Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T22:24:37.050Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Use of 13C Isotope Discrimination Analysis to Quantify Distribution of Barnyardgrass and Rice Roots in a Four-Year Study of Weed-Suppressive Rice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

David R. Gealy  and
Karen A. K. Moldenhauer
David R. Gealy*
Affiliation:
Dale Bumpers National Rice Research Center, USDA-ARS, Stuttgart, AR 72160
Karen A. K. Moldenhauer
Affiliation:
University of Arkansas, Division of Agriculture, Rice Research and Extension Center, Stuttgart, AR 72160
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: david.gealy@ars.usda.gov
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In a 4-yr field study, “weed suppressive” rice cultivars provided 30% greater control of barnyardgrass and sustained 44% less yield loss (relative to weed-free) compared to “nonsuppressive” tropical japonica rice cultivars. 13C analysis revealed that rice root mass predominated vertically and laterally within the soil profile of plots infested with barnyardgrass. Among all cultivars, rice roots accounted for 75 to 90% of the total root mass in samples, and this was most concentrated in the surface 5 cm of soil in the row. Barnyardgrass roots were most prevalent in the surface 5 cm between rows where they accounted for 30% of total root mass. Overall, barnyardgrass root mass was about twice as high in nonsuppressive rice compared to suppressive rice. Weed suppression by indica/tropical japonica rice crosses generally was intermediate between that of the other two rice groups. At the 0- to 5-cm depth, between-rows, barnyardgrass root mass was correlated negatively with rice height (r = −0.424), yield (r = −0.306), and weed control ratings (r = −0.524) in weedy plots. Control ratings in weedy plots also were negatively correlated with rice percent height reduction (r = −0.415) and % yield loss (r = −0.747) relative to weed-free plots, and with barnyardgrass root mass as a percent of total root mass (r = −0.612). Control ratings were positively correlated with rice yield under weed pressure (r = 0.429) but were correlated with rice root mass in-rows only (r = −0.322). Clearly, rice root mass could not have been the major cause of the differences in barnyardgrass control between cultivars.

Keywords

Barnyardgrass, Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) Beauvrice, Oryza sativa L13C/12C isotope ratioδ13C13C depletionC3 photosynthetic pathwayC4 photosynthetic pathwaycrop–weed interferencecrop–weed root distributionallelopathic riceindica rice
Type
Special Topics
Information
Weed Science , Volume 60 , Issue 1 , March 2012 , pp. 133 - 142
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

Bach-Jensen, L., Courtois, B., Shen, L., Li, Z., Olofsdotter, M., and Mauleon, R. 2001. Locating genes controlling allelopathic effects against barnyardgrass in upland rice. Agron. J. 93:21–26.Google Scholar
Bertholdsson, N. O. 2005. Early vigour and allelopathy: two useful traits for enhanced barley and wheat competitiveness against weeds. Weed Res. 45:94–102.Google Scholar
Bertholdsson, N. O. 2007. Varietal variation in allelopathic activity in wheat and barley and possibilities for use in plant breeding. Allelopathy J. 19:193–202.Google Scholar
Bollich, C. W., Webb, B. D., Marchetti, M. A., and Scott, J. E. 1985. Registration of ‘Lemont’ rice. Crop Sci. 25:883–885.Google Scholar
Bridges, D. C. and Baumann, P. A. 1992. Weeds causing losses in the United States. Pp. 75–147 in Bridges, D. C., ed. Crop Losses Due to Weeds in the United States. Champaign, IL Weed Science Society of America.Google Scholar
Caton, B. P., Foin, T. C., and Hill, J. E. 1999. A plant growth model for integrated weed management in direct-seeded rice. III. Interspecific competition for light. Field Crop Res. 63:47–61.Google Scholar
Chen, X. H., Hu, F., and Kong, C. H. 2008. Varietal improvement in rice allelopathy. Allelopathy J. 22:379–384.Google Scholar
Derner, J. D., Johnson, H. B., Kimball, B. A., et al. 2003. Above- and below-ground responses of C3–C4 species mixtures to elevated CO2 and soil water availability. Glob. Change Biol. 9:452–460.Google Scholar
Dilday, R. H., Mattice, J. D., Moldenhauer, K. A., and Yan, W. 2001. Allelopathic potential in rice germplasm against ducksalad, redstem and barnyardgrass. J. Crop Prod. 4:287–301.Google Scholar
Dingkuhn, M., Farquhar, G. D., De Datta, S. K., and O'Toole, J. C. 1991. Discrimination of 13C among upland rices having different water use efficiencies. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 42:1123–1131.Google Scholar
Dingkuhn, M., Johnson, D. E., Sow, A., and Audebert, A. Y. 1999. Relationships between upland rice canopy characteristics and weed competitiveness. Field Crop Res. 61:79–95.Google Scholar
Ehleringer, J. R. 1991. 13C/12C fractionation and its utility in terrestrial plant studies. Pp. 187–200 in Coleman, D. C., and Fry, B. B., eds. Carbon Isotope Techniques. San Diego, CA Academic Press.Google Scholar
Eleki, K., Cruse, R. M., and Albrecht, K. A. 2005. Root segregation of C3 and C4 species using carbon isotope composition. Crop Sci. 45:879–882.Google Scholar
Farquhar, G. D., Ehleringer, J. R., and Hubick, K. T. 1989. Carbon isotope discrimination and photosynthesis. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. Plant Mol. Biol. 40:503–537.Google Scholar
Farquhar, G. D. and Lloyd, L. 1993. Carbon and oxygen isotope effects in the exchange of carbon dioxide between terrestrial plants and the atmosphere. Pp. 47–70 in Ehleringer, J. R., Hall, A. E., and Farquhar, G. D., eds. Stable Isotopes and Plant Carbon–Water Relations. New York Academic Press.Google Scholar
Fischer, A. J., Ateh, C. M., Bayer, D. E., and Hill, J. E. 2000. Herbicide-resistant Echinochloa oryzoides and E. phyllopogon in California Oryza sativa fields. Weed Sci. 48:225–230.Google Scholar
Fischer, A., Ramírez, H. V., and Lozano, J. 1997. Suppression of junglerice [Echinochloa colona (L.) Link] by irrigated rice cultivars in Latin America. Agron. J. 89:516–521.Google Scholar
Fofana, B. and Rauber, R. 2000. Weed suppression ability of upland rice under low-input conditions in West Africa. Weed Res. 40:271–280.Google Scholar
Gealy, D. R., Estorninos, L. E. Jr., Gbur, E. E., and Chavez, R. S. C. 2005a. Interference interactions of two rice cultivars and their F3 cross with barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) in a replacement series study. Weed Sci. 53:323–330.Google Scholar
Gealy, D. R. and Fischer, A. J. 2010. 13C discrimination: a stable isotope method to quantify root interactions between C3 rice (Oryza sativa) and C4 barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) in flooded fields. Weed Sci. 58:359–368.Google Scholar
Gealy, D. R. and Gealy, G. S. 2011. 13Carbon isotope discrimination in roots and shoots of major weed species of southern U.S. rice fields and its potential use for analysis of rice–weed root interactions. Weed Sci. 59:587–600.Google Scholar
Gealy, D. R. and Moldenhauer, K. A. 2005. Progress in developing weed suppressive rice cultivars for the southern U.S. Pp. 257–296 in Singh, H., Batish, D., and Kohli, R., eds. Handbook of Sustainable Weed Management. Binghampton, NY Haworth Press.Google Scholar
Gealy, D. R., Moldenhauer, K. A. K., and Mattice, J. D. 2010. Weed control and yield potential for a promising rice line, STG06L-35-061, selected from crosses between weed-suppressive indicas and commercial long-grain rice. Pages 155 p in Proceedings of the 33rd Rice Technical Working Group Meeting. Biloxi, MS. Crowley, Louisiana Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, Louisiana Agricultural Experiment Station.Google Scholar
Gealy, D., Ottis, B., Talbert, R., Moldenhauer, K., and Yan, W. 2005b. Evaluation and improvement of allelopathic rice germplasm at Stuttgart, Arkansas, USA. Pp. 157–163 in Proceedings of the 4th World Congress on Allelopathy. Wagga Wagga, NSW, Australia International Allelopathy Society.Google Scholar
