Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-m9kch Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-20T01:30:47.227Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of canopy shade on the morphology, phenology, and seed characteristics of Powell amaranth (Amaranthus powellii)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Dan C. Brainard ,
Robin R. Bellinder  and
Antonio DiTommaso
Robin R. Bellinder
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853
Antonio DiTommaso
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Characterizing the response of weeds to canopy shade is important for improved understanding of crop–weed competition and weed population dynamics. In 2000 and 2001, field studies were conducted in central New York state to examine the influence of three neighbor types (none, broccoli, or broccoli plus winter rye) and two locations (between or within rows of broccoli) on the morphology, phenology, and seed germination characteristics of Powell amaranth. Reductions in light availability and in the ratio of red-to-far red light were associated with increases in (1) partitioning of dry weight to stem tissue, (2) stem elongation, and (3) specific leaf area. Canopy shade also resulted in fewer main leaves at flowering and a reduced rate of leaf appearance but had no effect on the number of days to flowering. The relationship between Powell amaranth fecundity and aboveground dry weight was allometric, with both parameters declining significantly under competition. The weight of seeds produced did not vary significantly according to the competitive environment experienced by the maternal parent. However, the germination percentage of viable seeds was 40 to 50% lower for seeds maturing on plants grown under competition than without competition. Reductions in the number of main leaves at flowering and increased seed dormancy may be adaptive responses to canopy shade. Both mechanistic crop–weed competition models and population dynamic models would benefit from incorporation of data on the phenotypic plasticity of morphology, phenology, and seed germination characteristics of weeds.

Keywords

Powell amaranth = green pigweed, Amaranthus powellii S. Wats. AMAPObroccoli, Brassica oleracea L. var. italica PLENCK ‘Marathon’winter rye, Secale cereale L.Shade avoidanceflowering timeseed dormancystem elongationspecific leaf areaallometryphenologyred-far red ratiocompetitionlight quality
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 53 , Issue 2 , April 2005 , pp. 175 - 186
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

