Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:54:29.977Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Temperature Response of Benghal Dayflower (Commelina benghalensis): Implications for Geographic Range

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Shannon M. Sermons ,
Michael G. Burton  and
Thomas W. Rufty
Shannon M. Sermons
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, North Carolina State University, Campus Box 7620, Raleigh, NC 27695
Michael G. Burton
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, North Carolina State University, Campus Box 7620, Raleigh, NC 27695
Thomas W. Rufty*
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, North Carolina State University, Campus Box 7620, Raleigh, NC 27695
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The noxious weed Benghal dayflower has become a severely troublesome agricultural weed in Georgia in the southeastern Unite States, and there are indications that it is moving northward. Benghal dayflower is glyphosate tolerant and possesses a high degree of reproductive elasticity, making it a formidable threat in many crop systems. The purpose of these experiments was to develop the first temperature response profiles for Benghal dayflower, and use them to evaluate whether temperature might limit its northward invasion into North Carolina and adjacent states on the U.S. east coast. Experiments focused on vegetative and early reproductive growth, stages considered crucial for establishment and competitiveness. Exposure to a range of aerial temperatures revealed that Benghal dayflower growth and production of aerial and subterranean reproductive structures were maximized at 30 C, with sharp declines occurring at cooler temperatures. When exposed to differing root temperatures in hydroponics, with a constant aerial temperature, Benghal dayflower growth did not show the same cool temperature sensitivity, but reproductive performance declined when temperatures decreased below about 29 C. The root temperature responses of several other weed species known to thrive in the climate of this geographic area also were determined. Growth of sicklepod, hemp sesbania, and jimsonweed was more sensitive than Benghal dayflower to cool temperatures, whereas the growth response of velvetleaf was similar. Based on the comparison of the Benghal dayflower temperature responses in controlled environments to (1) seasonal air and soil temperatures in the field, and (2) the temperature responses of agronomic weeds known to thrive in the region, it is concluded that cool temperatures will not restrain the northward spread of Benghal dayflower into North Carolina.

Keywords

Benghal dayflower, Commelina benghalensis L. COMBEhemp sesbania, Sesbania herbacea (P. Mill.) McVaugh SEBEXjimsonweed, Datura stramonium L. DATSTsicklepod, Senna obtusifolia (L.) H.S. Irwin & Barneby CASOBvelvetleaf, Abutilon theophrasti Medik. ABUTH.Tropical spiderwortinvasive speciesweed invasion
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 56 , Issue 5 , October 2008 , pp. 707 - 713
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

