Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-45l2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T08:37:09.410Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of temperature and photoperiod on the phenological development of common lambsquarters

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Jian Zhong Huang ,
Anil Shrestha ,
Matthijs Tollenaar ,
William Deen ,
Hamid Rahimian  and
Clarence J. Swanton
Jian Zhong Huang
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada N1G 2W1
Anil Shrestha
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada N1G 2W1
Matthijs Tollenaar
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada N1G 2W1
William Deen
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada N1G 2W1
Hamid Rahimian
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, College of Agriculture, Mashhad, Iran
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The goal of a mechanistic model is to determine the outcome of weed–crop interference. An understanding of weed phenology is essential for construction of such models because phenological development is a major factor determining the outcome of weed–crop competition. Growth cabinet studies were conducted to determine the influence of temperature and photoperiod on the phenological development of common lambsquarters. Common lambsquarters is a short-day species adapted to a temperature range of 6.5 to 44.5 C. Phenological development of common lambsquarters grown under a constant temperature of 20 C and an 8-h photoperiod was described in terms of biological days (Bd: chronological days at the optimum photoperiod and temperature). Three development phases of common lambsquarters were described as (1) a juvenile phase of 6.3 Bd, (2) a photoperiod-sensitive inductive phase of 8.2 Bd, and (3) a photoperiod-sensitive postinductive phase of 34.4 Bd. The photoperiod sensitivity of rate of development did not differ among phases of development across the life cycle. Interpretation of constant sensitivity to photoperiod will simplify simulation of weed phenology in mechanistic models.

Keywords

Common lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. CHEALBiological daysmechanistic weed modelsjuvenile phase
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 49 , Issue 4 , August 2001 , pp. 500 - 508
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.)

References

Literature Cited

Bassett, I. J. and Crompton, C. W. 1978. The biology of Canadian weeds. 32 Chenopodium album L. Can. J. Plant Sci. 58:1061–1072.Google Scholar
Bertero, H. D., King, R. W., and Hall, A. J. 1999. Modelling photoperiod and temperature responses of flowering quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.). Field Crops Res. 63:19–34.Google Scholar
Chu, C., Ludford, P. M., Ozbun, J. L., and Sweet, R. D. 1978. Effects of temperature and competition on the establishment and growth of redroot pigweed and common lambsquarters. Crop Sci. 18:308–310.Google Scholar
Cumming, B. G. 1960. The genus Chenopodium in relation to environment. Pages 39–40 In Proceedings of the 17th North Central Weed Control Conference. Milwaukee, WI: North Central Weed Control Conference.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. H., Collinson, S. T., Hudson, D., and Patefield, W. M. 1992. The analysis of reciprocal transfer experiments to estimate the durations of the photoperiod-sensitive and photoperiod-insensitive phases of plant development: an example in soybean. Ann. Bot. 70:87–92.Google Scholar
Elmore, C. L. 1996. A reintroduction to integrated weed management. Weed Sci. 44:409–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitter, A. H. and Hay, R.K.M. 1987. Environmental physiology of plants. 2nd ed. London: Academic Press. pp. 187–224.Google Scholar
Frick, B. and Thomas, A. G. 1992. Weed survey in different tillage systems in southern Ontario field crops. Can. J. Plant Sci. 72:1337–1347.Google Scholar
Ghersa, C. M. and Holt, J. S. 1995. Using phenology prediction in weed management: a review. Weed Res. 35:461–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gifford, E. M. and Tepper, H. B. 1961. Ontogeny of the inflorescence in Chenopodium album . Am. J. Bot. 48:657–666.Google Scholar
Grant, R. T. 1989. Simulation of maize phenology. Agron. J. 81:451–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodges, T. 1991. Temperature and water stress effects on phenology. Pages 7–13 In Hodges, T., ed. Predicting Crop Phenology. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Huang, J. Z., Shrestha, A., Tollenaar, M., Deen, W., Rahimian, H., and Swanton, C. J. 2000. Effects of photoperiod on the phenological development of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.). Can. J. Plant Sci. 80:929–938.Google Scholar
Hunt, L. A. and Pararajasingham, S. 1995. CROPSIM-WHEAT: a model describing the growth and development of wheat. Can. J. Plant Sci. 75:619–632.Google Scholar
Kiniry, J. R., Ritchie, J. T., Musser, R. L., Flint, E. R., and Iwig, W. C. 1983. The photoperiod sensitive interval in maize. Agron. J. 75:687–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiniry, J. R., Rosenthal, W. D., Jackson, B. S., and Hoogenboom, G. 1991. Pages 29–42 In Hodges, T., ed. Predicting Crop Phenology. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Kropff, M. J., Weaver, S. E., and Smits, M. A. 1992. Use of ecophysiological models for crop-weed interference: relations among weed density, relative time of weed emergence, relative leaf area, and yield loss. Weed Sci. 40:296–301.Google Scholar
Major, D. R. and Kiniry, J. R. 1991. Predicting day length effects on phenological processes. Pages 15–28 In Hodges, T., ed. Predicting Crop Phenology. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
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
Miller, B. C., Foin, T. C., and Hill, J. E. 1993. Carice: a rice model for scheduling and evaluating management actions. Agron. J. 85:938–947.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, D. T. 1992. Temperature and canopy development of velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) and soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 6:68–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, D. T. 1993. Effects of temperature and photoperiod on growth and development of sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia). Weed Sci. 41:574–582.Google Scholar
Patterson, D. T. 1995. Effects of photoperiod on reproductive development in velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti). Weed Sci. 43:627–633.Google Scholar
Patterson, D. T. 1996. Temperature and photoperiod effects on onionweed (Asphodelus fistulosus) and its potential range in the United States. Weed Technol. 10:684–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roché, C. T., Thill, D. C., and Shafii, B. 1997. Prediction of flowering in common crupina (Crupina vulgaris). Weed Sci. 45:519–528.Google Scholar
[SAS]. Statistical Analysis Systems. 1990. SAS Procedures Guide. Version 6, 3rd ed. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 705 p.Google Scholar
Slafer, G. A. and Rawson, H. M. 1996. Responses to photoperiod change with phenophase and temperature during wheat development. Field Crops Res. 46:1–13.Google Scholar
Stoskopf, N. C., Hume, D. J., Gamble, E. E., and Tossell, W. E. 1970. Glasshouse replacement rooms for growing plants. Can. J. Plant Sci. 50:125–127.Google Scholar
Swanton, C. J., Huang, J. Z., Deen, W., Tollenaar, M., Shrestha, A., and Rahimian, H. 1999. Effects of temperature and photoperiod on Setaria viridis . Weed Sci. 47:446–453.Google Scholar
Swanton, C. J., Huang, J. Z., Shrestha, A., Deen, W., Tollenaar, M., and Rahimian, H. 2000. Effects of temperature and photoperiod on the phenological development of barnyardgrass. Agron. J. 92:1125–1134.Google Scholar
Swanton, C. J. and Murphy, S. D. 1996. Integrated weed management (IWM) promotes increased energy efficiency and biodiversity. Pages 1369–1374 in The Second International Weed Control Congress, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Thomas, B. and Vince-Prue, D. 1984. Juvenility, photoperiodism and vernalization. Pages 408–439 In Wilkins, M. B., ed. Advanced Plant Physiology. London: Pitman Publishing.Google Scholar
Tollenaar, M. 1999. Duration of the grain-filling period in maize is not affected by photoperiod and incident PPFD during the vegetative phase. Field Crops Res. 62:15–21.Google Scholar
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
Wang, Z., Acock, M. C., and Acock, B. 1997. Photoperiod sensitivity during flower development of opium poppy (Papaver somniferum L.). Ann. Bot. 79:129–132.Google Scholar
Warwick, S. I. and Marriage, P. B. 1982. Geographical variations in population of Chenopodium album resistant and susceptible to atrazine. II. Photoperiod and reciprocal transfer studies. Can. J. Bot. 60:494–504.Google Scholar
Wilkerson, G. G, Jones, J. W., Boote, K. J., and Buol, G. S. 1989. Photoperiodically sensitive interval in time to flower of soybean. Crop Sci. 29:721–726.Google Scholar
Williams, J. T. 1963. Biological flora of the British Isles Chenopodium album L. J. Ecol. 51:711–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar