Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-bt4hw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T04:13:43.583Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of shading on common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) growth and development

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Lawrence E. Steckel ,
Christy L. Sprague ,
Aaron G. Hager ,
F. William Simmons  and
German A. Bollero
Lawrence E. Steckel
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801
Aaron G. Hager
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801
F. William Simmons
Affiliation:
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801
German A. Bollero
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Common waterhemp is a significant weed problem in Midwestern cropping systems partly because of its potential for multiple emergence events during the growing season. The effects of shade and time of emergence on this weed have not been characterized. In the field, common waterhemp vegetative and reproductive growth were evaluated under different irradiance levels at two emergence times. In full sunlight a common waterhemp plant emerging in late May produced 720 g of biomass and over one million seeds, and a plant emerging in late June produced 350 g of biomass and over 730,000 seeds. Plant biomass and seed production were lower as irradiance levels were decreased to 40, 68, and 99% shade. Mortality was high for common waterhemp grown in 99% shade; however, surviving plants produced some viable seed. Common waterhemp plants grown under reduced irradiance had higher leaf area ratios and lower relative growth rates.

Keywords

Common waterhemp, Amaranthus rudis Sauer AMATADelayed emergenceirradianceshadeseed production

Information

Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 51 , Issue 6 , December 2003 , pp. 898 - 903
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

Benvenuti, S., Macchia, M., and Stefani, A. 1994. Effects of shade on reproduction and some morphological characteristics of Abutilon theophrasti Medius, Datura stramonium L. and Sorghum halepense L. Pers. Weed Res 34:283–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conservation Technology Information Center. 2000. National Crop Residue Management Survey—2000 Survey Results. www.ctic.purdue.edu.Google Scholar
Dall'Armellina, A. A. and Zimdahl, R. L. 1988. Effect of light on growth and development of field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) and Russian knapweed (Centaurea repens). Weed Sci 36:779–783.Google Scholar
Deen, W., Hunt, L. A., and Swanton, J. 1998. Photothermal time describes common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia L.) phenological development and growth. Weed Sci 46:561–568.Google Scholar
Fortuin, J. M. and Omta, S. W. P. 1980. Growth analysis and shade experiment with Solanum nigrum L., the black nightshade, a leaf and fruit vegetable in West Java. Neth. J. Agric. Sci 28:199–210.Google Scholar
Gallagher, R. S. and Cardina, J. 1998. Phytochrome-mediated Amaranthus germination II: development of very low fluence sensitivity. Weed Sci 46:53–58.Google Scholar
Gutterman, Y. 1992. Maternal effects on seeds during development. Pages 27–59 in Fenner, M. ed. Seeds: The Ecology of Regeneration in Plant Communities. Wallingford, U.K.: C.A.B. International.Google Scholar
Hager, A., Wax, L., and Simmons, F. W. 1998. Waterhemp Management in Illinois Agronomic Crops. in Illinois Agricultural Pest Management Handbook. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois. Pp. 87–96.Google Scholar
Hand, E. W., Wilson, J. W., and Acock, B. 1993. Effects of light and CO2 on net photosynthetic rates of stands of aubergine and amaranthus. Ann. Bot 71:209–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartzler, R. G., Buhler, D. D., and Stoltenberg, D. E. 1999. Emergence characteristics of four annual weed species. Weed Sci 47:578–584.Google Scholar
Hinz, J. R. R. and Owen, M. D. K. 1997. Acetolactate synthase resistance in a common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) population. Weed Technol 11:13–18.Google Scholar
Holt, J. S. 1995. Plant responses to light: a potential tool for weed management. Weed Sci 43:474–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horak, M. J. and Peterson, D. E. 1995. Biotypes of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) are resistant to imazethapyr and thifensulfuron. Weed Technol 9:192–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knake, E. L. 1972. Effect of shade on giant foxtail. Weed Sci 20:588–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McIntosh, M. S. 1983. Analysis of combined experiments. Agron. J 75:153–155.Google Scholar
McLachlan, S. M., Tollenaar, M., Swanton, C. J., and Weise, S. F. 1993. Effect of corn-induced shading on dry matter accumulation, distribution, and architecture of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus). Weed Sci 41:568–573.Google Scholar
McWhorter, C. G. and Jordan, T. N. 1976. The effect of light and temperature on growth and development of Johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense). Weed Sci 24:437–443.Google Scholar
Mickelson, J. A. and Harvey, R. G. 1999. Effects of Eriochloa villosa density and time of emergence on growth and seed production of Zea mays . Weed Sci 47:687–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mulugeta, D. and Stoltenberg, D. E. 1998. Influence of cohorts on Chenopodium album demography. Weed Sci 46:65–70.Google Scholar
Nielsen, R. L., Thomison, P. R., Brown, G. A., Halter, A. L., Wells, J., and Wuethrich, K. L. 2002. Delayed planting effects on flowering and grain maturation of dent corn. Agron. J 94:549–558.Google Scholar
Pook, E. W. 1983. The effect of shade on the growth of variegated thistle (Silybum marianum L.) and cotton thistle (Onopordum sp). Weed Res 23:11–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Regnier, E. E., Salvucci, M. E., and Stoller, E. W. 1988. Photosynthesis and growth responses to irradiance in soybean (Glycine max) and three broadleaf weeds. Weed Sci 36:487–496.Google Scholar
Santos, B. M., Morales-Payan, J. P., Stall, W. M., Bewick, T. A., and Shilling, D. G. 1997. Effects of shading on the growth of nutsedges (Cyperus spp). Weed Sci 45:670–673.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 2000. SAS User's Guide. Version 8.1. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. Pp. 235–237.Google Scholar
Sprague, C. L., Stoller, E. W., and Wax, L. M. 1997. Response of an acetolactate synthase (ALS)-resistant biotype of Amaranthus rudis to selected ALS-inhibiting and alternative herbicides. Weed Res 37:93–101.Google Scholar
Steckel, L. E., Sprague, C. L., Simmons, F. W., Bollero, G., Hager, A., Stoller, E. W., and Wax, L. M. 2001. Tillage and cropping effects on common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) emergence and seed bank distribution over four years. Weed Sci. Soc. Am 41:321. [Abstract].Google Scholar
Stoller, E. W. and Myers, R. A. 1989. Effects of shading and soybean Glycine max (L.) interference on Solanum ptycanthum (Dun.) (eastern black nightshade) growth and development. Weed Res 29:307–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stoller, E. W. and Woolley, J. T. 1985. Competition for light by broadleaf weeds in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci 33:199–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thornley, J. H. M. and Johnson, I. R. 1990. Plant and Crop Modeling: A Mathematical Approach to Plant and Crop Physiology. New York: Academic. P. 78.Google Scholar
Vengris, J. 1963. The effect of time of seeding on growth and development of rough pigweed and yellow foxtail. Weed Sci 11:48–50.Google Scholar
Wax, L. M. 1995. Pigweeds of the Midwest: distribution, importance and management. Pages 239–242 in Proceedings of the Integrated Crop Management Conference, Volume 17. Ames, IA: Iowa State University.Google Scholar