Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-swr86 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T14:12:28.904Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of Light Intensity and Temperature on the Growth of Waterstargrass, Coontail, and Duckweed

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Robert E. Wilkinson
Robert E. Wilkinson*
Affiliation:
Crops Research Division, Agricultural Research Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Middle Rio Grande Substation, Route 1, Box 28, Los Lunas, New Mexico
Get access

Abstract

Long-term compensation points in waterstargrass (Heteranthera dubia (Jacq.) Mac M), coontail (Ceratophyllum demersum L.), and duckweed (Lemna minor L.) were near 2–3% full sunlight during a 28-day period. Fresh weight of H. dubia increased as temperature increased from 15 to 30 C and as light intensity increased from 110 to 1000 foot-candles. Fresh weight of C. demersum increased as temperature increased above 20 C and as light intensity increased from 120 to 550 foot-candles. The L. minor strain used in this experiment was not temperature-dependent and increased in fresh weight and frond number at 25 and 30 C as light intensity increased from 77 to 550 foot-candles.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weeds , Volume 11 , Issue 4 , October 1963 , pp. 287 - 290
Copyright
Copyright © 1963 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. Ashby, E. and Oxley, T. A. 1935. The interaction of factors in the growth of Lemna. VI. An analysis of the influence of light intensity and temperature on the assimilation rate and the rate of frond multiplication. Ann. Bot. 49:309–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Blackburn, R. D., Lawrence, J. M., and Davis, D. E. 1961. Effects of light intensity and quality on the growth of Elodea densa and Heteranthera dubia . Weeds 9:251–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Das, S. C. and Palit, B. K. 1935–1936. III. Effect of variation of temperature on growth of a water plant. Boxe Res. Inst., Calcutta, Trans. 11:29–38.Google Scholar
4. Hicks, P. A. 1934. Interactions of factors in the growth of Lemna. V. Some preliminary observations upon the interactions of temperature and light on the growth of Lemna. Ann. Bot. 48:515–525.Google Scholar
5. LeClerg, E. L. 1957. Mean separation by the functional analysis of variance and multiple comparisons. U. S. Dept. Agr., Agr. Res. Serv. Publ. ARS-20-3.Google Scholar
6. Meyer, B. S., Bell, F. S., Thompson, L. C., and Clay, E. I. 1943. Effects of depth of immersion on apparent photosynthesis in submersed vascular aquatics. Ecology. 24:393–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Meyer, B. S., Bell, F. S., Thompson, L. C., and Heritage, A. C. 1941. Effect of turbidity and depth of immersion on apparent photosynthesis in Certophyllum demersum L. Ecology 22:17–22.Google Scholar
8. Otto, N. E. and Enger, P. F. 1960. Some effects of suspended sediment on growth of submersed pondweeds. U. S. Dept. Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Div. of Engineering Laboratories, Denver, Colorado, Gen. Lab. Rept. # Gen-27.Google Scholar
9. Schomer, H. A. 1934. Photosynthesis of water plants at various depths in the lakes of NE Wisconsin. Ecology 15:217–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. White, N. L. 1937. The interaction of factors in the growth of Lemna. XI. The interaction of nitrogen and light intensity in relation to growth assimilation. Ann. Bot. (n.s.) 1: 623–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Wilkinson, R. E. 1961. Effects of reduced sunlight on waterstargrass (Heteranthera dubia). Weeds 9:457–462.Google Scholar