Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T03:03:33.688Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Response of Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) Water Relations to Smooth Pigweed (Amaranthus hybridus) Competition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Bryan L. Stuart ,
Steven K. Harrison ,
John R. Abernathy ,
Daniel R. Krieg  and
Charles W. Wendt
Bryan L. Stuart
Affiliation:
Texas Agric. Exp. Stn. and Texas Tech. Univ., Dep. Plant and Soil Sci.
Steven K. Harrison
Affiliation:
Texas Agric. Exp. Stn. and Texas Tech. Univ., Dep. Plant and Soil Sci.
John R. Abernathy
Affiliation:
Weed Sci., Texas Agric. Exp. Stn.
Daniel R. Krieg
Affiliation:
Crop Physiol., Dep. Plant and Soil Sci., Texas Tech. Univ. and Texas Agric. Exp. Stn.
Charles W. Wendt
Affiliation:
Soil Physics, Texas Agric. Exp. Stn., Lubbock, TX 79401
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field tests in 1980 and 1981 indicated that smooth pigweed (Amaranthus hybridus L.) competition affected cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L. ‘GSA 71′) water relations by reducing plant water status early in the season and by shading late in the season. Early in the growing season, cotton leaf water potential and turgor pressure reductions as great as 0.53 and 0.21 MPa, respectively, were measured at a smooth pigweed density of 2.5 plants m-2. Late in the 1981 growing season, smooth pigweed reduced the photon flux density reaching the cotton canopy by 90% at midday. The shaded conditions resulted in increased cotton water potential under low soil water conditions, but the inability to reduce solute potential lowered the turgor pressure of cotton, irrespective of soil water level. Comparisons of smooth pigweed and cotton water relations indicated that smooth pigweed had the capacity to maintain higher water potential and turgor pressure than cotton. The more favorable water status of smooth pigweed resulted in part from increased water extraction at lower depths in the soil profile and higher diffusive resistance, thereby reducing transpirational water loss.

Keywords

Water potentialsolute potentialturgor pressuretranspirationdiffusive resistance
Type
Physiology, Chemistry, and Biochemistry
Information
Weed Science , Volume 32 , Issue 1 , January 1984 , pp. 126 - 132
Copyright
Copyright © 1984 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. Acevedo, E., Fereres, E., Hsiao, T. C., and Henderson, D. W. 1979. Diurnal growth trends, water potentials and osmotic adjustment of maize and sorghum leaves in the field. Plant Physiol. 64:476–480.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. Ackerson, R. C. 1980. Stomatal response of cotton to water stress and abscisic acid as affected by water stress history. Plant Physiol. 65:455–459.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Ackerson, R. C., Krieg, D. R., Haring, C. L., and Chang, N. 1977. Effects of plant water status on stomatal activity, photosynthesis and nitrate reductase activity of field grown cotton. Crop Sci. 17:81–84.Google Scholar
4. Berry, J. A. and Downton, W. J. S. 1982. Environmental regulation of photosynthesis. Pages 294–299 in Govindjee, , ed. Photosynthesis. Volume II. Development, Carbon Metabolism, and Plant Productivity. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
5. Bielorai, H. and Hopmans, P. A. M. 1975. Recovery of leaf water potential, transpiration and photosynthesis of cotton during irrigation cycles. Agron. J. 67:629–632.Google Scholar
6. Boyer, J. S. 1968. Relationship of water potential to growth of leaves. Plant Physiol. 43:1056–1062.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Brown, K. W., Jordan, W. R., and Thomas, J. C. 1967. Water stress induced alterations of the stomatal response to decreases in leaf water potential. Physiol. Plant. 37:1–5.Google Scholar
8. Buchanan, G. A. and Burns, E. R. 1971. Weed competition in cotton. II. Cocklebur and redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) . Weed Sci. 19:580–582.Google Scholar
9. Bunce, J. A. 1978. Effects of water stress on leaf expansion, net photosynthesis and vegetative growth of soybeans and cotton. Can. J. Bot. 56:1492–1498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Clements, F. E., Weaver, J. E., and Hanson, H. C. 1929. Competition in cultivated crops. Carnegie Inst. Wash. Publ. 398:202–233.Google Scholar
11. Cutler, J. M. and Rains, D. W. 1977. Effects of irrigation history on responses of cotton to subsequent water stress. Crop Sci. 17:329–335.Google Scholar
12. Cutler, J. M. and Rains, D. W. 1978. Effects of water stress and hardening on the internal water relations and osmotic constituents of cotton leaves. Physiol. Plant. 42:261–268.Google Scholar
13. Cutler, J. M., Rains, D. M., and Loomis, R. S. 1977. Role of changes in solute concentrations in maintaining favorable water balance in field grown cotton. Agron. J. 69:773–779.Google Scholar
14. El-Sharkway, M. A. and Hesketh, J. D. 1964. Effects of temperature and water deficit on leaf photosynthetic rates of different species. Crop Sci. 4:514–518.Google Scholar
15. Hsiao, T. C. 1973. Plant response to water stress. Ann. Rev. of Plant Physiol. 24:519–570.Google Scholar
16. Hsiao, T. C., Acevedo, E., Fereres, E., and Henderson, D. W. 1976. Stress metabolism: Water stress, growth and osmotic adjustment. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B. 273:479–500.Google Scholar
17. Imbamba, S. K. and Moss, D. N. 1971. Effects of atrazine on physiological processes in leaves. Crop Sci. 11:844–848.Google Scholar
18. Jones, M. M. and Turner, N. C. 1978. Osmotic adjustment in leaves of sorghum in response to water deficits. Plant Physiol. 61:122–126.Google Scholar
19. Jordan, W. R., Brown, K. W., and Thomas, J. C. 1975. Leaf age as a determinant in stomatal control of water loss from cotton during water stress. Plant Physiol. 56:595–599.Google Scholar
20. Jordan, W. R. and Ritchie, J. T. 1971. Influence of soil water stress on evaporation, root absorption and internal water status in cotton. Plant Physiol. 48:783–788.Google Scholar
21. Levitt, J. 1972. Responses of Plants to Environmental Stresses. Academic Press, New York. pp. 322–446.Google Scholar
22. Scott, H. D. and Geddes, R. D. 1979. Plant water stress of soybean (Glycine max) and common cocklebur (Xanthium pensylvanicum): A comparison under field conditions. Weed Sci. 27:285–289.Google Scholar
23. Slatyer, R. O. 1970. Relationship between plant growth and leaf photosynthesis in C3 and C4 species of Atriplex. pp. 76–81, in Hatch, M. D., Osmond, C. B., and Slatyer, R. O., eds. Photosynthesis and Photorespiration. Wiley-Interscience, New York.Google Scholar
24. Street, J. E., Buchanan, G. A., Crowley, R. H., and McGuire, J. A. 1981. Influence of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) densities on competitiveness of pigweed (Amaranthus spp.) and sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia). Weed Sci. 29:253–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25. Thomas, J. C., Brown, K. W., and Jordan, W. R. 1976. Stomatal response to leaf water potential as affected by preconditioning water stress in the field. Agron. J. 68:706–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26. Troughton, J. H. 1969. Plant water status and carbon dioxide exchange of cotton leaves. Aust. J. Biol. Sci. 22:289–302.Google Scholar