Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-wq2xx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T01:08:57.368Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Interference and Temperature Effects on Growth in Soybean (Glycine max) and Associated C3 and C4 Weeds

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Elizabeth P. Flint  and
David T. Patterson
Elizabeth P. Flint
Affiliation:
Duke Univ. Phytotron, Durham, NC 27706
David T. Patterson
Affiliation:
U.S. Dep. Agric., Agric. Res. Serv., Durham, NC 27706
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Effects of temperature and interference were examined in a replacement series experiment with soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr. ‘Ransom’], common cocklebur (Xanthium pensylvanicum Wallr.), and smooth pigweed (Amaranthus hybridus L.). Plants were grown in controlled-environment greenhouses at day/night temperatures of 32/23, 29/20, or 26/17C and harvested 14 and 34 days after planting. In all species, height, dry weight, and leaf area at both harvests, and dry matter and leaf area duration for the harvest interval, increased significantly with temperature. Net assimilation rate in all species peaked at 29/20C. Dry weight and leaf area at day 34, and dry matter production and leaf area duration for the harvest interval, were reduced in plants subjected to interference. Temperature modified the effects of interference upon growth in smooth pigweed, but not in the other species. Common cocklebur and soybean were roughly equivalent as competitors at all temperatures and were superior to smooth pigweed.

Keywords

Amaranthus hybridusXanthium pensylvanicumcompetitiongrowth analysis
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 31 , Issue 2 , March 1983 , pp. 193 - 199
Copyright
Copyright © 1983 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. Anonymous. 1971. Climatography of the United States. No. 84. Daily normals of temperature and heating and cooling degree days 1941-1970. U.S. Dep. Commerce Natl. Oceanic Atmos. Admin., Environ. Data Serv., Natl. Climatic Center, Asheville, NC. 650.Google Scholar
2. Barrentine, W. L. 1974. Common cocklebur competition in soybeans. Weed Sci. 22:600–603.Google Scholar
3. Black, C. C. 1971. Ecological implications of dividing plants into groups with distinct photosynthetic production capacities. Adv. Ecol. Res. 7:87–114.Google Scholar
4. Black, C. C., Chen, T. M., and Brown, R. H. 1969. Biochemical basis for plant competition. Weed Sci. 17:338–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Chen, T. M., Brown, R. H., and Black, C. C. 1970. CO2 compensation, rate of photosynthesis, and carbonic anhydrase activity of plants. Weed Sci. 18:399–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Christie, E. K. and Detling, J. K. 1982. Analysis of interference between C3 and C4 grasses in relation to temperature and soil nitrogen supply. Ecology 63:1277–1284.Google Scholar
7. Ehleringer, J. R. 1978. Implications of quantum yield differences on the distribution of C3 and C4 grasses. Oecologia (Berl.) 31:255–267.Google Scholar
8. Hall, R. L. 1974. Analysis of the nature of interference between plants of different species. I. Concepts and extension of the deWit analysis to examine effects. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 25:739–747.Google Scholar
9. Harper, J. L. 1977. Population Biology of Plants. Academic Press, New York. 892.Google Scholar
10. Hatch, M. D., Slack, C. R., and Johnson, H. S. 1967. Further studies on a new pathway of photosynthetic carbon dioxide fixation in sugar-cane and its occurrence in other plant species. Biochem. J. 102:417–422.Google Scholar
11. Hawton, D. 1980. Temperature effects on ***Eleusine indica and Setaria anceps grown in association (II). Weed Res. 20:261–266.Google Scholar
12. Hoagland, D. R. and Arnon, D. I. 1950. The water culture method for growing plants without soil. Calif. Agric. Exp. Stn. Circ. No. 547. 32.Google Scholar
13. Hofman, T. B. and Ennik, G. C. 1980. Investigation into plant characters affecting the competitive ability of perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.). Neth. J. Agric. Sci. 28:97–109.Google Scholar
14. Ivens, G. W. and Mlowe, F. 1980. A study of competition between seedlings of gorse (Ulex europaeus L.) by means of a replacement series experiment. Weed Res. 20:183–191.Google Scholar
15. Kemp, P. R. and Williams, G. J. III. 1980. A physiological basis for niche separation between Agropyron smithii (C3) and Bouteloua gracilis (C4). Ecology 61:846–858.Google Scholar
16. Kramer, P. J., Hellmers, H., and Downs, R. J. 1970. SEPEL: new phytotrons for environmental research. BioScience 20:1201–1208.Google Scholar
17. 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., ed. Plant Photosynthetic Production: Manual of Methods. W. Junk, The Hague.Google Scholar
18. Moolani, M., Knake, E. L., and Slife, F. W. 1964. Competition of smooth pigweed with corn and soybeans. Weeds 12:126–128.Google Scholar
19. Oliver, L. R. and Schreiber, M. M. 1974. Competition for CO2 in a heteroculture. Weed Sci. 22:125–130.Google Scholar
20. Palmer, R. D. 1980. Category I. Weed survey. Southern states. Res. Rep. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 33:165–197.Google Scholar
21. Patterson, D. T. 1976. C4 photosynthesis in smooth pigweed. Weed Sci. 24:127–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22. Patterson, D. T., Flint, E. P., and Dickens, R. 1980. Effects of temperature, photoperiod, and population source on the growth of cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica). Weed Sci. 28:505–509.Google Scholar
23. Patterson, D. T., Meyer, C. R., Flint, E. P., and Quimby, P. C. Jr. 1979. Temperature responses and potential distribution of itchgrass (Rottboellia exaltata) in the United States. Weed Sci. 27:77–82.Google Scholar
24. Pearcy, R. W., Tumosa, N., and Williams, K. 1981. Relationships between growth, photosynthesis and competitive interactions for a C3 and a C4 plant. Oecologia (Berl.) 48:371–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25. Sionit, N., Mortensen, D. A., Strain, B. R., and Hellmers, H. 1981. Growth response of wheat to CO2 enrichment and different levels of mineral nutrition. Agron. J. 73:1023–1027.Google Scholar
26. Steel, R.G.D., and Torrie, J. H. 1960. Principles and Procedures of Statistics. McGraw-Hill, New York. 481.Google Scholar
27. Teeri, J. A. and Stowe, L. G. 1976. Climatic patterns and the distribution of C4 grasses in North America. Oecologia (Berl.) 23:1–12.Google Scholar
28. Trenbath, B. R. 1974. Biomass productivity of mixtures. Adv. Agron. 26:177–210.Google Scholar
29. Tucker, J. M. and Sauer, J. D. 1958. Aberrant Amaranthus populations of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California. Madrono 14:252–261.Google Scholar
30. deWit, C. T. 1960. On competition. Versl. landbouwkd. Onderz. No. 66.8. Wageningen, The Netherlands. 82.Google Scholar
31. deWit, C. T., and van den Bergh, J. P. 1965. Competition between herbage plants. Neth. J. Agric. Sci. 13:212–221.Google Scholar