Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c4f8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-16T06:24:08.449Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed Growth in Response to Greenhouse Supplemental Lighting

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

W. B. Duke  and
J. F. Hunt
W. B. Duke
Affiliation:
Dep. of Agron., Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY 14853
J. F. Hunt
Affiliation:
Dep. of Agron., Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY 14853
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Studies were conducted to compare weed growth under lighting systems composed of metal halide (MH) lamps and fluorescent-incandescent (FI) lamps. The MH lamps provided more light intensity and over a 6-week period caused plant dry weight to be 60 to 70% more than for plants exposed to the FI lamps. One week after emergence, all plants under the higher intensity MH lamps had larger stems and cotyledons or first true leaves. Six weeks after planting, weeds grown under the MH lamps had larger leaves, shorter internodes, thicker stems, and, in general, more pubescence than plants under the conventional lighting system. Growth habits of weeds exposed to the MH lamps were similar to those observed for field growth plants.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 23 , Issue 4 , July 1975 , pp. 314 - 316
Copyright
Copyright © 1975 by the 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. Ballentine, J.E. and Forde, B.J. 1970. The effect of light intensity and temperature on plant growth and chloroplast ultrastructure in soybeans. Amer. J. Bot. 57:1150–1159.Google Scholar
2. Bickford, E.D. and Dunn, Stuart. 1972. Lighting and plant growth. Kent State Univ. Press, Kent, OH. 221 pp.Google Scholar
3. Canham, A.E. 1966. Artificial light in horticulture. Centrex, Eindhoven. 212 pp.Google Scholar
4. Duke, W.B., Hagin, R.D., Hunt, J.F., and Linscott, D.L. 1975. Metal halide lamps for supplemental lighting in greenhouses: Crop response and spectral distribution. Agron. J. 67:49–53.Google Scholar
5. Dunn, Stuart, Gruendling, G.K., and Thomas, S. Jr. 1968. Effects of light quality on the life cycles of crabgrass and barnyardgrass. Weed Sci. 16:58–60.Google Scholar
6. Dunn, Stuart. 1970. Light quality effects on the life cycle of common purslane. Weed Sci. 18:611–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Mitchell, J.D.D. 1970. Comparison of grass species as best crops in glasshouse experiments. Rep. Roth. Exp. Sta. for 1969. p. 70–71.Google Scholar