Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T10:22:34.187Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of Vineyard Row Orientation on Growth and Phenology of Glyphosate-Resistant and Glyphosate-Susceptible Horseweed (Conyza canadensis)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Marisa Alcorta ,
Matthew W. Fidelibus ,
Kerri L. Steenwerth  and
Anil Shrestha
Marisa Alcorta
Affiliation:
Dept. of Viticulture and Enology, University of California, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616
Matthew W. Fidelibus
Affiliation:
Dept. of Viticulture and Enology, University of California, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616
Kerri L. Steenwerth
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, Crop Pathology and Genetics Research Unit, C/O Department of Viticulture and Enology, University of California, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616
Anil Shrestha*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Science, California State University, 2415 E. San Ramon Avenue, MS A/S 72, Fresno, CA 93740
*
Corresponding author's email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Horseweed has become increasingly common and difficult to control in San Joaquin Valley vineyards, due in part, to the evolution of glyphosate resistance. The development of weed-suppressive vineyard designs in which the trellis design, spacing, and row orientation combine to cast dense shade on the weed canopy zone (WCZ) may reduce weed growth. The relevance of such a system to horseweed, which can grow to be as tall, or taller, than a typical grapevine trellis, is uncertain. Also unknown is whether a glyphosate-resistant (GR) biotype and glyphosate-susceptible (GS) biotype would perform similarly under such conditions. Therefore, we compared the growth and development of two potted horseweed biotypes (GR and GS) in vinerows oriented east–west (EW) and north–south (NS). Rows oriented EW allowed less light penetration to the WCZ than NS rows throughout the study, and horseweed biotypes responded to low light levels by producing leaves with larger specific leaf area and leaf area ratios than those in the NS rows. Also, the leaf, stem, and root dry weight of the horseweed plants in the EW rows was reduced by 30% compared to the horseweed plants in NS rows. Leaf number was also reduced in the horseweed plants in the EW rows, but only for the GS biotype. Row orientation did not affect phenological development or the number of seeds produced by the GR or GS biotypes, but the GR biotype budded, flowered, and set seed approximately 1 wk earlier than the GS biotype. Thus, shade associated with the EW vinerows reduced horseweed growth, but not fecundity, and the GR biotype reached reproductive maturity earlier than the GS biotype.

Keywords

Horseweed, Conyza canadensis (L.) Cronq. ERICAgrape, Vitis vinifera LShadeintegrated weed managementperennial cropping systemslight qualitylight quantity
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 59 , Issue 1 , March 2011 , pp. 55 - 60
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

Borger, C. P. D., Hashem, A., and Pathan, S. 2010. Manipulating crop row orientation to suppress weeds and increase crop yield. Weed Sci. 58:174–178.Google Scholar
Brainard, D., Bellinder, R., and DiTomasso, A. 2005. Effects of canopy shade on the morphology, phenology and seed characteristics of Powell amaranth (Amaranthus powellii). Weed Sci. 53:175–186.Google Scholar
[CIMIS] California Irrigation Management Information System, Department of Water Resources. Office of Water Use Efficiency. Daily Report. January 1, 2006 to July 5, 2006 and January 1, 2007 to July 5, 2007. Accessed on February 26, 2008. http://wwwcimis.water.ca.gov/cimis/frontDailyReport.do.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 ptycnthum) growth. Weed Sci. 51:208–213.Google Scholar
Davis, V. M., Kruger, G. R., Stachler, J. M., Loux, M. M., and Johnson, W. G. 2009. Growth and seed production of horseweed (Conyza canadensis) populations resistant to glyphosate, ALS-inhibiting, and multiple (glyphosate+ALS-inhibiting) herbicides. Weed Sci. 57:494–504.Google Scholar
Erickson, R. O. and Michelini, F. J. 1957. The plastochron index. Am. J. Bot. 44:297–304.Google Scholar
Grantz, D., Shrestha, A., and Vu, H. B. 2008a. Early vigor and ozone response in horseweed (Conyza canadensis) biotypes differing in glyphosate resistance. Weed Sci. 56:224–230.Google Scholar
Grantz, D., Shrestha, A., and Vu, H. B. 2008b. Ozone enhances the adaptive benefit of glyphosate resistance in horseweed (Conyza canadensis). Weed Sci. 56:549–554.Google Scholar
Hanson, B. D., Shrestha, A., and Shaner, D. 2009. Distribution of glyphosate-resistant horseweed (Conyza canadensis) and relationship to cropping systems in the Central Valley of California. Weed Sci. 57:48–53.Google Scholar
Liu, J. G., Mahoney, K. J., Sikkema, P. H., and Swanton, C. J. 2008. The importance of light quality in crop-weed competition. Weed Res. 49:217–224.Google Scholar
Maksymowych, R. 1973. Analysis of leaf development. Cambridge, UK Cambridge University Press. 109 p.Google Scholar
McDonald, M. S. 2003. Photobiology of higher plants. West Sussex, England Wiley, John & Sons, Inc. 354 p.Google 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.Google 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
Shrestha, A. and Fidelibus, M. 2005. Grapevine row orientation affects light environment, growth, and development of black nightshade (Solanum nigrum). Weed Sci. 53:802–812.Google Scholar
Shrestha, A., Fidelibus, M. W., Alcorta, M., and Hanson, B. D. 2010. Growth, phenology, and intra-specific competition between glyphosate-resistant and glyphosate-susceptible horseweed (Conyza canadensis) in the San Joaquin Valley of California. Weed Sci. 58:147–153.Google Scholar
Shrestha, A., Hembree, K. J., and Va, N. 2007. Growth stage influences level of resistance in glyphosate-resistant horseweed. California Agric. 61(2):67–70.Google Scholar
Shrestha, A., Hembree, K. J., and Wright, S. D. 2008. Biology and management of horseweed (Conyza canadensis) and hairy fleabane (Conyza bonariensis) in California. DANR Pub. No. 8314. Oakland, CA: University of California, Agriculture and Natural Resources. 9 p.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
Walker, R. H. and Buchanan, G. A. 1982. Crop manipulation in integrated weed management systems. Weed Sci. 30(Suppl. 1):17–24.Google Scholar
Weaver, S. E. 2001. The biology of Canadian weeds. 115. Conyza canadensis . Can. J. Plant Sci. 81:867–875.Google Scholar