Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T09:04:13.658Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Growth and Water Relations of Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum), Spurred Anoda (Anoda cristata), and Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) During Simulated Drought and Recovery

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

David T. Patterson
David T. Patterson*
Affiliation:
Dep. Bot., Duke Univ., Durham, NC 27706
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L. ‘Coker 315’), spurred anoda [Anoda cristata (L.) Schlecht. # ANVCR], and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti Medik. # ABUTH) were grown in controlled-environment chambers at 29/23 C day/night temperature and 1000 μE·m–2·s–1 photosynthetic photon flux density (PPFD). Groups of plants were subjected to water stress by withholding water for 8 days, beginning at 27 days after planting. Cotton reached a lower leaf water potential than spurred anoda and velvetleaf following 8 days of withholding water. Following the drought, plants were rewatered for a 6-day recovery period. Water stress reduced plant height, leaf number, leaf area, total dry weight, stomatal conductance, transpiration, net assimilation rate, and leaf area duration in all species, in comparison with well-watered controls. Water stress decreased partitioning of plant biomass into leaves and increased partitioning into roots. Following rewatering, stomatal conductance and transpiration rates of previously stressed plants recovered to control levels within 28 h. Net assimilation rates of previously stressed spurred anoda also recovered to control levels. After 6 days of recovery, total dry weights and leaf areas of previously stressed plants of all three species remained below those of control plants. The overall effect of the drought and water stress was to delay the time at which spurred anoda and velvetleaf equaled or surpassed cotton in dry weight and leaf area, suggesting that drought early in the growing season under field conditions might increase the competitiveness of cotton relative to the two weeds.

Keywords

Water stressgrowth analysiscompetitionABUTHANVCR
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 36 , Issue 3 , May 1988 , pp. 318 - 324
Copyright
Copyright © 1988 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. Begg, J. E. 1980. Morphological adaptations of leaves to water stress. Pages 33–42 in Turner, N. C. and Kramer, P. J., eds. Adaptation of Plants to Water and High Temperature stress. John Wiley & Sons, New York.Google Scholar
2. Begg, J. E. and Turner, N. C. 1976. Crop Water deficits. Adv. Agron. 28:161–217.Google Scholar
3. Boyer, J. S. 1982. Plant productivity and environment. Science 218:443–448.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.Google Scholar
5. Chandler, J. M. 1977. Competition of spurred anoda, velvetleaf, prickly sida, and Venice mallow in cotton. Weed Sci. 25:151–158.Google Scholar
6. Chandler, J. M. and Oliver, L. R. 1979. Spurred anoda: A potential weed in southern crops. U.S. Dep. Agric., Sci. and Educ. Admin., Agric. Rev. and Man. South. Ser. No. 2. 19 pp.Google Scholar
7. Downs, R. J. and Hellmers, H. 1975. Page 112 in Environment and the Experimental Control of Plant Growth. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
8. Flint, E. P., Patterson, D. T., and Beyers, J. L. 1983. Interference and temperature effects on growth of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum), spurred anoda (Anoda cristata), and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti). Weed Sci. 31:892–898.Google Scholar
9. Geddes, R. D., Scott, H. D., and Oliver, L. R. 1979. Growth and water use by common cocklebur (Xanthium pensylvanicum) and soybeans (Glycine max) under field conditions. Weed Sci. 27:206–212.Google Scholar
10. Kramer, P. J. 1980. Drought, stress, and the origin of adaptations. Pages 7–20 in Turner, N. C. and Kramer, P. J., eds. Adaptations of Plants to Water and High Temperature Stress. John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
11. 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. Dr. W. Junk N. V. Publ., The Hague.Google Scholar
12. McArthur, J. A., Hesketh, J. D., and Baker, D. N. 1975. Cotton. Pages 297–325 in Evans, L. T., ed. Crop Physiology. Cambridge Univ. Press, London.Google Scholar
13. McIntyre, G. I. 1987. The role of water in the regulation of plant development. Can. J. Bot. 65:1287–1298.Google Scholar
14. Passioura, J. B. 1981. Water collection by roots. Pages 39–53 in Paleg, L. G. and Aspinall, D., eds. The Physiology and Biochemistry of Drought Resistance in Plants. Academic Press, Sydney.Google Scholar
15. Patterson, D. T. and Flint, E. P. 1979. Effects of chilling on cotton (Gossypium hirsutum), velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti), and spurred anoda (Anoda cristata). Weed Sci. 27:473–479.Google Scholar
16. Patterson, D. T. and Flint, E. P. 1983. Comparative water relations, photosynthesis, and growth of soybean (Glycine max) and seven associated weeds. Weed Sci. 31:318–323.Google Scholar
17. Radosevich, S. R. and Holt, J. S. 1984. Weed Ecology. Implications for Vegetation Management. John Wiley and Sons, New York. 265 pp.Google Scholar
18. Sabbe, W. E. and Cathey, G. W. 1969. Translocation of labelled sucrose from selected cotton leaves. Agron. J. 61:436–438.Google Scholar
19. Scholander, P. F., Hammel, H. T., Hemmingsen, E. A., and Bradstreet, E. D. 1964. Hydrostatic pressure and osmotic potential in leaves of mangroves and some other plants. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 52:119–125.Google Scholar
20. Schreiber, M. M. 1982. Modeling the biology of weeds for integrated weed management. Weed Sci. 30 (Suppl. 1): 13–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21. Wiese, A. F. and Van Diver, C. W. 1970. Soil moisture effects on competitive ability of weeds. Weed Sci. 18:518–519.Google Scholar
23. Zimdahl, R. L. 1980. Weed-Crop Competition. A Review. Int. Plant Prot. Ctr., Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, OR. 195 pp.Google Scholar