Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T03:59:53.726Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Photosynthesis and Growth Responses to Irradiance in Soybean (Glycine max) and Three Broadleaf Weeds

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Emilie E. Regnier
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Univ. Illinois, Plant Physiol., U.S. Dep. Agric., Agric. Res. Serv., Univ. Kentucky, N-222, AXC-N, Lexington, KY 40546
Michael E. Salvucci
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Univ. Illinois, Plant Physiol., U.S. Dep. Agric., Agric. Res. Serv., Univ. Kentucky, N-222, AXC-N, Lexington, KY 40546
Edward W. Stoller
Affiliation:
U.S. Dep. Agric., Agric. Res. Serv., 1102 S. Goodwin Ave., Urbana, IL 61801

Abstract

Photosynthesis and growth responses to irradiance level during growth were compared in soybean (Glycine max L. Merr. ‘Century’) and three broadleaf weeds to determine if these responses were associated with differences in shade tolerance among species. In response to reduced irradiance during growth, leaf thickness of all species decreased, while chlorophyll content per unit leaf volume and photosynthetic rate per unit leaf volume, measured at low irradiance, increased. Soybean and common cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium L. #3 XANST) also exhibited a decrease in soluble proteins on a leaf volume basis under reduced irradiance, and common cocklebur further exhibited a decrease in ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase (RuBPcase) protein per unit leaf volume. Decreased irradiance during growth did not alter the content of RuBPcase or other soluble proteins per unit leaf volume in jimsonweed (Datura stramonium L. # DATST) or velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti Medic. # ABUTH). The superior shade tolerance of common cocklebur compared to the other species was attributed in part to the levels of RuBPcase and other photosynthetic proteins in leaves developed at low irradiance.

Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Copyright
Copyright © 1988 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. Arnon, D. 1949. Copper enzymes in isolated chloroplasts. Polyphenol-oxidase in Beta vulgaris . Plant Physiol. 24:115.Google Scholar
2. Bazzaz, F. A. and Carlson, R. W. 1982. Photosynthetic acclimaation to variability in the light environment of early and late successful plants. Oecologia 54:313316.Google Scholar
3. Björkman, O. 1968. Carboxydismutase activity in shade-adapted and sun-adapted species of higher plants. Carnegie Inst. Wash. Yearbook. Pages 487488.Google Scholar
4. Björkman, O. 1968. Further studies on differentiation of photosynthetic properties in sun and shade ecotypes of Solidago virgaurea . Physiol. Plant. 21:8499.Google Scholar
5. Björkman, O. 1981. Responses to different quantum flux density. Encyl. Plant Phys., New Ser. 120:57107.Google Scholar
6. Björkman, O. and Holmgren, B. 1963. Adaptability of the photosynthetic apparatus to light intensity in ecotypes from exposed and shaded habitats. Physiol. Plant. 16:889914.Google Scholar
7. Björkman, O., Ludlow, M. M., and Morrow, P. A. 1972. Photosynthetic performance of two rainforest species in their native habitat and analysis of their gas exchange. Carnegie Inst. Wash. Yearbook. 71:94102.Google Scholar
8. Björkman, O., Boardman, N. K., Anderson, J. M., Thome, S. W., Goodchild, D. J., and Pyliotis, N. A. 1972. Effect of light intensity during growth of Atriplex patula on the capacity of photosynthetic reactions, chloroplast components and structure. Carnegie Inst. of Wash. Yearbook. Pages 115135.Google Scholar
9. Blackman, G. E. and Wilson, G. L. 1951. Physiological and ecological studies in the analysis of plant environment. VII. An analysis of the differential effects of light intensity on the net assimilation rate, leaf area ratio, and relative growth rate of different species. Ann. Bot. 15:373408.Google Scholar
10. Bowes, G., Ogren, W. L., and Hageman, R. H. 1972. Light saturation, photosynthesis rate, RuDP carboxylase activity, and specific leaf weight in soybeans grown under different light intensities. Crop Sci. 12:7779.Google Scholar
11. Bradford, M. 1976. A rapid and sensitive method for the quantitation of microgram quantities of protein utilizing the principle of protein-dye binding. Anal. Biochem. 72:248254.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Chabot, B. F. and Chabot, J. F. 1977. Effects of light and temperature on leaf anatomy and photosynthesis in Fragaria vesca . Oecologia 26:363379.Google Scholar
13. Chabot, B. F., Jurik, T. W., and Chabot, J. F. 1979. Influence of instantaneous and integrated light flux density on leaf anatomy and photosynthesis. Am. J. Bot. 66:940945.Google Scholar
14. Charles-Edwards, D. A. and Ludwig, L. J. 1975. The basis of expression of leaf photosynthetic activities. Pages 3743 in Marcelle, R., ed. Environmental and Biological Control of Photosynthesis. W. Junk, The Hague.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Cooper, C. S. 1967. Relative growth of alfalfa and birdsfoot trefoil seedlings under low light intensity. Crop Sci. 7:176178.Google Scholar
16. Covey, S. N. and Taylor, S. C. 1980. Rapid purification of ribulose 1,5-bis(phosphate)carboxylase from Rhodomicrobium vannielii . SEMS Microbiol. Lett. 8:221223.Google Scholar
17. Evans, G. C. and Hughes, A. P. 1960. Plant growth and the aerial environment. 1. Effect of artificial shading on Impatiens parviflora . New Phytol. 60:150180.Google Scholar
18. Fails, B. S., Lewis, A. J., and Baden, J. A. 1982. Net photosynthesis and transpiration of sun- and shade-grown Ficus benjamina leaves. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 107:758761.Google Scholar
19. Gauhl, E. 1976. Photosynthetic response to varying light intensity in ecotypes of Solanum dulcamara L. from shaded and exposed habitats. Carnegie Inst. Wash. Pages 780785.Google Scholar
20. Grime, J. P. 1965. Shade tolerance in flowering plants. Nature 208:161163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21. Grime, J. P. 1981. Plant strategies in shade. Pages 297314 in Smith, H., ed. Plants and the Daylight Spectrum. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
22. Goodchild, D. J., Björkman, O., and Pyliotis, N. A. 1972. Chloroplast ultrastructure, leaf anatomy, and content of chlorophyll and soluble protein in rainforest species. Carnegie Inst. Wash. Yearbook. Pages 103107.Google Scholar
23. Hoagland, D. R. and Arnon, D. I. 1950. The water-culture method for growing plants without soil. Calif. Agric. Exp. Stn. Circ. 347. 32 pp.Google Scholar
24. Huffaker, R. C. and Miller, B. L. 1978. Reutilization of ribulose bisphosphate carboxylase. Pages 134152 in Siegelman, H. W. and Hind, G., eds. Photosynthetic Carbon Assimilation. Plenum, New York.Google Scholar
25. Jurik, T. W., Chabot, J. F., and Chabot, B. F. 1979. Ontogeny of photosynthetic performance in Fragaria virginiana under changing light regimes. Plant Physiol. 63:542547.Google Scholar
26. Jurik, T. W., Chabot, J. F., and Chabot, B. F. 1982. Effects of light and nutrients on leaf size, CO2 exchange, and anatomy in wild strawberry (Fragaria virginiana). Plant Physiol. 70:10441048.Google Scholar
27. Kvet, J., Ondok, J. P., Necas, J., and Jarvis, P. G. 1971. Methods of growth analysis. Pages 347356 in Catsky, J. and Jarvis, P. C., eds. Plant Photosynthetic Production. Manual of Methods. W. Junk, The Hague.Google Scholar
28. Mbah, B. N., McWilliams, E. L., and McCree, K. J. 1983. Carbon balance of Peperomia obtusifolia plants during acclimation to low PPFD. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 108:769773.Google Scholar
29. Nobel, P. S. 1976. Photosynthetic rates of sun versus shade leaves of Hyptis emoryi Torr. Plant Physiol. 58:218223.Google Scholar
30. Patterson, D. T., Longstreth, D. J., and Peet, M. M. 1977. Photosynthetic adaptation to light intensity in Sakhalin knotweed (Polygonum sachalinense). Weed Sci. 25:319323.Google Scholar
31. Patterson, D. T., Bunce, J. A., Alberte, R. S., and Van Volkenburgh, E. 1977. Photosynthesis in relation to leaf characteristics of cotton from controlled and field environments. Plant Physiol. 59:384387.Google Scholar
32. 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. 61:402405.Google Scholar
33. Patterson, D. T. and Flint, E. P. 1983. Comparative water relations, photosynthesis, and growth of soybean (Glycine max) and seven associated weeds. Weed Sci. 31:318323.Google Scholar
34. Reyss, A. and Prioul, J. L. 1975. Carbonic anydrase and carboxylase activities from plants (Lolium perenne) adapted to different light regimes. Plant Sci. lett. 5:189195.Google Scholar
35. Stoller, E. W., Harrison, S. K., Wax, L. M., Regnier, E. E., and Nafziger, E. D. 1987. Weed interference in soybeans. Rev. Weed Sci. 3:155181.Google Scholar
36. Whitehead, F. H. 1973. The relationship between light intensity and reproductive capacity. Pages 7375 in Slatyer, R. O., ed. Plant Response to Climatic Factors. UNESCO, Paris.Google Scholar
37. Wilmot, A. and Moore, P. D. 1973. Adaptation to light intensity in Silene alba and Silene doica . Oikos 24:458464.Google Scholar