Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T15:24:50.320Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Growth analysis and canopy architecture of velvetleaf grown under light conditions representative of irrigated Mediterranean-type agroecosystems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Scott J. Steinmaus  and
Robert F. Norris
Robert F. Norris
Affiliation:
Weed Science Program, Department of Vegetable Crops, University of California, Davis, CA 95616
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Velvetleaf growth and canopy architecture were compared under a range of light conditions representative of competitive and noncompetitive environments typical of irrigated Mediterranean-type agroecosystems. Velvetleaf biomass and seed production exceeded those reported in the literature. Plants grown in full light produced 1,370 g dry weight and 44,200 seeds per plant and showed low relative variability. Velvetleaf grown with corn was reduced to 21 g dry weight and 349 seeds per plant, and had high relative variability for biomass and seed numbers. Velvetleaf grown with kidney bean, intraspecific neighbors, or under shadecloth had dry weights and seed numbers that were intermediate to plants grown in full light or with corn. Relative growth rate (RGR), net assimilation rate (NAR), and leaf area ratio (LAR) were assessed utilizing Richards functions, which were fitted to the primary biomass and leaf area data by weighted regression. RGR was highest for all plants early in the season, but declined later. Dynamics of NAR and LAR appeared to be correlated with increased self-shading, shading by neighbors, leaf age, and shedding of lower canopy leaves. Dynamics of specific leaf area corresponded with light availability such that the leaves exposed to full light were thicker than those exposed to shade. The branches of plants in all treatments had random azimuths and the foliage area density was concentrated along the perimeter of the plant's canopy. Velvetleaf increased the canopy radius through extensive branching when exposed to full sunlight. Leaf area distribution and branching patterns resulted in leaf area indices of less than 1.0. Leaves maintained a perpendicular angle to the sun throughout the day, but this depended on whether leaves received a consistent directional signal from the sun and not necessarily on whether they received a high-intensity signal. When shaded, the allocation of dry matter went primarily to the stem tissue, which increased the height rather than the girth of the plants. There was a 10- to 20-d delay for allocations to seed in the case of shaded plants relative to those grown in full sunlight. In brief, velvetleaf had a wide range of growth and canopy responses to a variety of light availabilities and it should have little difficulty in becoming fully established in the irrigated agroecosystems of Mediterranean-type regions.

Keywords

Corn, Zea mays L. ‘NC 4616’kidney bean, Phaseolus vulgaris L. ‘Sutter Pink’velvetleaf, Abutilon theophrasti Medikus ABUTHShade responsefunctional growth analysisRichards functionfoliage area densitybranchingsolar trackingbiomass fractionABUTH
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 50 , Issue 1 , February 2002 , pp. 42 - 53
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

Afifi, A. A. and Clark, V. 1984. Computer-aided Multivariate Analysis. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company. 458 p.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Akey, W. C., Jurik, T. W., and Dekker, J. 1991. A replacement series evaluation of competition between velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) and soybean (Glycine max). Weed Res. 31:63–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, T. A. and Mortensen, D. A. 1992. A comparison of economic optimum thresholds for two annual weeds in soybeans. Weed Technol. 6:228–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bazzaz, F. A. 1979. The physiological ecology of plant succession. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 10:351–371.Google Scholar
Bazzaz, F. A. 1996. Plants in Changing Environments. New York: Cambridge University Press. 320 p.Google Scholar
Bazzaz, F. A. and Morse, S. R. 1991. Annual plants: potential responses to multiple stresses. Pages 283–305 In Mooney, H. A., Winner, W. E., and Pell, E. J., eds. Response of Plants to Multiple Stresses. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bazzaz, F. A., Garbutt, K., Reekie, E. G., and Williams, W. E. 1989. Using growth analysis to interpret competition between a C4 and a C3 annual in ambient and elevated CO2 . Oecologia 79:223–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benvenuti, S., Macchia, M., and Stefani, A. 1994. Effects of shade on reproduction and some morphological characteristics of Abutilon theophrasti Medicus, Datura stramonium L., and Sorghum halepense L. Pers. Weed Res. 34:283–288.Google Scholar
Cardina, J. and Norquay, H. M. 1997. Seed production and seedbank dynamics in sub-threshold velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) populations. Weed Sci. 45:85–90.Google Scholar
Cardina, J. and Sparrow, D. H. 1997. Temporal changes in velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) seed dormancy. Weed Sci. 45:61–66.Google Scholar
Causton, D. R. 1991. Plant growth analysis: the variability of relative growth rate within a sample. Ann. Bot. 67:137–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Causton, D. R. and Venus, J. C. 1981. Single leaf growth and the Richards function: methodology. Pages 86–143 In The Biometry of Plant Growth. Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Chiariello, N. R., Mooney, H. A., and Williams, K. 1991. 15. Growth, carbon allocation and cost of plant tissues. Pages 327–365 In Pearcy, R. W., Ehleringer, J. R., Mooney, H. A., and Rundel, P. W., eds. Plant Physiological Ecology, Field Methods and Instrumentation. New York: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
Cochran, W. G. 1952. Chi square test for goodness of fit. Ann. Math. Stat. 23:315–345.Google Scholar
Cochran, W. G. 1954. Some methods for strengthening the common Chi square test. Biometrics 10:412–451.Google Scholar
Defelice, M. S., Witt, W. W., and Barrett, M. 1988. Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) growth and development in conventional and no-tillage corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 36:609–615.Google Scholar
Egley, G. H. 1990. High-temperature effects on germination and survival of weed seeds in soil. Weed Sci. 38:429–435.Google Scholar
Gutschick, V. P. 1991. Joining leaf photosynthesis models and canopy photon-transport models. Pages 502–535 In Myneni, R. B. and Ross, J., eds. Photon-vegetation Interactions. Applications in Optical Remote Sensing and Plant Ecology. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Holt, J. S. and Boose, A. B. 2000. Potential spread of Abutilon theophrasti in California. Weed Sci. 48:43–52.Google Scholar
Jurik, T. W. and Akey, W. C. 1994. Solar-tracking leaf movements in velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti). Vegetation 112:93–99.Google Scholar
Kuo, J. 1994. Transforms and Curve Fitting. San Rafael, CA: Jandel Scientific. 243 p.Google Scholar
Miller, J. B. 1967. A formula for average foliage density. Aust. J. Bot. 15:141–144.Google Scholar
Munger, P. H., Chandler, J. M., and Cothren, J. T. 1987. Effect of water stress on photosynthetic parameters of soybean (Glycine max) and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti). Weed Sci. 35:15–21.Google Scholar
Myneni, R. B., Ross, J., and Asrar, G. 1989. A review on the theory of photon transport in leaf canopies. Agric. For. Meteorol. 45:1–153.Google Scholar
Oliver, L. R. 1979. Influence of soybean (Glycine max) planting date on velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) competition. Weed Sci. 27:183–188.Google Scholar
Parrish, J. A. and Bazzaz, F. A. 1982. Responses of plants from three successional communities to a nutrient gradient. J. Ecol. 70:233–248.Google Scholar
Patterson, D. T., Duke, S. O., and Hoagland, R. E. 1978. Effects of irradiance during growth on adaptive photosynthetic characteristics of velvetleaf and cotton. Plant Physiol. 61:402–405.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Poorter, H. and Garnier, E. 1996. Plant growth analysis: an evaluation of experimental design and computational methods. J. Exp. Bot. 47:1343–1351.Google Scholar
Regnier, E. E., Salvucci, M. E., and Stoller, E. W. 1988. Photosynthesis and growth responses to irradiance in soybeans (Glycine max) and three broadleaf weeds. Weed Sci. 36:487–496.Google Scholar
Rice, S. A. and Bazzaz, F. A. 1989. Quantification of plasticity of plant traits in response to light intensity: comparing phenotypes at a common weight. Oecologia 78:502–507.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1989. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1028 p.Google Scholar
Sattin, M., Zanin, G., and Berti, A. 1992. Case history for weed competition/population ecology: velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 6:213–219.Google Scholar
[Sigmaplot] Sigmaplot for Windows v. 5.00. 1999. Sigmaplot for Windows v. 5.00 Users Guide. Chicago, IL: SPSS.Google Scholar
Spencer, N. R. 1984. Velvetleaf, Abutilon theophrasti, history and economic impact in the United States. Econ. Bot. 38:407–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stoller, E. W. and Woolley, J. 1985. Competition for light by broadleaf weeds in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 33:199–202.Google Scholar
Tremmel, D. C. and Bazzaz, F. A. 1994. How neighbor canopy architecture affects target plant performance. Ecology 74:2114–2124.Google Scholar
Warwick, S. I. and Black, L. D. 1988. The biology of Canadian weeds. 90. Abutilon theophrasti . Can. J. Plant Sci. 68:1069–1085.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zar, J. H. 1984. Biostatistical Analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. pp. 125–126.Google Scholar