Hostname: page-component-669899f699-cf6xr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-27T23:12:31.310Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Triticum aestivum and Lolium multiflorum interaction during drought

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Katherine H. Carson ,
Harry T. Cralle ,
James M. Chandler ,
Travis D. Miller ,
Rodney W. Bovey ,
Scott A. Senseman  and
Martin J. Stone
Katherine H. Carson
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72704
James M. Chandler
Affiliation:
Department of Soil and Crop Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77845
Travis D. Miller
Affiliation:
Department of Soil and Crop Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77845
Rodney W. Bovey
Affiliation:
Department of Rangeland Ecology and Management, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77845
Scott A. Senseman
Affiliation:
Department of Soil and Crop Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77845
Martin J. Stone
Affiliation:
Stonebridge Garden Center, 102 North Lavira Avenue, Claremore, OK 74017
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A greenhouse experiment compared the vegetative growth in pure cultures and mixtures of winter Triticum aestivum cultivar ‘Mit’ and Lolium multiflorum cultivar ‘Marshall’ in continuously watered controls and drought treatments. Control L. multiflorum in pure culture 14 wk after planting produced more leaf area, tillers, and dry weights of stem and root than control T. aestivum in pure culture. The greater seed size, larger initial leaf area, and height allowed T. aestivum to produce greater final leaf area and dry stem weight in control mixtures than L. multiflorum. Watering following drought shifted the relative performance of the two species in pure cultures and mixtures compared to controls. The ability of T. aestivum to maintain a greater leaf expansion rate during drought and a greater leaf area afterward than L, multiflorum allowed T. aestivum to attain greater growth than L. multiflorum in pure cultures exposed to temporary drought followed by watering. Conversely, drought and its relief enhanced the relative competitiveness of L. multiflorum compared to controls in mixtures with T. aestivum. During 4 wk of watering following the drought, L. multiflorum in mixtures grew vigorously and was similar to T. aestivum in all measures except in height and dry stem weight. Thus, L. multiflorum was similar in root growth with T. aestivum in control and drought mixtures and had its aboveground competitiveness amplified by the cycle of drought and watering in this study. There was no evidence of an allelopathic interaction between the two species.

Keywords

Lolium multiflorum Lam. LOLMU, Italian ryegrassTriticum aestivum L., wheatCompetitivenessinterferencereplacement seriesdroughtleaf area expansionallelopathyLOLMU
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 47 , Issue 4 , August 1999 , pp. 440 - 445
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

Appleby, A. P. and Brewster, B. D. 1992. Seeding arrangement of winter wheat (Triticum aestivum) grain yield and interaction with Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum). Weed Technol. 6:820–823.Google Scholar
Appleby, A. P., Olson, P. D., and Colbert, D. R. 1976. Winter wheat yield reduction from interference by Italian ryegrass. Agron. J. 68:463–466.Google Scholar
Blum, A., Ramaiah, S., Kanemasu, E. T., and Paulsen, G. M. 1990. Wheat recovery from drought stress at the tillering stage of development. Field Crops Res. 24:67–85.Google Scholar
Davidson, D. J. and Chevalier, P. M. 1987. Influence of polyethylene glycol-induced water deficits on tiller production in spring wheat. Crop Sci. 27:1185–1187.Google Scholar
Davidson, D. J. and Chevalier, P. M. 1990. Preanthesis tiller mortality in spring wheat. Crop Sci. 30:832–836.Google Scholar
Griffin, B. S., Shilling, D. G., Bennett, J. M., and Currey, W. L. 1989. The influence of water stress on the physiology and competition of soybean (Glycine max) and Florida beggarweed (Desmodium tortuosum). Weed Sci. 37:544–551.Google Scholar
Harper, J. L. 1977. Population Biology of Plants. London: Academic Press, pp. 255–267.Google Scholar
Hashem, A., Radosevich, S. R., and Roush, M. L. 1998. Effect of proximity factors on competition between winter wheat (Triticum aestivum) and Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum). Weed Sci. 46:181–190.Google Scholar
Holm, L. 1977. Weeds and water in world food production. Weed Sci. 25:338–342.Google Scholar
Hunsaker, D. J. and Bucks, D. A. 1987. Wheat yield variability in level basins. Trans. ASAE 30:1099–1104.Google Scholar
Large, E. C. 1954. Growth stages in cereal. Plant Pathol. 3:128–129.Google Scholar
Liebl, R. and Worsham, A. D. 1987. Interference of Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum) in wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Sci. 35:819–823.Google Scholar
Ludlow, M. M. and Muchew, R. C. 1990. A critical evaluation of traits for improving crop yields in water-limited environments. Adv. Agron. 43:107–153.Google Scholar
Mian, M.A.R., Hafziger, E. D., Kolb, F. L., and Teyker, R. H. 1993. Root growth or genotypes in hydroponic culture and in the greenhouse under different soil moisture regimes. Crop Sci. 33:283–286.Google Scholar
Morgan, J. M., Hare, R. A., and Fletcher, R. J. 1986. Genetic variation in osmoregulation in bread and durum wheats and its relationship to grain yield in a range of field environments. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 37:449–457.Google Scholar
Musick, J. T., Jones, O. R., Stewart, B. A., and Dusek, D. A. 1994. Water-yield relationships for irrigated and dryland wheat in the U.S. Southern Plains. Agron. J. 86:980–986.Google Scholar
Peeper, T. F. and Wiese, A. F. 1990. Southern Great Plains. Pages 158–181 in Donald, W. W., ed. Systems of Weed Control in Wheat in North America. Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of America.Google Scholar
Radosevich, S. R. 1987. Methods to study interactions among crops and weeds. Weed Technol. 1:190–198.Google Scholar
Smith, D. F. and Levick, G.R.T. 1974. The effect of infestation by Lolium rigidum Gaud. (annual ryegrass) on the yield of wheat. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 25:381–393.Google Scholar
Stark, J. C. and Longley, T. S. 1986. Changes in spring wheat tillering patterns in response to delayed irrigation. Agron. J. 78:892–896.Google Scholar
Steiner, J. L., Smith, R.C.G., Meyer, W. S., and Adeney, J. A. 1985. Water, foliage temperature, and yield on irrigated wheat in southeastern Australia. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 36:1–11.Google Scholar
Stone, M. J. 1994. The Influence of Ryegrass on Vegetative and Reproductive Growth, Yield, and Yield Components of Winter Wheat. Ph.D. dissertation. Texas A&M University, College Station, TX.Google Scholar
Stone, M. J., Cralle, H. T., Chandler, J. M., Miller, T. D., Bovey, R. W., and Carson, K. H. 1998. Above- and below-ground interference of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) and Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum Lam.). Weed Sci. 46:438–441.Google Scholar
Tanji, A., Zimdahl, R. L., and Westra, P. 1997. The competitive ability of wheat (Triticum astivum) compared to rigid ryegrass (Lolium rigidum) and cowcockle (Vaccaria hispanica). Weed Sci. 45:481–487.Google Scholar