Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T23:04:34.042Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Root Growth of Neighboring Maize and Weeds Studied with Minirhizotrons

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Deborah Britschgi ,
Peter Stamp  and
Juan M. Herrera
Deborah Britschgi
Affiliation:
Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH Zürich), Eschikon 33, 8315 Lindau, Switzerland
Peter Stamp
Affiliation:
Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH Zürich), Eschikon 33, 8315 Lindau, Switzerland
Juan M. Herrera*
Affiliation:
Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH Zürich), Eschikon 33, 8315 Lindau, Switzerland
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Competition between crops and weeds may be stronger at the root than at the shoot level, but belowground competition remains poorly understood, due to the lack of suitable methods for root discrimination. Using a transgenic maize line expressing green fluorescent protein (GFP), we nondestructively discriminated maize roots from weed roots. Interactions between GFP-expressing maize, common lambsquarters, and redroot pigweed were studied in two different experiments with plants arranged in rows at a higher plant density (using boxes with a surface area of 0.09 m2) and in single-plant arrangements (using boxes with a surface area of 0.48 m2). Root density was screened using minirhizotrons. Relative to maize that was grown alone, maize root density was reduced from 41 to 87% when it was grown with redroot pigweed and from 27 to 73% when it was grown with common lambsquarters compared to maize grown alone. The calculated root : shoot ratios as well as the results of shoot dry weight and root density showed that both weed species restricted root growth more than they restricted shoot growth of maize. The effect of maize on the root density of the weeds ranged from a reduction of 25% to an increase of 23% for common lambsquarters and a reduction of 42 to 6% for redroot pigweed. This study constitutes the first direct quantification of root growth and distribution of maize growing together with weeds. Here we demonstrate that the innovative use of transgenic GFP-expressing maize combined with the minirhizotron technique offers new insights on the nature of the response of major crops to belowground competition with weeds.

Keywords

Common lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L.redroot pigweed, Amaranthus retroflexus L.maize, Zea mays LBelowground competitionGFPgreen fluorescent proteinlambsquartersredroot pigweedroot densityweeds
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 61 , Issue 2 , June 2013 , pp. 319 - 327
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

Aulinger, I. E., Peter, S. O., Schmid, J. E., and Stamp, P. 2003. Rapid attainment of a doubled haploid line from transgenic maize (Zea mays L.) plants by means of anther culture. In Vitro Cell. Dev. Biol. Plant 39: 165–170.Google Scholar
Baghestani, M.A.Z. and Aghabeigi, E. M. 2006. The effects of lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) density and its relative time of emergence on yield and yield components of grain corn (Zea mays). Appl. Entomol. Phytopathol. 74: 5–25.Google Scholar
Baldwin, J. P. and Tinker, P. B. 1972. Method for estimating lengths and spatial patterns of two interpenetrating root systems. Plant Soil 37: 209–213.Google Scholar
Bi, H. and Turvey, N. D. 1994. Inter-specific competition between seedlings of Pinus radiata, Eucalyptus regnans and Acacia melanoxylon . Aust. J. Bot. 42: 61–70.Google Scholar
Bloom, A. J., Chapin, F. S., and Mooney, H. A. 1985. Resource limitation in plants— an economic analogy. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 16: 363–392.Google Scholar
Brisson, J. and Reynolds, J. F. 1994. The effect of neighbors on root distribution in a creosotebush (Larrea tridentata) population. Ecology 75: 1693–1702.Google Scholar
Caldwell, M. M., Manwaring, J. H., and Durham, S. L. 1991. The microscale distribution of neighboring plant-roots in fertile soil microsites. Funct. Ecol. 5: 765–772.Google Scholar
Caldwell, M. M., Manwaring, J. H., and Durham, S. L. 1996. Species interactions at the level of fine roots in the field: influence of soil nutrient heterogeneity and plant size. Oecologia 106: 440–447.Google Scholar
Callaway, R. M. 2002. The detection of neighbors by plants. Trends Ecol. Evol. 17: 104–105.Google Scholar
Casper, B. B. and Jackson, R. B. 1997. Plant competition underground. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 28: 545–570.Google Scholar
Connell, J. H. 1990. Apparent versus “real” competition in plants. Pp. 9–26 in Grace, J. B. and Tilman, D., eds. Perspectives on Plant Competition. San Diego, CA: Academic.Google Scholar
De Kroon, H., Mommer, L., and Nishiwaki, A. 2003. Root competition: towards a mechanistic understanding. Pp. 215–234 in De Kroon, H. and Visser, E. J., eds. Root Ecology. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Faget, M., Herrera, J. M., Stamp, P., Aulinger-Leipner, I., Frossard, E., and Liedgens, M. 2009. The use of green fluorescent protein as a tool to identify roots in mixed plant stands. Funct. Plant Biol. 36: 930–937.Google Scholar
Faget, M., Nagel, K., Walter, A., Herrera, J. M., Jahnke, S., Schurr, U., and Temperton, V. 2013. Root-root interactions—extending our perspective to be more inclusive of the range of theories in ecology and agriculture using in-vivo analyses. Ann. Bot. In press.Google Scholar
Falik, O., Reides, P., Gersani, M., and Novoplansky, A. 2003. Self/non-self discrimination in roots. J. Ecol. 91: 525–531.Google Scholar
Fischer, D. W., Harvey, R. G., Bauman, T. T., Phillips, S., Hart, S. E., Johnson, G. A., Kells, J. J., Westra, P., and Lindquist, J. 2004. Common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) interference with corn across the northcentral United States. Weed Sci. 52: 1034–1038.Google Scholar
Frantik, T. 1994. Interference of Chenopodium suecicum J. Murr. and Amaranthus retroflexus L. in maize. Weed Res. 34: 45–53.Google Scholar
Freckleton, R. P. and Watkinson, A. R. 2000. Designs for greenhouse studies of interactions between plants: an analytical perspective. J. Ecol. 88: 386–391.Google Scholar
Garibay, S. V., Stamp, P., Ammon, H. U., and Feil, B. 1997. Yield and quality components of silage maize in killed and live cover crop sods. Eur. J. Agron. 6: 179–190.Google Scholar
Gersani, M., Brown, J. S., O'Brien, E. E., Maina, G. M., and Abramsky, Z. 2001. Tragedy of the commons as a result of root competition. J. Ecol. 89: 660–669.Google Scholar
Gibson, D. J., Connolly, J., Hartnett, D. C., and Weidenhamer, J. D. 1999. Designs for greenhouse studies of interactions between plants. J. Ecol. 87: 1–16.Google Scholar
Halekoh, U., Hojsgaard, S., and Yan, J. 2006. The R Package geepack for generalized estimating equations. J. Stat. Software 15: 1–11.Google Scholar
Hall, M. R., Swanton, C. J., and Anderson, G. W. 1992. The critical period of weed control in grain corn (Zea Mays). Weed Sci. 40: 441–447.Google Scholar
Hilbert, D. W. 1990. Optimization of plant-root-shoot ratios and internal nitrogen concentration. Ann. Bot. 66: 91–99.Google Scholar
Holm, L. G., Doll, J., Holm, E., Pancho, J., and Herberger, J. 1997. World Weeds: Natural Histories and Distribution. New York: J. Wiley. 1152 p.Google Scholar
Jahnke, S., Menzel, M. I., van Dusschoten, D., Roeb, G. W., Buehler, J., Minwuyelet, S., Bluemler, P., Temperton, V. M., Hombach, T., Streun, M., Beer, S., Khodaverdi, M., Ziemons, K., Coenen, H. H., and Schurr, U. 2009. Combined MRI-PET dissects dynamic changes in plant structures and functions. Plant J. 59: 634–644.Google Scholar
Jumpponen, A., Hogberg, P., Huss-Danell, K., and Mulder, C.P.H. 2002. Interspecific and spatial differences in nitrogen uptake in monocultures and two-species mixtures in north European grasslands. Funct. Ecol. 16: 454–461.Google Scholar
Knezevic, S. Z., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1994. Interference of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) in corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 42: 568–573.Google Scholar
Li, L., Sun, J. H., Zhang, F. S., Guo, T. W., Bao, X. G., Smith, F. A., and Smith, S. E. 2006. Root distribution and interactions between intercropped species. Oecologia 147: 280–290.Google Scholar
Liedgens, M. and Richner, W. 2001. Relation between maize (Zea mays L.) leaf area and root density observed with minirhizotrons. Eur. J. Agron. 15: 131–141.Google Scholar
Ludwig, F., Dawson, T. E., Prins, H. H. T., Berendse, F., and de Kroon, H. 2004. Below-ground competition between trees and grasses may overwhelm the facilitative effects of hydraulic lift. Ecol. Lett. 7: 623–631.Google Scholar
Mahall, B. E. and Callaway, R. M. 1991. Root communication among desert shrubs. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 88: 874–876.Google Scholar
Maina, G. G., Brown, J. S., and Gersani, M. 2002. Intra-plant versus inter-plant root competition in beans: avoidance, resource matching or tragedy of the commons. Plant Ecol. 160: 235–247.Google Scholar
