Hostname: page-component-6d856f89d9-72csx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T08:31:57.488Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Photosynthetic Response to Water Stress of Pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) in a Southern-Mediterranean Area

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Stella Lovelli ,
Michele Perniola ,
Alessandro Ferrara ,
Mariana Amato  and
Teodoro Di Tommaso
Stella Lovelli*
Affiliation:
Crop System, Forestry and Environmental Sciences Department, University of Basilicata, Viale dell'Ateneo Lucano 10, 85100 Potenza, Italy
Michele Perniola
Affiliation:
Crop System, Forestry and Environmental Sciences Department, University of Basilicata, Viale dell'Ateneo Lucano 10, 85100 Potenza, Italy
Alessandro Ferrara
Affiliation:
Crop System, Forestry and Environmental Sciences Department, University of Basilicata, Viale dell'Ateneo Lucano 10, 85100 Potenza, Italy
Mariana Amato
Affiliation:
Crop System, Forestry and Environmental Sciences Department, University of Basilicata, Viale dell'Ateneo Lucano 10, 85100 Potenza, Italy
Teodoro Di Tommaso
Affiliation:
Crop System, Forestry and Environmental Sciences Department, University of Basilicata, Viale dell'Ateneo Lucano 10, 85100 Potenza, Italy
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: stella.lovelli@unibas.it
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Pigweed is an increasingly aggressive weed in semiarid environments such as Mediterranean areas, and in general the control of all Amaranthus species is becoming more and more difficult. Increasing pigweed aggressiveness could be a result of its ability to keep a high water use efficiency under drought conditions. An experiment was conducted to study the effect of water stress on the photosynthetic capacity, growth, and leaf water potential of pigweed at the field level and assess if this species, as a model for C4 weeds, is CO2-saturated at the current level of atmospheric CO2 in a Mediterranean area. Pigweed was studied within a naturally occurring weed population in a bell pepper field in southern Italy where a rain-fed treatment (V0) was compared to a fully irrigated one (V100) corresponding to the restoration of 100% of the maximum crop water evapotranspiration. Soil water content was measured periodically, and net assimilation rate, stomatal conductance, transpiration rate, and intercellular CO2 concentration were determined on pigweed leaves. Photosynthetic rates of 37.6 µmol m−2 s−1 in V100 and 13.9 µmol m−2 s−1 in V0 were recorded, with higher transpiration rates in V100; consequently stomatal conductance was significantly lower in rain-fed conditions (0.08 mol m−2 s−1)) compared to the irrigated treatment (0.30 mol m−2 s−1). Photosynthesis in pigweed is not completely CO2-saturated at the current atmospheric CO2 level in the Mediterranean area and this could affect competition and increase of aggressiveness toward crops at the actual CO2 atmospheric concentration in agro-ecosystems. This occurs because unlike other C4 crops already saturated for CO2, weeds that are not CO2-saturated will remain CO2-sensitive to higher ambient CO2 levels. Thus, when they are grown in mixed stands where competition occurs, they can still suppress the slower-growing species.

Keywords

Redroot pigweed, Amaranthus retroflexus L. AMAREbell pepper, Capsicum annuum L. ‘Peppone’Redrootgas exchangeC4 photosynthesisleaf water potentialsoil water potential
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 58 , Issue 2 , June 2010 , pp. 126 - 131
Copyright
Copyright © 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

