Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T20:12:16.220Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Compensatory responses of late watergrass (Echinochloa phyllopogon) and rice to resource limitations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Kevin D. Gibson ,
Albert J. Fischer  and
Theodore C. Foin
Albert J. Fischer
Affiliation:
Department of Vegetable Crops, University of California, Davis, CA 95616
Theodore C. Foin
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Range Science, University of California, Davis, CA 95616
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The development of optimal weed management strategies that rely, in part, on crop interference will require an understanding of how weeds compensate for limitations in above- and belowground resources. Trade-offs in the leaf morphology and biomass partitioning of rice and late watergrass were investigated under glasshouse conditions in 1999 and 2000. Both species responded to shade with increased height, reduced biomass, greater partitioning of biomass to leaves, and greater leaf area ratios. At the lowest light level (18% sunlight), plants of both species showed little response to nitrogen (N). However, height, tillers, biomass, and leaf area increased for plants grown at 50% and full sunlight as N increased from 0 to 224 kg N ha−1. Late watergrass exhibited more plasticity in specific leaf area and root weight ratio than rice in response to shade. This plasticity contributed to the ability of late watergrass to maintain a higher percent of its tillers and total dry weight than rice when sunlight was reduced by 50%. These results support the hypothesis that except at low light levels, limited N further reduces the growth of shaded late watergrass plants. Thus, weed management strategies that limit the plasticity of late watergrass by manipulating light and N availability are likely to be more effective than strategies that rely on manipulating a single resource.

Keywords

Late watergrass, Echinochloa phyllopogon (Stapf) Koss ECHPHrice, Oryza sativa L.Biomass allocationnitrogenphenotypic plasticityplant morphologyshade
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 52 , Issue 2 , April 2004 , pp. 271 - 280
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

Ampong-Nyarko, K. and De Datta, S. K. 1993a. Effects of nitrogen application on growth, nitrogen use efficiency and rice-weed interaction. Weed Res 33:269–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ampong-Nyarko, K. and De Datta, S. K. 1993b. Effects of light and nitrogen growth and their interaction on the dynamics of rice-free weed. Weed Res 33:1–8.Google Scholar
Ampong-Nyarko, K., De Datta, S. K., and Dingkuhn, M. 1992. Physiological response of rice and weeds to low light intensity at different growth stages. Weed Res 32:465–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Assemat, L., Morishima, H., and Oka, H. I. 1981. Neighbor effects between rice (Oryza sativa L.) and barnyard grass (Echinochloa crus-galli Beauv.) strains. II. Some experiments on the mechanisms of interaction between plants. Oecologia 2:63–78.Google Scholar
Bayer, D. E. and Hill, J. E. 1992. Weeds. Pages 32–55 in Flint, M. E. and Ohleneger, B.P.O. eds. Integrated Pest Management for Rice. Oakland, CA: University of California Statewide Integrated Pest Management Project and Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources.Google Scholar
Bazzaz, F. A. 1997. Allocation of resources in plants: state of the science and critical questions. Pages 1–37 in Bazzaz, F. A. and Grace, J. eds. Plant Resource Allocation. San Diego, CA: Academic.Google Scholar
Bloom, A. J., Chapin, F. S. III, and Mooney, H. A. 1985. Resource limitation in plants—an economic analogy. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst 16:363–392.Google Scholar
Bouhache, M. and Bayer, D. E. 1993. Photosynthetic response of flooded rice (Oryza sativa) and 3 Echinochloa species to changes in environmental-factors. Weed Sci 41:611–614.Google Scholar
Counce, P. A., Keisling, T. C., and Mitchell, A. J. 2000. A uniform, objective and adaptive system for expressing rice development. Crop Sci 40:436–443.Google Scholar
De Wet, J. M. 1975. II. Evolutionary dynamics of cereal domestication. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 102:307–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dingkuhn, M., Johnson, D. E., Sow, A., and Audebert, A. Y. 1999. Relationships between upland rice canopy characteristics and weed competitiveness. Field Crops Res 61:79–95.Google Scholar
DiTomaso, J. M. 1995. Ecophysiological approaches in the development of weed management strategies. Weed Sci 43:491–497.Google Scholar
Fischer, A., Ramirez, H. V., and Lorenzo, J. 1997. Suppression of junglerice [Echinochloa colona (L.) Link] by irrigated rice cultivars in Latin America. Agron. J 89:516–521.Google Scholar
Fischer, A. J., Ateh, C. M., Bayer, D. E., and Hill, J. E. 2000a. Herbicide-resistant Echinochloa oryzoides and E. phyllopogon in California Oryza sativa fields. Weed Sci 48:225–230.Google Scholar
Fischer, A. J., Bayer, D. E., Carriere, M. D., Ateh, C. M., and Yim, K. O. 2000b. Mechanisms of resistance to bispyribac-sodium in an Echinochloa phyllopogon accession. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol 68:156–165.Google Scholar
Fischer, A. J., Ramirez, H. V., Gibson, K. D., and Pinheiro, B. D. 2001. Competitiveness of semidwarf upland rice cultivars against palisadegrass (Brachiaria brizantha) and signalgrass (B. decumbens). Agron. J 93:967–973.Google Scholar
Garrity, D. P., Movilon, M., and Moody, K. 1992. Differential weed suppression ability in upland rice cultivars. Agron. J 84:586–591.Google Scholar
Gibson, K. D. and Fischer, A. J. 2001. Relative growth and photosynthetic response of water-seeded rice and Echinochloa oryzoides (Ard.) Fritsch to shade. Int. J. Pest Manage 47:305–309.Google Scholar
Gibson, K. D. and Fischer, A. J. 2003. Competitiveness of rice cultivars as a tool for crop-based weed management. in Inderjit, ed. Weed Ecology and Management. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic. In press.Google Scholar
Gibson, K. D., Fischer, A. J., Foin, T. C., and Hill, J. E. 2002. Implications of delayed Echinochloa germination and duration of competition for integrated weed management in water-seeded rice. Weed Res 42:351–358.Google Scholar
Gibson, K. D., Fischer, A. J., Foin, T. C., and Hill, J. E. 2003. Crop traits related to weed suppression in water-seeded rice. Weed Sci 51:87–93.Google Scholar
Gibson, K. D., Hill, J. E., Foin, T. C., Caton, B. P., and Fischer, A. J. 2001. Water-seeded rice cultivars differ in ability to interfere with watergrass. Agron. J 93:326–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holt, J. S. 1995. Plant responses to light: a potential tool for weed management. Weed Sci 43:474–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, S. C. and Moody, K. 1980. Effect of plant spacing on the competitive ability of rice growing in association with various weed communities at different nitrogen levels. J. Korean Crop Sci 25:17–27.Google Scholar
Klepper, B. 1991. Root-shoot relationships. Pages 265–286 in Waisel, Y., Eshel, A., and Kafkafi, U. eds. Plant Roots: The Hidden Half. New York: Marcel Dekker.Google Scholar
Liebman, M. and Gallandt, E. R. 1997. Many little hammers: ecological approaches to management of crop-weed interactions. Pages 291–346 in Jackson, L. E. ed. Ecology in Agriculture. San Diego, CA: Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Makino, A., Sato, T., Nakano, H., and Mae, T. 1997. Leaf photosynthesis, plant growth and nitrogen allocation in rice under different irradiances. Planta 203:390–398.Google Scholar
McConnaughay, K. D. M. and Coleman, J. S. 1999. Biomass allocation in plants: ontogeny or optimization? A test along three resource gradients. Ecology 80:2581–2593.Google Scholar
Meziane, D. and Shipley, B. 1999. Interacting determinants of specific leaf area in 22 herbaceous species: effects of irradiance and nutrient availability. Plant Cell 22:447–459.Google Scholar
Patterson, D. T. 1995. Effects of environmental-stress on weed/crop interactions. Weed Sci 43:483–490.Google Scholar
Perera, K. K., Ayres, P. G., and Gunasena, H. P. M. 1992. Root growth and the relative importance of root and shoot competition in interactions between rice (Oryza sativa) and Echinochloa crus-galli . Weed Res 32:67–76.Google 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 6:487–496.Google Scholar
Reynolds, H. L. and D'Antonio, C. 1996. The ecological significance of plasticity in root weight ratio in response to nitrogen: opinion. Plant Soil 185:75–97.Google Scholar
Ryser, P. and Eek, L. 2000. Consequences of phenotypic plasticity vs. interspecific differences in leaf and root traits for acquisition of aboveground and belowground resources. Am. J. Bot 87:402–411.Google Scholar
Schlichting, C. D. 1986. The evolution of phenotypic plasticity in plants. Annu. Rev. Ecol. System 17:667–693.Google Scholar
Yabuno, T. 1984. A biosystematic study on Echinochloa oryzoides (Ard.) Fritsch. Cytologia 49:673–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yamasue, Y. 2001. Strategy of Echinochloa oryzicola Vasing. for survival in flooded rice. Weed Biol. Manage 1:28–36.Google Scholar
Yamasue, Y., Murayama, H., Inoue, H., Matasui, T., and Kusanagi, T. 1997. Growth analysis of rice and Echinochloa oryzicola Vasing. in mixed strands. J. Weed Sci. Technol 42:365–371.Google Scholar