Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T00:43:54.914Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of Light on Growth and Development of Field Bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) and Russian Knapweed (Centaurea repens)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Armando A. Dall'Armellina  and
Robert L. Zimdahl
Armando A. Dall'Armellina
Affiliation:
Instituto de Desarrollo del Valle Inferior del Rio Negro, IDEVI. 8500-Viedma, Rio Negro, Argentina
Robert L. Zimdahl
Affiliation:
Dep. Plant Pathol. and Weed Sci., Colorado State Univ., Fort Collins, CO 80523
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field bindweed and Russian knapweed were grown from seed or rhizome segments under 520, 325, or 236 μmol·m–2 · s–1 photosynthetic photon flux density (PPFD) to determine vegetative and reproductive response. Flower production in both species declined with decreasing light level. Leaf area of field bindweed decreased as light level decreased, but Russian knapweed leaf area increased as light intensity decreased from 520 to 325 μmol·m–2 ·s–1 PPFD or from 520 to 236 μmol·m–2 ·s–1. Dry matter of shoots, roots, and rhizomes of field bindweed grown from seed declined as light level decreased, but the only response of plants grown from rhizome segments was complete inhibition of rhizome production. Dry matter of Russian knapweed shoots and roots in plants grown from seed or rhizome segments decreased as light decreased. In both species the total PPFD was more important than whether low or high light level occurred first.

Keywords

Field bindweed, Convolvulus arvensis L. # CONARRussian knapweed, Centaurea repens L. # CENREPerennial weedsshadeCONARCENRE
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 36 , Issue 6 , November 1988 , pp. 779 - 783
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. Bakke, A. L. and Gaessler, W. G. 1945. The effect of reduced light intensity on aerial and subterranean parts of European bindweed. Plant Physiol. 20:246–257.Google Scholar
2. Boyd, J. W. and Murray, D. S. 1982. The effect of shade on silverleaf nightshade (Solanum elaeagnifolium). Weed Sci. 30:264–269.Google Scholar
3. Burton, G. W., Jackson, J. E., and Knox, F. E. 1959. The influence of light reduction upon the production, persistence and chemical composition of coastal bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon). Agron. J. 51:537–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Fletcher, R. A. and Renney, A. J. 1963. A growth inhibitor found in Centaurea spp. Can. J. Plant Sci. 43:475–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Furuya, M., Musatani, T., Higuchi, S., and Tsutsui, S. 1984. Effects of shading on growth and digestible dry matter content of timothy (Phleum pratense). Bull. Prefectural Kitami Agric. Exp. Stn. 51:1–13.Google Scholar
6. Harada, H., Ito, T., Koyama, K., and Tanaka, T. 1981. Light requirements for growth of some perennial paddy weeds. Int. Rice Res. Newsl. 6:14 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
7. Holm, L. G., Plucknett, D. L., Pancho, J. V., and Herberger, J. P. 1977. The World's Worst Weeds: Distribution and Biology. Univ. Press of Hawaii. 609 pp.Google Scholar
8. Ishimine, Y., Miyazato, K., and Matsumoto, S. 1985. Physiological and ecological characteristics of weeds of sugarcane fields in the Ryukyus Islands. 3. Effect of shading on growth and seed production of Paspalum urvillei Steud. Weed Res. (Japan) 30:148–150.Google Scholar
9. Keeley, P. E. and Thullen, R. J. 1978. Light requirement of yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus) and light interception by crops. Weed Sci. 26:10–16.Google Scholar
10. Maddox, D. M., Mayfield, A., and Poritz, N. H. 1985. Distribution of yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis) and Russian knapweed (Centaurea repens). Weed Sci. 33:315–327.Google Scholar
11. McWhorter, C. G. and Jordan, T. N. 1976. The effect of light and temperature on growth and development of Johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense). Weed Sci. 24:88–91.Google Scholar
12. Patterson, D. T. 1978. Methodology and terminology for measurement of light in weed studies. Weed Sci. 27:437–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Patterson, D. T. 1980. Shading effects on growth and partitioning of plant biomass on cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica) from shaded and exposed habitats. Weed Sci. 28:735–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Peters, D. B. 1965. Water availability. Chapter 19 in Methods of Soil Analysis. Part I. Page 279–285 in Black, C. A., ed. Am. Soc. Agron. Madison, WI.Google Scholar
15. Swan, D. G. 1980. Field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis). Bull. 0888. Coll. of Agric. Res. Ctr., Washington State Univ. 8 pp.Google Scholar