Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-559fc8cf4f-6f8dk Total loading time: 0.246 Render date: 2021-02-25T16:46:09.871Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

Article contents

Effects of Photoperiod on Reproductive Development in Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

David T. Patterson
Affiliation:
U.S. Dep. Agric., Agric. Res. Serv., Dep. Botany, Duke Univ., Box 90340, Durham, NC 27708-0340

Abstract

When velvetleaf plants from Mississippi and Minnesota populations were maintained in growth chambers with day/night temperatures of 29/23 C and photoperiods of 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 h, flower buds and open flowers appeared first in the 12 h photoperiod. Buds and flowers appeared 2 to 4 d later at photoperiods of 11, 13, or 14 h. Increasing the photoperiod beyond 14 h to 15 h delayed bud appearance an additional 7 d in the MN plants and 12 d in the MS plants. Open flowers appeared four to five nodes higher, 10 d later at 15 than at 14 h in the MN plants and 20 d later in the MS plants. Vegetative shoot weight and fruit weight 73 d after emergence were greater in 13 h or longer photoperiods than at 11 or 12 h. In shorter photoperiods, MN plants produced more vegetative growth than MS plants, but the reverse occurred at longer photoperiods where MS plants were taller than MN plants. These growth differences occurred because earlier shifts in allocation to reproductive growth in MN plants limited their vegetative growth, particularly in the longest photoperiods. Differences in rate of reproductive development between populations were not evident until photoperiod exceeded 13 h. Reciprocal transfer of plants of the MS population between short and long photoperiods revealed the durations of the juvenile (pre-inductive), inductive, and post-inductive phases to be 3 to 5, 7 to 8 (short day) or 30 (long day), and 10 to 11 d, respectively. Differences in competitive ability among latitudinal biotypes of photoperiodically-sensitive weeds may depend on time of emergence in the field and consequent photoperiod exposure. Weed growth simulation models to be used in development of expert systems for weed management should take photoperiodic sensitivity into account.

Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Copyright
Copyright © 1995 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.

References

1. Alm, D. M., Pike, D. R., Hesketh, J. D., and Stoller, E. W. 1988. Leaf area development in some crop and weed species. Biotronics 17:2939.Google Scholar
2. Alm, D. M., McGiffen, M. E. Jr., and Hesketh, J. D. 1991. Weed phenology. p. 199218 in Hodges, T. (ed.) Predicting Crop Phenology. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.Google Scholar
3. Andersen, R. N., Menges, R. M., and Conn, J. S. 1985. Variability in velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) and reproduction beyond its current range in North America. Weed Sci. 33:507512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Chandler, J. M. 1977. Competition of spurred anoda, velvetleat, prickly sida, and Venice mallow in cotton. Weed Sci. 25:151158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Downs, R. J. and Hellmers, H. 1975. Page 112 in Environment and the Experimental Control of Plant Growth. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
6. Ellis, R. H., Collinson, S. T., Hudson, D., and Patefield, W. M. 1992. The analysis of reciprocal transfer experiments to estimate the durations of the photoperiod-sensitive and photoperiod-insensitive phases of plant development: An example in soya bean. Ann. Bot. 70:8792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Ephrath, J. E. and Hesketh, J. D. 1991. The thermal-photoperiod requirement for floral bud growth. Biotronics 20:17.Google Scholar
8. Kiniry, J. R., Ritchie, J. T., Musser, R. L., Flint, E. P., and Iwig, W. C. 1983. The photoperiod sensitive interval in maize. Agron. J. 75:687690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Kropff, M. J., Weaver, S. E., and Smits, M. A. 1992. Use of ecophysiological models for crop-weed interference: Relations amongst weed density, relative time of weed emergence, relative leaf area, and yield loss. Weed Sci. 40:296301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Major, D. J. and Kiniry, J. R. 1991. Predicting daylength effects on phenological processes. Page 1528 in Hodges, T. (ed.) Predicting Crop Phenology. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.Google Scholar
11. McGiffen, M. E. Jr., Huck, M. G., and Spitters, C.J.T. 1990. Physiologically-based simulation of weed crop competition. Page 1112 in International Benchmark Sites for Agrotechnology Transfer. Proc. Workshop on Modeling Pest-Crop Interactions. Dep. Agron. Soil Sci., Coll. Trop. Agric. Human Resources, Univ. Hawaii, Honolulu.Google Scholar
12. Morgan, D. G. and Morgan, C. B. 1984. Photoperiod and the abscission of flower buds in Phaseolus vulgaris . Page 227240 in Vince-Prue, D., Thomas, B., and Cockshull, K. E. (ed.) Light and the Flowering Process. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
13. Munger, P. H., Chandler, J. M., and Cothren, J. T. 1987. Effect of water stress on photosynthetic parameters of soybean (Glycine max) and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti). Weed Sci. 35:1521.Google Scholar
14. Oliver, L. R. 1979. Influence of soybean (Glycine max) planting date on velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) competition. Weed Sci. 27:183188.Google Scholar
15. Patterson, D. T. 1992. Temperature and canopy development of velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) and soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 6:6876.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Patterson, D. T. 1993. Effects of temperature and photoperiod on growth and development of sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia). Weed Sci. 41:574582.Google Scholar
17. Patterson, D. T., Duke, S. O., and Hoagland, R. E. 1978. Effects of irradiance during growth on adaptive photosynthetic characteristics of velvetleaf and cotton. Plant Physiol. 61:402405.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18. Regnier, E. E., Salvucci, M. E., and Stoller, E. W. 1988. Photosynthesis and growth responses to irradiance in soybean (Glycine max) and three broadleaf weeds. Weed Sci. 36:487496.Google Scholar
19. Roberts, E. H. and Summerfield, R. J. 1987. Measurement and prediction of flowering in annual crops. Page 1750 in Atherton, J. G. (ed.) Manipulation of Flowering. Butterworths, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20. Schreiber, M. M. 1982. Modeling the biology of weeds for integrated weed management. Weed Sci. 30(Suppl.): 1316.Google Scholar
21. Spencer, N. R. 1984. Velvetleaf, Abutilon theophrasti (Malvaceae) history and economic impact in the United States. Econ. Bot. 38:407416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22. Stoller, E. W. and Myers, R. A. 1989. Response of soybeans (Glycine max) and four broadleaf weeds to reduced irradiance. Weed Sci. 37:570574.Google Scholar
23. Vince-Prue, D. 1975. Photoperiodism in Plants. McGraw Hill, London. 444 p.Google Scholar
24. Warwick, S. I. and Black, L. D. 1986. Genecological variation in recently established populations of Abutilon theophrasti (velvetleaf). Can. J. Bot. 64:16321643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25. Warwick, S. I. and Black, L. D. 1988. The biology of Canadian weeds. 90. Abutilon theophrasti . Can J. Plant Sci. 68:10691085.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26. Weaver, S. E., Kropff, M. J., and Cousens, R. 1993. A simulation model of Avena fatua L. (wild-oat) growth and development. Ann. Appl. Biol. 122:537554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27. Wilkerson, G. G., Jones, J. W., Boote, K. J., and Boul, G. S. 1989. Photoperiodically sensitive interval in time to flower of soybean. Crop Sci. 29:721726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28. Wilkerson, G. G., Jones, J. W., Coble, H. D., and Gunsolus, J. L. 1990. SOYWEED: A simulation model of soybean and common cocklebur growth and competition. Agron. J. 82:10031010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 7 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 12th June 2017 - 25th February 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Effects of Photoperiod on Reproductive Development in Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti)
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Effects of Photoperiod on Reproductive Development in Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti)
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Effects of Photoperiod on Reproductive Development in Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti)
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *