Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T16:17:41.064Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weeds and the Red to Far-Red Ratio of Reflected Light: Characterizing the Influence of Herbicide Selection, Dose, and Weed Species

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Scott T. Cressman ,
Eric R. Page  and
Clarence J. Swanton
Scott T. Cressman
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Agriculture, Crop Science Building, University of Guelph, 50 Stone Road East, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada
Eric R. Page
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Agriculture, Crop Science Building, University of Guelph, 50 Stone Road East, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada
Clarence J. Swanton*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Agriculture, Crop Science Building, University of Guelph, 50 Stone Road East, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: cswanton@uoguelph.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Crop seedlings detect the presence of neighboring competitors by means of the red to far-red ratio (R/FR) of light reflected from the leaf surfaces of adjacent seedlings. Although previous studies have suggested that shifts in the R/FR initiate crop–weed competition, no studies have documented the R/FR of light reflected from weeds or explored how weed management practices may affect the R/FR. Experiments were conducted to test the following hypotheses: (1) the duration of R/FR signals reflected from the leaf surface of weed seedlings will vary among herbicides following treatment and will decline faster as the dose of a given herbicide increases, (2) the R/FR of reflected light will differ among weed species, and (3) the R/FR of reflected light will decrease as weed seedling leaf area and stage of development increases. Velvetleaf was used as a model weed species to examine herbicide chemistry and dose, and six weed species including Powell amaranth, velvetleaf, Eastern black nightshade, barnyardgrass, proso millet, and green foxtail were evaluated in order to characterize the R/FR of light reflected from their leaf surfaces. Results of this study confirm that the R/FR reflected from the leaf surface of weeds is affected by: herbicide chemistry, herbicide dose, weed species, stage of weed development, and distance of the weed from the crop. The relative decline in the R/FR (as a percent of the untreated control) was most rapid following treatment with paraquat, followed by glufosinate and then glyphosate. As glyphosate dose decreased, so did the reduction in the relative R/FR. Based on reflected R/FR, weed species tended to be grouped into monocots and dicots, with the latter reflecting a lower R/FR per unit leaf area than the former. This disparity was attributed to the compact leaf arrangement and orientation of dicot weed canopies, which may contribute to the greater competitiveness of dicot weeds.

Keywords

Glyphosateglufosinateparaquatbarnyardgrass, Echinochloa crus-galli L. Beauv. ECHCGEastern black nightshade, Solanum ptycanthum Dunal. SOLPTgreen foxtail, Setaria viridis L. (Beauv.) SETVIproso millet, Panicum milliaceum L. PANMIPowell amaranth, Amaranthus powellii S. Wats. AMPOvelvetleaf, Abutilon theophrasti Medik. ABUTHCompetition theoryred to far-red ratiocompetitive mechanismweed competitive indexmonocotyledonousdicotyledonous
Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 59 , Issue 3 , September 2011 , pp. 424 - 430
Copyright
Copyright © 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.)

Footnotes

Current address: Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Greenhouse and Crops Processing Centre, 2585 County Road 20, Harrow, ON N0R 1G0, Canada.

References

Literature Cited

Aphalo, P. J., Ballaré, C. L., and Scopel, R. A. 1999. Plant–plant signaling, the shade-avoidance response and competition. J. Exp. Bot. 50:1629–1634.Google Scholar
Ballaré, C. L. and Casal, J. J. 2000. Light signals perceived by crop and weed plants. Field Crop. Res. 67:149–160.Google Scholar
Ballaré, C. L., Sánchez, R. A., Scopel, A. L., Casal, J. J., and Ghersa, C. M. 1987. Early detection of neighbour plants by phytochrome perception of spectral changes in reflected sunlight. Plant Cell Environ. 10:551–557.Google Scholar
Ballaré, C. L., Scopel, A. L., and Sánchez, R. A. 1990. Far-red radiation reflected from adjacent leaves: an early signal of competition in plant canopies. Science. 247:329–332.Google Scholar
Ballaré, C. L., Scopel, A. L., and Sánchez, R. A. 1991. On the opportunity cost of the phytosynthates invested in stem elongation reactions mediated by phytochrome. Oecologia. 86:561–567.Google Scholar
Bosnic, A. C. and Swanton, C. J. 1997. Influence of barnyardgrass (Echinochoa crus-galli) time of emergence and density on corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 45:276–282.Google Scholar
Casal, J. J., Sánchez, R. A., Paganelli-Blau, A. R., and Izaguirre, M. 1995. Phytochrome effects on stem carbon gain in light-grown mustard seedlings are not simply the result of stem extension–growth responses. Physiol. Plantarum. 94:187–196.Google Scholar
Casal, J. J. and Smith, H. 1989. The function, action and adaptive significance of phytochrome in light-grown plants. Plant Cell Environ. 12:855–862.Google Scholar
Chelle, M., Evers, J. B., Combes, D., Varlet-Grancher, C., Vos, J., and Andrieu, B. 2007. Simulation of the three-dimensional distribution of the red:far-red ratio within crop canopies. New Phytol. 176:223–234.Google Scholar
Cowan, P., Weaver, S. E., and Swanton, C. J. 1998. Interference between pigweed (Amaranthus spp.) barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli), and soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 46:533–539.Google Scholar
Ellis, J. M., Shaw, D. R., and Barrentine, W. L. 1998. Herbicide combinations for preharvest weed desiccation in early maturing soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 12:157–165.Google Scholar
Gautier, H., Me˘ch, R., Prusinkiewicz, P., and Varlet-Grancher, C. 2000. 3D architectural modelling of arial photomorphogenesis in white clover (Trifolium repens L.) using L-systems. Ann. Bot. London. 85:359–370.Google Scholar
Hoss, N. E., Al-Khatib, K., Peterson, D. E., and Loughin, T. M. 2003. Efficacy of glyphosate, glufosinate, and imazethapyr on selected weed species. Weed Sci. 51:110–117.Google Scholar
Kasperbauer, M. J. 1987. Far-red light reflection from green leaves and effects on phytochrome-mediated assimilate partitioning under field conditions. Plant Physiol. 85:350–354.Google Scholar
Kasperbauer, M. J. and Karlen, D. L. 1994. Plant spacing and far-red light effects on phytochrome-regulated photosynthate allocation in corn seedlings. Crop Sci. 34:1564–1569.Google Scholar
Knezevic, S. Z., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1994. Interference of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) in corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 42:568–573.Google Scholar
Liu, J. G., Mahoney, K. J., Sikkema, P. H., and Swanton, C. J. 2009. The importance of light quality in crop–weed competition. Weed Res. 49:217–224.Google Scholar
Maddonni, G. A., Otegui, M. E., Andrieu, B., Chelle, M., and Casal, J. J. 2002. Maize leaves turn away from neighbors. Plant Physiol. 130:1181–1189.Google Scholar
Moller, S. G., Ingles, P. J., and Whitelam, G. C. 2002. The cell biology of phytochrome signaling. New Phytol. 122:621–626.Google Scholar
Page, E. R., Liu, W., Cerrudo, D., Lee, E. A., and Swanton, C. J. 2011. Shade avoidance influences stress tolerance in maize (Zea mays). Weed Sci. In press.Google Scholar
Page, E. R., Tollenaar, M., Lee, E. A., Lukens, L., and Swanton, C. J. 2009. Does the shade avoidance response contribute to the critical period for weed control in maize (Zea mays)? Weed Res. 49:563–571.Google Scholar
Page, E. R., Tollenaar, M., Lee, E. A., Lukens, L., and Swanton, C. J. 2010. Shade avoidance: an integral component of crop-weed competition. Weed Res. 50:281–288.Google Scholar
Rajcan, I., Chandler, K. J., and Swanton, C. J. 2004. Red–far-red ratio of reflected light: a hypothesis of why early-season weed control is important in corn. Weed Sci. 52:774–778.Google Scholar
Rajcan, I. and Swanton, C. J. 2001. Understanding maize-weed competition: resource competition, light quality and the whole plant. Field Crop. Res. 71:139–150.Google Scholar
Ratnayake, S. and Shaw, D. R. 1992. Effects of harvest-aid herbicides on soybeans (Glycine max) seed yield and quality. Weed Technol. 6:339–344.Google Scholar
Sattin, M., Zuin, M. C., and Sartorato, I. 1994. Light quality beneath field-grown maize, soybean and wheat canopies—red:far red variations. Physiol. Plantarum. 91:322–328.Google Scholar
Seefeldt, D. D., Jensen, J. E., and Fuerst, E. P. 1995. Log-logistic analysis of herbicide dose-response relationship. Weed Technol. 9:218–227.Google Scholar
Smith, H. 2000. Phytochromes and light signal perception by plants—an emerging synthesis. Nature. 407:585–591.Google Scholar
Smith, H., Casal, J. J., and Jackson, G. M. 1990. Reflection signals and the perception by phytochrome of the proximity of neighboring vegetation. Plant Cell Environ. 13:73–78.Google Scholar
Swanton, C. J., Weaver, S., Cowan, P., Van Acker, R., Deen, W., and Shreshta, A. 1999. Weed thresholds: theory and applicability. J. Crop Prod. 2:9–29.Google Scholar
Vandenbussche, F., Pierik, R., Millenaar, F., Voesenek, L. A. C. J., and Van Der Straeten, D. 2005. Reaching out of the shade. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 8:462–468.Google Scholar
Wilson, R. G. and Smith, J. A. 2002. Influence of harvest-aid herbicides on dry beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) desiccation, seed yield and quality. Weed Technol. 16:109–115.Google Scholar