Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T19:58:42.320Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Red:Far-Red Light Effects on Corn Growth and Productivity in Field Environments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Melinda Y. Markham  and
David E. Stoltenberg
Melinda Y. Markham
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1575 Linden Drive, Madison, WI 53706
David E. Stoltenberg*
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1575 Linden Drive, Madison, WI 53706
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Increased reflection of far-red light among plants can lower the red:far-red ratio (R:FR) of horizontally-propagated light before substantial shading among plants occurs. Although previous research suggests that altered R:FR can affect corn growth, it is not understood how early-season low R:FR (associated with higher plant densities in corn–weed communities than in weed-free corn) affects corn productivity in the field. We conducted field experiments from 2005 to 2007 to determine the effects of reduced R:FR on corn growth and yield. Corn was established at 53,800 plants ha−1 for a control R:FR treatment (weed-free corn) and at 107,600 plants ha−1 for a low R:FR treatment (simulated corn–weed community). The low R:FR treatment was thinned to the control plant density at V7 corn (seven fully-expanded leaf collars), which simulated total weed removal. Before thinning, R:FR (645:735 nm) at V7 corn in the low R:FR treatment (0.23) was less than 50% of that in the control R:FR treatment (0.49) across years. In 2005, stalk diameter, stem length, stem mass, leaf mass, specific leaf area, and total plant mass were less for V5 corn in the low R:FR treatment than in the control R:FR treatment. In 2006, V5 corn was taller in the low R:FR treatment than in the control R:FR treatment, but other morphological characteristics were similar between treatments. The shoot:root ratio of V5 (five fully-expanded leaf collars) (2005) and V7 corn (2006) was not affected by R:FR treatment, nor was shoot mass and grain yield of R6 corn (physiological maturity). Measurements in 2006 indicated that soil moisture and nutrient availability were not limiting and did not differ between treatments. Early-season R:FR in simulated corn–weed communities was similar to that in in situ corn–weed communities. These results suggest that low R:FR typical of early-season corn–weed communities was not associated with corn grain yield loss under field conditions in which water and nutrients were not limiting resources.

Keywords

Corn, Zea mays LCrop–weed interactionslight qualityphytochrome
Type
Special Topics
Information
Weed Science , Volume 57 , Issue 2 , April 2009 , pp. 208 - 215
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.)

References

Literature Cited

Aparicio, N., Villegas, D., Araus, J. L., Casadesús, J., and Royo, C. 2002. Relationship between growth traits and spectral vegetation indices in durum wheat. Crop Sci. 42:1547–1555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aphalo, P. J., Ballaré, C. L., and Scopel, A. L. 1999. Plant-plant signaling, the shade-avoidance response and competition. J. Exp. Bot. 50:1629–1634.Google Scholar
Ballaré, C. L. 1999. Keeping up with the neighbours: phytochrome sensing and other signaling mechanisms. Trends Plant Sci. 4:97–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ballaré, C. L. and Casal, J. J. 2000. Light signals perceived by crop and weed plants. Field Crops Res. 67:149–160.Google Scholar
Ballaré, C. L., Sanchez, R. A., Scopel, A., Casal, J. J., and Ghersa, C. M. 1987. Early detection of neighbour plants by phytochrome perception of spectral changes in reflected sunlight. Plant, Cell Environ. 10:551–557.Google Scholar
Ballaré, C. L., Scopel, A. L., Jordan, E. T., and Vierstra, R. D. 1994. Signaling among neighboring plants and the development of size inequalities in plant populations. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 91:10,094–10,098.Google Scholar
Campbell, G. S. and Norman, J. M. 1998. An Introduction to Environmental Biophysics. New York Springer-Verlag. 247–276.Google Scholar
Carmer, S. G. and Swanson, M. R. 1973. An evaluation of ten pairwise multiple comparison procedures by Monte Carlo methods. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 68:66–74.Google Scholar
Casal, J. J. 2000. Phytochromes, cryptochromes, phototropin: photoreceptor interactions in plants. Photochem. Photobiol. 71:1–11.Google Scholar
Casal, J. J. and Smith, H. 1988. Persistent effects of changes in phytochrome status on internode growth in light-grown mustard: occurrence, kinetics and locus of perception. Planta. 175:214–220.Google Scholar
Casal, J. J. and Smith, H. 1989. The function, action and adaptive significance of phytochrome in light-grown plants. Plant Cell Environ. 12:855–862.Google Scholar
Casal, J. J., Sanchez, R. A., and Deregibus, V. A. 1986. Effects of plant density on tillering: the involvement of the R/FR and the proportion of radiation intercepted per plant. Environ. Exp. Bot. 26:365–371.Google Scholar
Chelle, M., Evers, J. B., Combes, D., Varlet-Grancher, C., Vos, J., and Andrieu, B. 2007. Simulation of the three-dimensional distribution of the red:far-red ratio within crop canopies. New Phytol. 176:223–234.Google Scholar
Colon-Carmona, A., Chen, D. L., Yeh, K-C., and Abel, S. 2000. Aux/IAA proteins are phosphorylated by phytochrome in vitro. Plant Physiol. 124:1728–1738.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davis, M. H. and Simmons, S. R. 1994. Tillering response of barley to shifts in light quality caused by neighboring plants. Crop Sci. 34:1604–1610.Google Scholar
Deregibus, V. A., Sanchez, R. A., Casal, J. J., and Trlica, M. J. 1985. Tillering responses to enrichment of red light beneath the canopy in a humid natural grassland. J. Appl. Ecol. 22:199–206.Google Scholar
Evers, J. B., Vos, J., Chelle, M., Andrieu, B., Fournier, C., and Struik, P. C. 2007. Simulating the effects of localized red:far-red ratio on tillering in spring wheat (Triticum aestivum) using a three-dimensional virtual plant model. New Phytol. 176:325–336.Google Scholar
Fellner, M., Horton, L., Cocke, A., Stephens, N., Ford, D., and Van Volkenburgh, E. 2003. Light interacts with auxin during leaf elongation and leaf angle development in young corn seedlings. Planta. 216:366–376.Google Scholar
Graglia, E., Melander, B., and Jensen, R. K. 2006. Mechanical and cultural strategies to control Cirsium arvense in organic arable cropping systems. Weed Res. 46:304–312.Google Scholar
Graham, R. L., Nelson, R., Sheehan, J., Perlack, R. D., and Wright, L. L. 2007. Current and potential U.S. corn stover supplies. Agron. J. 99:1–11.Google Scholar
Gramig, G. G. 2006. Weed Photosynthetic and Morphological Responses to Heterogeneous Canopy Light Environments. . Madison, WI University of Wisconsin-Madison. 132.Google Scholar
Green, R. H. 1989. Power analysis and practical strategies for environmental monitoring. Environ. Res. 50:195–205.Google Scholar
Henry, H. A. L. and Thomas, S. C. 2002. Interactive effects of lateral shade and wind on stem allometry, biomass allocation, and mechanical stability in Abutilon theophrasti (Malvaceae). Am. J. Bot. 89:1609–1615.Google Scholar
