Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T06:55:15.930Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed species radiation-use efficiency as affected by competitive environment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Greta G. Gramig ,
David E. Stoltenberg  and
John M. Norman
David E. Stoltenberg
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Wisconsin, 1575 Linden Drive, Madison, WI 53706
John M. Norman
Affiliation:
Department of Soil Science, University of Wisconsin, 1525 Observatory Drive, Madison, WI 53706
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Plant canopy radiation-use efficiency (RUE), defined as unit of dry biomass produced per unit of absorbed photosynthetically active radiation (APAR), has been widely studied both in experimental and theoretical contexts because the use of this relationship greatly simplifies estimating biomass production in plant growth models. Previous studies have indicated that RUE may be sensitive to changes in the fractions of diffuse and direct radiation; RUE has been shown experimentally to increase under conditions of increased diffuse light caused either by atmospheric conditions or by shading from other plants in intercrops. Therefore, we hypothesized that weed species RUE would be greater for weeds grown in mixed weed–crop communities than for weeds grown in more uniform and less dense monotypic communities. To address this question, field experiments were conducted during 2001 and 2002 to determine the vegetative-stage RUE of giant ragweed, velvetleaf, woolly cupgrass, and wild-proso millet grown in monotypic communities or in corn. ANOVA indicated that the effect of community type on RUE was significant (P < 0.0001) and that the interaction between species and year effects was significant (P = 0.0152). Paired comparisons showed that giant ragweed RUE differed from velvetleaf RUE in 2001 (P = 0.0381) and that giant ragweed RUE differed between years (P = 0.0455). Pooled across species types and years, RUE was approximately 50% greater for weeds grown in weed–corn communities than for weeds grown in monotypic communities. These results indicate that more complex canopy architecture in mixed-species communities (i.e., greater total leaf area index [LAI] and heterogeneity of height among individuals) was associated with greater weed RUE. Including weed RUE response to the competitive environment may be one approach to improving the predictive accuracy of process-based growth models for weed biomass accumulation in mixed-species communities.

Keywords

Giant Ragweed, Ambrosia trifida L. AMBTRvelvetleaf, Abutilon theophrasti Medik. ABUTHwild-proso millet, Panicum miliaceum L. PANMIwoolly cupgrass, Eriochloa villosa (Thunb.) Kunth ERBVIcorn, Zea mays L. ‘Dekalb DK493’Competitionlight interceptioncanopy photosynthesisweed–crop interactions
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 54 , Issue 6 , December 2006 , pp. 1013 - 1024
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

Anten, N. P. and Werger, M. J. A. 1996. Canopy structure and nitrogen distribution in dominant and subordinate plants in a dense stand of Amaranthus dubius L. with a size hierarchy of individuals. Oecologia. 105:30–37.Google Scholar
Arkebauer, T. J., Weiss, A., Sinclair, T. R., and Blum, A. 1994. In defense of radiation-use efficiency: a response to Demetriades-Shah et al. (1992). Agric. For. Meteorol. 68:221–227.Google Scholar
Beemster, G. T. S. and Baskin, T. I. 1998. Analysis of cell division and elongation underlying the developmental acceleration of root growth in Arabidopsis thaliana . Plant Physiol. 116:1515–1526.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Birch, C. J., Hammer, G. L., and Rickert, K. G. 1999. Dry matter accumulation and distribution in five cultivars of maize (Zea mays): relationships and procedures for use in crop modelling. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 50:513–527.Google Scholar
Bonifas, K. D., Walters, D. T., Cassman, K. G., and Lindquist, J. L. 2005. Nitrogen supply affects root:shoot ratio in corn and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti). Weed Sci. 53:670–675.Google Scholar
Brown, M. B. 1974. Modified Levene's test. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 69:364–367.Google Scholar
Bussler, B. H., Maxwell, B. D., and Puettman, K. J. 1995. Using plant volume to quantify interference in corn (Zea mays) neighborhoods. Weed Sci. 43:586–594.Google Scholar
Campbell, G. S. and Norman, J. M. 1998. An Introduction to Environmental Biophysics. New York: Springer-Verlag. Pp. 249–255.Google Scholar
Colquhoun, J. B., Stoltenberg, D. E., Binning, L. K., and Boerboom, C. M. 2001. Phenology of common lambsquarters growth parameters. Weed Sci. 49:177–183.Google Scholar
Craufurd, P. Q. and Wheeler, T. R. 1999. Effect of drought and plant density in radiation-use efficiency and partitioning of dry matter to seeds in cowpea. Exp. Agric. 35:309–325.Google Scholar
Deen, W., Cousens, R. D., and Warring, J. et al. 2003. An evaluation of four crops: weed competition models using a common data set. Weed Res. 43:116–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deen, W., Swanton, C. J., and Hunt, L. A. 2001. A mechanistic growth and development model of common ragweed. Weed Sci. 49:723–731.Google Scholar
Demetriades-Shah, T. H., Fuchs, M., Kanemasu, E. T., and Flitcroft, I. 1992. A note of caution concerning the relationship between cumulated intercepted solar radiation and crop growth. Agric. For. Meteorol. 58:193–207.Google Scholar
Faurie, O., Soussana, J. F., and Sinoquet, H. 1996. Radiation interception, partitioning and use in grass–clover mixtures. Ann. Bot. 77:35–45.Google Scholar
Gallo, K. P., Daugherty, C. S. T., and Wiegand, C. L. 1993. Errors in measuring absorbed radiation and computing crop radiation use efficiency. Agron. J. 85:1222–1228.Google Scholar
Goudriaan, J. 1988. The bare bones of leaf-angle distribution in radiation models for canopy photosynthesis and energy exchange. Agric. For. Meteorol. 43:155–169.Google Scholar
Gower, S. T., Kucharik, C. J., and Norman, J. M. 1999. Direct and indirect estimation of leaf area index, fAPAR, and net primary production of terrestrial ecosystems. Remote Sens. Environ. 70:29–51.Google Scholar
Gramig, G. G. and Stoltenberg, D. E. 2004. Morphological variation of common lambsquarters and giant foxtail associated with crop-mediated changes in light quality. Champaign, IL: North Central Weed Science Society. 59:123. [Abstract, CD-ROM Computer File].Google Scholar
Grant, R. H. 1997. Partitioning of biologically active radiation in plant canopies. Int. J. Biometeorol. 40:26–40.Google Scholar
Gu, L., Baldocchi, D., Verma, S. B., Black, T. A., Vesala, T., Falge, E. M., and Dowty, P. R. 2002. Advantages of diffuse radiation for terrestrial ecosystem productivity. J. Geophys. Res. 107 (D6), 4050, DOI: 10.1029/2001JD001242.Google Scholar
Hand, D. W., Wilson, J. W., and Acock, B. 1993. Effects of light and CO2 on net photosynthesis rates of stands of Aubergine and Amaranthus . Ann. Bot. 71:209–216.Google Scholar
He, J-S., Bazzaz, F. A., and Schmid, B. 2002. Interactive effects of diversity, nutrients and elevated CO2 on experimental plant communities. Oikos. 97:337–348.Google Scholar
Healey, K. D., Rickert, K. G., Hammer, G. L., and Bange, M. P. 1998. Radiation use efficiency increases when the diffuse component of incident radiation is enhanced under shade. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 49:665–672.Google Scholar
Hirose, T. and Bazzaz, F. A. 1998. Trade-off between light- and nitrogen-use efficiency in canopy photosynthesis. Ann. Bot. 82:195–202.Google Scholar
Kiniry, J. R., Blanchet, R., Williams, J. R., Texier, V., Jones, C. A., and Cabelguenne, M. 1992. Sunflower simulation using the EPIC and ALMANAC models. Field Crops Res. 30:403–423.Google Scholar
Kiniry, J. R., McCauley, G., Xie, Y., and Arnold, J. G. 2001. Rice parameters describing crop performance of four U.S. cultivars. Agron. J. 93:1354–1361.Google Scholar
Knezevic, S. Z., Horak, M. J., and Vanderlip, R. L. 1999. Estimates of physiological determinants for Amaranthus retroflexus . Weed Sci. 47:291–296.Google Scholar
Kropff, M. J. and van Laar, H. H. 1993. Modeling Crop-Weed Interactions. Wallingford, Great Britain: CAB International. Pp. 53–54.Google Scholar
Kull, O. 2002. Acclimation of photosynthesis in canopies: models and limitations. Oecologia. 133:267–279.Google Scholar
Lambers, H., Chapin, F. S. III, and Pons, T. L. 1998. Plant Physiological Ecology. New York: Springer Verlag. Pp. 26–28.Google Scholar
Lindquist, J. L., Arkebauer, T. J., Walters, D. T., Cassman, K. G., and Doberman, A. 2005. Maize radiation use efficiency under optimal growth conditions. Agron. J. 97:72–78.Google Scholar
Lizaso, J. I., Batchelor, W. D., Boote, K. J., and Westgate, M. E. 2005. Development of a leaf-level canopy assimilation model for CERES– MAIZE. Agron. J. 97:722–733.Google Scholar
Long, S. P., Ainsworth, E. A., Rogers, A., and Ort, D. R. 2004. Rising atmospheric carbon dioxide: plants FACE the future. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 55:591–628.Google Scholar
Loomis, R. S. and Amthor, J. S. 1999. Yield potential, plant assimilatory capacity, and metabolic efficiencies. Crop Sci. 39:1584–1596.Google Scholar
Major, D. J., Beasley, B. W., and Hamilton, R. I. 1991. Effect of maize maturity on radiation-use efficiency. Agron. J. 83:895–903.Google Scholar
Manrique, L. A., Kiniry, J. R., Hodges, T., and Axness, D. S. 1991. Dry matter production and radiation interception of potato. Crop Sci. 31:1044–1049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, B. and Willey, R. W. 1983. Radiation interception and growth in an intercrop of pearl millet/groundnut. Field Crops Res. 7:141–160.Google Scholar
Marsical, M. J., Orgaz, F., and Villalobos, F. J. 2000. Radiation-use efficiency and dry matter partitioning of a young olive (Olea europaea) orchard. Tree Physiol. 20:65–72.Google Scholar
Meek, D. W., Hatfield, J. L., Howell, T. A., Idso, S. B., and Reginato, R. J. 1984. A generalized relationship between photosynthetically active radiation and solar radiation. Agron. J. 76:939–945.Google Scholar
Moechnig, M. J. 2003. A mechanistic approach to predict weed–corn growth interactions. Ph.D. dissertation. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin, 184 p.Google Scholar
Moechnig, M. J., Boerboom, C. M., Stoltenberg, D. E., and Binning, L. K. 2003. Growth interactions in communities of common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album), giant foxtail (Setaria faberi), and corn. Weed Sci. 51:363–370.Google Scholar
Monteith, J. L. 1965. Light distribution and photosynthesis in field crops. Ann. Bot. 29:17–37.Google Scholar
Monteith, J. L. 1977. Climate and the efficiency of crop production in Britain. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. 281:277–294.Google Scholar
Norman, J. M. and Arkebauer, T. J. 1991. Predicting canopy light-use efficiency from leaf characteristics. Pages 125–143 in Hanks, J. and Ritchie, J. T. eds. Modeling Plant and Soil Systems. Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America.Google Scholar
Poorter, H. and Nagel, O. 2000. The role of biomass allocation in the growth response of plants to different levels of light, CO2, nutrients and water: a quantitative review. Aust. J. Plant Phys. 27:595–607.Google Scholar
Roderick, M. L., Farquhar, G. D., Berry, S. L., and Noble, I. R. 2001. On the direct effect of clouds and atmospheric particles on the productivity and structure of vegetation. Oecologia. 129:21–30.Google Scholar
Röhrig, M. and Stützel, H. 2001. A model for light competition between vegetable crops and weeds. Eur. J. Agron. 14:13–29.Google Scholar
Rosati, A. and Dejong, T. M. 2003. Estimating photosynthetic radiation use efficiency using incident light and photosynthesis of individual leaves. Ann. Bot. 91:869–877.Google Scholar
Rosenthal, W. D., Gerik, T. J., and Wade, L. J. 1993. Radiation-use efficiency among sorghum grain cultivars and plant densities. Agron. J. 85:703–705.Google Scholar
Ryel, R. J., Barnes, P. W., Beyschlag, W., Caldwell, M. M., and Flint, S. D. 1990. Plant competition for light analyzed with a multi species canopy model. Oecologia. 82:304–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sadler, E. J., Bauer, P. J., Busscher, W. J., and Millen, J. A. 2000. Site-specific analysis of a droughted corn crop, II: water use and stress. Agron. J. 92:403–410.Google Scholar
Saeki, T. 1960. Interrelationships between leaf amount, light distribution and total photosynthesis in a plant community. Tokyo: Bot. Mag. 73:55–63.Google Scholar
Sinclair, T. R. and Muchow, R. C. 1999. Radiation-use efficiency. Adv. Agron. 65:215–265.Google Scholar
Sinclair, T. R., Shiraiwa, T., and Hammer, G. L. 1992. Variation in crop radiation-use efficiency with increased diffuse radiation. Crop Sci. 32:1281–1284.Google Scholar
Spitters, C. J. T. and Aerts, R. 1983. Simulation of competition for light and water in crop-weed associations. Asp. Appl. Biol. 4:467–484.Google Scholar
Steel, R. G. D. and Torrie, J. H. 1980. Pages 185–186 in Principles and Procedures of Statistics: A Biometrical Approach. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Thornley, J. H. M. 2002. Instantaneous canopy photosynthesis: analytical expressions for sun and shade leaves based on exponential light decay down the canopy and an acclimated non-rectangular hyperbola for leaf photosynthesis. Ann. Bot. 89:451–458.Google Scholar
Thornley, J. H. M. 2004. Acclimation of photosynthesis to light and canopy nitrogen distribution: an interpretation. Ann. Bot. 93:473–475.Google Scholar
Watson, L. and Dallwitz, M. J. 1992. The Grass Genera of the World: Descriptions, Illustrations, Identification, and Information Retrieval; Including Synonyms, Morphology, Anatomy, Physiology, Phytochemistry, Cytology, Classification, Pathogens, World and Local Distribution, and References. delta-intkey.com.Google Scholar
Westgate, M. E., Forcella, F., Reicosky, D. C., and Somsen, J. 1997. Rapid canopy closure for maize production in the northern US corn belt: radiation-use efficiency and grain yield. Field Crops Res. 49:249–258.Google Scholar
Wiederholt, R. J. and Stoltenberg, D. E. 1996. Absence of differential fitness between giant foxtail (Setaria faberi) accessions resistant and susceptible to acetyl-coenzyme a carboxylase inhibitors. Weed Sci. 44:18–24.Google Scholar
Ziska, L. H., Sicher, R. C., and Bunce, J. A. 1999. The impact of elevated carbon dioxide on the growth and gas exchange of three C4 species differing in CO2 leak rates. Physiol. Plant. 105:74–80.Google Scholar