Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2pzkn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-11T07:50:35.468Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of Light Quality on the Life Cycles of Crabgrass and Barnyardgrass

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Stuart Dunn ,
G. K. Gruendling  and
Aubrey S. Thomas Jr.
Stuart Dunn
Affiliation:
Botany Department, Agricultural Experiment Station, University of New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire
G. K. Gruendling
Affiliation:
Botany Department, Agricultural Experiment Station, University of New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire
Aubrey S. Thomas Jr.
Affiliation:
Botany Department, Agricultural Experiment Station, University of New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Large Crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis (L.) Scop.) and barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crusgalli (L.) Beauv.) plants were grown from seedlings to maturity under five light qualities of equal energy levels. For crabgrass, both fresh and dry weight yields of plant tops grown under red light and under cool white light were significantly greater than those under green, yellow, or blue light. Length of stem followed this same order. Effects of light quality on reproduction were not as consistent; green and blue light caused the largest numbers of seed heads to form, while yellow light delayed flowering and resulted in the least number and weight of seed heads. Somewhat similar responses to light were found with barnyardgrass plants, except that yields under yellow light were close to those under red light for this species. Blue light caused smallest plants in both kinds of weeds.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 16 , Issue 1 , January 1968 , pp. 58 - 60
Copyright
Copyright © 1968 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. Datta, S. C. and Dunn, S. 1957. The action of 2,4-D on mustard as modified by six different light qualities. Proc. NEWCC 11:275–282.Google Scholar
2. Datta, S. C. and Dunn, S. 1959. Effects of light quality on herbicide toxicity to plants. Weeds 7:55–65.Google Scholar
3. Duncan, David B. 1955. Multiple range and multiple F tests. Biometrics 11:1–42.Google Scholar
4. Dunn, S. and Datta, S. C. 1956. Light effects on phytotoxicity with respect to herbicides. Proc. NEWCC 10:246–251.Google Scholar
5. Dunn, S. and Went, F. W. 1959. Influence of fluorescent light quality on growth and photosynthesis of tomato. Lloydia 22:302–324.Google Scholar
6. Klein, R. M. 1964. Repression of tissue culture growth by visible and near visible radiation. Plant Physiol. 39:536–539.Google Scholar
7. Mohr, H. 1962. Primary effects of light on growth. Ann. Rev. Plant Physiol. 13:465–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Steel, R. G. D. and Torrie, James H. 1960. Principles and procedures of statistics. McGraw-Hill Book Co. Inc., New York. 481 p.Google Scholar
9. Stevenson, Enola L. and Dunn, S. 1965. Plant growth effects of light quality in sequences and in mixtures of light. Adv. Frontiers Plant Sci. 10:177–190.Google Scholar
10. 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
11. Williams, G. Jr. and Dunn, S. 1961. Relation of light quality to effects of 2,4-D on chlorophyll and CO2 exchange. Weeds 9:243–250.Google Scholar
12. Williams, G. Jr. and Dunn, S. 1966. Effects of 2,4-D on plant metabolism as modified by light quality. Weeds 14:17–22.Google Scholar