Budd, G. D., Thomas, P. E. L., and Allison, J. C. S. 1979. Vegetative regeneration, depth of germination and seed dormancy in Commelina benghalensis L. Rhod. J. Agr. Res. 17:151–153.Google Scholar
Burns, J. H. 2004. A comparison of invasive and non-invasive dayflowers (Commelinaceae) across experimental nutrient and water gradients. Divers. Distrib. 10:387–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burns, J. H. 2006. Relatedness and environment affect traits associated with invasive and noninvasive introduced Commelinaceae. Ecol. Appl. 16:1367–1376.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burns, J. H. and Winn, A. A. 2006. A comparison of plastic responses to competition by invasive and non-invasive congeners in the Commelinaceae. Biol. Invas. 8:797–807.Google Scholar
Carter, T. E. Jr. and Rufty, T. W. 1993. Soybean plant introductions exhibiting drought and aluminum tolerance. Pages 335–346. in Kuo, C. G. Adaptation of Food Crops to Temperature and Water Stress: Proceedings of an International Symposium, Taiwan, 13–18 August 1992. Taipei, Taiwan Asian Vegetable Research and Development Center.Google Scholar
Christensen, J. H., Hewitson, B., Busuioc, A., et al. 2007. Regional climate projections. Pages 847–940. in Solomon, S., et al Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Culpepper, A. S., Flanders, J. T., York, A. C., and Webster, T. M. 2004. Tropical spiderwort (Commelina benghalensis) control in glyphosate-resistant cotton. Weed Technol. 18:432–436.Google Scholar
Faden, R. B. 1993. The misconstrued and rare species of Commelina (Commelinaceae) in the eastern United States. Ann. Mo. Bot. Gard. 80:208–218.Google Scholar
Fernald, M. L. 1950. Gray's Manual of Botany. 8th ed. New York American Book Company.Google Scholar
Holm, L., Plucknett, D., Pancho, J., and Herberger, J. 1977. Chapter 31: Commelina benghalensis L., Commelina diffusa Burm. f. (= C. nudiflora sensu Merr., non L.), and Murdannia nudiflora (L.) Brenan (= Commelina nudiflora L., Aneilema nudiflorum [L.] Wall., and Aneilema malabaricum [L.] Merr.). Pages 225–235. in. The World's Worst Weeds—Distribution & Biology. Honolulu University Press of Hawaii.Google Scholar
Krings, A., Burton, M., and York, A. 2002. Commelina benghalensis (Commelinaceae) new to North Carolina and an updated key to Carolina congeners. Sida Contr. Bot. 20:419–422.Google Scholar
Maheshwari, P. and Maheshwari, J. K. 1955. Floral dimorphism in Commelina forskalaei Vahl and C. benghalensis L. Phytomorphology. 5:413–422.Google Scholar
Mitich, L. W. 1991. Intriguing World of Weeds 33: Velvetleaf. Weed Technol. 5:253–255.Google Scholar
NCDC 2003. National Climatic Data Center. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html. Accessed: March 17, 2003.Google Scholar
Parsons, W. T. and Cuthbertson, E. G. 1992. Thornapples. Pages 595–600. in. Noxious Weeds of Australia. Melbourne Inkata.Google Scholar
Patterson, D. T., Westbrook, J. K., Joyce, R. J. V., Lingren, P. D., and Rogasik, J. 1999. Weeds, insects, and diseases. Clim. Change. 43:711–727.Google Scholar
Prostko, E. P., Culpepper, A. S., Webster, T. M., and Flanders, J. T. 2005. Tropical spiderwort identification and control in Georgia field crops. Tifton, GA University of Georgia Cooperative Extension Service.Google Scholar
Thomas, J. F. and Downs, R. J. 1991. Phytotron procedural manual for controlled-environment research at the Southeastern Plant Environment Laboratory: Technical Bulletin 244 (Rev.). Raleigh, NC North Carolina State University, North Carolina Agricultural Research Service.Google Scholar
Tungate, K. D., Israel, D. W., Watson, D. M., and Rufty, T. W. 2007. Potential changes in weed competitiveness in an agroecological system with elevated temperatures. Environ. Exp. Bot. 60:42–49.Google Scholar
USDA-NRCS 2007. The PLANTS Database, Version 3.5. National Plant Data Center. http://plants.usda.gov. Accessed: August 23, 2007.Google Scholar
Walker, S. R. and Evenson, J. P. 1985a. Biology of Commelina benghalensis L. in Southeastern Queensland. 1. Growth, development and seed production. Weed Res. 25:239–244.Google Scholar
Walker, S. R. and Evenson, J. P. 1985b. Biology of Commelina benghalensis L. in Southeastern Queensland. 2. Seed dormancy, germination and emergence. Weed Res. 25:245–250.Google Scholar
Weaver, S. E. and Warwick, S. I. 1984. The Biology of Canadian Weeds: 64. Datura stramonium L. Can. J. Plant Sci. 64:979–991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, T. M., Burton, M. G., Culpepper, A. S., York, A. C., and Prostko, E. P. 2005. Tropical spiderwort (Commelina benghalensis): a tropical invader threatens agroecosystems of the southern United States. Weed Technol. 19:501–508.Google Scholar
Wright, S. R., Coble, H. D., Raper, C. D., and Rufty, T. W. 1999. Comparative responses of soybean (Glycine max), sicklepod (Senna obtusifolia), and Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) to root zone and aerial temperatures. Weed Sci. 47:167–174.Google Scholar