Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T04:30:21.862Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of Temperature and Photoperiod on Common Crupina (Crupina vulgaris)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

David T. Patterson  and
David A. Mortensen
David T. Patterson
Affiliation:
U.S. Dep. Agric., Duke Univ., Durham, NC 22706
David A. Mortensen
Affiliation:
Dep. Bot., Duke Univ., Durham, NC 22706
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Achene germination of common crupina (Crupina vulgaris Cass. ♯ CJNVU) was 86% or greater at day/night temperatures ranging from 15/4 to 29/25 C. Germination was greatly reduced at a day temperature of 36 C, regardless of the night temperature. The time required for maximum germination (9 to 19 days) increased with decreasing night temperature. Maximum leaf area, rosette diameter, and dry-matter accumulation during vegetative growth occurred at 22/18 to 29/25 C, 22/18 C, and 22/18 C, respectively. The plants attained 50% or more of maximum dry-matter accumulation at day/night temperatures ranging from as low as 22/4 and 15/11 C to as high as 36/25 C. Net assimilation rate was relatively insensitive to growth temperature. Rosettes of common crupina grown at 22/11 or 29/18 C exhibited almost complete photosynthetic and respiratory temperature acclimation. Increasing the photoperiod from 10 to 12, 14, or 16 h accelerated flowering. Maximum achene production occurred in the 16-h photoperiod, but viable achenes were produced in all photoperiods. Temperature during vegetative growth influenced subsequent responses to photoperiod. Plants grown for 83 days in a 14-h photoperiod at 15/4 or 22/11 C and transferred to 26/20 C flowered and produced seed in photoperiods of 8 or 16 h. Plants grown at 29/18 or 36/25 C subsequently flowered only in the 16-h photoperiod at 26/20 C. Common crupina has a wide tolerance of variations in temperature and photoperiod. Its range in the United States can be expected to continue to increase.

Keywords

Noxious weedgrowth analysisphotosynthesisacclimationCJNVU
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 33 , Issue 3 , May 1985 , pp. 333 - 339
Copyright
Copyright © 1985 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. Berry, J. and Bjorkman, O. 1980. Photosynthetic response and adaptation to temperature in higher plants. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. 31:491–543.Google Scholar
2. Davis, P. H. 1975. Flora of Turkey. Vol. 5. Univ. Press, Edinburgh. 890 pp.Google Scholar
3. Downs, R. J. and Hellmers, H. Environment and the experimental control of plant growth. Academic Press, New York. Page 112.Google Scholar
4. Kambitsch, D. L., Thill, D. C., Lee, G. A., and Miller, T. L. 1981. Common crupina – a problem weed in Idaho rangelands. Proc. West. Soc. Weed Sci. 34:58–59.Google Scholar
5. Kambitsch, D. L., Thill, D. C., Miller, T. L., and Lee, G. A. 1982. Common crupina: assessing the problem in Idaho's rangeland. Proc. West. Soc. Weed Sci. 35:31–32.Google Scholar
6. Lee, G. A., Wattenbarger, D. A., Miller, T. L., and Schumacher, W. J. 1980. Common crupina. Univ. Idaho Coll. Agric. Current Information Ser. No. 542. 4 pp.Google Scholar
7. Miller, T. and Thill, D. 1983. Today's weed: common crupina. Weeds Today 14(3):10–11.Google Scholar
8. Nuttonson, M. Y. 1965. Agro-climatology and global agro-climatic analogues of the citrus regions of the continental United States. Am. Inst. Crop Ecol., Washington, DC. 42 pp.Google Scholar
9. Nuttonson, M. Y. 1965. Global agroclimatic analogues for the Intermountain Region of the United States and an outline of its physiography, climate, and farm crops. Am. Inst. Crop Ecol., Washington, DC. 36 pp.Google Scholar
10. Nuttonson, M. Y. 1965. Global agroclimatic analogues for the Northern Great Plains Region of the United States and an outline of its physiography, climate, and farm crops. Am. Inst. Crop Ecol., Washington, DC. 22 pp.Google Scholar
11. Nuttonson, M. Y. 1965. Global agroclimatic analogues for the southeastern Atlantic Region of the United States and an outline of its physiography, climate, and farm crops. Am. Inst. Crop Ecol., Washington, DC. 23 pp.Google Scholar
12. Nuttonson, M. Y. 1966. The use of phenology in ascertaining the temperature requirements of wheat grown in Washington, Idaho, and Utah and in some of their agro-climatically analogous areas in the Eastern Hemisphere. Am. Inst. Crop Ecol., Washington, DC. 144 pp.Google Scholar
13. Patterson, D. T. 1980. Light and temperature adaptation. Pages 205–235 in Hesketh, J. D. and Jones, J. W., eds. Predicting Photosynthesis for Ecosystem Models. Vol. 1. CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, FL.Google Scholar
14. Patterson, D. T. 1982. Effects of shading and temperature on showy crotalaria (Crotalaria spectabilis). Weed Sci. 30:692–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Patterson, D. T. 1983. Research on exotic weeds. Pages 381–393 in Wilson, C. L. and Graham, C. L., eds. Exotic Plant Pests and North American Agriculture. Academic Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Reed, C. F. 1977. Economically Important Foreign Weeds – Potential Problems in the United States. U.S. Dep. Agric., Agric. Handbook No. 498. 746 pp.Google Scholar
17. Regehr, D. L. and Bazzaz, F. A. 1976. Low temperature photosynthesis in successional winter annuals. Ecology 57:1297–1303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Tutin, T. G., Heywood, V. H., Burges, N. A., Moore, D. M., Valentine, D. H., Walters, S. M., and Webb, D. A. 1976. Flora Europaea. Vol. 4. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge. 505 pp.Google Scholar