Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T19:46:13.739Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Compensatory Growth of Ludwigia (Ludwigia hyssopifolia) in Response to Interference of Direct-Seeded Rice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

B. S. Chauhan ,
A. R. P. Pame  and
D. E. Johnson
B. S. Chauhan*
Affiliation:
Crop and Environmental Sciences Division, International Rice Research Institute, Los Baños, Philippines
A. R. P. Pame
Affiliation:
Crop and Environmental Sciences Division, International Rice Research Institute, Los Baños, Philippines
D. E. Johnson
Affiliation:
Crop and Environmental Sciences Division, International Rice Research Institute, Los Baños, Philippines
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Ludwigia is an important broadleaf weed of direct-seeded rice in Asia. Crop interference that relies on shading may have potential as a component of integrated weed management strategies but it requires understanding the extent to which rice can interfere with weed growth and how these weeds may respond. The growth of ludwigia was studied when grown alone and in competition with 4 and 12 rice (cv. IR72) plants. Rice interference reduced ludwigia height, number of branches, and shoot and root biomass. However, ludwigia showed the ability to reduce the effects of rice interference by increasing leaf weight ratio, increasing stem and leaf biomass in the upper half of the plant, and increasing specific stem length. At 11 wk after seeding, for example, ludwigia grown with 12 rice plants had 38% greater leaf weight ratio compared to plants grown alone. When grown with 12 rice plants, the weed had 82% of its leaf biomass in upper half of the plant compared to only 25% in weeds grown alone. The results showed that ludwigia responded to rice interference with a combination of adaptations typical of many weed species. Despite such plasticity, the control of ludwigia may be achieved by dense rice stands and increasing interference.

Keywords

Ludwigia, Ludwigia hyssopifolia (G. Don) Exellrice, Oryza sativa LDry-seeded ricelightinterferencebiomass
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 59 , Issue 2 , June 2011 , pp. 177 - 181
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

Azmi, M., Chin, D. V., Vongsaroj, P., and Johnson, D. E. 2005. Emerging issues in weed management of direct-seeded rice in Malaysia, Vietnam, and Thailand. Pages 196–198 in Torivama, K., Heong, K. L., and Hardy, B., eds. Rice is Life: Scientific Perspectives for the 21st Century. Los Baños, Philippines International Rice Research Institute and Tsukuba, Japan: Japan International Research Center for Agricultural Sciences.Google Scholar
Bayer, D. E. and Hill, J. E. 1992. weeds. Pages 32–55 in Flint, M. L., and Ohleneger, B. P. O., eds. Integrated Pest Management for Rice. Oakland, CA, USA University of California Statewide Integrated Pest Management Project, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Publication 3280.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D., Liebman, M., and Obrycki, J. J. 2002. Review: theoretical and practical challenges to an IPM approach to weed management. Weed Sci. 48:274–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caton, B. P., Foin, T. C., and Hill, J. E. 1997. Phenotypic plasticity of Ammannia spp. in competition with rice. Weed Res. 37:33–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chauhan, B. S. and Johnson, D. E. 2009. Ludwigia hyssopifolia emergence and growth as affected by light, burial depth and water management. Crop Prot. 28:887–890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chauhan, B. S. and Johnson, D. E. 2010a. Relative importance of shoot and root competition in dry-seeded rice growing with junglerice (Echinochloa colona) and ludwigia (Ludwigia hyssopifolia). Weed Sci. 58:295–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chauhan, B. S. and Johnson, D. E. 2010b. The role of seed ecology in improving weed management strategies in the tropics. Adv. Agron. 105:221–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chauhan, B. S. and Johnson, D. E. 2010c. Response of rice flatsedge (Cyperus iria) and barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) to rice interference. Weed Sci. 58:204–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chauhan, B. S. and Johnson, D. E. 2010d. Implications of narrow crop row spacing and delayed Echinochloa colona and Echinochloa crus-galli emergence for weed growth and crop yield loss in aerobic rice. Field Crops Res. 117:177–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chauhan, B. S. and Johnson, D. E. 2011. Row spacing and weed control timing affect yield of aerobic rice. Field Crops Res. In press. (doi: 10.1013/j.fcr.2010.12.008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chauhan, B. S., Singh, V. P., Kumar, A., and Johnson, D. E. 2011. Relations of rice seeding rates to crop and weed growth in aerobic rice. Field Crops Res. 121:105–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
GenStat. 2005. GenStat Release 8 Reference Manual. Oxford, UK VSN International. 343 p.Google Scholar
Gibson, K. D. and Fischer, A. J. 2001. Relative growth and photosynthetic response of water-seeded rice and Echinochloa oryzoides (Ard.) Fritsch to shade. Int. J. Pest Manag. 47:305–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, K. D. and Fischer, A. J. 2004. Competitiveness of rice cultivars as a tool for crop-based weed management. Pages 517–537 in Inderjit, . ed. Weed Biology and Management. Dordrecht, The Netherlands Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, K. D., Fischer, A. J., and Foin, T. C. 2001. Shading and the growth and photosynthetic responses of Ammannia coccinnea . Weed Res. 41:59–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, K. D., Fischer, A. J., and Foin, T. C. 2004. Compensatory responses of late watergrass (Echinochloa phyllopogon) and rice to resource limitations. Weed Sci. 52:271–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Håkansson, S. 2003. Weeds and Weed Management on Arable Land—An Ecological Approach. Wallingford, UK CABI. 288 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harper, J. L. 1977. Population Biology of Plants. London Academic. 892 p.Google Scholar
Holm, L., Doll, J., Holm, E., Pancho, J., and Herberger, J. 1997. World Weeds: Natural Histories and Distribution. New York, NY, USA J. Wiley. 1129 p.Google Scholar
Holt, J. S. 1995. Plant responses to light: a potential tool for weed management. Weed Sci. 43:474–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labrada, R. 1997. Problems Related to the Development of Weed Management in the Developing World. www.fao.org/ag/AGP/AGPP/IPM/Weeds/Download/auldwec.pdf. Accessed: May 7, 2009.Google Scholar
Moody, K. 1989. Weeds Reported in Rice in South and Southeast Asia. Los Baños, Laguna, Philippines International Rice Research Institute. 442 p.Google Scholar
Pancho, J. V. 1964. Seed wizes and production capacities in common weed species of the rice fields of the Philippines. Philipp. Agric. 48:307–316.Google Scholar
Patterson, D. T. 1979. The effects of shading on the growth and photosynthetic capacity of itchgrass (Rottboellia exaltata). Weed Sci. 27:549–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, D. T. 1995. Effects of environmental stress on weed/crop interactions. Weed Sci. 43:483–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rao, A. N., Johnson, D. E., Sivaprasad, B., Ladha, J. K., and Mortimer, A. M. 2007. Weed management in direct-seeded rice. Adv. Agron. 93:153–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlichting, C. D. 1986. The evolution of phenotypic plasticity in plants. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 17:667–693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomita, S., Miyagama, S., Kono, Y., Noichana, C., Inamura, T., Nagata, Y., Sributta, S., and Nawata, E. 2003. Rice yield losses by competition with weeds in rainfed paddy fields in north-east Thailand. Weed Biol. Manag. 3:162–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar