Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-42gr6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T10:29:36.529Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Nitrogen and Light Affect the Adaptive Traits of Common Lambsquarters (Chenopodium album)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Kris J. Mahoney  and
Clarence J. Swanton
Kris J. Mahoney
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Agriculture, Crop Science Building, University of Guelph, 50 Stone Road E., Guelph, ON, N1G 2W1, Canada
Clarence J. Swanton*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Agriculture, Crop Science Building, University of Guelph, 50 Stone Road E., Guelph, ON, N1G 2W1, Canada
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: cswanton@uoguelph.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Weeds are often portrayed as growing in resource-rich environments. However, weeds growing within crops often deal with variable nitrogen (N) availability and reduced levels of light quantity and quality as a result of the crop canopy. In order to explore how weeds adapt to such stressful growing conditions, growth-cabinet studies were conducted using common lambsquarters as a model weed to determine how light, defined in terms of photosynthetic photon flux density (PPFD) and quality (red to far-red light ratio [R/FR]), and N stress influence the expression of adaptive traits that contribute to survival. Development rate of common lambsquarters was not influenced by low N; however, low N in addition to low R/FR delayed the rate of leaf appearance. Main-stem leaf number was reduced by low PPFD but was insensitive to N and R/FR. Neither doses of N had any influence on the shoot-to-root ratio. Plants also responded to the interaction of light and N. Under low PPFD and high N, plants adapted by growing taller, increasing biomass allocation to leaves, and producing more leaf area per mol of accumulated incident PPFD. Plants adapted to the most stressful treatment combination of low PPFD and low N by producing thinner leaves and increasing inflorescences per mol of accumulated incident PPFD. Seed production was reduced under low PPFD, but 1,000-seed weight and carbon concentration was unaffected. Although reduced in number, the total N concentration of the seed increased under low PPFD treatments, especially under low N. The adaptive traits identified in this study provide a greater understanding of the survival and persistence of common lambsquarters.

Keywords

Common lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L.Red to far-red ratiophotosynthetic photon flux densityreaction normsphenologymorphology
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 56 , Issue 1 , February 2008 , pp. 81 - 90
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

Aphalo, P. J. and Lehto, T. 1997. Effects of light quality on growth and N accumulation in birch seedlings. Tree Physiol. 17:125–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, H. G. 1974. The evolution of weeds. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 5:1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ballaré, C. L., Sánchez, 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baruch, Z. and Goldstein, G. 1999. Leaf construction cost, nutrient concentration and net CO2 assimilation of native and invasive species in Hawaii. Oecologia. 121:183–192.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Begna, S. H., Dwyer, L. M., Cloutier, D., Assemat, L., DiTommaso, A., Zhou, X., Prithiviraj, B., and Smith, D. L. 2002. Decoupling of light intensity effects on the growth and development of C3 and C4 weed species through sucrose supplementation. J. Exp. Bot. 53:1935–1940.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bertero, H. D. 2001. Effects of photoperiod, temperature and radiation on the rate of leaf appearance in quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) under field conditions. Ann. Bot. 71:495–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Booth, B. D., Murphy, S. D., and Swanton, C. J. 2004. Invasive ecology of weeds in agricultural systems. in Inderjit, ed. Weed Biology and Management. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic. 29–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Booth, B. D. and Swanton, C. J. 2002. Assembly theory applied to weed communities. Weed Sci. 50:2–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowley, S. R. 1999. Regression in ANOVA. in. A Hitchhikers Guide to Statistics in Plant Biology. 1st ed. Guelph, ON, Canada Plants et al. 89–90.Google Scholar
Brainard, D. C., Bellinder, R. R., and DiTommaso, A. 2005. Effects of canopy shade on the morphology, phenology, and seed characteristics of Powell amaranth (Amaranthus powellii). Weed Sci. 53:175–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callahan, H. S. and Pigliucci, M. 2002. Shade-induced plasticity and its ecological significance in wild populations of Arabidopsis thaliana . Ecology. 83:1965–1980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Causin, H. F. 2004. Responses to shading in Chenopodium album: the effect of the maternal environment and the N source supplied. Can. J. Bot. 82:1371–1381.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Child, R., Morgan, D. C., and Smith, H. 1981. Control of development in Chenopodium album L. by shadelight: the effect of light quality (red:far-red ratio) on morphogenesis. New Phytol. 89:545–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colquhoun, J., Boerboom, C. M., Binning, L. K., Stoltenburg, D. E., and Norman, J. M. 2001. Common lambsquarters photosynthesis and seed production in three environments. Weed Sci. 49:334–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dharmakeerthi, R. S., Kay, B. D., and Beauchamp, E. G. 2004. Effect of disturbance on N availability across a variable landscape in southern Ontario. Soil Tillage Res. 79:101–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dharmakeerthi, R. S., Kay, B. D., and Beauchamp, E. G. 2005. Factors contributing to changes in plant available N across a variable landscape. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 69:453–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dharmakeerthi, R. S., Kay, B. D., and Beauchamp, E. G. 2006. Spatial variability of in-season nitrogen uptake by corn across a variable landscape as affected by management. Agron. J. 98:255–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elena, S. F. and de Visser, J. A. G. M. 2003. Environmental stress and the effects of mutation. J. Biol. 2:12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fawcett, R. S. and Slife, F. W. 1978. Effects of field applications of nitrate on weed seed germination and dormancy. Weed Sci. 26:594–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gedroc, J. J., McConnaughay, K. D. M., and Coleman, J. S. 1996. Plasticity in root/shoot partitioning: optimal, ontogenetic, or both? Funct. Ecol. 10:44–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghorbani, R., Scheepens, P. C., Zweerde, W. V. D., Leifert, C., McDonald, A. J. S., and Seel, W. 2002. Effects of nitrogen availability and spore concentration on the biocontrol activity of Ascochyta caulina in common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album). Weed Sci. 50:628–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grime, J. P. 1974. Vegetation classification by reference to strategies. Nature. 250:26–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grime, J. P. 1977. Evidence for the existence of three primary strategies in plants and its relevance to ecological and evolutionary theory. Am. Nat. 111:1169–1194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gupta, A. P. and Lewontin, R. C. 1982. A study of reaction norms in natural populations of Drosophila psuedoobscura . Evolution. 36:934–948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harbur, M. M. and Owen, M. D. K. 2004. Light and growth rate effects on crop and weed responses to nitrogen. Weed Sci. 52:578–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
He, J. S., Flynn, D. F. B., Wolfe-Bellin, K., Fang, J., and Bazzaz, F. A. 2005. CO2 and nitrogen, but not population density, alter the size and C/N ratio of Phytolacca americana seeds. Funct. Ecol. 19:437–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hikosaka, K. 2004. Interspecific difference in the photosynthesis–nitrogen relationship: patterns, physiological causes, and ecological importance. J. Plant Res. 117:481–494.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hikosaka, K., Hanba, Y. T., Hirose, T., and Terashima, I. 1998. Photosynthetic nitrogen-use efficiency in leaves of woody and herbaceous species. Funct. Ecol. 12:896–905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hikosaka, K. and Terashima, I. 1996. Nitrogen partitioning among photosynthetic components and its consequence in sun and shade plants. Funct. Ecol. 10:335–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, M. G. and Smith, H. 1975. The function of phytochrome in the natural environment. Nature. 254:512–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, M. G. and Smith, H. 1977. The function of phytochrome in the natural environment. IV. Light quality and plant development. Photochem. Photobiol. 25:551–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, J. Z., Shrestha, A., Tollenaar, M., Deen, W., Rahimian, H., and Swanton, C. J. 2001. Effect of temperature and photoperiod on the phenological development of common lambsquarters. Weed Sci. 49:500–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, J. E., Heathcote, L., Bambridge, K., and Black, C. R. 1984. A growth cabinet providing variable spectral photon distribution at high fluence rates. New Phytol. 98:211–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kato, M. C., Hikosaka, K., and Hirose, T. 2002. Photoinactivation and recovery of photosystem II in Chenopodium album leaves grown at different levels of irradiance and nitrogen availability. Funct. Plant Biol. 29:787–795.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Khattak, A. M., Pearson, S., and Johnson, C. B. 1999. The effect of spectral filters and nitrogen dose on the growth of chrysanthemum (Chrysanthemum morifolium Ramat., cv. Snowdon). J. Hort. Sci. Biotechnol. 74:206–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leishman, M. R., Sanbrooke, K. J., and Woodfin, R. M. 1999. The effects of elevated CO2 and light environment on growth and reproductive performance of four annual species. New Phytol. 144:455–462.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lemaire, G. and Millard, P. 1999. An ecophysiological approach to modelling resource fluxes in competing plants. J. Exp. Bot. 50:15–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahoney, K. J. 2006. Influence of Light Quality on Common Lambsquarters Adaptive Strategies. . Guelph, ON, Canada University of Guelph. 160.Google Scholar
McConnaughay, K. D. M. and Coleman, J. S. 1998. Can plants track changes in nutrient availability via changes in biomass partitioning? Plant Soil. 202:201–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McConnaughay, K. D. M. and Coleman, J. S. 1999. Biomass allocation in plants: ontogeny or optimality? A test along three resource gradients. Ecology. 80:2581–2593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCullough, D. E., Girardin, P., Mihajlovic, M., Aguilera, A., and Tollenaar, M. 1994. Influence of N supply on development and dry matter accumulation of an old and a new maize hybrid. Can. J. Plant Sci. 74:471–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLachlan, S. M., Tollenaar, M., Swanton, C. J., and Weise, S. F. 1993. Effect of corn-induced shading on dry matter accumulation, distribution, and architecture of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L). Weed Sci. 41:568–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mercer, K. L., Jordan, N. R., Wyse, D. L., and Shaw, R. G. 2002. Multivariate differentiation of quackgrass (Elytrigia repens) from three farming systems. Weed Sci. 50:677–685.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, D. C. and Smith, H. 1978. The relationship between phytochrome photoequilibrium and development in light grown Chenopodium album L. Planta. 142:187–193.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morgan, D. C. and Smith, H. 1979. A systematic relationship between phytochrome-controlled development and species habitat, for plants grown in simulated natural radiation. Planta. 145:253–258.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morgan, D. C. and Smith, H. 1981. Control of development in Chenopodium album L. by shadelight: the effect of light quality (total fluence rate) and light quality (red:far-red ratio). New Phytol. 88:239–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mulugeta, D. and Stoltenberg, D. E. 1998. Influence of cohorts on Chenopodium album demography. Weed Sci. 46:65–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicotra, A. B. and Rodenhouse, N. L. 1995. Intraspecific competition in Chenopodium album varies with resource availability. Am. Midl. Nat. 134:90–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oguchi, R., Hikosaka, K., and Hirose, T. 2003. Does the photosynthetic light-acclimation need change in leaf anatomy? Plant Cell Environ. 26:505–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osone, Y. and Tateno, M. 2005. Applicability and limitations of optimal biomass allocation models: a test of two species from fertile and infertile habitats. Ann. Bot. 95:1211–1220.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Poorter, H. and Nagel, O. 2000. The role of biomass allocation in the growth response of plants to different levels of light CO2, nutrients and water: a quantitative review. Aust. J. Plant Physiol. 27:595–607.Google Scholar
Rajcan, I., Alikhani, M. A., Swanton, C. J., and Tollenaar, M. 2002. Development of redroot pigweed is influenced by light spectral quality and quantity. Crop Sci. 42:1930–1936.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Röhrig, M. and Stützel, H. 2001. Dry matter production and partitioning of Chenopodium album in contrasting competitive environments. Weed Res. 41:129–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sage, R. F. and Pearcy, R. W. 1987a. The nitrogen use efficiency of C3 and C4 plants. I. Leaf nitrogen, growth, and biomass partitioning in Chenopodium album (L.) and Amaranthus retroflexus (L). Plant Physiol. 84:954–958.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sage, R. F. and Pearcy, R. W. 1987b. The nitrogen use efficiency of C3 and C4 plants. III. Leaf nitrogen effects on the activity of carboxylating enzymes in Chenopodium album (L.) and Amaranthus retroflexus (L). Plant Physiol. 84:355–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saini, H. S., Bassi, P. K., and Spencer, M. S. 1985. Seed germination in Chenopodium album L. : further evidence for the dependence of the effects of growth regulators on nitrate availability. Plant Cell Environ. 8:707–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scharf, P. C., Kitchen, N. R., Sudduth, K. A., Davis, J. G., Hubbard, V. C., and Lory, J. A. 2005. Field-scale variability in optimal nitrogen fertilizer rate for corn. Agron. J. 97:452–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, J., Stinchcombe, J. R., Heschel, M. S., and Huber, H. 2003. The adaptive evolution of plasticity: phytochrome-mediated shade avoidance responses. Integr. Comp. Biol. 43:459–469.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shahandeh, H., Wright, A. L., Hons, F. M., and Lascano, R. J. 2005. Spatial and temporal variation of soil nitrogen parameters related to soil texture and corn yield. Agron. J. 97:772–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, H. and Whitelam, G. C. 1997. The shade avoidance syndrome: multiple responses mediated by multiple phytochromes. Plant Cell Environ. 30:840–844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steel, R. G. D., Torrie, J. H., and Dickey, D. A. 1997. Principles and Procedures of Statistics: A Biometrical Approach. 3rd ed. Boston McGraw-Hill. 666.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tilman, D. 1986. Nitrogen-limited growth in plants from different successional stages. Ecology. 67:555–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, J. T. 1963. Chenopodium album L. J. Ecol. 51:711–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wulff, R. D., Causin, H. F., Benitez, O., and Bacalini, P. A. 1999. Intraspecific variability and maternal effects the response to nutrient addition in Chenopodium album . Can. J. Bot. 77:1150–1158.Google Scholar
Yano, S. and Terashima, I. 2001. Separate localization of light signal perception for sun and shade type chloroplast and palisade tissue differentiation in Chenopodium album . Plant Cell Physiol. 42:1303–1310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yano, S. and Terashima, I. 2004. Developmental process of sun and shade leaves in Chenopodium album L. Plant Cell Environ. 27:781–793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar