Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T05:06:56.719Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Effects of Simulated Field Temperatures and Chilling on Itchgrass (Rottboellia exaltata), Corn (Zea mays), and Soybean (Glycine max)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

D. T. Patterson
Affiliation:
South. Weed Sci. Lab., Agric. Res., Sci. Ed. Admin., U.S. Dep. Agric., Stoneville, MS 38776
E. P. Flint
Affiliation:
Dep. Botany, Duke Univ., Durham, NC 27706

Abstract

Mathematical growth analysis techniques were used to study the effects of simulated field temperatures and chilling events on the growth of the exotic noxious weed itchgrass (Rottboellia exaltata L. f.) and adapted varieties of corn (Zea mays L. ‘DeKalb XL43’ and ‘DeKalb XL395′), and soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr. ‘Corsoy’, ‘Williams', and ‘Tracy’] in climate-controlled greenhouses and growth chambers. Itchgrass grew vigorously and produced seed in temperature regimes simulating the warmest 4 months of the growing season in the Gulf Coast states (30/25 C, day/night), the central Midwest (27/21 C), and the northern Midwest (23/18 C). At 30/25 C day/night, itchgrass produced 707 g of dry matter and 1907 seed per plant after 119 days. Itchgrass produced 621 g dry matter and 1429 seed at 27/21 C and 499 g dry matter and 1160 seed at 23/18 C. Itchgrass and adapted varieties of corn and/or soybeans were grown in four additional temperature regimes simulating the first 5 weeks of the growing seasons for corn and soybean at Madison, Wisconsin (19/11 C day/night); for soybean at Carbondale, Illinois (24/20 C); for corn at Waycross, Georgia (20/14 C); and for soybean at Baton Rouge, Louisiana (27/23 C). After 24 days of growth, half the plants in each regime were exposed to 3 days of chilling (11/4 C for Madison, 17/10 C for Carbondale, 15/6 C for Waycross, and 24/18 C for Baton Rouge) and returned to the original growth regimes for recovery. The chilling treatments reduced dry matter production, net assimilation rate, and leaf area duration more in itchgrass than in corn or soybean. After recovery, the previously chilled itchgrass plants had greater reductions in height, leaf area, and dry weight, compared to unchilled controls, than did corn or soybean. Weed/crop ratios in height, leaf area, and dry weight for itchgrass/corn were significantly reduced by chilling. In the two cooler regimes, weed/crop ratios in leaf area and dry weight for itchgrass/soybean were significantly reduced by chilling. Because of its sensitivity to cool temperatures, itchgrass, is unlikely to be an important early-season competitor with corn or with soybean outside the South.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © 1979 by the 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

1. Carmer, S. G. and Swanson, M. R. 1971. Detection of differences between means: a Monte Carlo study of five pairwise multiple comparison procedures. Agron. J. 63:940945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Castleberry, R. M., Teeri, J. A., and Buriel, J. F. 1978. Vegetative growth responses of maize genotypes to simulated natural chilling events. Crop Sci. 18:633637.Google Scholar
3. Chatterton, N. J., Carlson, G. E., Hungerford, W. E., and Lee, D. R. 1972. Effect of tillering and cool nights on photosynthesis and chloroplast starch in Pangola. Crop Sci. 12:206208.Google Scholar
4. Freese, F. 1967. Elementary statistical methods for foresters. U.S. Dep. Agric. For. Serv. Agric. Handb. 317. 87 pp.Google Scholar
5. Hilliard, J. H. and West, S. H. 1970. Starch accumulation associated with growth reduction at low temperature in a tropical plant. Science 168:494496.Google Scholar
6. Ivory, D. A. and Whiteman, P. C. 1978. Effect of temperature on growth of five subtropical grasses. I. Effect of day and night temperature on growth and morphological development. Aust. J. Plant Physiol. 5:131148.Google Scholar
7. Kramer, P. J., Hellmers, H., and Downs, R. J. 1970. SEPEL: new phytotrons for environmental research. Bioscience 20:12011208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Kvet, J., Ondok, J. P., Necas, J., and Jarvis, P. G. 1971. Methods of growth analysis. Pages 343391 in Sestak, Z., Catsky, J., and Jarvis, P. G., eds. Plant Photosynthetic Production. Manual of Methods. W. Junk, The Hague.Google Scholar
9. Milhollon, R. W. 1975. Weed watch. Weeds Today 6(4):20.Google Scholar
10. Patterson, D. T. 1979. The effects of shading on the growth and photosynthetic capacity of itchgrass (Rottboellia exaltata) . Weed Sci. 27:(In press).Google Scholar
11. Patterson, D. T. and Flint, E. P. 1979. Effects of chilling on cotton (Gossypium hirsutum), velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti), and spurred anoda (Anoda cristata) . Weed Sci. 27:(In press).Google Scholar
12. Patterson, D. T. and Hite, J. 1975. A CO2 monitoring and control system for plant growth chambers. Ohio J. Sci. 75:190193.Google Scholar
13. Patterson, D. T., Meyer, C. R., Flint, E. P., and Quimby, P. C. Jr. 1979. Temperature responses and potential distribution of itchgrass (Rottboellia exaltata) in the United States. Weed Sci. 27:7782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Patterson, D. T. and Quimby, P. C. Jr. 1978. Itchgrass — a potential noxious weed in Mississippi. Mississippi Agric. For. Exp. Stn. Res. Rep. 3(18). 3 pp.Google Scholar
15. Pearson, C. J. 1975. Thermal adaptation of Pennisetum: seedling development. Aust. J. Plant Physiol. 2:413424.Google Scholar
16. Teeri, J. A., Patterson, D. T., Alberte, R. S., and Castleberry, R. M. 1977. Changes in the photosynthetic apparatus of maize in response to simulated natural temperature fluctuations. Plant Physiol. 60:370373.Google Scholar
17. Went, F. W. 1957. The experimental control of plant growth. Chron. Bot. 17:1343.Google Scholar