Ball, D. A. and Shaffer, M. J. 1993. Simulating resource competition in multispecies agricutural plant communities. Weed Res 33:299–310.Google Scholar
Ballaré, C. L. 1999. Keeping up with the neighbours: phytochrome sensing and other signaling mechanisms. Trends Plant Sci 4:97–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ballaré, C. L., Sanchez, 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
Bello, I. A., Owen, M. D., and Hatterman-Valenti, H. M. 1995. Effect of shade on velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) growth, seed production, and dormancy. Weed Technol 9:452–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradshaw, A. D. 1965. Evolutionary significance of phenotypic plasticity in plants. Adv. Genet 13:115–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brainard, D. C. and Bellinder, R. R. 2004a. Assessing variability in fecundity of Amaranthus powellii using a simulation model. Weed Res 44:1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brainard, D. C. and Bellinder, R. R. 2004b. Weed suppression in a broccoli-winter rye intercropping system. Weed Sci 52:281–290.Google Scholar
Bussan, A. J. and Boerboom, C. M. 2001. Modeling the integrated management of velvetleaf in a corn-soybean rotation. Weed Sci 49:31–41.Google Scholar
Causin, H. F. and Wulff, R. D. 2003. Changes in the responses to light quality during ontogeny in Chenopodium album . Can. J. Bot 81:152–163.Google Scholar
Charles-Edwards, D. A., Doley, D., and Rimmington, G. M. 1986. Modelling Plant Growth and Development. Orlando, FL: Academic. 234 p.Google Scholar
Cohen, D. 1976. The optimal timing of reproduction. Am. Nat 110:801–807.Google Scholar
Cousens, R. and Mortimer, M. 1995. Dynamics of Weed Populations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 332 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, M. H. and Simmons, S. R. 1994. Far-red light reflected from neighbouring vegetation promotes shoot elongation and accelerates flowering in spring barley plants. Plant Cell Environ 17:829–836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devlin, P. F., Robson, P. R. H., Patel, S. R., Goosey, L., Sharrock, R. A., and Whitelam, G. C. 1999. Phytochrome D acts in the shade-avoidance syndrome in Arabidopsis by controlling elongation growth and flowering time. Plant Physiol 119:909–915.Google Scholar
Egley, G. H. 1989. Some effects of nitrate-treated soil upon the sensitivity of buried redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.) seeds to ethylene, temperature, light and carbon dioxide. Plant Cell Environ 12:581–588.Google Scholar
Fenner, M. 1985. Seed Ecology. New York: Chapman and Hall. 151 p.Google Scholar
Grundy, A. C. 2003. Predicting weed emergence: a review of approaches and future challenges. Weed Res 43:1–11.Google Scholar
Gutterman, Y. 2000. Maternal effects on seeds during development. Pages 59–84 in Fenner, M. ed. Seeds: The Ecology of Regeneration in Plant Communities. New York: CABI.Google Scholar
Halliday, K. J., Koornneef, M., and Whitelam, G. C. 1994. Phytochrome B and at least one other phytochrome mediate the accelerated flowering response of Arabidopsis thaliana L. to low red/far-red ratio. Plant Physiol 104:1311–1315.Google Scholar
Kadman-Zahavi, A. and Ephrat, E. 1974. Opposite response groups of short-day plants to the spectral composition of the main light period and end-of-day red or far-red irradiations. Plant Cell Physiol 15:693–699.Google Scholar
Kigel, J., Ofir, M., and Koller, D. 1977. Control of the germination responses of Amaranthus retroflexus L. seeds by their parental photothermal environment. J. Exp. Bot 28:1125–1136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, D. and Roughgarden, J. 1982. Graded allocation between vegetative and reproductive growth for annual plants in growing seasons of random length. Theor. Popul. Biol 1:1–15.Google Scholar
Knezevic, S. Z., Horak, M. J., and Vanderlip, R. L. 1999. Estimates of physiological determinants for Amaranthus retroflexus . Weed Sci 47:291–296.Google Scholar
Knezevic, S. Z., Vanderlip, R. L., and Horak, M. J. 2001. Relative time of emergence affects dry matter partitioning. Weed Sci 49:617–621.Google Scholar
Kropff, M. J. and van Laar, H. H. eds. 1993. Modelling Crop-Weed Interactions. Wallingford, UK: CABI. Pp. 25–30, 157.Google Scholar
McCullough, J. M. and Shropshire, W. Jr. 1970. Physiological predetermination of germination responses in Arabidopsis thaliana (L.) Heynh. Plant Cell Phys 11:139–148.Google Scholar
McDonald, A. J. and Riha, S. J. 1999. Model of crop:weed competition applied to maize: Abutilon theophrasti interactions. I. Model description and evaluation. Weed Res 39:355–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLachlan, S. M., Murphy, S. D., Tollenaar, M., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1995. Light limitation of reproduction and variation in the allometric relationship between reproductive and vegetative biomass in Amaranthus retroflexus (redroot pigweed). J. Appl. Ecol 32:157–165.Google Scholar
McLachlan, S. M., Swanton, C. J., Weise, S. F., and Tollenaar, M. 1993a. Effect of corn-induced shading and temperature on rate of leaf appearance in redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L). Weed Sci 41:590–593.Google Scholar
McLachlan, S. M., Tollenaar, M., Swanton, C. J., and Weise, S. F. 1993b. Effect of corn-induced shading on dry matter accumulation, distribution, and architecture of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus). Weed Sci 41:568–573.Google Scholar
Mohler, C. L. and Callaway, M. B. 1995. Effects of tillage and mulch on weed seed production and seed banks in sweet corn. J. Appl. Ecol 32:627–639.Google Scholar
Morgan, D. C. and Smith, H. 1976. Linear relationship between phytochrome photoequilibrium and growth in plants under simulated natural radiation. Nature 262:210–212.Google Scholar
Nisensohn, L. and Faccini, D. 1993. Persistence of redroot pigweed seeds in no-till soil. Turrialba 43:138–142.Google Scholar
Nurse, R. E. and DiTommaso, A. 2004. Influence of Photoperiod and Corn Competition on Reproduction, Seed Germination, and Seedling Vigor in Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti Medic). Weed Science Society of America Abstracts No. 308. Lawrence, KS: Weed Science Society of America. [CD-ROM computer file].Google Scholar
Orozco-Segovia, A., Sanchez-Coronado, M. E., and Vazquez-Yanes, C. 1993. Effect of maternal light environment on seed germination in Piper auritum . Funct. Ecol 7:395–402.Google Scholar
Persall, W. H. 1927. Growth studies. VI. On the relative sizes of growing plant organs. Ann. Bot 41:549–556.Google Scholar
Rajcan, I., AghaAlikhani, M., Swanton, C. J., and Tollenaar, M. 2002. Development of redroot pigweed is influenced by light spectral quality and quantity. Crop Sci 42:1930–1936.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis System. 1999. SAS/STAT User's Guide Version 7-1. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis System Institute. 1030 p.Google Scholar
Samson, D. A. and Werk, K. S. 1986. Size dependent effects in the analysis of reproductive effort in plants. Am. Nat 127:667–680.Google Scholar
Sanchez, R. A., Eyherabide, G., and de Miguel, L. 1981. The influence of irradiance and water deficit during fruit development on seed dormancy in Datura ferox L. Weed Res 21:121–132.Google Scholar
Schmitt, J. 1997. Is photomorphogenic shade avoidance adaptive? Perspectives from population biology. Plant Cell Environ 20:826–830.Google Scholar
Senesac, A. F. 1985. Aspects of the Biology and Control of Pigweed (Amaranthus spp.) in New York. Ph.D. dissertation. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. 188 p.Google Scholar
Shitaka, V. and Hirose, T. 1998. Effects of shift in flowering time on the reproductive output of Xanthium canadense in a seasonal environment. Oecologia 114:361–367.Google Scholar
Smith, H. and Whitelam, G. C. 1997. The shade avoidance syndrome: multiple responses mediated by multiple phytochromes. Plant Cell Environ 20:840–844.Google Scholar
Stoller, E. W. and Myers, R. A. 1989. Response of soybeans (Glycine max) and four broadleaf weeds to reduced irradiance. Weed Sci 37:570–574.Google Scholar
Sultan, S. E. 1987. Evolutionary implications of phenotypic plasticity in plants. Evol. Biol 21:127–178.Google Scholar
Sultan, S. E. 1996. Phenotypic plasticity for offspring traits in Polygonum persicaria . Ecology 77:1791–1807.Google Scholar
Sultan, S. E. 2000. Phenotypic plasticity for plant development, function and life history. Trends Plant Sci 5:537–542.Google Scholar
Weiner, J. 1988. The influence of competition on plant reproduction. Pages 228–245 in Doust, J. L. and Doust, L. L. eds. Plant Reproductive Ecology: Patterns and Strategies. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Weiner, J. and Thomas, S. C. 1992. Competition and allometry in three species of annual plants. Ecology 73:648–656.Google Scholar