Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-9pm4c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T08:03:59.523Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Differential Growth of Two Common Groundsel (Senecio vulgaris) Biotypes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Jodie S. Holt  and
Steven R. Radosevich
Jodie S. Holt
Affiliation:
Dep. Bot., Univ. of California, Davis, CA 95616
Steven R. Radosevich
Affiliation:
Dep. Bot., Univ. of California, Davis, CA 95616
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Comparative growth, development, and resource allocation of triazine - susceptible and triazine - resistant biotypes of common groundsel (Senecio vulgaris L.), grown under two light regimes, were studied over a 7 - week period. Dry-matter production, height, number of leaves, and leaf area of the susceptible biotype were greater than those of the resistant biotype at all harvests under both light regimes. Root/shoot ratios were lower in the resistant than in the susceptible biotype under high light. Lower values for these parameters in resistant plants are due to lowered photosynthetic capacity, which limits growth and lowers relative root production. Net assimilation rate (NAR) was lower in resistant than susceptible plants when grown under high light, but mean leaf area ratio over a harvest interval (L) of resistant plants was higher than that of susceptible plants under high light. Relative growth rate (RGR) was higher for susceptible plants before day 42 and higher for resistant plants after day 42 under high light. A lower plastochron index (PI) of resistant plants up to 5 weeks old, relative to susceptible plants of the same age, suggests that, when grown under high light, resistant plants are developmentally at least 2 days behind susceptible plants. Shading lowered dry-weight production, height, number of leaves, leaf area, NAR, RGR, PI and root/shoot ratios of both biotypes. Values for these growth parameters for susceptible plants were similar to or larger than for resistant plants when grown under low light. In both biotypes, resource allocation patterns and L shifted towards increased shoot and leaf production in response to shading.

Keywords

Herbicide resistancelight intensityresource allocationgrowth analysistriazine herbicides
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 31 , Issue 1 , January 1983 , pp. 112 - 120
Copyright
Copyright © 1983 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. Abel, A. L. 1954. The rotation of weedkillers. Proc. Br. Weed Control Conf. 2:249–255.Google Scholar
2. Bandeen, J. D., Parochetti, J. V., Ryan, G. F., Maltais, B., and Peabody, D. V. 1979. Discovery and distribution of triazine resistant weeds in North America. Abstr., Weed Sci. Soc. Am. pp. 108–109.Google Scholar
3. Bjorkman, O., Boardman, N. K., Anderson, J. M., Thorne, S. W., Goodchild, D. J., and Phyliotis, N. A. 1972. Effect of light intensity during growth of Atriplex patula on the capacity of photosynthetic reactions, chloroplast components and structure. Carnegie Inst. Washington Yearb. 71.115–135.Google Scholar
4. Brouwer, R. 1962. Distribution of dry matter in the plant. Neth. J. Agric. Sci. 10:361–376.Google Scholar
5. Chabot, B. 1978. Environmental influences on photosynthesis and growth in Fragaria vesca . New Phytol. 80:87–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Conard, S. G. and Radosevich, S. R. 1979. Ecological fitness of Senecio vulgaris and Amaranthus retroflexus biotypes susceptible or resistant to atrazine. J. Appl. Ecol. 16:171–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Dawson, J. H. 1970. Time and duration of weed infestations in relation to weed-crop competition. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 23:13–25.Google Scholar
8. Erickson, R. O. and Michelini, F. J. 1957. The plastochron index. Am. J. Bot. 44:247–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Gressel, J. and Segel, L. A. 1978. The paucity of plants evolving genetic resistance to herbicides: possible reasons and implications. J. Theor. Biol. 75:1–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Harper, J. L. 1956. The evolution of weeds in relation to resistance to herbicides. Proc. 3rd Br. Weed Control Conf. pp. 179–188.Google Scholar
11. Harper, J. L. and Ogden, J. 1970. The reproductive strategy of higher plants. I. The concept of strategy with special reference to Senecio vulgaris L. J. Ecol. 58:681–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Holliday, R. J. and Putwain, P. D. 1977. Evolution of resistance to simazine in Senecio vulgaris L. Weed Res. 17:291–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Holt, J. S., Stemler, A. J., and Radosevich, S. R. 1981. Differential light responses of photosynthesis by triazine - resistant and triazine-susceptible Senecio vulgaris biotypes. Plant Physiol. 67: 744–748.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14. Hunt, R. 1978. Plant Growth Analysis. Studies in Biology no. 96. Edward Arnold Publishers, London. 67.Google Scholar
15. Lamoreaux, R. J., Chaney, W. R., and Brown, K. M. 1978. The plastochron index: a review after two decades of use. Am. J. Bot. 65:586–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Milthorpe, F. L. and Moorby, J. 1979. An Introduction to Crop Physiology, (2nd ed.). Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge. 244.Google Scholar
17. Monk, C. 1966. Ecological importance of root/shoot ratios. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 93:402–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Patterson, D. T. 1979. The effects of shading on the growth and photosynthetic capacity of itchgrass (Rottboellia exaltata). Weed Sci. 27:549–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19. Peabody, D. 1973. Aatrex tolerant pigweed found in Washington. Weeds Today 4(2): 17.Google Scholar
20. Radosevich, S. R. and Appleby, A. P. 1973. Relative susceptibility of two common groundsel (Senecio vulgaris L.) biotypes to 6 s -triazines. Agron. J. 65:553–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21. Ross, M. A. and Harper, J. L. 1972. Occupation of biological space during seedling establishment. J. Ecol. 60:77–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22. Ryan, G. F. 1970. Resistance of common groundsel to simazine and atrazine. Weed Sci. 18:614–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23. Steel, R.G.D. and Torrie, J. H. 1960. Principles and Procedures of Statistics. McGraw-Hill Book Co., Ltd., New York. 481.Google Scholar
24. Wareing, P. F. and Patrick, J. 1975. Source-sink relations and the partition of assimilates in the plant. Pages 481–499 in Cooper, J. P., ed. Photosynthesis and Productivity in Different Environments. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
25. Warwick, S. I. 1980. Differential growth between and within triazine - resistant and triazine-susceptible biotypes of Senecio vulgaris L. Weed Res. 20:299–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar