Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T04:27:06.667Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Carolina redroot (Lachnanthes caroliniana) vegetative growth and rhizome production as affected by environmental factors and planting depth

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 July 2019

Thierry. E. Besançon Open the ORCID record for Thierry. E. Besançon [Opens in a new window]
Thierry. E. Besançon*
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Department of Plant Biology, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Thierry E. Besançon, Department of Plant Biology, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ 08901. Email: thierry.besancon@rutgers.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Carolina redroot [Lachnanthes caroliniana (Lam.) Dandy] is a frequent weed of New Jersey cranberry (Vaccinium macrocarpon Aiton) bogs that competes with the crop for nutritional resources. Studies were conducted in 2018 to determine the effects of planting depth, soil moisture, lighting conditions, rhizome water content, and duration of rhizome submersion under water on L. caroliniana shoot emergence, vegetative growth, and rhizome development. Only planting depth greater than 12 cm significantly reduced shoot emergence (54%), biomass shoot and root production (27% and 65%, respectively), and rhizome formation (65%) compared with a 2-cm depth. Complete inhibition of new rhizome production was observed when the rhizome water content dropped to 30%. Soil moisture ≤30% decreased shoot biomass by ≥53% compared to 60% soil moisture, but marginally affected root biomass and had no impact on rhizome formation. Rhizome submersion for at least 120 d had minor effect on shoot emergence but reduced plant biomass by ≥28% and completely inhibited the formation of rhizomes. Finally, shading did not influence emergence but had a more dramatic effect on root and shoot biomass, which were reduced by 53% and 75%, respectively, and prevented the development of new rhizomes. This study demonstrates the plasticity of L. caroliniana to drought stress or long-lasting flooding conditions, therefore preventing consideration of cranberry bed temporary flooding or limitation of irrigation volume and frequency as viable management options. Sanding would not provide a layer of material sufficiently thick for reducing L. caroliniana shoot emergence. Reducing the quantity of light reaching the soil with black tarps or promoting rapid crop canopy closure are options that can complement the use of mesotrione for controlling L. caroliniana. Future research should address the practicality of these options, especially in bogs with low L. caroliniana pressure when early-summer weed regrowth occurs following dissipation of PRE herbicide activity.

Keywords

Hilary A. Sandler, University of MassachusettsField capacitylightplanting depthrhizome water contentshoot emergence
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 67 , Issue 5 , September 2019 , pp. 572 - 579
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2019 

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

Applegate, JE, Little, S, Marucci, PE (2012) Plants and animal products of the Pine Barrens. Pages 25–38 in Forman, R, ed. Pine Barrens: Ecosystem and Landscape. New York: Academic Google Scholar
Bankovich, B, Boughton, EH, Boughton, RK, Avery, ML, Wisely, SM (2016) Plant community shifts caused by feral swine rooting devalue Florida rangeland. Agric Ecosyst Environ 220:45–54 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Besançon, TE (2019a) Carolina redroot (Lachnanthes caroliniana) in cranberry: assessment of shoot and rhizome control with POST herbicides. Weed Technol 33:210–216 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Besançon, TE (2019b) What Did We Learn from Two Years of Research on Controlling Carolina Redroot? https://pemaruccicenter.rutgers.edu/docs/19-ACGA-Abstract-WinterMeetingProgram2019.pdf. Accessed: May 13, 2019Google Scholar
Bhowmik, PC (1997) Weed biology: importance to weed management. Weed Sci 349–356 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boughton, EH, Boughton, RK (2014) Modification by an invasive ecosystem engineer shifts a wet prairie to a monotypic stand. Biol Invasions 16:2105–2114 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boughton, EH, Boughton, RK, Griffith, C, Bernath-Plaisted, J (2016) Reproductive traits of Lachnanthes caroliniana (Lam.) Dandy related to patch formation following feral swine rooting disturbance. J Torrey Bot Soc 143:265–273 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyd, NS, Van Acker, RC (2003) The effects of depth and fluctuating soil moisture on the emergence of eight annual and six perennial plant species. Weed Sci 51:725–730 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carmer, SG, Nyquist, WE, Walker, WM (1989) Least significant differences for combined analyses of experiments with two- or three-factor treatment designs. Agron J 81:665–672 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carr, BL, Besançon, TE, Schiffhauer, D (2017) Control of Carolina redroot (Lachnanthes caroliana) in cranberry with preemergence herbicides. In North American Cranberry Researcher and Extension Workers Conference. https://scholarworks.umass.edu/nacrew/2017/posters/10. Accessed: May 13, 2019Google Scholar
Chauhan, BS (2013) Growth response of itchgrass (Rottboellia cochinchinensis) to water stress. Weed Sci 61:98–103 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chauhan, BS, Abugho, SB (2013) Effect of water stress on the growth and development of Amaranthus spinosus, Leptochloa chinensis, and rice. Am J Plant Sci 4:989–998 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dall’Armellina, AA, Zimdahl, RL (1988) Effect of light on growth and development of field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) and Russian knapweed (Centaurea repens). Weed Sci 36:779–783 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeMoranville, CJ, Sandler, HA (2000) Sanding. UMass Cranberry Station. http://www.umass.edu/cranberry/pubs/bmp_sanding.html. Accessed: December 7, 2018Google Scholar
DeMoranville, CJ, Sandler, HA, Shumaker, DE, Averill, AL, Caruso, F, Sylvia, MM, Pober, DM (2005) Fall flooding for management of cranberry fruitworm (Acrobasis vaccinii) and dewberry (Rubus hispidus) in Massachusetts cranberry production. Crop Prot 24:999–1006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gealy, D (1998) Differential response of palmleaf morningglory (Ipomoea wrightii) and pitted morningglory (Ipomoea lacunosa) to flooding. Weed Sci 46:217–224 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godara, RK, Williams, BJ, Webster, EP (2011) Texasweed (Caperonia palustris) can survive and reproduce in 30-cm flood. Weed Technol 25:667–673 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heckman, NL, Horst, GL, Gaussoin, RE (2002) Planting depth effect on emergence and morphology of buffalograss seedlings. HortScience 37:506–507 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heneghan, JM, Johnson, WG (2017) The growth and development of five waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus) populations in a common garden. Weed Sci 65:247–255 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holt, JS (1995) Plant responses to light: a potential tool for weed management. Weed Sci 43:474–482 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchinson, RA, Viers, JH (2011) Tarping as an alternative for perennial pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium) control. Invasive Plant Sci Manag 4:66–72 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaur, S, Aulakh, J, Jhala, AJ (2016) Growth and seed production of glyphosate-resistant giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida L.) in response to water stress. Can J Plant Sci 96:828–836 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knezevic, SZ, Evans, SP, Blankenship, EE, Van Acker, RC, Lindquist, JL (2002) Critical period for weed control: the concept and data analysis. Weed Sci 50:773–786 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, B, Shibuya, T, Yogo, Y, Hara, T, Matsuo, K (2001) Effects of light quantity and quality on growth and reproduction of a clonal sedge, Cyperus esculentus. Plant Species Biol 16:69–81 Google Scholar
Majek, BA, Ayeni, AO (2004) Utilization of mesotrione for weed control in cranberries [abstract]. Pages 145–145 in Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Northeastern Weed Science Society. Cambridge, MA: Northeastern Weed Science Society Google Scholar
McMaster, GS, Wilhelm, WW, Morgan, JA (1992) Simulating winter wheat shoot apex phenology. J Agric Sci 119:1–12 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norsworthy, JK, Ward, SM, Shaw, DR, Llewellyn, RS, Nichols, RL, Webster, TM, Bradley, KW, Frisvold, G, Powles, SB, Burgos, NR, Witt, WW, Barrett, M (2012) Reducing the risks of herbicide resistance: best management practices and recommendations. Weed Sci 60:31–62 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oudemans, PV, Caruso, FL, Stretch, AW (1998) Cranberry fruit rot in the Northeast: a complex disease. Plant Dis 82:1176–1184 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oudemans, PV, Polashock, JJ, Vinyard, BT (2008) Fairy ring disease of cranberry: assessment of crop losses and impact on cultivar genotype. Plant Dis 92:616–622 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roman, ES, Murphy, SD, Swanton, CJ (2000) Simulation of Chenopodium album seedling emergence. Weed Sci 48:217–224 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandler, HA (2010) Managing Cuscuta gronovii (Swamp dodder) in cranberry requires an integrated approach. Sustainability 2:660–683 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandler, HA, Dalbec, L, Ghantous, K, eds (2015) Identification Guide for Weeds in Cranberries. Québec: Centre de Référence en Agriculture et Agroalimentaire du Québec. 239 pGoogle Scholar
Sandler, HA, Else, MJ, Sutherland, M (1997) Application of sand for inhibition of swamp dodder (Cuscuta gronovii) seedling emergence and survival on cranberry (Vaccininium macrocarpon) bogs. Weed Technol 11:318–323 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandler, HA, Mason, J (2010) Flooding to manage dodder (Cuscuta gronovii) and broad-leaved weed species in cranberry: An innovative use of a traditional strategy. Renew Agric Food Syst 25:257–262 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sarangi, D, Irmak, S, Lindquist, JL, Knezevic, SZ, Jhala, AJ (2016) Effect of water stress on the growth and fecundity of common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis). Weed Sci 64:42–52 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shen, J, Shen, M, Wang, X, Lu, Y (2005) Effect of environmental factors on shoot emergence and vegetative growth of alligatorweed (Alternanthera philoxcroides). Weed Sci 53:471–478 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spiess, AN, Neumeyer, N (2010) An evaluation of R2 as an inadequate measure for nonlinear models in pharmacological and biochemical research: a Monte Carlo approach. BMC Pharmacol 10:6 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tomlinson, B (1937) Proper sanding of great importance in good bog management. Cranberries 1: 4, 8–11 Google Scholar
[USDA-NRCS] U.S. Department of Agriculture–Natural Resources Conservation Service (2018) Lachnanthes caroliana (Lam) Dandy. PLANTS Database. https://plants.usda.gov/core/profile?symbol=LACA5. Accessed: September 7, 2018Google Scholar
Webster, TM, Grey, TL (2008) Growth and reproduction of benghal dayflower (Commelina benghalensis) in response to drought stress. Weed Sci 56:561–566 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welker, WV (1979) Control of Carolina redroot (Lachnanthes tinctoria) [abstract]. Page 142 in Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Northeastern Weed Science Society. Philadelphia: Northeastern Weed Science Society Google Scholar
Zimdahl, RL, Lin, J, Dall’Armellina, AA (1991) Effect of light, watering frequency, and chlorsulfuron on Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense). Weed Sci 39:590–594 CrossRefGoogle Scholar