Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wg55d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-16T11:05:26.977Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Grapevine row orientation affects light environment, growth, and development of black nightshade (Solanum nigrum)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Anil Shrestha  and
Matthew Fidelibus
Matthew Fidelibus
Affiliation:
Department of Viticulture and Enology, University of California, Davis, Kearney Agricultural Center, 9240 South Riverbend Avenue, Parlier, CA 93648
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Row orientation in vineyards can affect the quantity of light intercepted by the crop's canopy. Consequently, the light available to weeds growing under the canopy might also be affected, with potential implications for their physiology, growth, and productivity. This hypothesis was tested in 2003 and 2004 in a central California vineyard having rows oriented east–west (EW) and north–south (NS) in a randomized complete block design. In April of both years, potted black nightshade seedlings were placed under grapevines of both row orientations and grown for about 10 wk. Photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) at the weed canopy zone (WCZ) of NS rows was bimodal, with peaks occurring at about 09:30 A.M. and 4:30 P.M. At those times, PAR approached 500 μmol m−2 s−1 (between 30 and 40% of full sun). In contrast, maximum PAR in the WCZ of EW rows was generally less than 75 μmol m−2 s−1 throughout the day. The ratio of red to far-red light was also greater in NS than EW rows in the morning and afternoon. In both row orientations, PAR was suboptimal for nightshade because maximum net photosynthesis occurred at light levels ≥ 500 μmol m−2 s−1, but nightshade in the NS rows had higher net photosynthetic rates than those in EW rows when subjected to higher ambient PAR. Stem extension and phenology of nightshade was not affected by vine row orientation, but plants in EW rows had greater leaf areas, leaf area ratios, leaf weight ratios, and lower specific leaf weights than plants in NS rows. Berry mass, seeds per berry, and estimated seed production was 40, 7, and 20% lower, respectively, for plants in the EW than in the NS rows. Dry mass and total nonstructural carbohydrates (TNC) of nightshade roots were also 25 and 45% lower, respectively, in EW than in NS plants. Thus, grapevine row orientation may affect nightshade fecundity by reducing light in the WCZ.

Keywords

Black nightshade, Solanum nigrum L.grape, Vitis vinifera L.Cropping systemsintegrated weed managementopen gable trellisseed returnvineyard
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 53 , Issue 6 , December 2005 , pp. 802 - 812
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

