Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T03:37:37.389Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Shade Avoidance in Soybean Reduces Branching and Increases Plant-to-Plant Variability in Biomass and Yield Per Plant

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Emily Green-Tracewicz ,
Eric R. Page  and
Clarence J. Swanton
Emily Green-Tracewicz
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Agriculture, Crop Science Building, University of Guelph, 50 Stone Road E., Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada
Eric R. Page
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: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Recent studies have suggested that soybeans express shade avoidance in response to low red : far-red (R : FR) light reflected from neighboring plants and that this response may determine the onset and outcome of crop–weed competition. We tested the hypothesis that the low R : FR ratio would trigger characteristic shade avoidance responses in soybean and that the subsequent phenotype would experience reproductive costs under non–resource-limiting conditions. Soybeans were grown in a fertigation system in field trials conducted in 2007 and 2008 under two light quality treatments: (1) high R : FR ratio (i.e., weed-free) i.e., upward reflected light from a baked clay medium (Turface MVP®), or (2) low R : FR ratio (i.e., weedy) of upward reflected light, from commercial turfgrass. Results of this study indicated that a reduction in the R : FR ratio of light reflected from the surface of turfgrass increased soybean internode elongation, reduced branching, and decreased yield per plant. Shade avoidance also increased the plant-to-plant variability in biomass and yield per plant. Per plant yield losses were, however, more closely associated with reductions in biomass accumulation than population variability as the expression of a shade avoidance response did not influence harvest index. While these results suggest that weed induced shade avoidance decreases soybean per plant yield by reducing branching, it is possible the productivity of a soybean stand as a whole may be buffered against these reduction by a similar, but opposite, expression of plasticity in branching.

Keywords

Soybean, Glycine max (L.) MerrGlycine maxcompetition theoryred to far-red ratiophentotypic plasticityphysiological costsintra- and interspecific competition
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 59 , Issue 1 , March 2011 , pp. 43 - 49
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

Andrade, F. H. and Abbate, P. E. 2005. Response of maize and soybean to variability in stand uniformity. Agron. J. 97:1263–1269.Google Scholar
Aphalo, P. J., Ballare, C. L., and Scopel, A. L. 1999. Plant-plant signaling, the shade avoidance response and competition. J. Exp. Bot. 50:1629–1634.Google Scholar
Baldwin, I. T., Halitschke, R., Paschold, A., von Dahl, C. C., and Preston, C. A. 2006. Volatile signals in plant-plant interactions: “Talking trees” in the genomics era. Science. 311:812–815.Google Scholar
Ballaré, C. L., Sánchez, R. A., Scopel, A. L., Casal, J. J., and Ghersa, C. M. 1987. Early detection of neighbouring plants by phytochrome perception of spectral changes in reflected sunlight. Plant Cell Environ. 10:551–557.Google Scholar
Ballaré, C. L. and Scopel, A. L. 1997. Phytochrome signaling in plant canopies: testing its population-level implications with photoreceptor mutants of Arabidopsis . Funct. Ecol. 11:441–450.Google Scholar
Ballaré, C. L., Scopel, A. L., Jordan, E. T., and Vierstra, R. D. 1994. Signaling among neighboring plants and the development of size inequalities in plant populations. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 91:10094–10098.Google Scholar
Ballaré, C. L., Scopel, A. L., and Sánchez, R. A. 1990. Far-red radiation reflected from adjacent leaves: an early signal of competition in plant canopies. Science. 247:329–331.Google Scholar
Ballaré, C. L., Scopel, A. L., and Sánchez, R. A. 1991. Photocontrol of stem elongation in plant neighbourhoods: effects of photonfluence rate under natural conditions of radiation. Plant Cell Environ. 14:57–65.Google Scholar
