Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T02:42:25.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Differential response of palmleaf morningglory (Ipomoea wrightii) and pitted morningglory (Ipomoea lacunosa) to flooding

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

David Gealy
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Palmleaf morningglory (IPOWR) and pitted morningglory (IPOLA) were compared in field and greenhouse tests under simulated rice field conditions to quantify flood tolerance characteristics of the two species. IPOWR survived a 13-cm flood in the field if the flood was applied 12 days after planting (DAP) or later. In contrast, IPOLA did not survive floods applied before 19 DAP. Only IPOWR survived a 5-cm flood applied 5 DAP in the field. In the greenhouse, both species were unable to emerge from under 1 cm of soil when flooded greater than 1 cm deep. Although both species emerged from water-saturated soil, IPOWR emerged earlier and produced more dry weight than did IPOLA. Emergence from the water surface of 2-cm-tall IPOWR was better than that of IPOLA when submerged in water up to 7 cm deep, and total dry weight (as a percent of a nonflooded control) was two to four times greater for IPOWR. Even a 5-cm flood reduced leaf area, height, dry weight, and photosynthesis of IPOLA more than that of IPOWR. At 20 C and low oxygen (1%), germination percentage of IPOWR was about four times higher than IPOLA. Germination, growth, and certain physiological processes of IPOWR are more tolerant than those of IPOLA to moderately deep floods (and low soil oxygen levels). Thus, IPOWR is potentially a greater weed problem than IPOLA in rice fields. The fact that neither species was capable of emerging from soil under even shallow flood depths helps explain why morningglories are prevalent only in shallow or water-saturated areas on rice field levees.

Keywords

Pitted morningglory, Ipomoea lacunosa L. IPOLApalmleaf morningglory, Ipomoea wrightii Gray IPOWRAnoxiagerminationphotosynthesisemergencerice Oryza sativa L.IPOLAIPOWR
Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 46 , Issue 2 , April 1998 , pp. 217 - 224
Copyright
Copyright © 1998 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

Armstrong, W. 1979. Aeration in higher plants. Adv. Bot. Res. 7: 225–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baldwin, F. L., Boyd, J. W., and Guy, G. B. 1996. Recommended Chemicals for Weed and Brush Control. University of Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service, MP 44. Little Rock, AR: University of Arkansas. 134 p.Google Scholar
Blom, C.W.P.M., Voesenek, L.A.C.J., Banga, M., Engelaar, W.M.H.G., Rijnders, J.H.G.M., Van De Steeg, H. M., and Visser, E.J.W. 1994. Physiological ecology of riverside species: adaptive responses of plants to submergence. Ann. Bot. 74: 253–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouhache, M. and Bayer, D. E. 1993. Photosynthetic response of flooded rice (Oryza sativa) and three Echinochloa species to changes in environmental factors. Weed Sci. 41: 611–614.Google Scholar
Crowley, R. H. and Buchanan, G. A. 1980. Responses of Ipomoea spp. and smallflower morningglory (Jacquemontia tamnifolia) to temperature and osmotic stresses. Weed Sci. 28: 76–82.Google Scholar
Frenzel, P., Rothfuss, F., and Conrad, R. 1992. Oxygen profiles and methane turnover in a flooded rice microcosm. Biol. Fertil. Soils 14: 84–89.Google Scholar
Gambrell, R. P., Delaune, R. D., and Patrick, W. H. Jr. 1991. Redox processes in soils following oxygen depletion. Pages 101–117 in Jackson, M. B., Davies, D. D., and Lambers, H., eds. Plant Life Under Oxygen Deprivation. The Hague, The Netherlands: SPB Academic Publishing.Google Scholar
Helms, R. S., ed. 1994. Rice Production Handbook. University of Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service, MP 192. Little Rock, AR: University of Arkansas. 90 p.Google Scholar
Howe, O. W. Jr. and Oliver, L. R. 1987. Influence of soybean (Glycine max) row spacing on pitted morningglory (Ipomoea lacunosa) interference. Weed Sci. 35: 185–193.Google Scholar
Kludze, H. K. and DeLaune, R. D. 1996. Soil redox intensity effects on oxygen exchange and growth of cattail and sawgrass. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 60: 616–621.Google Scholar
Lakitan, B., Wolfe, D. W., and Zobel, R. W. 1992. Flooding affects snapbean yield and genotypic variation in leaf gas exchange and root growth response. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 117: 711–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, W. S., Reicosky, D. C., Barrs, H. D., and Smith, R.C.G. 1987. Physiological responses of cotton to a single waterlogging at high and low N-levels. Plant Soil 102: 161–170.Google Scholar
Oosterhuis, D. M., Scott, H. D., Hampton, R. E., and Wullschleger, S. D. 1990. Physiological responses of two soybean (Glycine max L.) cultivars to short-term flooding. Environ. Exp. Bot. 30: 85–92.Google Scholar
Roberts, W. and Russo, V. 1991. Time of flooding and cultivar affect sweet potato yield. HortScience 26: 1473–1474.Google Scholar
Setter, T. L. and Ella, E. S. 1994. Relationship between coleoptile elongation and alcoholic fermentation in rice exposed to anoxia. I. Importance of treatment conditions and different tissues. Ann. Bot. 74: 265–271.Google Scholar
Settet, T. L., Ella, E. S., and Valdez, A. P. 1994. Relationship between coleoptile elongation and alcoholic fermentation in rice exposed to anoxia. II. Cultivar differences. Ann. Bot. 74: 273–279.Google Scholar
Sojka, R. E. 1992. Stomatal closure in oxygen-stressed plants. Soil Sci. 154: 269–280.Google Scholar
Takele, A. and McDavid, C. R. 1994. Effects of short-term waterlogging on cultivars of cowpea [Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.]. Trop. Agric. 71: 275–280.Google Scholar
Voesenek, L.A.C.J., VanderSman, A.J.M., Harren, F.J.M., and Blom, C.W.P.M. 1992. An amalgamation between hormone physiology and plant ecology: a review on flooding resistance and ethylene. J. Plant Growth Regul. 11: 171–188.Google Scholar