Heraut-Bron, V., Robin, C., Varlet-Grancher, C., Afif, D., and Guckert, A. 1999. Light quality (red:far-red ratio): does it affect photosynthetic activity, net CO2 assimilation, and morphology of young white clover leaves. Can. J. Bot. 77:1425–1431.Google Scholar
Ito, S., Nakamichi, N., Nakamura, Y., Niwa, Y., Kato, T., Murakami, M., Kita, M., Mizoguchi, T., Niinuma, K., Yamashino, T., and Mizuno, T. 2007. Genetic linkages between circadian clock-associated components and phytochrome-dependent red light signal transduction in Arabidopsis thaliana . Plant Cell Physiol. 48:971–983.Google Scholar
Kamiya, Y. and Garcia-Martinez, J. 1999. Regulation of gibberellin biosynthesis by light. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 2:398–403.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kasperbauer, M. J. 1987. Far-red light-reflection from green leaves and effects on phytochrome-mediated assimilate partitioning under field conditions. Plant Physiol. 85:350–354.Google Scholar
Kasperbauer, M. J. and Karlen, D. L. 1994. Plant spacing and reflected far-red light effects on phytochrome-regulated photosynthate allocation in corn seedlings. Crop Sci. 34:1564–1569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kasperbauer, M. J., Hunt, P. G., and Sojka, R. E. 1984. Photosynthate partitioning and nodule formation in soybean plants that received red or far-red light at the end of the photosynthetic period. Physiol. Plant. 61:549–554.Google Scholar
Knauber, D. C. and Banowetz, G. M. 1992. Phenotypic analysis of a dwarf wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) with altered phytochrome-mediated growth responses. Plant Physiol. 100:1901–1908.Google Scholar
Kurepin, L. V., Emery, R. J. N., Pharis, R. P., and Reid, D. M. 2007. Uncoupling light quality from light irradiance effects in Helianthus annuus shoots: putative roles for plant hormones in leaf and internode growth. J. Exp. Bot. 58:2145–2157.Google Scholar
Laboski, C. A. M., Peters, J. B., and Bundy, L. G. 2006. Nutrient Application Guidelines for Field, Vegetable, and Fruit Crops in Wisconsin. Madison, WI University of Wisconsin-Extension, Cooperative Extension, and USDA. 76.Google Scholar
Maddonni, G. A., Otegui, M. E., Andrieu, B., Chelle, M., and Casal, J. J. 2002. Maize leaves turn away from neighbors. Plant Physiol. 130:1181–1189.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Markelz, N. H., Costich, D. E., and Brutnell, T. P. 2003. Photomorphogenic responses in maize seedling development. Plant Physiol. 133:1578–1591.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mills, H. A. and Jones, J. B. Jr. 1996. Plant Analysis Handbook II: A Practical Sampling, Preparation, Analysis, and Interpretation Guide. Athens MicroMacro Publishing. 422.Google Scholar
Novoplansky, A., Cohen, D., and Sachs, T. 1990. How portulaca seedlings avoid their neighbors. Oecologia. 82:490–493.Google Scholar
Rajcan, I., Chandler, K. J., and Swanton, C. J. 2004. Red-far-red ratio of reflected light: a hypothesis of why early-season weed control is important in corn. Weed Sci. 52:774–778.Google Scholar
Reddy, R. K. and Sharma, R. 1998. Spatial distribution and temporal regulation of phytochromes A and B levels in maize seedlings. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 36:737–745.Google Scholar
Schulte, E. E. and Walsh, L. M. 1994. Soil water. Pages 21–28. in Deith, L. G. Management of Wisconsin Soils. Bulletin A3588. Madison, WI University of Wisconsin Extension.Google Scholar
Small, C. J. and McCarthy, B. C. 2005. Relationship of understory diversity to soil nitrogen, topographic variation, and stand age in an eastern oak forest, USA. For. Ecol. Manage. 217:229–243.Google Scholar
Smith, H. 1982. Light quality, photoperception, and plant strategy. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. Plant Mol. Biol. 33:481–518.Google Scholar
Smith, H., Casal, J. J., and Jackson, G. M. 1990. Reflection signals and the perception by phytochrome of the proximity of neighboring vegetation. Plant, Cell Environ. 13:73–78.Google Scholar
Wan, C. G. and Sosebee, R. E. 1998. Tillering responses to red:far-red light ratio during different phenological stages in Eragrostis curvula . Environ. Exp. Bot. 40:247–254.Google Scholar
Weinig, C. 2000. Plasticity versus canalization: population differences in the timing of shade-avoidance responses. Evolution. 54:441–451.Google Scholar