Board, J. 2000. Light interception efficiency and light quality affect yield compensation of soybean at low plant populations. Crop Sci. 40:1285–1294.Google Scholar
Board, J. E. and Harville, B. G. 1993. Soybean yield component responses to a light interception gradient during the reproductive period. Crop Sci. 33:772–777.Google Scholar
Board, J. E., Zhang, W., and Harville, B. G. 1996. Yield rankings for soybean cultivars grown in narrow and wide rows with late planting dates. Agron. J. 88:240–245.Google Scholar
Borrás, L., Slafer, G. A., and Otegui, M. E. 2004. Seed dry weight response to source-sink manipulations in wheat, maize and soybean: a quantitative reappraisal. Field Crop. Res. 86:131–146.Google Scholar
Bradshaw, A. D. 1965. Evolutionary significance of phenotypic plasticity in plants. Adv. Genet. 13:115–155.Google Scholar
Bradshaw, A. D. 2006. Unravelling phenotypic plasticity—why should we bother? New Phytol. 170:644–648.Google Scholar
Carpenter, A. C. and Board, J. E. 1997. Branch yield components controlling soybean yield stability across plant populations. Crop Sci. 37:885–891.Google Scholar
Casal, J. J., Sánchez, R. A., and Deregibus, V. A. 1986. Effects of plant density on tillering: the involvement of the R/FR and the proportion of radiation intercepted per plant. Environ. Exp. Bot. 26:365–371.Google Scholar
Cowan, P., Weaver, S. E., and Swanton, C. J. 1998. Interference between pigweed (Amaranthus spp.) barnyardgrass (Echinochola crus-galli), and soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 46:533–539.Google Scholar
Dieleman, A., Hamill, A. S., Glenn, C. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1996. Decision rules for postemergence control of pigweed (Amaranthus spp.) in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 44:126–132.Google Scholar
Dudley, S. A. and Schmitt, J. 1996. Testing the adaptive plasticity hypothesis: Density dependent selection on manipulated stem length in Impatiens capensis . Am. Nat. 147:445–465.Google Scholar
Egli, D. B. 1993. Relationship of uniformity of soybean seedling emergence to yield. J. Seed Technol. 17:22–28.Google Scholar
Elmore, R. W. 1998. Soybean cultivar response to row spacing and seeding rates in rainfed and irrigated environments. J. Prod. Agric. 11:326–331.Google Scholar
Fehr, W. R., Caviness, C. E., Burmood, D. T., and Pennington, J. S. 1971. Stage of development descriptions for soybeans, Glycine max (L.) Merril. Crop Sci. 11:929–931.Google Scholar
Green-Tracewicz, E. 2010. Exploring the Role of the R: FR Ratio in Glycine max L. Merril (Soybean)-Weed Competition. M.Sc. dissertation. Guelph, ON University of Guelph. Pp. 47–75.Google 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.Google Scholar
Halford, C., Hamill, A. S., Zhang, J., and Doucet, C. 2001. Critical period of weed control in no-till soybean (Glycine max) and corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 15:737–744.Google Scholar
Hamill, A. S., Weaver, S. E., Sikkema, P. H., Swanton, C. J., Tardiff, F. J., and Ferguson, G. M. 2004. Benefits and risks of economic vs. efficacious approaches to weed management in corn and soybean. Weed Technol. 18:723–732.Google Scholar
Harper, J. L., ed. 1977. Population Biology of Plants. 4th ed. New York Academic Press Inc. 306 p.Google Scholar
Hock, S. M., Knezevic, S. Z., Martin, A. R., and Lindquist, J. L. 2006. Soybean row spacing and weed emergence time influence weed competitiveness and competitive indices. Weed Sci. 54:38–46.Google Scholar
Kasperbauer, M. J. 1987. Far-red light reflection from green leaves and effects of phytochrome-mediated partitioning under field conditions. Plant Physiol. 85:350–354.Google Scholar
Knezevic, S. Z., Evans, S. P., and Mainz, M. 2003. Row spacing influences the critical timing for weed removal in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 17:666–673.Google Scholar
Liu, J. L., Mahoney, K. J., Sikkema, P. H., and Swanton, C. J. 2009. The importance of light quality in crop-weed competition. Weed Res. 49:217–224.Google Scholar
