Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T04:07:57.088Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparative Water Relations, Photosynthesis, and Growth of Soybean (Glycine max) and Seven Associated Weeds

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

David T. Patterson  and
Elizabeth P. Flint
David T. Patterson
Affiliation:
U.S. Dep. Agric., Agric. Res Serv., Dep. Bot., Duke Univ., Durham, NC 27706
Elizabeth P. Flint
Affiliation:
Duke Univ. Phytotron, Durham, NC 27706
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Growth dynamics, water relations, and photosynthesis of soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr. ‘Ransom’], common cocklebur (Xanthium pensylvanicum Wallr.), jimsonweed (Datura stramonium L.), prickly sida (Sida spinosa L.), sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia L.), smooth pigweed (Amaranthus hybridus L.), spurred anoda [Anoda cristata (L.) Schlect.], and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti Medic.) were compared in a controlled-environment greenhouse programmed for 32C day and 23C night temperatures. Net photosynthetic rates, net assimilation rates, and water-use efficiency on a whole-plant or single-leaf basis were greatest in the C4-plant, smooth pigweed. Total dry-matter production at 29 days after planting was greatest in common cocklebur and least in jimsonweed. Interspecific differences in dry-matter production were highly positively correlated with leaf area duration and negatively correlated with net assimilation rate. Threshold leaf water-potential levels causing stomatal closure varied among species. The stomata of jimsonweed were the most sensitive to water stress and those of prickly sida were the least sensitive.

Keywords

Growth analysisbiomass partitioningstomatal resistanceleaf water potential
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 31 , Issue 3 , May 1983 , pp. 318 - 323
Copyright
Copyright © 1983 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. Begg, J. E. and Turner, N. C. 1976. Crop water deficits. Adv. Agron. 28:161–217.Google Scholar
2. Briggs, L. J. and Shantz, H. L. 1913. The water requirement of plants. I. Investigations in the Great Plains in 1910 and 1911. U.S. Dep. Agric., Bur. Plant Ind. Bull. No. 284. Washington, DC. 49.Google Scholar
3. Briggs, L. J. and Shantz, H. L. 1913. The water requirement of plants. II. A review of the literature. U.S. Dep. Agric., Bur. Plant Ind. Bull. No. 285. Washington, DC. 96.Google Scholar
4. Bunce, J. A., Miller, L. N., and Chabot, B. F. 1977. Competitive exploitation of soil water by five eastern North American tree species. Bot. Gaz. 138:168–173.Google Scholar
5. Cohen, D. 1970. The expected efficiency of water utilization in plants under different competition and selection regimes. Isr J. Bot. 19:50–54.Google Scholar
6. Downs, R. J. and Hellmers, H. 1975. Page 112 in Environment and the Experimental Control of Plant Growth. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
7. Fabricius, L. J. and Nalewaja, J. D. 1968. Competition between wheat and wild buckwheat. Weed Sci. 16:204–208.Google Scholar
8. Fischer, R. A. and Turner, N. C. 1978. Plant productivity in the arid and semiarid zones. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. 29:277–317.Google Scholar
9. Geddes, R. D., Scott, H. D., and Oliver, L. R. 1979. Growth and water use by common cocklebur (Xanthium pensylvanicum) and soybeans (Glycine max) under field conditions. Weed Sci. 27:206–212.Google Scholar
10. Gruenhagen, R. D. and Nalewaja, J. D. 1969. Competition between flax and wild buckwheat. Weed Sci. 17:380–384.Google Scholar
11. Holm, L. 1977. Weeds and water in world food production. Weed Sci. 25:338–342.Google Scholar
12. Hsiao, T. C. and Acevedo, E. 1974. Plant responses to water deficits, water-use efficiency, and drought resistance. Agric. Meteorol. 14:59–84.Google Scholar
13. Kramer, P. J. 1980. Drought, stress, and the origin of adaptations. Pages 7–20 in Turner, N. C. and Kramer, P. J., eds. Adaptations of Plants to Water and High Temperature Stress. John Wiley & Sons, New York.Google Scholar
14. Kramer, P. J., Hellmers, H., and Downs, R. J. 1970. SEPEL: new phytotrons for environmental research. BioScience 20: 1201–1208.Google Scholar
15. Kvet, J., Ondok, J. P., Necas, J., and Jarvis, P. G. 1971. Methods of growth analysis. Pages 343–391 in Sesták, Z., C$antský, J., and Jarvis, P. G., eds. Plant Photosynthetic Production: Manual of Methods. Dr. W. Junk N.V. Publ., The Hague.Google Scholar
16. Ludlow, M. M. 1980. Adaptive significance of stomatal responses to water stress. Pages 123–138 in Turner, N. C. and Kramer, P. J., eds. Adaptations of Plants to Water and High Temperature Stress. John Wiley & Sons, New York.Google Scholar
17. Patterson, D. T. 1976. C4 photosynthesis in smooth pigweed. Weed Sci. 24:127–130.Google Scholar
18. Patterson, D. T., Bunce, J. A., Alberte, R. S., and van Volkenburgh, E. 1977. Photosynthesis in relation to leaf characteristics of cotton from controlled and field environments. Plant Physiol. 59:384–387.Google Scholar
19. 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.Google Scholar
20. Scholander, P. F., Hammel, H. T., Hemmingsen, E. A., and Bradstreet, E. D. 1964. Hydrostatic pressure and osmotic potential in leaves of mangroves and some other plants. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 52:119–125.Google Scholar
21. Scott, H. D. and Geddes, R. D. 1979. Plant water stress of soybean (Glycine max) and common cocklebur (Xanthium pensylvanicum): A comparison under field conditions. Weed Sci. 27: 285–289.Google Scholar
22. Wiese, A. F. and VanDiver, C. W. 1970. Soil moisture effects on competitive ability of weeds. Weed Sci. 18:518–519.Google Scholar
23. Zimdahl, R. L. 1980. Weed-Crop Competition. A Review. Int. Plant Prot. Ctr., Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, OR. 195.Google Scholar