Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T06:05:02.077Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Corn and Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) Transpiration in Response to Drying Soil

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Jared J. Schmidt ,
Erin E. Blankenship  and
John L. Lindquist
Jared J. Schmidt
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583-0915
Erin E. Blankenship
Affiliation:
Department of Statistics, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583-0963
John L. Lindquist*
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583-0915
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: jlindquist1@unl.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Soil water availability is the most important factor limiting crop yield worldwide. Understanding crop and weed transpiration in response to water supply may provide valuable insight into the mechanisms of crop yield loss in water-limited environments. A greenhouse experiment was conducted to quantify corn and velvetleaf transpiration in response to drying soil. Five plants of each species were well watered by adding back the equivalent water loss each day to reach field capacity, and five plants were subjected to drought stress (dry-down) by not replacing lost water. Normalized daily transpiration of dry-down plants was regressed on soil water content expressed as the fraction of transpirable soil water (FTSW). The critical soil water content below which plants begin to close their stomates occurred at FTSWcr = 0.36 ± 0.015 for corn and 0.41 ± 0.018 for velvetleaf. Total water transpired did not differ among species. Velvetleaf also responded to drought by senescing its oldest leaves, whereas corn mainly maintained its leaf area but with rolled leaves during peak drought stress. During a short-term drought, corn is expected to perform better than velvetleaf because it maintains full transpiration to a lower FTSW and does not senesce its leaves. Under severe long-term drought, the species that closes its stomates at greater FTSWcr will conserve water and increase its chances of survival. Moreover, senescing all but the youngest leaves may ensure at least some seed production. Research is needed to evaluate the effects of soil water supply on corn–velvetleaf interference in the field.

Keywords

Corn, Zea mays Lvelvetleaf, Abutilon theophrasti Medic., ABUTHsoybean, Glycine max (L.) MerrSoil water supplytranspiration efficiencycompetition
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 59 , Issue 1 , March 2011 , pp. 50 - 54
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

Baker, H. G. 1974. The evolution of weeds. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 5:1–24.Google Scholar
Begg, J. E. and Turner, N. C. 1976. Crop water deficits. Adv. Agron. 28:161–217.Google Scholar
Bonifas, K. D., Walters, D. T., Cassman, K. G., and Lindquist, J. L. 2005. Nitrogen supply affects root:shoot ratio in corn and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti). Weed Sci. 53:670–675.Google Scholar
Boyer, J. S. 1982. Plant productivity and the environment. Science. 218:443–448.Google Scholar
Bridges, D. C. 1992. Crop Losses Due to Weeds in the United States—1992. Champaign, IL Weed Science Society of America. 403 p.Google Scholar
Hetherington, A. M. and Woodward, F. I. 2003. The role of stomata in sensing and driving environmental change. Nature. 424:901–908.Google Scholar
Hunt, R. 1982. Plant Growth Curves: The Functional Approach to Plant Growth Analysis. Baltimore, MD University Park Press. Pp. 135–144.Google Scholar
Kropff, M. J. 1993. Mechanisms of competition for water. Pages 63–76 in Kropff, M. J. and Van Laar, H. H., eds. Modelling Crop–Weed Interactions. Wallingford, UK CAB International and the International Rice Research Institute.Google Scholar
Lindquist, J. L. and Mortensen, D. A. 1999. Ecophysiological characteristics of four maize hybrids and Abutilon theophrasti . Weed Res. 39:271–285.Google Scholar
Lindquist, J. L., Mortensen, D. A., Clay, S. A., Schmenk, R., Kells, J. J., Howatt, K., and Westra, P. 1996. Stability of corn (Zea mays)—velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) interference relationships. Weed Sci. 44:309–313.Google Scholar
Monson, R. K., Edwards, G. E., and Ku, M. S. B. 1984. C3–C4 intermediate photosynthesis in plants. Biosci. 34:563–574.Google Scholar
Patterson, D. T. and Flint, E. P. 1983. Comparative water relations, photosynthesis, and growth of soybean (Glycine max) and seven associated weeds. Weed Sci. 31:318–323.Google Scholar
Ray, J. D., Gesch, R. W., Sinclair, T. R., and Allen, L. H. 2002. The effect of vapor pressure deficit on maize transpiration response to a drying soil. Plant and Soil. 239:113–121.Google Scholar
Ray, J. D. and Sinclair, T. R. 1997. Stomatal closure of maize hybrids in response to drying soil. Crop Sci. 37:803–807.Google Scholar
Ray, J. D. and Sinclair, T. R. 1998. The effect of pot size on growth and transpiration of maize and soybean during water deficit stress. J. Exp. Bot. 49:1381–1386.Google Scholar
Ruiz-Barradas, A. and Nigam, S. 2005. Warm-season rainfall variability over the US Great Plains in observations, NCEP and ERA-40 reanalyses, and NCAR and NASA atmospheric model simulations. J. Clim. 18:1808–1829.Google Scholar
Sadras, V. O. and Milroy, S. P. 1996. Soil-water thresholds for the responses of leaf expansion and gas exchange: A review. Field Crops Res. 47:253–266.Google Scholar
Salisbury, C. D. and Chandler, J. M. 1993. Interaction of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) plants for water is affected by their interaction for light. Weed Sci. 41:69–74.Google Scholar
Schabenberger, O. and Pierce, F. J. 2002. Contemporary Statistical Models for the Plant and Soil Sciences. Boca Raton, FL CRC Press. Pp. 211–214.Google Scholar
Sinclair, T. R. 2005. Theoretical analysis of soil and plant traits influencing daily plant water flux on drying soils. Agron. J. 97:1148–1152.Google Scholar
Sinclair, T. R., Bennett, J. M., and Muchow, R. C. 1990. Relative sensitivity of grain yield and biomass accumulation to drought in field grown maize. Crop Sci. 30:690–693.Google Scholar
Sinclair, T. R., Hammond, L. C., and Harrison, J. 1998. Extractable soil water and transpiration rate of soybean on sandy soils. Agron. J. 90:363–368.Google Scholar
Spencer, N. R. 1984. Velvetleaf, Abutilon theophrasti, history and economic impact in the United States. Econ. Bot. 38:407–416.Google Scholar
Van den Berg, M. and Driessen, P. M. 2002. Water uptake in crop growth models for land use systems analysis I. A review of approaches and their pedigrees. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 92:21–36.Google Scholar