McPhee, C. S. and Aarssen, L. W. 2001. The separation of above- and below-ground competition in plants—a review and critique of methodology. Plant Ecol. 152: 119–136.Google Scholar
Miedema, P. 1982. The effects of low temperature on Zea mays . Adv. Agron. 35: 93–128.Google Scholar
Mommer, L., Wagemaker, C. A. M., De Kroon, H., and Ouborg, N. J. 2008. Unravelling below-ground plant distributions: a real-time polymerase chain reaction method for quantifying species proportions in mixed root samples. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 8: 947–953.Google Scholar
Murphy, S. D., Yakubu, Y., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1996. Effect of planting patterns and inter-row cultivation on competition between corn (Zea mays) and late emerging weeds. Weed Sci. 44: 865–870.Google Scholar
Park, S. E., Benjamin, L. R., and Watkinson, A. R. 2003. The theory and application of plant competition models: an agronomic perspective. Ann. Bot. London 92: 741–748.Google Scholar
Pechackova, S., During, H. J., Rydlova, V., and Herben, T. 1999. Species-specific spatial pattern of below-ground plant parts in a montane grassland community. J. Ecol. 87: 569–582.Google Scholar
Pinheiro, J. C. and Bates, D. M. 2009. Mixed-Effects Models in S and S-PLUS. 2nd ed. New York: Springer. 548 p.Google Scholar
Qasem, J. R. 1993. Root growth, development and nutrient uptake of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) and Chenopodium album . Weed Res. 33: 35–42.Google Scholar
R Development Core Team. 2007. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing ISBN 3-900051-07-1, http://www.R-project.org.Google Scholar
Rascher, U., Blossfeld, S., Fiorani, F., Jahnke, S., Jansen, M., Kuhn, A. J., Matsubara, S., Märtin, L.L.A., Merchant, A., Metzner, R., Mueller-Linow, M., Nagel, K. A., Pieruschka, R., Pinto, F., Schreiber, C. M., Temperton, V. M., Thorpe, M. R., van Dusschoten, D., van Volkenburgh, E., Windt, C. W., and Schurr, U. 2011. Non-invasive approaches for phenotyping of enhanced performance traits in bean. Funct. Plant Biol. 38: 968–983.Google Scholar
Rewald, B., Meinen, C., Trockenbrodt, M., Ephrath, J., and Rachmilevitch, S. 2012. Root taxa identification in plant mixtures—current techniques and future challenges. Plant Soil. 359: 165–182.Google Scholar
Rohrig, M. and Stutzel, H. 2001. Dry matter production and partitioning of Chenopodium album in contrasting competitive environments. Weed Res. 41: 129–142.Google Scholar
Schenk, H. J. 2006. Root competition: beyond resource depletion. J. Ecol. 94: 725–739.Google Scholar
Schenk, H. J., Callaway, R. M., and Mahall, B. E. 1999. Spatial root segregation: are plants territorial? Adv. Ecol. Res. 28: 145–180.Google Scholar
Sheibany, K., Baghestani, M. A., and Atri, A. 2009. Competitive effects of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) on the growth indices and yield of corn. Weed Biol. Manag. 9: 152–159.Google Scholar
Swanton, C. J., Shrestha, A., Knezevic, S. Z., Roy, R. C., and Ball-Coelho, B. R. 2000. Influence of tillage type on vertical weed seedbank distribution in a sandy soil. Can. J. Plant Sci. 80: 455–457.Google Scholar
Taylor, H. M., Upchurch, D. R., and McMichael, B. L. 1990. Applications and limitations of rhizotrons and minirhizotrons for root studies. Plant Soil 129: 29–35.Google Scholar
Thorup-Kristensen, K. 2006. Root growth and nitrogen uptake of carrot, early cabbage, onion and lettuce following a range of green manures. Soil Use Manag. 22: 29–38.Google Scholar
Upchurch, D. R. and Ritchie, J. T. 1983. Root observations using a video recording-system in mini-rhizotrons. Agron. J. 75: 1009–1015.Google Scholar
Venables, W. N. and Ripley, B. D. 2002. Modern Applied Statistics with S. New York: Springer. 512 p.Google Scholar
Vengris, J., Drake, M., Colby, W. G., and Bart, J. 1953. Chemical composition of weeds and accompanying crop plants. Agron. J. 45: 213–218.Google Scholar
Weaver, S. E. 2001. Impact of lamb's-quarters, common ragweed and green foxtail on yield of corn and soybean in Ontario. Can. J. Plant Sci. 81: 821–828.Google Scholar
Weaver, S. E., Tan, C. S., and Brain, P. 1988. Effect of temperature and soil moisture on time of emergence of tomatoes and four weed species. Can. J. Plant Sci. 68: 877–886.Google Scholar
Williams, J. T. 1963. Chenopodium album L. J. Ecol. 51: 711–725.Google Scholar
Yan, J. and Fine, J. 2004. Estimating equations for association structures. Stat. Med. 23: 859–874.Google Scholar