Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-fwgfc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T18:29:27.687Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Methodology and Terminology for the Measurement of Light in Weed Studies—A Review

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

David T. Patterson
David T. Patterson*
Affiliation:
South. Weed Sci. Lab., Agric. Res., Sci. Ed. Admin., U.S. Dep. Agric., Stoneville, MS 38776
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Definitions and properties of light, the effects of light on plant growth and physiological processes, and methodology and terminology for the measurement and reporting of light are reviewed. Alternatives to photometric methods now generally used in studies of the effects of light on plants in weed research are proposed. For studies of leaf energy budgets and plant water relations, the irradiance may be appropriately measured with radiometric methods and the data reported as W [watts] m-2. For studies of photosynthesis, the photosynthetic photon flux density may be measured and the data reported as μE [einsteins] m-2 s-1 or μmol [μmoles of photons] m-2 s-1. Different types of instruments are described and sources for these instruments are provided.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 27 , Issue 4 , July 1979 , pp. 437 - 443
Copyright
Copyright © 1979 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. Anderson, M. C. 1971. Radiation and crop structure. Pages 412–466 in Sestak, Z., Catsky, J., and Jarvis, P. G., eds. Plant Photosynthetic Production. Manual of Methods. W. Junk, The Hague.Google Scholar
2. Berry, W. L., et al. 1977. Revised guidelines for reporting studies in controlled environment chambers. Hortscience 12:309–311.Google Scholar
3. Bickford, E. D. and Dunn, S. 1972. Lighting for plant growth. The Kent State Univ. Press, Kent, Ohio.Google Scholar
4. Biggs, W. W., Edison, A. R., Eastin, J. D., Brown, K. W., Maranville, J. W., and Clegg, M. D. 1971. Photosynthesis light sensor and meter. Ecology 52:125–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Briggs, W. R. 1976. The nature of the blue light photoreceptor in higher plants and fungi. Pages 7–18 in Smith, H., ed. Light and Plant Development. Butterworths, London.Google Scholar
6. Caldwell, M. M. 1971. Solar UV irradiation and the growth and development of higher plants. Pages 131–177 in Giese, A. C., ed. Photophysiology, Vol. VI. Academic Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Calvert, J. G. and Pitts, J. N. 1966. Photochemistry. John Wiley and Sons, New York. 899 pp.Google Scholar
8. Clayton, R. K. 1970. Light and living matter: A guide to the study of photobiology. Vol. 1: The Physical Part. McGraw Hill, New York. 148 pp.Google Scholar
9. Clayton, R. K. 1970. Light and living matter: A guide to the study of photobiology. Vol. 2: The biological part. McGraw Hill, New York. 243 pp.Google Scholar
10. Gaastra, P. 1959. Photosynthesis of crop plants as influenced by light, carbon dioxide, temperature, and stomatal diffusion resistance. Meded. Landbouwhogesch. (Wageningen) 59:1–68.Google Scholar
11. Galston, A. W. and Satter, R. L. 1976. Light, clocks and ion flux: an analysis of leaf movement. Pages 159–184 in Smith, H., ed. Light and Plant Development. Butterworths, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Garner, W. W. and Allard, H. A. 1920. Effect of the relative length of day and night and other factors of the environment on growth and reproduction in plants. J. Agric. Res. 18:553–607.Google Scholar
13. Holt, A. S. and Jacobs, E. E. 1954. Spectroscopy of plant pigments. I. Ethylchlorophyllides a and b and their pheophorbides. Am. J. Bot. 41:710–717.Google Scholar
14. Idso, S. B. and Baker, D. G. 1967. Relative importance of reradiation, convection, and transpiration in heat transfer from plants. Plant Physiol. 42:631–640.Google Scholar
15. Idso, S. B., Baker, D. G., and Gates, D. M. 1966. The energy environment of plants. Adv. Agron. 18:171–218.Google Scholar
16. Incoll, L. D., Long, S. P., and Ashmore, M. R. 1977. SI units in publications in plant science. Curr. Adv. Plant Sci. 9:331–343.Google Scholar
17. Kasperbauer, M. J. 1971. Spectral distribution of light in a tobacco canopy and effects of end-of-day light quality on growth and development. Plant Physiol. 47:775–778.Google Scholar
18. Kramer, P. J. 1969. Plant and soil water relationships: A modern synthesis. McGraw-Hill, New York. 482 pp.Google Scholar
19. Kubin, S. 1971. Measurement of radiant energy. Pages 702–765 in Sestak, Z., Catsky, J., and Jarvis, P. G., eds. Plant Photosynthetic Production. Manual of Methods. W. Junk, The Hague.Google Scholar
20. Leopold, A. C. and Kriedemann, P. E. 1975. Plant growth and development. McGraw-Hill, New York. 545 pp.Google Scholar
21. McCree, K. J. 1966. A solarimeter for measuring photosynthetically active radiation. Agric. Meteorol. 3:353–366.Google Scholar
22. McCree, K. J. 1972. The action spectrum, absorptance and quantum yield of photosynthesis in crop plants. Agric. Meteorol. 9:191–216.Google Scholar
23. McCree, K. J. 1972. Test of current definitions of photosynthetically active radiation against leaf photosynthesis data. Agric. Meteorol. 10:443–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24. McCree, K. J. 1973. A rational approach to light measurements in plant ecology. Curr. Adv. Plant Sci. 3(5):39–43.Google Scholar
25. McPherson, H. G. 1969. Photocell-filter combinations for measuring photosynthetically active radiation. Agric. Meteorol. 6:347–356.Google Scholar
26. Mohr, H. 1962. Primary effects of light on growth. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. 13:465–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27. Mohr, H. 1977. Phytochrome and chloroplast development. Endeavour 1(3/4):107–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28. Nilsen, K. N. 1971. Plant responses to near ultraviolet light. Hortscience 6:26–29.Google Scholar
29. Norman, J. M., Tanner, C. B., and Thurtell, G. W. 1969. Photosynthetic light sensor for measurements in plant canopies. Agron. J. 61:840–843.Google Scholar
30. Norris, K. H. 1968. Evaluation of visible radiation for plant growth. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. 19:490–499.Google Scholar
31. Patterson, D. T., Longstreth, D. J., and Peet, M. M. 1977. Photosynthetic adaptation to light intensity in Sakhalin knotweed (Polygonum sachalinense) . Weed Sci. 25:319–323.Google Scholar
32. Proctor, J. T. A. 1973. Developmental changes in radish caused by brief end-of-day exposures to far-red radiation. Can. J. Bot. 51:1075–1077.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
33. Raschke, K. 1975. Stomatal action. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. 26:309–340.Google Scholar
34. Rosenberg, N. J. 1974. Microclimate: The biological environment. John Wiley and Sons, New York. 315 pp.Google Scholar
35. Salisbury, F. B. and Ross, C. 1969. Plant physiology. Wadsworth Publ. Co., Inc., Belmont, California. 764 pp.Google Scholar
36. Shibles, R. 1976. Committee Report. Terminology pertaining to photosynthesis. Crop Sci. 16:437–439.Google Scholar
37. Smith, H., Ellen Billett, E., and Giles, A. B. 1977. The photocontrol of gene expression in higher plants. Pages 93–127 in Smith, H., ed. Regulation of enzyme synthesis and activity in higher plants. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
38. Stoutjeskijk, P. 1972. Spectral transmission curves of some types of leaf canopies with a note on seed germination. Acta Bot. Neerl. 21:185–191.Google Scholar
39. Taylorson, R. B. and Borthwick, H. A. 1969. Light filtration by foliar canopies: significance for light controlled weed seed germination. Weed Sci. 17:48–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
40. Veen, R. van der. 1970. The importance of the red-far red antagonism in photoblastic seeds. Acta Bot. Neerl. 19:809–812.Google Scholar