Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T10:54:45.437Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Effect of Intraspecific Competition on the Growth and Development of Johnsongrass under Greenhouse Conditions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

R.D. Williams  and
B.F. Ingber
R.D. Williams
Affiliation:
South. Weed Sci. Lab., Agric. Res. Serv., U.S. Dep. Agric., Stoneville, MS 38776
B.F. Ingber
Affiliation:
South. Weed Sci. Lab., Agric. Res. Serv., U.S. Dep. Agric., Stoneville, MS 38776
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Various levels of intraspecific competition influenced johnsongrass [Sorghum halepense (L.) Pers.] reproduction. Increases in density, from one to eight plants per 20-cm pot, delayed for formation of rhizomes and panicles and reduced the final dry weight accumulation in these reproductive structures under greenhouse conditions. Tillering was delayed by medium density (4 plants per pot) and inhibited by the highest density (8 plants per pot). At all densities, the dry weight accumulation in reproductive structures was associated with a decrease in dry weight of the shoot material. Most of the reproductive effort was in the formation of rhizomes rather than panicles. Crowding of johnsongrass plants delayed the formation of the reproductive structures and reduced their final dry weight.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 25 , Issue 4 , July 1977 , pp. 293 - 297
Copyright
Copyright © 1977 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. Bert, G.W. and Wedderspoon, I.M. 1971. Growth of johnsongrass selections under different temperatures and dark periods. Weed Sci. 19:419–423.Google Scholar
2. Deschenes, J.M. 1974. Intraspecific competition in experimental populations of weeds. Can. J. Bot. 52:1415–1421.Google Scholar
3. Harper, J.L. and Gajic, D. 1961. Experimental studies of the mortality and plasticity of a weed. Weed Res. 1:91–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Harper, J.L. and Ogden, J. 1970. The reproductive strategy of higher plants. I. The concept of strategy with special reference to Senecio vulgaris L. J. Ecol. 58:681–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Horowitz, M. 1972. Early development of johnsongrass. Weed Sci. 20:271–273.Google Scholar
6. Horowitz, M. 1972. Seasonal development of established johnsongrass. Weed Sci. 20:392–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Horowitz, M. 1973. Spatial growth of Sorghum halepense (L.) Pers. Weed Res. 13:200–208.Google Scholar
8. Ingle, M. and Rogers, B.J. 1961. The growth of a midwestern strain of Sorghum halepense under controlled conditions. Am. J. Bot. 48:392–396.Google Scholar
9. Kothari, A., Pandey, H.N., and Misia, K.C. 1974. Intraspecific competition in grassland species. I. Dichanthium annulatum (Forsk) Strapf. Agro-Ecosystems 1:237–247.Google Scholar
10. Leopold, A.C. and Kriedmann, P.E. 1975. Plant growth and development. McGraw-Hill, N.Y. 544 pp.Google Scholar
11. McWhorter, C.G. 1961. Morphology and development of johnsongrass plants from seeds and rhizomes. Weeds 9:558–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. McWhorter, C.G. 1971. Growth and development of johnsongrass ecotypes. Weed Sci. 19:141–147.Google Scholar
13. McWhorter, C.G. 1972. Factors affecting johnsongrass rhizome production and germination. Weed Sci. 20:41–45.Google Scholar
14. McWhorter, C.G. and Jordan, T.N. 1976. The effect of light and temperature on the growth and development of johnsongrass. Weed Sci. 24:88–91.Google Scholar
15. Ogden, J. 1974. The reproductive strategy of higher plants. II. The reproductive strategy of Tussilago farfara L. J. Ecol. 62:291–324.Google Scholar
16. Palmblad, I.G. 1968. Competition in experimental populations of weeds with emphasis on the regulation of population size. Ecology 49:26–34.Google Scholar