Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T06:28:12.322Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparative responses of soybean (Glycine max), sicklepod (Senna obtusifolia), and Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) to root zone and aerial temperatures

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Shawn R. Wright ,
Harold D. Coble ,
C. David Raper Jr.  and
Thomas W. Rufty Jr.
Shawn R. Wright
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695–7620
Harold D. Coble
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695–7620
C. David Raper Jr.
Affiliation:
Department of Soil Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695–7619
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Experiments were conducted to compare germination efficiencies and vegetative growth of soybean and the competing weed species, sicklepod and Palmer amaranth, over a range of temperatures in the root zone and aerial environments. From genetic origins we hypothesized that the weeds would have a higher temperature optimum, which would help explain competitive interactions seen in the southeastern U.S. Germination experiments indicated that germination efficiency of the weeds was much more sensitive to low temperature than soybean, being markedly inhibited below 18 C. Similarly, experiments in an automated, temperature-controlled hydroponic system revealed that the weed species were less tolerant of low root zone temperature but more tolerant of high root zone temperature than soybean. At 16 C, dry weight of soybean was 74% of the control dry weight at 24 C, whereas dry weights of sicklepod and Palmer amaranth were 5 and 20% of the control, respectively. At 32 C, soybean root dry weight was only 80% of the 24 C treatment, whereas root dry weight of the weed species was not significantly different. When plants were grown at a low aerial temperature, growth of all plants was strongly inhibited] but the negative effects were somewhat more severe in the weed species than with soybean. An increase in aerial temperature from 26/22 C to 34/30 C (day/night) had a positive influence on dry matter accumulation of the weed species, stimulating sicklepod 150 to 200% and Palmer amaranth 150 to 1,600% compared to their respective controls, whereas soybean remained at about 80 to 90% of the control. All species grew taller with increasing temperature. Leaf area of the weeds increased but leaf area of soybean did not increase. Consistent with our original hypothesis, the results clearly show that the weeds, which originate from warm geographical regions, respond more negatively than soybean to low temperatures in the growth environment but more positively to high temperatures. The temperature characteristics help to explain why the intensity of weed pressure increases as the soybean growing season progresses, even after canopy closure.

Keywords

Palmer amaranth, Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats. AMAPAsicklepod, Senna obtusifolia (L.) Irwin and Barneby CASOBsoybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr. ‘ESSEX.’Controlled environment, germination, hydroponics, phytotron, root measurement, AMAPA, CASOB
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 47 , Issue 2 , April 1999 , pp. 167 - 174
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.)

Footnotes

1

The specific taxonomic classification of sicklepod is subject to debate. The Weed Science Society of America now uses Senna obtusifolia (L.) Irwin and Barneby as the preferred designation for Cassia obtusifolia and Cassia tora, and Holm et al. (1997) and the USDA Botanical Laboratory list C. tora as a synonym for C. obtusifolia.

References

Literature Cited

Baker, J. T., Allen, L. H. Jr., Boote, K. J., Jones, P., and Jones, J. W. 1989. Response of soybean to air temperature and carbon dioxide treatment. Crop Sci. 29: 98–105.Google Scholar
Carmi, A. and Heur, B. 1981. The role of roots in control of bean shoot growth. Ann. Bot. 43: 519–527.Google Scholar
Creel, J. M. Jr., Hoveland, C. S., and Buhanan, G. A. 1968. Germination, growth, and ecology of sicklepod. Weed Sci. 16: 396–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowler, C. C. 1995. Weed survey—southern states: broadleaf crops subsection. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 48: 298–302.Google Scholar
Downs, J. and Thomas, J. 1991. Phytotron Procedural Manual. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Agricultural Research Service, North Carolina State University Tech. Bull. 244 (revised).Google Scholar
Edward, T. I. 1934. Relation of germinating soybeans to temperature and length of incubation time. Plant Physiol. 9: 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehleringer, J. 1983. Ecophysiology of Amaranthus palmeri, a sonoran desert summer annual. Oecologia 57: 107–112.Google Scholar
Evans, G. C. 1972. The Quantitative Analysis of Plant Growth. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, pp. 187–417.Google Scholar
Flint, E. P., Patterson, D. T., Mortenson, D. A., Riechers, G. H., and Beyers, J. L. 1984. Temperature effects on growth and leaf production in three weed species. Weed Sci. 32: 655–663.Google Scholar
Holm, L., Doll, J., Holm, E., Pancho, J., and Herberger, J. 1997. World Weeds: Natural Histories and Distribution. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 1129 p.Google Scholar
Huxley, P. A., Summerfield, R. J., and Hughes, P. 1976. Growth and development of soyabean cv. TK5 as affected by tropical daylengths, day/night temperatures, and nitrogen nutrition. Ann. Appl. Biol. 82: 117–133.Google Scholar
Irwin, H. S. and Turner, B. L. 1960. Chromosomal relationships and taxonomic considerations in the genus Cassia . Am. J. Bot. 47: 309–318.Google Scholar
Keeley, P. E., Carter, C. H., and Thullen, R. J. 1987. Influence of planting date on growth of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri). Weed Sci. 35: 199–204.Google Scholar
Klingaman, T. E. and Oliver, L. R. 1994. Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) interference in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 42: 523–527.Google Scholar
Nagata, T. 1959. Studies on the differentiation of soybeans in the world, with special regard to that in southeast Asia. Proc. Crop Sci. Soc. Jpn. 28: 79–82.Google Scholar
Patterson, D. T. 1993. Effects of temperature and photoperiod on growth and development of sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia). Weed Sci. 41: 574–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, D. T. and Flint, E. P. 1982. Interacting effects of CO2 and nutrient concentration. Weed Sci. 30: 389–394.Google Scholar
Patterson, D. T. and Flint, E. P. 1983. Comparative water relations, photosynthesis, and growth of soybeans (Glycine max) and seven associated weeds. Weed Sci. 31: 318–323.Google Scholar
Shibles, R. M., Anderson, I. C., and Gibson, A. H. 1975. Soybean. Pages 151–189 in Evans, L. T., ed. Crop Physiology: Some Case Histories. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sionit, N., Strain, B. R., and Flint, E. P. 1987a. Interaction of temperature and CO2 enrichment on soybean: growth and dry matter partitioning. Can. J. Plant Sci. 67: 59–67.Google Scholar
Sionit, N., Strain, B. R., and Flint, E. P. 1987b. Interaction of temperature and CO2 enrichment on soybean: photosynthesis and seed yield. Can. J. Plant Sci. 67: 629–636.Google Scholar
Teem, D. H., Hoveland, C. S., and Buchanan, G. A. 1974. Primary root elongation of three weed species. Weed Sci. 22: 47–50.Google Scholar
Teem, D. H., Hoveland, C. S., and Buchanan, G. A. 1980. Sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia) and coffee senna (Cassia occidentalis): geographic distribution, germination and emergence. Weed Sci. 28: 68–71.Google Scholar
Thomas, J. F. and Raper, C. D. Jr. 1977. Morphological response of soybeans as governed by photoperiod, temperature, and age at treatment. Bot. Gaz. 138: 321–328.Google Scholar
Thomas, J. F. and Raper, C. D. Jr. 1978. Effect of day and night temperatures during floral induction on morphology of soybeans. Agron. J. 70: 893–898.Google Scholar
Thomas, J. F. and Raper, C. D. Jr. 1983. Photoperiod and temperature regulation of floral initiation and anthesis in soya bean. Ann. Bot. 51: 481–489.Google Scholar
Tyagi, S. K. and Tripathi, R. P. 1983. Effect of temperature on soybean germination. Plant Soil 74: 273–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vessey, J. K., York, E. K., Henry, L. T., and Raper, C. D. Jr. 1988. Uniformity of environmental conditions and plant growth in a hydroponic culture system for use in a growth room with aerial CO2 control. Biotronics 17: 79–94.Google Scholar
Webster, T. M. and Coble, H. D. 1997. Changes in the weed species composition of the southern United States: 1974–1995. Weed Technol. 11: 308–317.Google Scholar
Wilbur, R. L. 1963. The Leguminous Plants of North Carolina. Raleigh, N.C.: N.C. Agric. Exp. Sta. Tech. Bull. 151. 294 p.Google Scholar
Wilson, H. K. 1928. Wheat, soybean, and oat germination studies with particular reference to temperature relationships. J. Am. Soc. Agron. 20: 599–619.Google Scholar