Gealy, D. R., Wailes, E. J., Estorninos, L. E. Jr., and Chavez, R. S. C. 2003. Rice cultivar differences in suppression of barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) and economics of reduced propanil rates. Weed Sci. 51:601–609.Google Scholar
[GRIN] Germplasm Resources Information Network. 2010. [Online Database]. USDA, ARS, National Genetic Resources Program, National Germplasm Resources Laboratory, Beltsville, MD. http://www.ars-grin.gov. Accessed: September 13, 2010.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 (Oryza sativa L.). Weed Sci. 51:87–93.Google Scholar
Gibson, K. D., Fischer, A. J., Foin, T. C., and Hill, J. E. 2002. Implications of delayed Echinochloa spp. germination and duration of competition for integrated weed management in water-seeded rice. Weed Res. 42:351–358.Google Scholar
Gibson, K. D., Foin, T. C., and Hill, J. E. 1999. The relative importance of root and shoot competition between water-seeded rice and Echinochloa phyllopogon . Weed Res. 39:181–190.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. 93:181–190.Google Scholar
Gravois, K. A., Moldenhauer, K. A. K., Lee, F. N., Norman, R. J., Helms, R. S., Bernhardt, J. L., Wells, B. R., Dilday, R. H., Rohman, P. C., and Blocker, M. M. 1995. Registration of ‘Kaybonnet’ rice. Crop Sci. 35:587–588.Google Scholar
Gu, Y., Wang, P., and Kong, C. H. 2009. Urease, invertase, dehydrogenase and polyphenoloxidase activities in paddy soil influenced by allelopathic rice variety. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 45:436–441.Google Scholar
Hoad, S., Topp, C., and Davies, K. 2008. Selection of cereals for weed suppression in organic agriculture: a method based on cultivar sensitivity to weed growth. Euphytica. 163:355–366.Google Scholar
Impa, S. M., Nadaradjan, S., Boominathan, P., Shashidhar, G., Bindumadhava, H., and Sheshshayee, M. S. 2005. Carbon isotope discrimination accurately reflects variability in WUE measured at a whole plant level in rice. Crop Sci. 45:2517–2522.Google Scholar
Kato-Noguchi, H. and Ino, T. 2005. Concentration and release level of momilactone B in the seedlings of eight rice cultivars. J. Plant Physiol. 162:965–969.Google Scholar
Khanh, T. D., Xuan, T. D., and Chung, I. M. 2007. Rice allelopathy and the possibility for weed management. Ann. Appl. Biol. 151:325–339.Google Scholar
Kim, S. Y., Madrid, A. V., Park, S. T., Yang, S. J., and Olofsdotter, M. 2005. Evaluation of rice allelopathy in hydroponics. Weed Res. 45:74–79.Google Scholar
Kondo, M., Pablico, P. P., Aragones, D. V., and Agbisit, R. 2004. Genotypic variations in carbon isotope discrimination, transpiration efficiency, and biomass production in rice as affected by soil water conditions and N. Plant Soil. 267:165–177.Google Scholar
Kong, C. H., Hu, F., Wang, P., and Wu, J. L. 2008. Effect of allelopathic rice varieties combined with cultural management options on paddy field weeds. Pest Manag. Sci. 64:276–282.Google Scholar
Kong, C. H., Li, H. B., Hu, F., Xu, X. H., and Wang, P. 2006. Allelochemicals released by rice roots and residues in soil. Plant Soil. 288:47–56.Google Scholar
Labrada, R. 2007. The need for improved weed management in rice. Pp. 310–324 in Proceedings of the 20th Session of the International Rice Commission, Bangkok, Thailand, July 23–26, 2007. Rome FAO.Google Scholar
Laza, M. R., Kondo, M., Ideta, O., Barlaan, E., and Imbe, T. 2006. Identification of quantitative trait loci for δ13C and productivity in irrigated lowland rice. Crop Sci. 46:763–773.Google Scholar
Lee, S-B., Seo, K. I., Koo, J. H., Hur, H. S., and Shin, J. C. 2005. QTLs and molecular markers associated with rice allelopathy. Pp. 505–507 in Proceedings of the 4th World Congress on Allelopathy. Wagga Wagga, NSW, Australia International Allelopathy Society.Google Scholar
Moldenhauer, K. A. K., Gibbons, J. W., Lee, F. N., et al. 2007. Registration of ‘Francis’ rice. Crop Sci. 47:443–444.Google Scholar
Moldenhauer, K. A. K., Gibbons, J. W., Lee, F. N., Norman, R. J., Bernhardt, J., Dilday, R. H., Rutger, J. N., Blocker, M. M., and Tolbert, A. C. 1999. Breeding and evaluation for improved rice varieties: the Arkansas rice breeding and development program. Pp. 20–27 in Norman, R. J., and Johnson, T. H., eds. Bobby R. Wells Rice Research Studies 1998. Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station, Series 468. Fayetteville, AR University of Arkansas.Google Scholar
Murphy, K. M., Dawson, J. C., and Jones, S. S. 2008. Relationship among phenotypic growth traits, yield and weed suppression in spring wheat landraces and modern cultivars. Field Crops Res. 105:107–115.Google Scholar
Okuno, K. and Ebana, K. 2003. Identification of QTL controlling allelopathic effects in rice: genetic approaches to biological control of weeds. Japan Agric. Res. Quart. 37:77–81.Google Scholar
O'Leary, M. H. 1993. Biochemical basis of carbon isotope fractionation. Pp. 19–28 in Ehleringer, J. R., Hall, A. E., and Farquhar, G. D., eds. Stable Isotopes and Plant Carbon–Water Relations. New York Academic Press.Google Scholar
Perera, K. K., Ayers, 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
P'erez De Vida, F. B., Laca, E., Mackill, D., Fernandez, G. M., and Fischer, A. 2006. Relating rice traits to weed competitiveness and yield: a path analysis. Weed Sci. 54:1122–1131.Google Scholar
Polley, H. W., Johnson, H. B., and Mayeux, H. S. 1992. Determination of root biomasses of three species grown in a mixture using stable isotopes of carbon and nitrogen. Plant Soil. 142:97–106.Google Scholar
Scartazza, A., Lauteri, M., Guido, M. C., and Brugnoli, E. 1998. Carbon isotope discrimination in leaf and stem sugars, water-use efficiency and mesophyll conductance during different developmental stages in rice subjected to drought. Aust. J. Plant Physiol. 25:489–498.Google Scholar
Scott, R. C., Boyd, J. W., Smith, K. L., Selden, G., and Norsworthy, J. K. 2010. Recommended chemicals for weed and brush control. MP-44. University Arkansas Extension and U.S. Department of Agriculture. Pp. 78–91.Google Scholar
Seal, A. N. and Pratley, J. E. 2010. The specificity of allelopathy in rice (Oryza sativa). Weed Res. 50:303–311.Google Scholar
Smith, R. J. Jr. 1988. Weed thresholds in southern U.S. rice (Oryza sativa). Weed Technol. 2:232–241.Google Scholar
Svejcar, T. J. and Boutton, T. W. 1985. The use of stable carbon isotope analysis in rooting studies. Oecologia. 67:205–208.Google Scholar
Svejcar, T. J., Boutton, T. W., and Christiansen, S. 1988. Rooting dynamics of Medicago sativa seedlings growing in association with Bothriochloa caucasica . Oecologia. 77:453–456.Google Scholar
Vandeleur, R. K. and Gill, G. S. 2004. The impact of plant breeding on the grain yield and competitive ability of wheat in Australia. Aus. J. Agric. Res. 55:855–861.Google Scholar
Wilson, J. B. 1988. Shoot competition and root competition. J. Appl. Ecol. 25:279–296.Google Scholar
Xiong, J., Jia, X., Deng, J., Jiang, B., He, H., and Lin, W. 2007. Analysis of epistatic effect and QTL interactions with environment for allelopathy in rice (Oryza sativa L.). Allelopathy J. 20:259–268.Google Scholar
Xu, Y., This, D., Pausch, R. C., Vonhof, W. M., Coburn, J. R., Comstock, J. P., and McCouch, S. R. 2009. Leaf-level water use efficiency determined by carbon isotope discrimination in rice seedlings: genetic variation associated with population structure and QTL mapping. Theor. Appl. Genet. 118:1065–1081.Google Scholar
Zeng, D. L., Qian, Q., Teng, S., Dong, G. J., Fujimoto, H., Yasufumi, K., and Zhu, L. H. 2003. Genetic analysis of rice allelopathy. Chin. Sci. Bull. 48:265–268.Google Scholar
Zhao, D. L., Atlin, G. N., Bastiaans, L., and Spiertz, J. H. J. 2006. Developing selection protocols for weed competitiveness in aerobic rice. Field Crop Res. 97:272–285.Google Scholar
Zhou, Y., Cao, C., Zhuang, J., Zheng, K., Guo, Y., Ye, M., and Yu, L. 2007. Mapping QTL associated with rice allelopathy using the rice recombinant inbred lines and specific secondary metabolite marking method. Allelopathy J. 19:479–485.Google Scholar