Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T21:53:02.405Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of Temperature and Photoperiod on Texas Panicum (Panicum texanum) and Wild Proso Millet (Panicum miliaceum)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

David T. Patterson ,
Ann E. Russell ,
David A. Mortensen ,
Robert D. Coffin  and
Elizabeth P. Flint
David T. Patterson
Affiliation:
Duke Univ., Durham, NC 27706
Ann E. Russell
Affiliation:
Duke Univ., Durham, NC 27706
David A. Mortensen
Affiliation:
Duke Univ., Durham, NC 27706
Robert D. Coffin
Affiliation:
Duke Univ., Durham, NC 27706
Elizabeth P. Flint
Affiliation:
Duke Univ., Durham, NC 27706
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Texas panicum (Panicum texanum Buckl. # PANTE) is a native of the Southwest, now increasing as a weed throughout the southern United States, whereas wild proso millet (Panicum miliaceum L. # PANMI) is an introduced weed currently increasing in importance in the northern Midwest. In controlled-environment chambers, both species produced more tillers, greater leaf area, and more total dry weight at 30/24 C day/night (simulated growing season temperature in Georgia) than at 24/18 C (simulated growing season temperature in Minnesota). Texas panicum accumulated more dry matter at 30/24 C than did wild proso millet, while wild proso millet accumulated more dry matter at 24/18 C than did Texas panicum. When the two species were grown together, Texas panicum was the superior competitor at 30/24 C while wild proso millet was superior at 24/18 C. Exposure to short photoperiods at an intermediate temperature of 27/21 C accelerated flowering and limited vegetative growth in both species. In the range of photoperiods (10 to 16 h) examined, wild proso millet always flowered earlier and, consequently, produced less vegetative growth than Texas panicum. Its responses to temperature and photoperiod indicate that wild proso millet probably would be competitively inferior to Texas panicum and other adapted grass weeds in the southern United States.

Keywords

Competitiongrowth analysisPANTEPANMI
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 34 , Issue 6 , November 1986 , pp. 876 - 882
Copyright
Copyright © 1986 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

1. Anonymous. 1972. Economic losses due to weeds. Part II. Most troublesome and most common weeds in selected crops. Res. Rep. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 25:216–222.Google Scholar
2. Buchanan, G. A. 1971. Economic losses due to weeds. Part II. Most common and most troublesome weeds in selected crops. Res. Rep. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 24:197–205.Google Scholar
3. Buchanan, G. A. 1973. Most common and most troublesome weeds. Res. Rep. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 26:174–179.Google Scholar
4. Carpenter, J. L. and Hopen, H. J. 1985. A comparison of the biology of wild and cultivated proso millet (Panicum miliaceum). Weed Sci. 33:795–799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Chandler, J. M. and Santelman, P. W. 1969. Growth characteristics and herbicide susceptibility of Texas panicum. Weed Sci. 17:91–93.Google Scholar
6. Deam, C. C. 1929. Grasses of Indiana. W. B. Burford, Indianapolis, IN. Page 243.Google Scholar
7. Dekker, J. H., Meggitt, W. F., and Putnam, A. R. 1983. Experimental methodologies to evaluate allelopathic plant interactions. J. Chem. Ecol. 9:945–981.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Downs, R. J. and Hellmers, H. 1975. Environment and the Experimental Control of Plant Growth. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
9. Elmore, C. D. 1984. Weed Survey – Southern States. Res. Rep. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 37:192–198.Google Scholar
10. Gould, F. W. 1975. The Grasses of Texas. Texas A&M Univ. Press, College Station, TX. 653 pp.Google Scholar
11. Harvey, R. G. 1979. Serious new weed threat: Wild proso millet. Crops Soils Mag. 31:10–13.Google Scholar
12. Larcher, W. 1975. Physiological Plant Ecology. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. Page 42.Google Scholar
13. McNevin, G. R. and Harvey, R. G. 1982. Wild proso millet (Panicum miliaceum) control in processing peas (Pisum sativum) and soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 30:365–368.Google Scholar
14. Moore, D.R.J. and Cavers, P. B. 1985. A comparison of seedling vigour in crop and weed biotypes of proso millet (Panicum miliaceum). Can. J. Bot. 63:1659–1663.Google Scholar
15. O'Toole, J. J. and Cavers, P. B. 1983. Input to seed banks of proso millet (Panicum miliaceum) in southern Ontario. Can. J. Plant Sci. 63:1023–1030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Patterson, D. T. 1982. Effects of shading and temperature on showy crotalaria (Crotalaria spectabilis). Weed Sci. 30:692–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Silveus, W. A. 1933. Texas Grasses. The Clegg Co., San Antonio, TX. 782 pp.Google Scholar
18. Trenbath, B. R. 1974. Biomass productivity of mixtures. Adv. Agron. 26:177–210.Google Scholar
19. Tsvelev, N. N. 1976. Grasses of the Soviet Union. Part II. Nauka Publ., Leningrad. Page 994.Google Scholar