Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T04:07:21.838Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Effects of Shading on the Growth and Photosynthetic Capacity of Itchgrass (Rottboellia exaltata)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

David T. Patterson
David T. Patterson*
Affiliation:
South. Weed Sci. Lab., Agric. Res., Sci. Ed. Admin., U.S. Dep. Agric., Stoneville, MS 38776
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The effects of shade on the growth and photosynthetic capacity of the exotic noxious weed itchgrass (Rottboellia exaltata L. f.) were determined under controlled environment conditions. The plants were grown at day/night temperatures of 29/23 C under 100, 60, 25, and 2% sunlight in a climate-controlled greenhouse. Mathematical growth analysis techniques were used to evaluate the effects of shading on dry matter production and leaf area production. Infrared gas analysis and diffusion porometry techniques were used to evaluate the effects of shading on photosynthesis and stomatal resistance. Shading markedly reduced dry matter production. At 40 days after planting, plants grown in 2, 25, and 60% sunlight had 0.3, 16, and 55%, respectively, of the dry weight of the plants grown at 100% sunlight. Leaf area production was less severely retarded by shading; the plants grown at 2, 25, and 60% sunlight had, respectively, 1.7, 42, and 99% of the leaf area of the plants grown at 100% sunlight. Ambient photosynthetic rates of recently expanded, single, fully exposed leaves were 22.5, 51.6, and 65.5 mg CO2 dm-2h-1 in the 25, 60, and 100% sunlight treatments, respectively. Photosynthetic rates at saturating irradiance did not differ significantly in plants grown at 25, 60, or 100% sunlight and ranged from 76.4 to 78.0 mg CO2 dm-2h-1. Stomatal resistances, ranging from 6.0 to 7.5 s cm-1, also did not differ significantly among these plants. In terms of dry matter production, itchgrass is a shade-intolerant plant. However, even when grown in shade, itchgrass maintains the capacity for high photosynthetic rates and high growth rates when subsequently exposed to high irradiance. These characteristics help explain its competitiveness with crop species.

Keywords

Growth analysiscompetitionlight adaptation
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 27 , Issue 5 , September 1979 , pp. 549 - 553
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. Black, C. C., Chen, T. M., and Brown, R. H. 1969. Biochemical basis for plant competition. Weed Sci. 17:338–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Blackman, G. E. 1960. Responses to environmental factors by plants in the vegetative phase. Pages 525–556 in Zarrow, M. X., ed. Growth in Living Systems. Basic Books, Inc., New York.Google Scholar
3. Blackman, G. E. 1968. The application of the concepts of growth analysis to the assessment of productivity. Pages 243–259 in Eckardt, F. E., ed. Functioning of Terrestrial Ecosystems at the Primary Production Level. UNESCO, Paris.Google Scholar
4. 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. 63:940–945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Donald, C. M. 1958. The interaction of competition for light and for nutrients. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 9:421–435.Google Scholar
6. Donald, C. M. 1963. Competition among crop and pasture plants. Adv. Agron. 15:1–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Friend, D. J. C. 1966. The effects of light and temperature on the growth of cereals. Pages 181–199 in Milthorpe, F. L. and Ivins, J. D., eds. The Growth of Cereals and Grasses. Butterworth's, London.Google Scholar
8. Hoagland, D. R. and Arnon, D. I. 1950. The water culture method for growing plants without soil. California Agric. Exp. Stn. Serv. Cir. No. 547.Google Scholar
9. Holm, L. G., Plucknett, D. L., Pancho, J. V., and Herberger, J. P. 1977. The World's Worst Weeds. Distribution and Biology. Univ. Press of Hawaii, Honolulu.Google Scholar
10. Jarvis, P. G. 1971. The estimation of resistance to carbon dioxide transfer. Pages 566–631 in Sestak, Z., Catsky, J., and Jarvis, P. G., eds. Plant Photosynthetic Production. Manual of Methods. W. Junk, The Hague.Google Scholar
11. Kanemasu, E. J., Thurtle, G. W., and Tanner, C. B. 1969. Design, calibration, and use of a stomatal diffusion porometer. Plant Physiol. 44:881–888.Google Scholar
12. Kramer, P. J., Hellmers, H., and Downs, R. J. 1970. SEPEL: new phytotrons for environmental research. BioScience 20:1201–1208.Google Scholar
13. Kvet, J., Ondok, J. P., Necas, J., and Jarvis, P. G. 1971. Methods of growth analysis. Pages 343–391 in Sestak, Z., Catsky, J., and Jarvis, P. G., eds. Plant Photosynthetic Production. Manual of Methods. W. Junk, The Hague.Google Scholar
14. Laetsch, W. M. 1974. The C4 syndrome: a structural analysis. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. 25:27–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Milhollon, R. W. 1975. Weed watch. Weeds Today 6(4):20.Google Scholar
16. Patterson, D. T. 1979. Light and temperature adaptation. Chapter VIII in Hesketh, J. D. and Jones, J. W., eds. Predicting Photosynthate Production and Use for Ecosystem Models. CRC Press, West Palm Beach, Florida (In press).Google Scholar
17. Patterson, D. T., Bunce, J. A., Alberte, R. S., and van Volkenburgh, E. 1977. Photosynthesis in relation to leaf characteristics of cotton from controlled and field environments. Plant Physiol. 59:384–387.Google Scholar
18. Patterson, D. T., Duke, S. O., and Hoagland, R. E. 1978. Effect of irradiance during growth on adaptive photosynthetic characteristics of velvetleaf and cotton. Plant Physiol. 61:402–405.Google Scholar
19. Patterson, D. T. and Hite, J. 1975. A CO2 monitoring and control system for plant growth chambers. Ohio J. Sci. 75:190–193.Google Scholar
20. Patterson, D. T., Meyer, C. R., Flint, E. P., and Quimby, P. C. Jr. 1979. Temperature response and potential distribution of itchgrass (Rottboellia exaltata) in the United States. Weed Sci. 27:77–82.Google Scholar
21. Patterson, D. T., Meyer, C. R., and Quimby, P. C. Jr. 1978. Effects of irradiance on relative growth rates, net assimilation rates, and leaf area partitioning in cotton and three associated weeds. Plant Physiol. 62:14–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22. 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
23. Risser, P. G. 1969. Competitive relationships among herbaceous grassland plants. Bot. Rev. 35:251–284.Google Scholar
24. Steel, R. G. D. and Torrie, J. H. 1960. Principles and procedures of statistics. McGraw-Hill, New York. 481 pp.Google Scholar
25. Thomas, P. E. L. and Allison, J. C. S. 1975. Competition between maize and Rottboellia exaltata . J. Agric. Sci. 84:305–312.Google Scholar
26. Watson, D. J. 1952. The physiological basis of variation in yield. Adv. Agron. 4:101–145.Google Scholar
27. Went, F. W. 1974. Reflections and speculations. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. 25:1–26.Google Scholar