Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T18:23:09.816Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Shading Effects on Growth and Partitioning of Plant Biomass in Cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica) from Shaded and Exposed Habitats

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

D. T. Patterson
D. T. Patterson*
Affiliation:
South. Weed Sci. Lab., U.S. Dep. Agric., Sci. Ed. Admin., Agric. Res., Stoneville, MS 38776
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The growth responses of cogongrass [Imperata cylindrica (L.) Beauv.] were studied in a controlled-environment greenhouse with a day/night temperature of 29/23 C, under full available light and 56 and 11% of full light. The cogongrass plants were grown from stem and rhizome propagules originating from an interstate highway median, a pecan [Carya illinoensis (Wangenh.) K. Koch] plantation, and a pine (Pinus spp.) forest. After 89 days, the plants from all three populations produced, on average, three times as much total dry weight and leaf area in full available sunlight as in 56% full light and 20 times as much as in 11% full light. The distribution of plant biomass into rhizomes decreased with shading, whereas the distribution into leaves increased. The distribution of leaf biomass as leaf area also increased with shading, with the result that the plants grown in 11% full light had leaf area ratios about 2.5 times greater than those grown in full light. Reductions in dry matter production with shading were due to significant reductions in both net assimilation rate and leaf area duration or total amount of leaf area present. The plants from the shaded and exposed habitats generally did not differ significantly in their responses to shading. Thus, there is little evidence for the presence of sun and shade ecotypes in the populations of cogongrass studied.

Keywords

Growth analysisshade adaptation
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 28 , Issue 6 , November 1980 , pp. 735 - 740
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

1. Bjorkman, O. 1973. Comparative studies on photosynthesis in higher plants. Pages 355–377 in Giese, A. C., ed. Photophysiology, Vol. 8. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
2. Boardman, N. K. 1977. Comparative photosynthesis of sun and shade plants. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. 28:355–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Clough, J. M., Teeri, J. A., and Alberte, R. S. 1979. Photosynthetic adaptation of Solanum dulcamara L. to sun and shade environments. I. A comparison of sun and shade populations. Oecologia (Berlin.) 38:13–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Dickens, R. 1974. Cogongrass in Alabama after sixty years. Weed Sci. 22:177–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Eagles, C. F. and Treharne, K. J. 1969. Photosynthetic activity of Dactylis glomerata L. in different light regimes. Photosynthetica 3:29–38.Google Scholar
6. Gauhl, E. 1976. Photosynthetic response to varying light intensity in ecotypes of Solanum dulcamara L. from shaded and exposed habitats. Oecologia (Berlin.) 22:275–286.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Gray, A. P. 1944. Ecology. Pages 18–23 in Imperata cylindrica. Taxonomy, Distribution, Economic Significance and Control. Imp. Agric. Bur. Joint Publ. No. 7. Imp. Bur. Pastures and Forage Crops, Aberystwyth, Wales.Google Scholar
8. Holm, L. G., Plucknett, D. L., Pancho, J. V., and Herberger, J. P. 1977. The World's Worst Weeds. Distribution and Biology. Univ. Press Hawaii, Honolulu, 609 pp.Google Scholar
9. Keeley, P. D. and Thullen, R. J. 1978. Light requirements of yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus) and light interception by crops. Weed Sci. 26:10–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Kramer, P. J., Hellmers, H., and Downs, R. J. 1970. SEPEL: new phytotrons for environmental research. BioScience 20:1201–1208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Kvet, J., Ondok, J. P., Necas, J., and Jarvis, P. G. 1971. Methods of growth analysis. Pages 343–391 in Sestak, Z., Catsky, J., and Jarvis, P. G., eds. Plant Photosynthetic Production. Manual of Methods. Dr. W. Junk, N. V. Publisher, The Hague.Google Scholar
12. 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. CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, Florida.Google Scholar
13. Patterson, D. T. 1979. The effects of shading on the growth and photosynthetic capacity of itchgrass (Rottboellia exaltata . Weed Sci. 27:549–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Patterson, D. T., Flint, E. P., and Dickens, R. 1980. Effects of temperature, photoperiod, and population source on the growth of cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica . Weed Sci. 28:505–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Patterson, D. T., Meyer, C. R., Flint, E. P., and Quimby, P. C. Jr. 1979. Temperature responses and potential distribution of itchgrass (Rottboellia exaltata) in the United States. Weed Sci. 27: 77–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Patterson, D. T., Meyer, C. R., and Quimby, P. C. Jr. 1978. Effects of irradiance on relative growth rates, net assimilation rates, and leaf area partitioning in cotton and three associated weeds. Plant Physiol. 62:14–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17. Soerjani, M. 1970. Alang-alang Imperata cylindrica (L.) Beauv. (1812). Pattern of growth as related to its problem of control. BIOTROP Bull. 1:1–88.Google Scholar
18. Steel, R. G. D. and Torrie, J. H. 1960. Principles and Procedures of Statistics. McGraw-Hill, New York. 481 pp.Google Scholar
19. Tabor, P. 1952. Comments on cogon and torpedo grasses: A challenge to weed workers. Weeds 1:374–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar