Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T10:05:17.330Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Temperature and Photoperiod Effects on Onionweed (Asphodelus fistulosus) and Its Potential Range in the United States

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

David T. Patterson
David T. Patterson*
Affiliation:
U.S. Dep. Agric., Agric. Res. Serv., Univ. Florida-IRREC, 2199 S. Rock Rd., Ft. Pierce, FL 34945-3138
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Environmental factors that affect the growth and development of onionweed were evaluated in order to predict its potential range and impact in the U.S. In controlled-environment experiments, onionweed achieved 60 to 100% of its maximum vegetative growth at temperatures ranging from 18/11 to 30/23 C day/night. The greatest biomass was produced at day temperatures of 18 or 24 C and night temperatures of 11 or 17 C. Leaf production and reproductive development were greatest at 18/11 C. Plants eventually flowered also at 18/17, 24/17, and 24/11 C but not in any regime with a 30 C-day or a 23 C-night. Flowering occurred earlier in 16-h photoperiods than in 16-h photoperiods than in 8-h photoperiods. Climatic analyses revealed no U.S. analogs of the principal Australian onionweed sites. Based on its environmental responses and its pattern of distribution as a weed in Australia, onionweed will likely remain confined to the southwestern U.S.

Keywords

Onionweed, Asphodelus fistulosus L. # ASHFIExotic weednoxious weedecological range
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 10 , Issue 4 , December 1996 , pp. 684 - 688
Copyright
Copyright © 1996 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. Bailey, L. H. 1929. The Standard Cyclopedia of Horticulture. Macmillan, New York. p. 412.Google Scholar
2. Downs, R. J. and Hellmers, H. 1975. Environment and the Experimental Control of Plant Growth. Academic Press, New York. p. 112.Google Scholar
3. Holm, L., Pancho, J. V., Herberger, J. P., and Plucknett, D. L. 1979. A Geographical Atlas of the World's Worst Weeds. Wiley-Interscience, New York. p. 36.Google Scholar
4. Kleinschmidt, and Johnson, R. W. 1977. Weeds of Queensland. S. R. Hampson, Govt. Printer, Queensland. p. 134.Google Scholar
5. Kvet, J., Ondok, J. P., Necas, J., and Jarvis, P. J. 1971. Methods of growth analysis. p. 343–391 in Sestak, Z., Catsky, J., and Jarvis, P. G., eds. Plant Photosynthetic Production. Manual of Methods. W. Junk, The Hague.Google Scholar
6. Pantis, J. D. 1993. Biomass and nutrient allocation patterns in the Mediterranean geophyte Asphodelus aestivus Brot. (Thessaly, Greece). Acta Oecologia 14:489–500.Google Scholar
7. Parsons, W. T. 1973. Noxious Weeds of Victoria. Inkata Press, Melbourne. p. 205–207.Google Scholar
8. Patterson, D. T. 1983. Research on exotic weeds. p. 381–393 in Wilson, C. L. and Graham, C. L., eds. Exotic Plant Pests and North American Agriculture. Academic Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Patterson, D. T. 1994. Temperature responses and potential range of the grass weed, serrated tussock (Nassella trichotoma), in the United Stales. Weed Technol. 8:703–712.Google Scholar
10. Patterson, D. T. and Mortensen, D. A. 1985. Effects of temperature and photoperiod on common crupina (Crupina vulgaris). Weed Sci. 33:333–339.Google Scholar
11. Reed, C. F. 1977. Economically Important Foreign Weeds Potential Problems in the United States. Agric. Hndbk No. 498. USDA/ARS/APHIS. Washington, DC. p. 208.Google Scholar
12. Sen, D. N. 1981. Ecological Approaches to Indian Weeds. GeoBios Int., Jodhpur, India, p. 33–35.Google Scholar
13. Wernstedt, F. L. 1972. World Climatic Data. Climatic Data Press, Lemont, PA. 5Z3 p.Google Scholar
14. Westbrooks, R. G. 1989. Regulatory exclusion of federal noxious weeds from the United States. , North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC. p. 172.Google Scholar