Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T09:46:59.349Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Texas Panicum (Panicum texanum) Growth as Affected by Irrigation Management and Planting Date

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Jill Schroeder
Affiliation:
U.S. Dep. Agric., Agric. Res. Serv., Coastal Plain Exp. Stn., Tifton, GA 31793
Clyde C. Dowler
Affiliation:
U.S. Dep. Agric., Agric. Res. Serv., Coastal Plain Exp. Stn., Tifton, GA 31793
James R. Stansell
Affiliation:
Univ. Georgia, Agric. Eng. Dep., Coastal Plain Exp. Stn., Tifton, GA 31793

Abstract

The effect of soil matric potential from −0.02 to <–1.5 MPa on Texas panicum growth in drainage lysimeters covered by an automatic rainfall shelter was measured in 1984, 1985, and 1986. Rate of tiller production was faster for plants established in April than June in 1984 and 1985, but not 1986. In 1985 and 1986, dry weight was greater, but total seed production was less for plants established in April than June. Irrigation when the soil matric potential was −0.02, −0.075, or −1.5 MPa did not affect rate of tiller production in 1984. Irrigation when the soil matric potential was −1.5 MPa decreased dry weight of plants but increased seed number per panicle compared to irrigation when the soil matric potential was −0.02 MPa in 1985 and 1986. Plants grown in lysimeters irrigated at soil matric potential <–1.5 MPa in 1985 and 1986 did not wilt at 8:00 a.m.; therefore, they were not watered after establishment. These nonirrigated plants averaged 0.9 and 0.4 kg dry weight and produced 92 200 and 16 100 seeds in 1985 and 1986, respectively.

Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Copyright
Copyright © 1990 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. Chandler, J. M. and Santelmann, P. W. 1969. Growth characteristics and herbicide susceptibility of Texas panicum. Weed Sci. 17:9193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Denmead, O. T. and Shaw, R. H. 1960. The effects of moisture stress at different stages of growth on the development and yield of corn. Agron. J. 52:272274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Dowler, C. C. and Stansell, J. R. Jr. 1985. Texas panicum response to selected soil moisture levels. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 38:454.Google Scholar
4. Elmore, C. D. 1985. Weed survey–southern states. South. Weed Sci. Soc. Res. Rep. 39:136158.Google Scholar
5. Hook, J. E. 1985. Irrigated corn management for the coastal plain: irrigation scheduling and response to soil water and evaporative demand. Res. Bull. No. 335. Georgia Agric. Exp. Stn. Coll. of Agric., Univ. Georgia. 34 pp.Google Scholar
6. Hoveland, C. S. and Buchanan, G. A. 1972. Flooding tolerance of fall panicum and Texas panicum. Weed Sci. 20:13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Patterson, D. T., Russell, A. E., Mortensen, D. A., Coffin, R. D., and Flint, E. P. 1986. Effects of temperature and photoperiod on Texas panicum (Panicum texanum) and wild proso millet (Panicum miliaceum). Weed Sci. 34:876882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Stansell, J. R. and Sparrow, G. N. 1963. Rainfall controlled shelter for research plots. J. Agric. Eng. 44:318319.Google Scholar
9. Stansell, J. R., Shephard, J. L., Pallas, J. E., Bruce, R. R., Minton, N. A., Bell, D. K., and Morgan, L. W. 1976. Peanut responses to soil water variables in the Southeast Peanut Sci. 3:4448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Stansell, J. R. and Smittle, D. A. 1980. Effect of irrigation regimes on yield and water use of snapbean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 105:869873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Stansell, J. R. and Pallas, J. E. Jr. 1985. Yield and quality response of Florunner peanut to applied drought at several growth stages. Peanut Sci. 12:6470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar