Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T17:53:55.373Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Growth Analysis of Weed and Crop Species with Reference to Seed Weight

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Andrew C. Seibert  and
R. Brent Pearce
Andrew C. Seibert
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Iowa State Univ., Ames, IA 50011
R. Brent Pearce
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Iowa State Univ., Ames, IA 50011
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Growth and morphological characteristics of four weed and two crop species were analyzed to determine how small-seeded weeds can compete with large-seeded crops despite the initial size disadvantage. Small-seeded weeds had higher relative growth rates because of increased percentages of biomass devoted to leaves. This morphological scheme was achieved primarily through a reduction in the percentage of biomass devoted to roots. Yet, small-seeded weeds were able to develop larger mean plant root lengths as a result of having both roots of smaller diameter and higher rates of root length increase.

Keywords

Leaf area ratioleaf weight rationet assimilation raterelative growth rateroot developmentroot growthroot weight ratioGlycine maxHelianthus annuusAbutilon theophrastiAmaranthus retroflexusChenopodium albumXanthium strumariumABUTHAMARECHEALXANST
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 41 , Issue 1 , March 1993 , pp. 52 - 56
Copyright
Copyright © 1993 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. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

1. Andrews, R. E. and Newman, E. I. 1970. Root density and competition for nutrients. Oecol. Plant. 5:319–334.Google Scholar
2. Barber, S. A. and Silberbush, M. 1984. Plant root morphology and nutrient uptake. Am. Soc. Agron. Spec. Publ. 49:65–87.Google Scholar
3. Bosza, R. C. and Oliver, L. R. 1990. Competitive mechanisms of common cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium) and soybean (Glycine max) during seedling growth. Weed Sci. 38:344–350.Google Scholar
4. Bray, R. H. 1954. A nutrient mobility concept of soil-plant relationships. Soil Sci. 78:9–22.Google Scholar
5. Briggs, G. E., Kidd, F., and West, C. 1920. A quantitative analysis of plant growth. I and II. Ann. Appl. Biol. 7:103–123 and 202–223.Google Scholar
6. Fenner, M. 1983. Relationships between seed weight, ash content and seedling growth in twenty-four species of Compositae. New Phytol. 95:697–706.Google Scholar
7. Forcella, F. 1987. Tolerance of weed competition associated with high leaf area expansion rate in tall fescue. Crop Sci. 27:146–147.Google Scholar
8. Grime, J. P. and Hunt, R. 1975. Relative growth rate: its adaptive significance in a local flora. J. Ecol. 63:393–422.Google Scholar
9. Harper, J. L. 1965. The nature and consequence of interference among plants. Genet. Today 2:465–482.Google Scholar
10. Holm, L., Plucknett, D. L., Pancho, J. V., and Herberger, J. P. 1977. The World's Worst Weeds: Distribution and Biology. Univ. Press of Hawaii, Honolulu.Google Scholar
11. Mashingaidze, A. B. 1990. Comparison of leaf area expansion rates in four crops and seven weeds under two temperature regimes. M. S. Thesis, Iowa State Univ. Library, Ames, IA.Google Scholar
12. Nelson, C. J. and Larson, K. L. 1984. Seedling growth. Pages 93–129 in Tesar, M. B., ed. Physiological Basis of Crop Growth and Development. Am. Soc. Agron.-Crop Sci. Soc. Am., Madison, WI.Google Scholar
13. Olsen, S. R. and Kemper, W. D. 1968. Movement of nutrients to plant roots. Adv. Agron. 20:91–151.Google Scholar
14. Pearce, R. B., Mock, J. J., and Bailey, T. B. 1975. Rapid method of estimating leaf area per plant in maize. Crop Sci. 15:691–694.Google Scholar
15. Radosevich, S. R. and Holt, J. S. 1984. Weed Ecology. John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
16. Spitters, C.J.T. and Aerts, R. 1983. Simulation of competition for light and water in crop-weed associations. Aspects Appl. Biol. 4:467–483.Google Scholar
17. Tennant, D. 1975. A test of a modified line intersect method of estimating root length. J. Ecol. 63:995–1001.Google Scholar
18. Trenbath, B. R. 1976. Plant interactions in mixed crop communities. Am. Soc. Agron. Spec. Publ. 27:129–169.Google Scholar
19. Venus, J. C. and Causton, D. R. 1979. Plant growth analysis: a reexamination of the methods of calculation of relative growth and net assimilation rates without using fitted functions. Ann. Bot. 43:633–638.Google Scholar