Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-zklqj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-30T15:57:29.407Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of Corn-Induced Shading on Dry Matter Accumulation, Distribution, and Architecture of Redroot Pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Stephane M. Mclachlan ,
Matthijs Tollenaar ,
Clarence J. Swanton  and
Stephan F. Weise
Stephane M. Mclachlan
Affiliation:
Dep. Crop Sci., Univ. Guelph, ON, N1G 2W1, Canada
Matthijs Tollenaar
Affiliation:
Dep. Crop Sci., Univ. Guelph, ON, N1G 2W1, Canada
Clarence J. Swanton
Affiliation:
Dep. Crop Sci., Univ. Guelph, ON, N1G 2W1, Canada
Stephan F. Weise
Affiliation:
Dep. Crop Sci., Univ. Guelph, ON, N1G 2W1, Canada
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A fundamental component of modeling crop interference is the effect of understory photosynthetic photon flux density (PPFD) on weed architecture and growth. The effect of decreased PPFD on spaced redroot pigweed dry matter accumulation, distribution, and plant architecture was quantified by increasing corn density and delaying weed planting date. As canopy-transmitted PPFD declined, total dry matter accumulation decreased and relative dry matter distribution was greater to main-stem components than to branch components. Increased rectangularity in understory weed architecture was associated with a concomitant decrease in branch number. The proportion of leaf area and dry matter in the upper segment of the redroot pigweed increased as PPFD declined with increased corn density. Results suggest that changes in plant architecture, as influenced by canopy-transmitted PPFD, may be as important as those of total dry matter and leaf area when describing and predicting the effects of crop-weed interference.

Keywords

Redroot pigweed, Amaranthus retroflexus L. # AMAREcorn, Zea mays L. ‘Pioneer 3902’CanopygrowthinterferencePPFDvertical distribution

Information

Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 41 , Issue 4 , December 1993 , pp. 568 - 573
Copyright
Copyright © 1994 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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

1. Abrahamson, W. G. and Gadgil, M. 1973. Growth form and reproductive effort in goldenrods (Solidago, compositae). Am. Nat. 107:651–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Akey, W. C., Jurik, T. W., and Dekker, J. 1990. Competition for light between velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) and soybean (Glycine max). Weed Res. 30:403–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Anonymous. 1991. Field Crop Recommendations. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food. Publ. 296. 96 pp.Google Scholar
4. Barbour, J. C., Bridges, D. C., and NeSmith, D. S. 1992. Peanut responses to shading. Abstr. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Page 53.Google Scholar
5. Barnes, P. W., Beyschlag, W., Ryel, R., Flint, S. D., and Caldwell, M. M. 1990. Plant competition for light analyzed with a multispecies canopy model. III. Influence of canopy structures in mixtures and monocultures of wheat and wild oat. Oecologia 82:560–566.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Boyd, J. W. and Murray, D. S. 1982. Effects of shade on silverleaf nightshade (Solanum elaeagnifolium). Weed Sci. 30:264–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Brouwer, R. 1962. Distribution of dry matter in the plant. Neth. J. Agric. Sci. 10:361–376.Google Scholar
8. Brown, D. M. 1978. Heat units for corn in southern Ontario. Fact sheet. Agdex 111/31. 4 pp.Google Scholar
9. Bubar, C. J. and Morrison, I. N. 1984. Growth responses of green and yellow foxtail (Setaria viridis and Setaria lutescens) to shade. Weed Sci. 32:774–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Caldwell, M. M. 1987. Plant architecture and resource competition. Pages 164–179 in Schulze, E. D. and Zwolfer, H., eds. Ecological Studies. Vol. 61. Springer, Berlin; Heidelberg, New York.Google Scholar
11. Cudney, D. W., Jordan, L. S., and Hall, A. E. 1991. Effect of wild oat (Avena fatua) infestations on light interception and growth rate of wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Sci. 39:175–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Joenje, W. and Kropff, M. J. 1987. Relative time of emergence, leaf area development and plant height as major factors in crop-weed competition. Pages 971–978 in Br. Crop Prot. Conf.—Weeds.Google Scholar
13. Keeley, P. E. and Thullen, R. J. 1978. Light requirements of yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus) and light interception by crops. Weed Sci. 26:10–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Kemball, W. D., Palmer, M. J., and Marshall, C. 1992. The effect of local shading and darkening on branch growth, development and survival in Trifolium repens and Galium aparine . Oikos 63:366–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Knake, E. L. 1972. Effect of shade on giant foxtail. Weed Sci. 20:588–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Kropff, M. J. 1988. Modelling the effects of weeds on crop production. Weed Res. 28:465–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Lee, S. M. and Cavers, P. B. 1981. The effects of shade on growth, development and resource allocation patterns of three species of foxtail (Setaria). Can. J. Bot. 59:1776–1786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Légère, A. and Schrieber, M. M. 1988. Simulation of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) growth, development and validation of the model AMSIM. VIII Colloque Int. sur la Biol., l'Ecol. et la Syst. des Mauvaises Hérbes 2:641–647.Google Scholar
19. Légère, A. and Schrieber, M. M. 1989. Competition and canopy architecture as affected by soybean (Glycine max) row width and density of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus). Weed Sci. 37:84–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20. McLachlan, S. M. 1992. Effects of corn-induced shading on redroot pigweed phenology, architecture and reproductive ecology. M.S. Thesis, Univ. Guelph, ON, Canada.Google Scholar
21. McLachlan, S. M., Swanton, C. J., Weise, S. F., and Tollenaar, M. 1993. Effect of corn-induced shading and temperature on rate of leaf appearance in redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.). Weed Sci. 41:590–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22. McLachlan, S. M., Tollenaar, M., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1992. Effects of corn-induced shading on redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.) reproductive ecology. (submitted to J. Appl. Ecol.).Google Scholar
23. Patterson, D. T. 1980. Shading effects on growth and partitioning of plant biomass in cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica) from shaded and exposed habitats. Weed Sci. 28:735–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24. Patterson, D. T. 1982. Effects of shading and temperature on showy crotalaria (Crotalaria spectablis). Weed Sci. 30:692–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25. Regnier, E. E. and Stoller, E. W. 1989. The effects of soybean (Glycine max) interference on the canopy architecture of common cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium), jimsonweed (Datura stramonium), and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti). Weed Sci. 37:187–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26. Smith, H. 1982. Light quality, photoreception and plant strategy. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. 33:481–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27. Smith, H. and Morgan, D. C. 1983. The function of phytochrome in nature. Pages 457–490 in Shropshire, W. Jr. and Mohr, H., eds. Encyclopedia of Plant Physiology. New Series. 16B Photomorphogenesis. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
28. Solangaarachchi, S. M. and Harper, J. L. 1987. The effect of canopy filtered light on the growth of white clover Trifolium repens . Oecologia 72:372–376.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29. Stoller, E. W. and Wolley, J. T. 1985. Competition for light by broadleaf weeds in soybeans (Glycine max L.). Weed Sci. 33:199–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30. Thompson, L. and Harper, J. L. 1988. The effect of grasses on the quality of transmitted radiation and its influence on the growth of white clover Trifolium repens . Oecologia 75:343–347.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
31. Tollenaar, M., Daynard, T. B., and Hunter, R. B. 1979. Effect of temperature on rate of leaf appearance and flowering date in maize. Crop Sci. 19:363–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32. Tollenaar, M. and Aguilera, A. 1992. Radiation use efficiency of an old and new maize hybrid. Agron. J. 84:536–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
33. Walker, G. K., Blackshaw, R. E., and Dekker, J. 1988. Leaf area and competition for light between plant species using direct sunlight transmission. Weed Technol. 2:159–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar