Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T16:23:02.196Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Effects of shading on the growth of nutsedges (Cyperus spp.)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Jose P. Morales-Payan
Affiliation:
Horticulture Science Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-0690
William M. Stall
Affiliation:
Horticulture Science Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-0690
Thomas A. Bewick
Affiliation:
Horticulture Science Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-0690
Donn G. Shilling
Affiliation:
Agronomy Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-0690

Abstract

Greenhouse studies were carried out to determine the effects of different shading levels on biomass accumulation of purple and yellow nutsedge. Artificial shading levels provided were 20, 40, 60, and 80% of incident sunlight in addition to the full sunlight control (0% shading). Yellow nutsedge shoot and tuber number, plant height, and shoot and tuber dry weight were less affected by 20% shading than were these variables for purple nutsedge. Shoot and tuber dry biomass for both species responded linearly to shading level. In yellow nutsedge, 80% shading reduced dry matter partitioning to the tubers and increased partitioning into the shoots. In contrast, biomass partitioning to purple nutsedge tubers was decreased under high shade conditions without increases in partitioning to the shoots. The light compensation point was lower for yellow nutsedge than for purple nutsedge. This could possibly explain the wide distribution of yellow nutsedge in relatively low light intensity environments, in contrast with purple nutsedge, which generally occurs in tropical areas where higher light intensities are the norm.

Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Copyright
Copyright © 1997 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.)

References

Literature Cited

Boardman, N. K. 1977. Comparative photosynthesis of sun and shade plants. Ann. Rev. Plant Physiol. 28: 355377.Google Scholar
Hand, D. W., Wilson, J. W., and Acock, B. 1993. Effects of light and CO2 on net photosynthetic rates of stands of aubergine and Amarantbus . Ann. Bot. 71: 209216.Google Scholar
Johnson, C. R., Krantz, J. K., Joiner, J. N., and Conover, C. A. 1979. Light compensation point and leaf distribution of Ficus benjamina as affected by light intensity and nitrogen-potassium nutrition. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 104: 335338.Google Scholar
Keeley, P. E. and Thullen, R. J. 1978. Light requirements of yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus) and light interception by crops. Weed Sci. 26: 1016.Google Scholar
Patterson, D. T. 1982. Shading responses of purple and yellow nutsedges (Cyperus rotundus and C. esculentus). Weed Sci. 30: 2530.Google Scholar
Santos, B. M. 1995. Competitive Interactions of Tomato and Nutsedges (Cyperus spp.). M.S. thesis. University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. 80 p.Google Scholar
Santos, B. M., Bewick, T. A., Shilling, D. G., and Stall, W. M. 1995. Intraspecific and interspecific competitive interactions of tomato and nutsedges. Proc. South. Weed. Sci. Soc. 48: 175.Google Scholar
Stoller, E. N. and Sweet, R. D. 1987. Biology and life cycle of purple and yellow nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus and C. esculentus). Weed Technol. 1: 6673.Google Scholar
William, R. D. and Warren, G. F. 1975. Competition between purple nutsedge and vegetables. Weed Sci. 23: 317323.Google Scholar
Williams, R. D. 1978. Photoperiod effects on the reproductive biology of purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus). Weed Sci. 26: 539543.Google Scholar