Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T02:43:14.876Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pondweed Growth and Response to Herbicides under Controlled Light and Temperature

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Richard H. Hodgson  and
N. E. Otto
Richard H. Hodgson
Affiliation:
Crops Research Division, ARS, USDA
N. E. Otto
Affiliation:
Division of Research, BR, USDI
Get access

Abstract

Vegetative propagules of sago pondweed (Potamogeton pectinatus L.) and American pondweed (P. nodosus Poir.) grown under a 14-hr photoperiod of light varying in chromatic composition produced plants with longer internodes and more extensive shoot and stolon development under red light than under blue. Pondweeds grown for 4 weeks under 25 to 400 ft-c of light made progressively more growth at the higher light intensities. Plant weight, branch number and stolon development increased while shoot length and shoot-root ratio decreased with increased light. Pondweeds grown under each of 5 light intensities at temperatures of 60, 70, or 80 F were treated with emulsified xylene or alkyl tolyl methyl trimethyl ammonium chloride. Pondweeds cultured at the higher light intensities and higher temperatures were progressively more injured. Injury from treatment with either herbicide increased with age and plant maturity from early vegetative to flower-bud stage. Equivalent injury was produced on plants of equivalent maturity regardless of chronological age. Pondweeds cultured under 400 ft-c of light and a 14-hr photoperiod required approximately 900 degree-days over a 49 F threshold to reach flower-bud stage.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weeds , Volume 11 , Issue 3 , July 1963 , pp. 232 - 237
Copyright
Copyright © 1963 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. Atkins, W. R. G., Clarke, G. L., Petterson, H., Poole, H. H., Utterbach, C. L., and Angstrom, A. 1938. Measurement of submarine daylight. Jour. Conseil Intern. L'Exploration d. Mer. 13:1–21.Google Scholar
2. Bartley, T. R., and Otto, N. E. 1962. Progress report of 1961 field studies on aquatic weeds. Div. Eng. Lab., Bur. Reclam., U.S.D.I., Chem. Eng. Rept. W-4, 40 p.Google Scholar
3. Blackman, F. F. 1905. Optima and limiting factors. Ann. Bot., 19:281–295.Google Scholar
4. Blackman, G. E., and Robertson-Cunninghame, R. C. 1955. Interrelationships between light intensity, temperature, and the physiological effects of 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid on the growth of Lemna minor . J. Exp. Botany. 6:156–176.Google Scholar
5. Bonner, James. 1960. Fundamental plant physiology research in controlled environment facilities, p. 71–78. In Research outlook on soil, water, and plant nutrients. Nat. Acad. Sci. Nat. Res. Council publ. 785.Google Scholar
6. Brown, D. M. 1960. Soybean ecology. I. Development-temperature relationships from controlled environment studies. Agron. J. 52:493–499.Google Scholar
7. Bruns, V. F., Hodgson, J. M., Arle, H. F., and Timmons, F. L. 1955. The use of aromatic solvents for control of submersed aquatic weeds in irrigation channels. U. S. Dept. of Agr. Cir. 971.Google Scholar
8. Curtis, Otis F., and Clark, Daniel G. 1950. An introduction to plant physiology. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York. 752 p.Google Scholar
9. Dunn, Stuart, and Went, F. W. 1959. Influence of fluorescent light quality on growth ond photosynthesis of tomato. Lloydia 22:302–324.Google Scholar
10. Frank, P. A., Otto, N. E., and Bartley, T. R. 1961. Techniques for evaluating aquatic weed herbicides. Weeds 9:515–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Fry, F. E. J. 1947. Effects of the environment on animal activity. Univ. Toronto Stud. Biol. Ser. No. 55. 62 p.Google Scholar
12. Heikes, Eugene. 1960. Aquatic weed control in ditches and ponds. Mont. State Coll. Bull. 311. 20 p.Google Scholar
13. Hollaender, Alexander (ed.). 1956. Radiation biology. Vol. 3. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York.Google Scholar
14. LeClerg, E. L. 1957. Mean separation by the functional analysis of variance and multiple comparisons. U. S. Dept. Agr. Agr. Res. Serv. Rept. 20–3. 33 p.Google Scholar
15. McCombie, A. M. 1960. Actions and interactions of temperature, light intensity and nutrient concentration on the growth of the green algae, Chlamydomonas reinhardi Dangeard. J. Canada Fisheries Res. Bd. 17:871–894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Meyer, B. S., and Anderson, D. B. 1952. Plant physiology. D. Van Nostrand Co., New York. 784 p.Google Scholar
17. Mohr, H. 1962. Primary effects of light on growth. Ann. Rev. Plant Physiol. 13:465–488.Google Scholar
18. Otto, N. E. 1962. Pondweed growth and herbicidal treatment in a controlled environment. Div. Eng. Lab., Bur. Reclam., U.S.D.I. Water Conserv. Rept. W-6. 33 p.Google Scholar
19. Otto, N. E. and Enger, P. F. 1960. Some effects of suspended sediments on growth of submersed pondweeds. Div. Eng. Lab., Bur. Reclam., U.S.D.I. Gen. Lab. Rept. 27. 18 p.Google Scholar
20. Parker, M. C., and Borthwick, H. A. 1950. Influence of light on plant growth. Ann. Rev. Plant Physiol. 1:43–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21. Rohm and Haas Co. 1959. Plexiglas design, fabrication and molding data. Bull. 127e, 7 p.Google Scholar
22. Timmons, F. L. 1060. Weed control in western irrigation and drainage systems. Joint publ., Agr. Res. Serv., U.S.D.A. and Bur. Reclam., U.S.D.I., Agr. Res. Serv. Rept. 34–14. 22 p.Google Scholar
23. Timmons, F. L. and Klingman, D. L. 1960. Control of aquatic and bank vegetation and phreatophytes, p. 157–170. In Water and agriculture. Am. Assoc. Adv. Sci. publ. 62, 198 p. Google Scholar
24. Wassink, E. C., and Stolwijk, J. A. J. 1956. Effects of light quality on plant growth. Ann. Rev. Plant Physiol. 7:373–400.Google Scholar
25. Went, F. W. 1953. The effect of temperature on plant growth. Ann. Rev. Plant Physiol. 4:347–362.Google Scholar