Maddonni, G. A. and Otegui, M. E. 2004. Intra-specific competition in maize: early establishment of hierarchies among plants affects final kernel set. Field Crops Res. 85:1–13.Google Scholar
Massey, F. J. 1951. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for goodness of fit. JASA. 46:68–78.Google Scholar
Page, E. R., Tollenaar, M., Lee, E. A., Lukens, L., and Swanton, C. J. 2009. Does shade avoidance contribute to the critical period for weed control in maize (Zea mays L.)? Weed Res. 49:563–571.Google Scholar
Page, E. R., Tollenaar, M., Lee, E. A., Lukens, L., and Swanton, C. J. 2010. Shade avoidance: an integral component of crop-weed competition. Weed Res. 50:281–288.Google Scholar
Rajcan, I. R., 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.Google Scholar
Rajcan, I. R. and Swanton, C. J. 2001. Understanding maize-weed competition: resource competition, light quality and the whole-plant. Field Crop. Res. 71:139–150.Google Scholar
Satterthwaite, F. E. 1946. An approximate distribution of estimates of error components. Biometrics Bull. 2:110–114.Google Scholar
Schapaugh, W. T. and Wilcox, J. R. 1980. Relationship between harvest indices and other plant characteristics in soybeans. Crop Sci. 20:529–533.Google Scholar
Schmitt, J., McCormac, A. C., and Smith, H. 1995. A test of the adaptive plasticity hypothesis using transgenic and mutant plants disabled in phytochrome-mediated elongation responses to neighbors. Am. Nat. 146:937–953.Google Scholar
Schmitt, J., Stinchcombe, J. R., Heschel, M. S., and Huber, H. 2003. The adaptive evolution of plasticity: phytochrome mediated shade avoidance response. Integr. Comp. Biol. 43:459–469.Google Scholar
Sikkema, P. H. and Dekker, J. 1987. Use of infrared thermometry in determining critical stress periods induced by quackgrass (Agropyron repens) in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 35:784–791.Google Scholar
Smith, H. 1992. The ecological function of the phytochrome family. Clues to a transgenic programme of crop improvement. Photochem. PhotoBiol. 56:815–822.Google Scholar
Smith, H., Casal, J. J., and Jackson, G. M. 1990. Reflection signals and the perception of phytochrome of the proximity of neighbouring vegetation. Plant Cell Environ. 13:73–78.Google Scholar
Tilman, D. 1982. The resource-ratio hypothesis of plant succession. Am. Nat. 125:827–852.Google Scholar
Tollenaar, M. 1989. Response of dry matter accumulation in maize to temperature. I. Dry matter partitioning. Crop Sci. 29:1239–1246.Google Scholar
Tollenaar, M. and Migus, W. 1984. Dry matter accumulation of maize grown hydroponically under controlled-environment and field conditions. Can. J. Plant Sci. 64:465–485.Google Scholar
Van Acker, R. C., Swanton, C. J., and Weise, S. F. 1993. The critical period for weed control in soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.]. Weed Sci. 41:194–200.Google Scholar
Vega, C. R. and Sadras, V. O. 2003. Size-dependent growth and the development of inequality in maize, sunflower and soybean. Ann. Bot-London. 91:795–805.Google Scholar
Vega, C. R., Sadras, V. O., Andrade, F. H., and Uhart, S. A. 2000. Reproductive allometry in soybean, maize and sunflower. Ann. Bot. (London). 85:461–468.Google Scholar
Weiner, J. 1985. Size hierarchies in experimental populations of annual plants. Ecology. 66:743–752.Google Scholar
Weiner, J. 1990. Asymmetric competition in plant populations. Trends Eco. Evol. 5:360–364.Google Scholar
Weiner, J. and Solbrig, O. T. 1984. The meaning and measurement of size hierarchies in plant populations. Oecologia. 61:334–336.Google Scholar
Weinig, C. 2000. Differing selection in alternative competitive environments: Shade-avoidance responses and germination timing. Evolution. 54:124–136.Google Scholar
Wells, R. 1993. Dynamics of soybean growth in variable planting patterns. Agron. J. 85:44–48.Google Scholar
Ying, J., Lee, E. A., and Tollenaar, M. 2000. Response of maize leaf photosynthesis to low temperature during the grain-filling period. Field Crop. Res. 68:87–95.Google Scholar
Young, I. T. 1977. Proof without prejudice: Use of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for the analysis of histograms from flow systems and other sources. J. Histochem. Cytochem. 25:935–941.Google Scholar