Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T21:37:47.932Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Photoperiod Responses in Monoecious and Dioecious Hydrilla verticillata

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

David F. Spencer  and
Lars W.J. Anderson
David F. Spencer
Affiliation:
U.S. Dep. Agric./Agric. Res Serv. Aquatic Weed Res. Lab., Univ. California, Davis, CA 95616
Lars W.J. Anderson
Affiliation:
U.S. Dep. Agric./Agric. Res Serv. Aquatic Weed Res. Lab., Univ. California, Davis, CA 95616
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Thirty-eight percent of monoecious hydrilla [Hydrilla verticillata (L.f.) Royle # HYLLI] grown from tubers produced new tubers after 28 days exposure to a 10-h photoperiod. One hundred percent of the plants grown at a 10-h photoperiod produced tubers by 56 days while only thirty-eight percent of those grown at a 12-h photoperiod did so. Plants grown at 14- or 16-h photoperiods did not produce tubers. Tubers appeared to be produced at the expense of new root and shoot tissue. Dioecious hydrilla (female) grown under similar conditions did not produce tubers by 56 days at any photoperiod examined. Relative growth rates (total dry weight) for both types did not differ with photoperiod and ranged between 81 ± 63 and 284 ± 52 mg·g-1·wk-1 (regression coefficient ± standard error; n = 30). In general, total chlorophyll (a+b) was greater for dioecious than for monoecious plants. The ratios of chlorophyll “a” to chlorophyll “b” and carotenoids to chlorophyll a changed with increasing photoperiod and plant age in a similar manner for both monoecious and dioecious plants.

Keywords

Tuber productionaquatic weedweed ecologydry matter allocationHYLLI
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 34 , Issue 4 , July 1986 , pp. 551 - 557
Copyright
Copyright © 1986 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. Ambasht, R. M. and Ram, K. 1979. Stratified primary productivity structure of certain macrophytic weeds in a large Indian Lake. Pages 147–155 in Aquatic Weeds in Southeast Asia: Proceedings of a Regional Seminar in Noxious Aquatic Vegetation, New Delhi 1973. W. Junk, The Hague, Netherlands.Google Scholar
2. Anderson, L.W.J. and Dechoretz, N. 1982. Growth, reproduction and control of Hydrilla verticillata Royle (L.f.) [sic] in an irrigation system in Southwestern U.S. Proc. E.W.R.S. Symp. Aquat. Weeds. Pages 54–61.Google Scholar
3. Blackburn, R. D., Weldon, L. W., Yeo, R. R., and Taylor, R. M. 1969. Identification and distribution of certain similar-appearing submerged aquatic weeds in Florida. Hyacinth Control J. 8:17–21.Google Scholar
4. Collins, W. D. 1925. Temperature of water available for industrial use in the United States. U.S. Geol. Surv. Water Supply Paper 520-F.Google Scholar
5. Drew, E. A. 1979. Physiological aspects of primary production in sea grasses. Aquat. Bot. 7:139–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Freund, R. J. and Littell, R. C. 1981. SAS for Linear Models. SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC. 231 pp.Google Scholar
7. Haller, W. T., Miller, J. L., and Garrard, L. A. 1976. Seasonal production and germination of hydrilla vegetative propagules. J. Aquat. Plant Manage. 14:26–29.Google Scholar
8. Hunt, R. 1982. Plant Growth Curves: The functional approach to plant growth analysis. Univ. Park Press, Baltimore. 248 pp.Google Scholar
9. Klaine, S. J. and Ward, C. H. 1984. Environmental and chemical control of vegetative dormant bud production in Hydrilla verticillata . Ann. Bot. 53:503–514.Google Scholar
10. Langeland, K. A. and Smith, C. B. 1984. Hydrilla produces viable seed in North Carolina Lakes – a mechanism for long distance dispersal. Aquatics 6:20–21.Google Scholar
11. Pieterse, A. H. 1981. Hydrilla verticillata – a review. Abstr. on Trop. Agric. 7:9–34.Google Scholar
12. SAS Institute Inc. 1982. SAS User's Guide: Statistics, 1982 ed. SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC. 923 pp.Google Scholar
13. Rybicki, N., Carter, B. V., Anderson, R. T., and Trombley, T. J. 1985. Hydrilla verticillata in the tidal Potomac River, Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia, 1983 and 1984. U.S. Geol. Surv. 26 pp.Google Scholar
14. Steward, K. K., Van, T. K., Carter, V., and Pieterse, A. H. 1984. Hydrilla invades Washington, DC, and the Potomac. Am. J. Bot. 71:162–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Sutton, D. L., Littel, R. C., and Langeland, K. A. 1980. Intraspecific competition of Hydrilla verticillata . Weed Sci. 28:425–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Swarbrick, J. T., Finlayson, C. M., and Cauldwell, A. J. 1982. The Biology and Control of Hydrilla verticillata (L.f. Royle). Biotrop Special Publ. No. 16. Biotrop Bogor, Indonesia. 34 pp.Google Scholar
17. Van, T. K., Haller, W. T., and Garrard, L. W. 1978. The effect of daylength and temperature on hydrilla growth and tuber production. J. Aquat. Plant Manage. 16:57–59.Google Scholar
18. Verkleij, J.A.C., Pieterse, A. H., Horneman, G.J.T., and Torenbeck, M. 1983. A comparative study of the morphology and isoenzyme patterns of Hydrilla verticillata (L.f. Royle). Aquat. Bot. 17:43–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19. Wetzel, R. G. and Likens, G. E. 1979. Limnological Analysis. W. B. Saunders Co., Philadelphia. 357 pp.Google Scholar