelight: the effect of light quantity (total fluence rate) and light quality (red : far-red ratio). New Phytol. 88:239–248.Google Scholar
Novoplanksy, A. 1990. How portulaca seedlings avoid their neighbors. Oecologia. 82:490–493.Google Scholar
Novoplanksy, A. 1991. Developmental responses of portulaca seedings to conflicting spectral signals. Oecologia. 88:138–140.Google Scholar
Rajcan, I., AghaAlikhani, M., Swanton, C. J., and Tollenaar, M. 2002. Development of redroot pigweed is influenced by light spectral quality and quantity. Crop Sci. 42:1930–1936.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rajcan, I., Chandler, K. J., and Swanton, C. J. 2004. Red–far-red ratio of reflected light: a hypothesis of why early-season weed control is important in corn. Weed Sci. 52:774–778.Google Scholar
Rajcan, I. and Swanton, C. J. 2001. Understanding maize-weed competition: resource competition, light quality and the whole plant. Field Crops Res. 71:139–150.Google Scholar
Schaffer, J. P. 1995. Multiple hypothesis testing. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 46:561–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, J., McCormac, A. C., and Smith, H. 1995. A test of the adaptive plasticity hypothesis using transgenic and mutant plants disabled in phytochrome-mediated elongation responses to neighbors. Am. Nat. 146:937–953.Google Scholar
Schuerger, A. C., Brown, C. S., and Stryjewski, E. C. 1997. Anatomical features of pepper plants (Capsicum annuum L.) grown under red light-emitting diodes supplemented with blue or far-red light. Ann. Bot. 79:273–282.Google Scholar
Seavers, G. P. and Smith, H. 1997. The reflectance properties of plant internodes modify elongation responses to lateral far-red radiation. Plant Cell Environ. 20:1372–1380.Google Scholar
Sleeman, J. D., Dudley, S. A., Pannell, J. R., and Barrett, S. C. H. 2002. Responses of carbon acquisition traits to irradiance and light quality in Mercurialis annua (Euphorbiaceae): evidence for weak integration of plastic responses. Am. J. Bot. 89:1388–1400.Google Scholar
Smith, H. 1982. Light quality, photoperception, and plant strategy. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. 33:481–518.Google Scholar
Smith, H., Casal, J. J., and Jackson, G. M. 1990. Reflection signals and the perception by phytochrome of the proximity of neighbouring vegetation. Plant Cell Environ. 13:73–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, H. and Whitelam, G. C. 1997. The shade avoidance syndrome: multiple responses mediated by multiple phytochromes. Plant Cell Environ. 20:840–844.Google Scholar
Steel, R. G. D. and Torrie, J. H. 1980. 60–61. in. Principles and Procedures of Statistics: A Biometrical Approach. 2nd ed. New York McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
van Hinsberg, A. and van Tienderen, P. 1997. Variation in growth form in relation to spectral light quality (red/far-red ratio) in Plantago lanceolata L. in sun and shade populations. Oecologia. 111:452–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Volenberg, D. S. and Stoltenberg, D. E. 2002. Giant foxtail (Setaria faberi) outcrossing and inheritance of resistance to acetyl-coenzyme A carboxylase inhibitors. Weed Sci. 50:622–627.Google Scholar
Weinig, C. 2000. Plasticity versus canalization: population differences in the timing of shade-avoidance responses. Evolution. 54:441–451.Google Scholar
Weinig, C. and Delph, L. 2001. Phenotypic plasticity early in life constrains developmental responses later. Evolution. 55:930–936.Google Scholar
Weinig, C., Gravuer, K. A., Kane, N. C., and Schmitt, J. 2004. Testing adaptive plasticity to UV: costs and benefits of stem elongation and light-induced phenolics. Evolution. 58:2645–2656.Google ScholarPubMed
Wright, S. D. and McConnaughay, K. D. M. 2002. Interpreting phenotypic plasticity: the importance of ontogeny. Plant Species Biol. 17:119–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar