Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T05:07:06.510Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Effect of Reduced Light Intensity on Grass Weeds

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 August 2017

Muhammad Yasin ,
Eva Rosenqvist  and
Christian Andreasen
Muhammad Yasin*
Affiliation:
Ph.D Student, Department of Plant and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Science, University of Copenhagen, DK-2630 Taastrup, Denmark, and Lecturer, Department of Agronomy, University College of Agriculture, University of Sargodha, PK-40100 Sargodha, Pakistan
Eva Rosenqvist
Affiliation:
Associate Professor and Associate Professor, Department of Plant and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Science, University of Copenhagen, DK-2630 Taastrup, Denmark
Christian Andreasen
Affiliation:
Associate Professor and Associate Professor, Department of Plant and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Science, University of Copenhagen, DK-2630 Taastrup, Denmark
*
*Corresponding author’s E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The effect of reduced light intensity on the growth and development of three common grass weeds, blackgrass, silky windgrass, and annual bluegrass, was studied. Two identical greenhouse experiments displaced in time were performed with six light levels aiming at 0%, 20%, 50%, 80%, 90%, and 95% shade corresponding to a mean daily light integral (DLI) of 12.4, 9.63, 7.13, 2.74, 0.95, and 0.69 mol m−2 d−1 in experiment 1 and 21.2, 18.0, 10.7, 3.71, 1.64, 1.20 mol m−2 d−1 in experiment 2. Climate screens of acrylic fabric were used to create the light levels. A DLI of 0.69 to 3.71 mol m−2 d−1 substantially reduced the plant height, the number of leaves, leaf chlorophyll content index, stomatal conductance, maximum photochemical efficiency of photosystem II, and dry matter of blackgrass. It also reduced plant height, the number of leaves, and dry matter and delayed flowering of windgrass and annual bluegrass. Annual bluegrass reacted most rapidly when light levels increased from the lowest levels by producing more leaves. DLI thresholds for blooming were estimated to be about 7.13 mol m−2 d−1 for windgrass and 1.64 mol m−2 d−1 for annual bluegrass. Annual bluegrass was able to bloom and sustain biomass even at a DLI of 1.64 mol m−2 d−1. This ability may contribute to an explanation of why annual bluegrass is among the most common weed species in highly competitive and well-fertilized crops even though it is much smaller than the two other grass species.

Keywords

Blackgrass, Alopecurus myosuroides Huds.silky windgrass, Apera spica-venti (L.) Beauv.annual bluegrass, Poa annua L.Competition for lightfloral diversityphenologyphysiologyshade.
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 65 , Issue 5 , September 2017 , pp. 603 - 613
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2017 

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.)

Footnotes

Associate Editor for this paper: Bhagirath Chauhan, The University of Queensland

References

Literature Cited

Andreasen, C, Streibig, JC (2011) Evaluation of changes in weed flora in arable fields of Nordic countries—based on Danish long-term surveys. Weed Res 51:214–226 Google Scholar
Andreasen, C, Stryhn, H (2008) Increasing weed flora in Danish arable fields and its importance for biodiversity. Weed Res 48:1–9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andreasen, C, Stryhn, H (2012) Increasing weed flora in Danish beet, pea and winter barley fields. Crop Prot 36:11–17 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barth, C, Krause, GH, Winter, K (2001) Responses of photosystem I compared with photosystem II to high-light stress in tropical shade and sun leaves. Plant Cell Environ 24:163–176 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benvenuti, S, Macchia, M, Stefani, A (1994) Effects of shade on reproduction and some morphological characteristics of Abutilon theophrasti Medicos, Datura stramonium L. and Sorghum halepense L. Pers. Weed Res 34:283–288 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brainard, DC, Bellinder, RR, DiTommaso, A (2005) Effects of canopy shade on the morphology, phenology, and seed characteristics of Powell amaranth (Amaranthus powellii). Weed Sci 53:175–186 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burian, K, Winter, C (1976) Effect of different daylength on the productivity of grasses. Photosynthetica 13:401–408 Google Scholar
Caton, BP, Foin, TC, Hill, JE (1997) Phenotypic plasticity of Ammannia spp. in competition with rice. Weed Res 37:33–38 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, S, Goudriaan, J (1993) Deriving light interception and biomass from spectral reflectance ratio. Remote Sens Environ 43:87–95 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeEll, JR, Toivonen, PMA (1999) Chlorophyll fluorescence as an indicator of physiological changes in cold‐stored broccoli after transfer to room temperature. J Food Sci 64:501–503 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, AJ, Messersmith, CG, Nalewaja, JD, Duysen, ME (2000) Interference between spring cereals and Kochia scoparia related to environment and photosynthetic pathways. Agron J 92:173–181 Google Scholar
Garrity, DP, Movillon, M, Moody, K (1992) Differential weed suppression ability in upland rice cultivars. Agron J 84:586–591 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godara, RK, Williams, BJ, Geaghan, JP (2012) Effect of shade on Texasweed (Caperonia palustris) emergence, growth, and reproduction. Weed Sci 60:593–599 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guglielmini, AC, Satorre, EH (2002) Shading effects on spatial growth and biomass partitioning of Cynodon dactylon . Weed Res 42:123–134 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gundel, PE, Pierik, R, Mommer, L, Ballaré, CL (2014) Competing neighbors: light perception and root function. Oecologia 176:1–10 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holmes, MG, Smith, H (1977) The function of phytochrome in the natural environment. II. The influence of vegetation canopies on the spectral distribution of natural daylight. Photochem Photobiol 41:539–545 Google Scholar
Jensen, PK, Kristensen, K (2013) Annual grasses in crop rotations with grass seed production—a survey with special focus on Vulpia spp. in red fescue production. Acta Agr Scand 63:604–611 Google Scholar
Jha, P, Norsworthy, JK, Riley, MB, Bielenberg, DG, Bridges, W Jr (2008) Acclimation of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) to shading. Weed Sci 56:729–734 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, H, Jiang, D, Wollenweber, B, Dai, T, Cao, W (2010) Effects of shading on morphology, physiology and grain yield of winter wheat. Eur J Agron 33:267–275 Google Scholar
Merilo, E, Jõesaar, I, Brosché, M, Kollist, H (2014) To open or to close: species-specific stomatal responses to simultaneously applied opposing environmental factors. New Phytol 202:499–508 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Niinemets, Ü, Kull, O, Tenhunen, JD (2004) Within‐canopy variation in the rate of development of photosynthetic capacity is proportional to integrated quantum flux density in temperate deciduous trees. Plant Cell Environ 27:293–313 Google Scholar
Ogle, K (2003) Implications of interveinal distance for quantum yield in C4 grasses: a modeling and meta-analysis. Oecologia 136:532–542 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Patterson, DT (1979) The effects of shading on the growth and photosynthetic capacity of itchgrass (Rottboellia exaltata). Weed Sci 27:549–553 Google Scholar
Patterson, DT (1980) Shading effects on growth and partitioning of plant biomass in cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica) from shaded and exposed habitats. Weed Sci 28:735–740 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Regnier, EE, Salvucci, ME, Stoller, EW (1988) Photosynthesis and growth responses to irradiance in soybean (Glycine max) and three broadleaf weeds. Weed Sci 36:487–496 Google Scholar
Santos, BM, Morales-Payan, JP, Stall, WM, Bewick, TA, Shilling, DG (1997) Effects of shading on the growth of nutsedges (Cyperus spp.). Weed Sci 45:670–673 Google Scholar
Scherner, A (2017). Tillage and Crop Rotation Effects on the Soil Seed Bank, Weed Germination, Emergence, and Herbicide Dissipation in Winter Cereals. Ph.D thesis. Aarhus, Denmark: Department of Agroecology, Faculty of Science and Technology, Aarhus University. 135 pGoogle Scholar
Sharma, DK, Andersen, SB, Ottosen, CO, Rosenqvist, E (2015) Wheat cultivars selected for high Fv/Fm under heat stress maintain high photosynthesis, total chlorophyll, stomatal conductance, transpiration and dry matter. Physiol Plantarum 153:284–298 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Steckel, LE, Sprague, CL, Hager, AG, Simmons, FW, Bollero, GA (2003) Effects of shading on common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) growth and development. Weed Sci 51:898–903 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valladares, F, Niinemets, U (2008) Shade tolerance, a key plant feature of complex nature and consequences. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 39:237–257 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiner, J, Griepentrog, HW, Kristensen, L (2001) Suppression of weeds by spring wheat Triticum aestivum increases with crop density and spatial uniformity. J Appl Ecol 38:784–790 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warwick, SI (1979) The biology of Canadian weeds: 37 Poa annua L. Can J Plant Sci 59:1053–1066 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, E, Gut, D (2005) A survey of weeds that are increasingly spreading in Europe. Agron Sustain Dev 25:109–121 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yasin, M, Andreasen, C (2016) Effect of reduced oxygen concentration on the germination behavior of vegetable seeds. Hortic Environ Biotechnol 57:453–461 CrossRefGoogle Scholar