Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T22:31:33.768Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of Shade on Texasweed (Caperonia palustris) Emergence, Growth, and Reproduction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Rakesh K. Godara ,
Billy J. Williams  and
James P. Geaghan
Rakesh K. Godara*
Affiliation:
School of Plant Soil and Environmental Sciences, Louisiana State University and A&M College, Baton Rouge, LA 70803
Billy J. Williams
Affiliation:
Scott Research/Extension Center, 212-B Macon Ridge Road, Winnsboro, LA 71295
James P. Geaghan
Affiliation:
Department of Experimental Statistics, Louisiana State University and A&M College, Baton Rouge, LA 70803
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Experiments were conducted on potted plants under field conditions in 2007 and 2008 at the Louisiana State University Agricultural Center's Northeast Research Station near St. Joseph, LA, to evaluate Texasweed response to shade. Shade levels of 30, 50, 70, and 90% were achieved using 1.8-m by 1.8-m by 1.8-m tents built using 2.54-cm-diam polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe and polypropylene fabric. Shade had no effect on Texasweed emergence but significantly reduced its growth. There were significant growth differences between plants transferred directly and gradually to a given shade level. At 100 d after emergence, plants gradually exposed to 30, 50, 70, and 90% shade had 13, 22, 37, and 58% less total dry matter per plants, respectively, than did those in 0% shade. Texasweed height in 70 and 90% shade was increased by 28 and 20%, respectively. Texasweed seemed to mitigate the adverse effect of shade by increasing specific leaf area (SLA) and percentage of leaf biomass. Increasing SLA and the percentage of leaf biomass appears to be a strategy for efficient allocation of biomass for light capture and carbohydrate synthesis, which can be used for height increase until the plant rises above the crop canopy. Although fruit production was significantly reduced, Texasweed was able to reproduce in 90% shade.

Keywords

Texasweed, Caperonia palustris (L.) St. Hil. CNPPAShadePAR reductionTexasweed
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 60 , Issue 4 , December 2012 , pp. 593 - 599
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.)

Footnotes

Current address: P.O. Box 438, Northeast Research Station, Saint Joseph, LA 71366.

References

Literature Cited

Board, J. E., Harville, B. G., and Kamal, M. 1994. Radiation-use efficiency in relation to row spacing for late-planted soybean. Field Crops Res. 36:13–19.Google Scholar
Boyd, J. W. and Murray, D. S. 1982. Effects of shade on silverleaf nightshade (Solanum elaeagnifolium). Weed Sci. 30:264–269.Google Scholar
Bryson, C. T. and DeFelice, M. S., eds. 2009. Weeds of the South. Athens, GA University of Georgia Press. 185 p.Google 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.Google Scholar
Caton, B. P., Hill, J. E., Mortimer, A. M., Foin, T. C., and Lubigan, R. T. 2002. Canopy development of direct-seeded rice and some important grass and sedge weeds in response to water management. Agric. Forest Meteorol. 111:39–53.Google Scholar
Caton, B. P., Mortimer, A. M., Foin, T. C., Hill, J. E., Gibson, K. D., and Fischer, A. J. 2001. Weed shoot morphology effects on competitiveness for light in direct-seeded rice. Weed Res. 41:155–163.Google Scholar
Dingkuhn, M., Johnson, D. E., Sow, A., and Audebert, A. Y. 1999. Relationships between upland rice canopy characteristics and weed competitiveness. Field Crops Res. 61:79–95.Google Scholar
Flenet, F., Kiniry, J. R., Board, J. E., Westgate, M. E., and Reicosky, D. C. 1996. Row spacing effects on light extinction coefficients of corn, sorghum, soybean, and sunflower. Agron J. 88:185–190.Google Scholar
Gann, G. D., Bradley, K. A., and Woodmansee, S. W. 2007. The Floristic Inventory of South Florida Database Online. Miami, FL The Institute for Regional Conservation. http://regionalconservation.org/ircs/database/plants/SFPlantListByL.asp. Accessed: January 10, 2012.Google Scholar
Gianessi, L. P., Silvers, C. S., Sankula, S., and Carpenter, J. E. 2002. Plant biotechnology: current and potential impact for improving pest management in U.S. agriculture: an analysis of 40 case studies—herbicide tolerant rice. Washington, DC National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy. 8 p.Google Scholar
Gibson, K. D., Fischer, A. J., and Foin, T. C. 2001. Shading and growth and photosynthetic response of Ammannia coccinnea . Weed Res. 41:59–67.Google Scholar
Godfrey, R. K. and Wooten, J. W. 1981. Aquatic and wetland plants of southeastern United States: Dicotyledons. Athens, GA University of Georgia Press. Pp. 281–282.Google Scholar
Jha, P. and Norsworthy, J. K. 2009. Soybean canopy and tillage effects on emergence of palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) from a natural seed bank. Weed Sci. 57:644–651.Google Scholar
Jones, C. A. and Griffin, J. L. 2010. Red morningglory (Ipomoea coccinea) response to tillage and shade. J. Am. Soc. Sugarcane Technol. 30:11–20.Google Scholar
Keeley, P. E. and Thullen, R. J. 1978. Light requirements of yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus) and light interception by crops. Weed Sci. 26:10–16.Google Scholar
Koger, C. H., Reddy, K. N., and Poston, D. H. 2004. Factors affecting seed germination, seedling emergence, and survival of Texasweed (Caperonia palustris). Weed Sci. 52:989–995.Google Scholar
Murdock, E. C., Banks, P. A., and Toler, J. 1986. Shade development effects on pitted morningglory (Ipomoea lacunosa) interference with soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 34:711–717.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.Google Scholar
Pedersen, P. and Lauer, J. G. 2004. Soybean growth and development in various management systems and planting dates. Crop Sci. 44:508–515.Google Scholar
Poston, D. H., Nandula, V. K., Griffin, R. M., and Koger, C. H. 2007. Texasweed (Caperonia palustris) control in soybean with postemergence herbicides. Weed Technol. 21:670–673.Google Scholar
Santos, B. M., Morales-Payan, J. P., Stall, W. L., Bewick, T. A., and Shilling, D. G. 1997. Effect of shading on the growth of nutsedges (Cyperus spp.). Weed Sci. 45:670–673.Google Scholar
Saxton, A. M. 1998. A macro for converting mean separation output to letter groupings in PROC MIXED. Pages 1243–1246 in Proceedings of the 23rd SAS Users Group International (Nashville, TN). Cary, NC SAS Institute.Google Scholar
Singer, J. W., Meek, D. W., Sauer, T. J., Prueger, J. H., and Hatfield, J. L. 2011. Variability of light interception and radiation use efficiency in maize and soybean. Field Crops Res. 121:147–152.Google Scholar
Smith, R. J. Jr. 1968. Weed competition in rice. Weed Sci. 16:252–255.Google Scholar
Taylor, H. M., Mason, W. K., Bennie, A. T. P. and Rowse, H. R. 1982. Responses of soybeans to two row spacings and two soil water levels. I. An analysis of biomass accumulation, canopy development, solar radiation interception and components of seed yield. Field Crops Res. 5:1–14.Google Scholar
[USDA-NRCS] U.S. Department of Agriculture-National Resource Conservation Service. 2011. The PLANTS Database. Baton Rouge, LA National Plant Data Center. http://plants.usda.gov. Accessed: January 10, 2012.Google Scholar
Wiggans, S. C. 1959. Response of oat plants to various percentages of continuous shade. Bot. Gaz. 212:55–60.Google Scholar