Baldini, E. and Intrieri, C. 1987. Photon flux rate on hedgerow models in relation to hedgerow height, row spacing, and row orientation. Adv. Hort. Sci 1:3–7.Google Scholar
Ballaré, C. L. and Casal, J. J. 2000. Light signals perceived by crop and weed plants. Field Crops Res 67:149–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ballaré, C. L., Scopel, A. L., and Sanchez, R. A. 1991. Photocontrol of stem elongation in plant neighbourhoods: effects of photon fluence rate under natural conditions of radiation. Plant Cell Environ 14:57–65.Google Scholar
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. Exper. Bot 376:1935–1940.Google Scholar
Bourdot, G. W., Saville, D. J., and Field, R. J. 1984. The response of Achillea millefolium L. (yarrow) to shading. New Phytol 97:653–663.Google Scholar
Brown, R. F. and Mayer, D. G. 1988. Representing cumulative germination. The use of the Weibull function and other empirically derived curves. Ann. Bot 61:127–138.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D. 2003. Weed biology, cropping systems, and weed management. J. Crop Prod 8:245–270.Google Scholar
Christensen, L. P. 2000. Raisin Production Manual. University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources Publication 3393. Oakland, CA: University of California ANR Press. 295 p.Google Scholar
Crotser, M. P. and Witt, W. W. 2000. Effect of Glycine max canopy characteristics, G. max interference, and weed free period on Solanum ptycanthum growth. Weed Sci 48:20–26.Google Scholar
Crotser, M. P., Witt, W. W., and Spomer, L. A. 2003. Neutral density shading and far-red radiation influence black nightshade (Solanum nigrum) and eastern black nightshade (Solanum ptycanthum) growth. Weed Sci 51:208–213.Google Scholar
Deen, W., Hunt, T., and Swanton, C. J. 1998. Influence of temperature, photoperiod, and irradiance on the phenological development of common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia). Weed Sci 46:555–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Defelice, M. S. 2003. The black nightshades, Solanum nigrum L. et al.— poison, poultice, and pie. Weed Technol 17:421–427.Google Scholar
Dlott, J., Ohmart, C., Garn, J., Birdseye, K., and Ross, K. eds. 2002. The Code of Sustainable Winegrowing Workbook. San Francisco: Wine Institute, and Sacramento: California Association of Winegrape Growers. 490 p.Google Scholar
Erickson, R. O. and Michelini, F. J. 1957. The plastochron index. Am. J. Bot 44:297–304.Google Scholar
Farrar, J. F. and Gunn, S. 1996. Effects of temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide in source-sink relations in the context of climate change. Pages 389–406 in Zamski, E. and Schaffe, A. A. eds. Photoassimilate Distribution and Crops; Source–Sink Relationships. New York: Marcel Dekker.Google Scholar
Fidelibus, M. W., Martin, C. A., and Stutz, J. C. 2001. Geographic isolates of Glomus increase root growth and whole-plant transpiration of citrus seedlings grown with high phosphorus. Mycorrhiza 10:231–236.Google Scholar
Fortuin, F. T. J. M. and Omta, S. W. F. 1980. Growth analysis and shade experiment with Solanum nigrum . Neth. J. Agric. Sci 28:212–223.Google Scholar
Harker, K. N. and Clayton, G. W. 2004. Diversified weed management systems. Pages 251–265 in Inderjit, ed. Weed Biology and Management. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
Ipor, I. B. and Price, C. E. 1994. Uptake, translocation and activity of paraquat on Mikania micrantha H.B.K. grown in different light conditions. Int. J. Pest Manag 40:40–45.Google Scholar
Jackson, J. E. and Palmer, J. W. 1972. Interception of light by model hedgerow orchards in relation to latitude, time of year and hedgerow configuration and orientation. J. Appl. Ecol 9:341–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johansen, H. N., Glitso, V., and Knudsen, K. E. B. 1996. Influence of extraction solvent and temperature on the quantitative determination of oligosaccharides from plant materials by high-performance liquid chromatography. J. Agric. Food Chem 44:1470–1474.Google Scholar
Kasperbauer, M. J. and Hunt, P. G. 1998. Far-red light affects photosynthate allocation and yield of tomato over red mulch. Crop Sci 38:970–974.Google Scholar
Kasperbauer, M. J. and Karlen, D. L. 1994. Plant spacing and reflected far-red light effects on phytochrome-regulated photosynthate allocation in corn seedlings. Crop Sci 34:1564–1569.Google Scholar
Koch, K. E. 1996. Carbohydrate modulated gene expression in plants. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. Plant Mol. Biol 47:509–540.Google Scholar
Lambers, H., Chapin, F. S., and Pons, T. L. 1998. Plant Physiological Ecology. New York: Springer. 540 p.Google Scholar
Lanini, W. T. and Bendixen, W. E. 1992. Characteristics of important vineyard weeds. Pages 321–325 in Flaherty, D. L., Christensen, L. P., Marois, J. J., Philips, P. A., and Wilson, L. T., eds. Grape Pest Management. Oakland, CA: University of California, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources.Google Scholar
Liebman, M., Bastiaans, L., and Baumann, D. T. 2004. Weed management in low-external-input and organic farming systems. Pages 285–315 in Inderjit, ed. Weed Biology and Management. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
Livingston, B. E. 1935. Atmometers of porous porcelain and paper, their use in physiological ecology. Ecology 26:438–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maksymowych, R. 1973. Analysis of Leaf Development. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 109 p.Google Scholar
McLachlan, S. M., Swanton, C. J., Weise, S. F., and Tollenaar, M. 1993. Effect of corn-induced shading on dry matter accumulation, distribution, and architecture of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L). Weed Sci 41:568–573.Google Scholar
Nishimura, S. and Itoh, K. 2003. Spatial heterogeneity and diurnal course of photon flux density on paddy field water surface under rice plant canopy. Weed Biol. Manag 3:105–110.Google Scholar
Norris, R. F. 1999. Ecological implications of using thresholds for weed management. J. Crop Prod 2:31–58.Google Scholar
Palmer, J. W. 1989. The effect of row orientation, tree height, time of year and latitude on light interception and distribution in model apple hedgerow canopies. J. Hort. Sci 64:137–145.Google Scholar
Peace, R. W. and Grubb, P. J. 1989. Interactions of light and mineral nutrient supply on the growth of Imaptiens parviflora . New Phytol 90:127–150.Google Scholar
Peek, M. S., Russek-Cohen, E., Wait, D. A., and Forseth, I. N. 2002. Physiological response curve analysis using nonlinear mixed models. Oecologia 132:175–180.Google Scholar
Potvin, C., Lechowicz, M. J., and Tardif, S. 1990. The statistical analysis of ecophysiological response curves obtained from experiments involving repeated measures. Ecology 71:1389–1400.CrossRefGoogle 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
Rajcan, I., Chandler, K. J., and Swanton, C. J. 2004. Red–far-red ratio of reflected light: a hypothesis of why early-season weed control is important in corn. Weed Sci 52:774–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sattin, M., Zuin, M. C., and Sartorato, I. 1994. Light quality beneath field grown maize, soybean, and wheat canopies—red:far red variations. Physiol. Plant 91:322–328.Google Scholar
Smart, R. 1973. Sunlight interception by vineyards. Am. J. Enol. Viticult 36:230–239.Google Scholar
Smart, R. 1984. Canopy microclimate and effects on wine quality. Proceedings of the Fifth Australian Wine Industry Technical conference, November–December 1983. Perth, Australia: Australian Wine Research Institute. Pp. 113–132.Google Scholar
Smith, D. 1969. Removing and analyzing total nonstructural carbohydrates from plant tissue. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Agricultural Experiment Station Research Rep. 41. 11 p.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steinmaus, S. J. and Norris, R. F. 2002. Growth analysis and canopy architecture of velvetleaf grown under light conditions representative of irrigated Mediterranean-type agroecosystems. Weed Sci 50:42–53.Google Scholar
Stoller, E. W. and Myers, R. A. 1989. Response of soybean (Glycine max) and four broadleaf weeds to reduced irradiance. Weed Sci 37:570–574.Google Scholar
Teasdale, J. R. 1995. Influence of narrow row/high population corn (Zea mays) on weed control and light transmission. Weed Technol 9:113–118.Google Scholar
Wright, S. J. and Fidelibus, M. W. 2004. Shade limited root mass and carbohydrate reserves of the federally endangered beach clustervine (Jacquemontia reclinata) grown in containers. Native Plants J 5:27–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar