Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T23:15:15.872Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

When Is the Best Time to Emerge: Reproductive Phenology and Success of Natural Common Waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) Cohorts in the Midwest United States?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Chenxi Wu  and
Micheal D. K. Owen
Chenxi Wu
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Iowa State University, 3218 Agronomy Hall, Ames, IA 50011
Micheal D. K. Owen*
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Iowa State University, 3218 Agronomy Hall, Ames, IA 50011
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Although the prolonged emergence pattern of common waterhemp is well known, its effect on flowering phenology and success is less well understood. The ecological significance of later common waterhemp cohorts could have been underestimated. Ecological knowledge of common waterhemp, such as reproductive phenology and success, would help us better understand the invasiveness of this weed and thus facilitate the development of more targeted control methods. Field studies were conducted at Ames, IA, to evaluate temporal variation in flowering phenology (e.g., date of flower initiation, number of flowering plants per day) and reproductive success (e.g., seed production) of natural common waterhemp cohorts. Later-emerging common waterhemp cohorts flowered quicker and had a relatively shorter flowering period than early cohorts. Common waterhemp cohorts showed very large variations for the duration of their vegetative phases, indicating different photoperiod sensitivity among cohorts. Furthermore, common waterhemp cohorts exhibited a pulsed flowering pattern, which was probably influenced by temporal distribution of rain events; up to seven distinct flowering pulses within 40 d were observed in 2009, and about eight flowering pulses scattered over a 60 d period were observed in 2010. Common waterhemp maintained high seed production throughout the growing season. Seed production for the entire cohort was influenced more by emergence timing, whereas individual plant fecundity was more affected by plant population densities. Common waterhemp demonstrates strong phenological plasticity by evolving a pulsed flowering pattern, which rendered it plastic enough to tailor flowering to variable environmental conditions thus facilitating effective pollination. Common waterhemp later cohorts have a strong seed production potential, which may be ecologically significant with regard to herbicide resistance evolution.

Keywords

Common waterhemp, Amaranthus rudis SauerAmaranthus tuberculatusemergence timingflowering phenologyreproductive success
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 62 , Issue 1 , March 2014 , pp. 107 - 117
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

Adamsen, FJ, Coffelt, TA (2005) Planting date effects on flowering, seed yield, and oil content of rape and Crambe cultivars. Ind Crops Prod 21:293–307.Google Scholar
Adebisi, MA, Ajala, MO (2006) Performance and stability of seed yield in rainfed sesame genotypes as influenced by plant population density. Trop Agric. 83:47–53.Google Scholar
Augspurger, CK (1981) Reproductive synchrony of a tropical shrub: experimental studies on effects of pollinators and seed predators on Hybanthus prunifolius (Violaceae). Ecology. 62:775–788.Google Scholar
Augspurger, CK (1983) Phenology, flowering synchrony, and fruit set of six neotropical shrubs. Biotropica 15:257–267.Google Scholar
Bianchi, DE, Schwemmin, DJ, Wagner, WH (1959) Pollen release in the common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia). Bot Gaz 120:235–43.Google Scholar
Burd, M (1994) Bateman's principle and plant reproduction: the role of pollen limitation in fruit and seed set. Bot Rev 60:81–109.Google Scholar
Cook, RE (1980) Germination and size-dependent mortality in Viola blanda . Oecologia 47:115–117.Google Scholar
Cordes, JC, Johnson, WG, Scharf, P, Smeda, RJ (2004) Late-emerging common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) interference in conventional tillage corn. Weed Technol 18:999–1005.Google Scholar
Cox, PA (1991) Abiotic pollination—an evolutionary escape for animal-pollinated angiosperms. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 333:217–224.Google Scholar
Culley, TM, Weller, SG, Sakai, AK (2002) The evolution of wind pollination in angiosperms. Trends Ecol Evol 17:361–369.Google Scholar
Donohue, K (2005) Niche construction through phenological plasticity: life history dynamics and ecological consequences. New Phytol 166:83–92.Google Scholar
Espeby, L (1989) Germination of Weed Seeds and Competition in Stands of Weeds and Barley: Influences of Mineral Nutrients. Uppsala, Sweden Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Crop Production Science 6:1–172.Google Scholar
Faegri, K, van der Pijl, L (1979) The Principles of Pollination Ecology. 3rd edn. New York Pergamon. 244 pGoogle Scholar
Gentry, AH (1974) Flowering phenology and diversity in tropical Bignoniaceae. Biotropica 6:64–68.Google Scholar
Graebner, P (1934) Juncaceae. Pages 80–221 in Kirchner, O, Loew, E, Schröter, C, and Wangerin, W, eds. Lebensgeschichte der Blütenpflanzen Mittel Europas. Band I. Abteilung Stuttgart Verlag für Landwirtschaft und Naturwissenschaften.Google Scholar
Grundy, AC (2003) Predicting weed emergence: a review of approaches and future challenges. Weed Res 43:1–11.Google Scholar
Hager, AG, Wax, LM, Stoller, EW, Bollero, GA (2002) Common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) interference in soybean. Weed Sci. 50:607–610.Google Scholar
Hartzler, RG, Battles, BA, Nordby, D (2004) Effect of common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) emergence date on growth and fecundity in soybean. Weed Sci. 52:242–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartzler, RG, Buhler, DD, Stoltenberg, DE (1999) Emergence characteristics of four annual weed species. Weed Sci. 47:578–584.Google Scholar
Heap, I (2013) The International Survey of Herbicide-Resistant Weeds. http://www.weedscience.org/in.asp. Accessed March 25, 2013Google Scholar
Huang, JZ, Shrestha, A, Tollenaar, M, Deen, W, Rahimian, H, Swanton, CJ (2001) Effects of photoperiod on the phenological development of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.). Can J Plant Sci. 80:929–938.Google Scholar
Janzen, DH (1967) Synchronization of sexual reproduction of trees within the dry season in Central America. Evolution 21:620–37.Google Scholar
Jornsgard, B, Rasmussen, K, Hill, J, Christiansen, JL (1996) Influence of nitrogen on competition between cereals and their natural weed populations. Weed Res 36:461–470.Google Scholar
Kitamoto, N, Ueno, S, Takenaka, A, Tsumura, Y, Washitani, I, Ohsawa, R (2006) Effect of flowering phenology on pollen flow distance and the consequences for spatial genetic structure within a population of Primula sieboldii (Primulaceae). Am J Bot. 93:226–233.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lacey, EP (1982) Timing of seed dispersal in Daucus carota . Oikos. 39:83–91.Google Scholar
Lawrence, WS (1993) Resource and pollen limitation: plant size-dependent reproductive patterns in Physalis longifolia . Am Nat. 141:296–313.Google Scholar
Lee, TD, Bazzaz, FA (1982) Regulation of fruit and seed production in an annual legume, Cassia fasciculata . Ecology. 63:1363–1373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McWilliams, EL, Landers, RQ, Mahlstede, JP (1968) Variation in seed weight and germination in populations of Amaranthus retroflexus L. Ecology. 49:290–296.Google Scholar
Meyer, SE, Kitchen, SG, Carlson, SL (1995) Seed germination timing patterns in Intermountain Penstemon (Scrophulariaceae). Am J Bot. 82:377–389.Google Scholar
Michalski, SG, Durka, W (2007) Synchronous pulsed flowering: analysis of the flowering phenology in Juncus (Juncaceae). Ann Bot. 100:1271–1285.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miner, BG, Sultan, SE, Morgan, SG, Padilla, DK, Relyea, RA (2005) Ecological consequences of phenotypic plasticity. Trends Ecol Evol 20:685–692.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Myers, MW, Curran, WS, VanGessel, MJ, Calvin, DD, Mortensen, DA, Majek, BA, Karsten, HD, Roth, GW (2004) Predicting weed emergence for eight annual species in the northeastern United States. Weed Sci. 52:913–919.Google Scholar
Myers, MW, Curran, WS, VanGessel, MJ, Majek, BA, Mortensen, DA, Calvin, DD, Karsten, HD, Roth, GW (2005) Effect of soil disturbance on annual weed emergence in the Northeastern United States. Weed Technol 19:274–282.Google Scholar
Narita, K (1998) Effects of seed release timing on plant life-history and seed production in a population of a desert annual, Blepharis sindica (Acanthaceae). Plant Ecol 136:195–203.Google Scholar
Ollerton, J, Lack, AJ (1992) Flowering phenology: an example of relaxation of natural selection? Trends Ecol Evol 7:274–276.Google Scholar
Pico, FX, Retana, J (2001) The flowering pattern of the perennial herb Lobularia maritima: an unusual case in the Mediterranean basin. Acta Oecol 22:209–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Primack, RB (1980) Variation in the phenology of natural populations of montane shrubs in New Zealand. J Ecol 68:849–862.Google Scholar
Rathcke, R, Lacey, EP (1985) Phenological patterns of terrestrial plants. Ann Rev Eco Evol Syst. 16:179–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruhren, S, Dudash, MR (1996) Consequences of the timing of seed release of Erythronium americanum (Liliaceae), a deciduous forest myrmecochore. Am J Bot. 83:633–640.Google Scholar
Shapiro, SS, Wilk, MB (1965) An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika 52:591–611.Google Scholar
Steckel, LE, Sprague, CL (2004) Late-season common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) interference in narrow- and wide-row soybean. Weed Technol 18:947–952.Google Scholar
Taylor, KL, Hartzler, RG (2000) Effect of seed bank augmentation on herbicide efficacy. Weed Technol 14:261–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uscanga-Mortera, E, Clay, SA, Forcella, E, Gunsolus, J (2007) Common waterhemp growth and fecundity as influenced by emergence date and competing crop. Agron J. 99:1265–1270.Google Scholar
Verdu, M, Traveset, A (2005) Early emergence enhances plant fitness: a phylogenetically controlled meta-analysis. Ecology. 86:1385–1394.Google Scholar
Watkinson, AR, Harper, JL (1978) The demography of a sand dune annual: Vulpia fasciculata: I The natural regulation of populations. J Ecol 66:15–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiner, J (1988) The influence of competition on plant reproduction. Pages 228–245 in Lovett Doust, J, Lovett Doust, L, eds. Plant Reproductive Ecology: Patterns and Strategies. New York Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Whitehead, DR (1969) Wind pollination in angiosperms: evolutionary and environmental considerations. Evolution 23:28–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Whitehead, DR (1983) Wind pollination: some ecological and evolutionary perspectives. Pages 97–108 in Real, L, ed. Pollination Biology. New York Academic.Google Scholar
Zabka, GG (1961) Photoperiodism in Amaranthus caudatus, I: a reexamination of the photoperiodic response. Am J Bot. 48:21–28.Google Scholar