Allen, R. G., Pereira, L. S., Raes, D., and Smith, M. 1998. Crop evapotranspiration. Guidelines for computing crop water requirements. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Irrigation Drainage. Paper 56, Rome, Italy: FAO.Google Scholar
Becker, T. W. and Fock, H. P. 1986. Effects of water stress on the gas exchange, the activities of some enzymes of carbon and nitrogen metabolism, and on the pool sizes of some organic acids in maize leaves. Photosynth. Res. 8:175–181.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown, R. H. 1999. Agronomic implications of C4 photosynthesis. Pages 473–507. In Sage, R. F. and Monson, R. K. C4 Plant Biology. San Diego, CA Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carmo-Silva, A. E., Powers, S. J., Keys, A. J., Arrabac, M. C., and Parry, M. A. J. 2008. Photorespiration in C4 grasses remains slow under drought conditions. Plant Cell Environ. 31:925–940.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Doorenbos, J. and Pruitt, W. O. 1977. Crop water requirements. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Irrigation Drainage. Paper 24. Rome, Italy. 144.Google Scholar
Ehleringer, J. R., Cerling, T. E., and Helliker, B. R. 1997. C4 photosynthesis, atmospheric CO2 and climate. Oecologia. 112:285–299.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ghannoum, O. 2008. C4 photosynthesis and water stress. Ann. Bot. 103:635–644.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ghannoum, O., Conroy, J. P., Driscoll, S. P., Paul, M. J., Foyer, C. H., and Lawlor, D. W. 2003. Non-stomatal limitations are responsible for drought-induced photosynthetic inhibition in four C4 grasses. New Phytol. 159:599–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grise, D. J. 1996. Effects of elevated CO2 and high temperature on the relative growth rates and competitive interactions between a C3 (Chenopodium album) and a C4 (Amaranthus hybridus) annual. . Athens, GA University of Georgia.Google Scholar
Hargreaves, G. H. and Samani, Z. A. 1985. Reference crop evapotranspiration from temperature. Appl. Eng. Agric. 1:96–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harley, P. C., Thomas, R. B., Reynolds, J. F., and Strain, B. R. 1992. Modelling photosynthesis of cotton grown in elevated CO2 . Plant Cell Environ. 15:271–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatch, M. D. and Slack, C. R. 1966. Photosynthesis by sugar cane leaves. A new carboxylation reaction and the pathway of sugar formation. Biochem. J. 101:103–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horak, M. J. and Loughin, T. M. 2000. Growth analysis of four Amaranthus species. Weed Sci. 48:347–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[IPCC] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2001. Climate change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK/New York, NY Cambridge University Press. 881.Google Scholar
Johnson, W. G. 2000. Herbicide-resistant corn: survey results from 1998 and 2000. Univ. Missouri–Columbia. Integrated Pest Crop Manag. Newsl. 10, 24.Google Scholar
Lal, A. and Edwards, G. E. 1996. Analysis of inhibition of photosynthesis under water stress in the C4 species Amaranthus cruentus and Zea mays: electron transport, CO2 fixation and carboxylation capacity. Funct. Plant Biol. 23:403–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawlor, D. W. and Fock, H. 1978. Photosynthesis, respiration, and carbon assimilation in water-stressed maize at two oxygen concentrations. J. Exp. Bot. 29:579–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lloyd, J. and Farquhar, G. D. 1994. 13C discrimination during CO2 assimilation by the terrestrial biosphere. Oecologia. 99:201–215.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Long, S. P. 1991. Modification of the response of photosynthetic productivity to rising temperature by atmospheric CO2 concentrations: has its importance been underestimated? Plant Cell Environ. 14:729–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, S. P. 1998. C4 photosynthesis—environmental responses. Pages 215–249. In Sage, R. F. and Monson, R. K. The Biology of C4 Photosynthesis. San Diego, CA Academic.Google Scholar
Loreto, F., Tricoli, D., and Di Marco, G. 1995. On the relationship between electron transport rate and photosynthesis in leaves of the C4 plant Sorghum bicolor exposed to water stress, temperature changes and carbon metabolism inhibition. Funct. Plant Biol. 22:885–892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maroco, J. P., Pereira, J. S., and Chaves, M. M. 2000. Growth, photosynthesis and water-use efficiency of two C4 Sahelian grasses subjected to water deficits. J. Arid Environ. 45:119–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
da Silva, J. Marques and Arrabac, M. C. 2004. Photosynthetic enzymes of the C4 grass Setaria sphacelata under water stress: a comparison between rapidly and slowly imposed water deficit. Photosynthetica. 42:43–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nobel, P. S. 2005. Physicochemical and Environmental Plant Physiology. 3rd ed. Burlington, MA Elsevier Academic. 396–399 and Pp. 410-412.Google Scholar
Patterson, D. T. 1995. Weeds in a changing climate. Weed Sci. 43:685–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radosevich, S., Holt, J. S., and Ghersa, C. 1997. Weed Ecology: Implications for Vegetation Management. New York J. Wiley. 278–301.Google Scholar
Ripley, B. S., Gilbert, M. E., Ibrahim, D. G., and Osborne, C. P. 2007. Drought constraints on C4 photosynthesis: stomatal and metabolic limitations in C3 and C4 subspecies of Alloteropsis semialata . J. Exp. Bot. 58:1351–1363.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saccardy, K., Cornic, G., Brulfert, J., and Reyss, A. 1996. Effect of drought stress on net CO2 uptake in Zea leaves. Planta. 199:589–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sage, R. and Kubien, D. 2003. Quo vadis C4? An ecophysiological perspective on global change and the future of C4 plants. Photosynth. Res. 77:209–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sage, R. F. 2002. Variation in the kcat of Rubisco in C3 and C4 plants and some implications for photosynthetic performance at high and low temperature. J. Exp. Bot. 53:609–620.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sage, R. F., Santrucek, J., and Grise, D. J. 1995. Temperature effects on the photosynthetic response of C3 plants to long-term CO2 enrichment. Vegetatio. 121:67–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scholander, P. F., Hammel, H. T., Bradstreet, E. D., and Hemmingsen, E. A. 1965. Sap pressure in vascular plants. Science. 148:339–346.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schulze, E. D. and Hall, A. E. 1982. Stomatal responses, water loss, and CO2 assimilation rates of plants in contrasting environments. Pages 181–230. In Lange, O. L., Nobel, P. S., Osmond, C. B., and Ziegler, H. Encyclopedia of Plant Physiology, New Series. Vol. 12B. Physiological Plant Ecology II. Water Relations and Carbon Assimilation. Berlin Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Sellers, B. A., Smeda, R. J., Johnson, W. G., Kending, J. A., and Ellersieck, M. R. 2003. Comparative growth of six Amaranthus species in Missouri. Weed Sci. 51:329–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tungate, K. D., Israel, D. W., Watson, D. M., and Rufty, T. W. 2007. Potential changes in weed competitiveness in an agroecological system with elevated temperatures. Environ. Exp. Bot. 60:42–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Von Caemmerer, S. and Furbank, R. T. 1999. Modeling C4 photosynthesis. Pages 173–211. In Sage, R. F. and Monson, R. K. C4 Plant Biology. San Diego, CA Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ziska, L. H. and Bunce, J. A. 1997. Influence of increasing carbon dioxide concentration on the photosynthetic and growth stimulation of selected C4 crops and weeds. Photosynth. Res. 54:199–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ziska, L. H., Ghannoum, O., Baker, J. T., Conroy, J., Bunce, J. A., Kobayashi, K., and Okada, M. 2001. A global perspective of ground level “ambient” carbon dioxide for assessing the response of plants to atmospheric CO2 . Glob. Change Biol. 7:789–796.Google Scholar