Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-tnzcf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T07:58:28.049Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Competition for CO2 in a Heteroculture

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Lawrence R. Oliver and
Marvin M. Schreiber
Lawrence R. Oliver
Affiliation:
Dep. of Bot. and Plant Path., Purdue Univ., Lafayette, IN
Marvin M. Schreiber
Affiliation:
Agr. Res. Serv., U.S. Dep. of Agr. and Dep. of Bot. and Plant Path., Purdue Univ., Lafayette, IN 47907
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

At early stages of canopy development net carbon exchange (NCE) values for redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus L.), prickly sida (Sida spinosa L.), and birdsfoot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus L.) were determined in an air-sealed leaf chamber. Regardless of light intensity, temperature, CO2 concentration, or competition level, redroot pigweed had a NCE at least 10 mg CO2/dm2 per hr higher than that of birdsfoot trefoil or prickly sida. On a total leaf area basis, CO2 utilization changed as the heteroculture canopies developed and as the microenvironmental parameters changed. Redroot pigweed's rapid attainment of leaf area and leaf display coupled with a high photosynthetic (P) rate greatly enhance its utilization of available CO2. Direct competition for CO2 does not occur between plants with low and high (P) rates under field conditions because CO2 concentrations are always greater than the CO2 compensation point (r) of plants with low (P) rates. More efficient utilization of available CO2 by weeds such as redroot pigweed with greater (P) capacity contributes to more rapid growth and development of these weeds to the ultimate detriment of a plant such as birdsfoot trefoil with lower (P) capacity.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 22 , Issue 2 , March 1974, pp. 125 - 130
Copyright
Copyright © 1974 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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

1. Baker, D.N. 1965. Effects of certain environmental factors on net assimilation in cotton. Crop Sci. 5:53–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Baker, K. and Roistacher, C.N. 1957. Principles of heat treatment of soil. Pages 138–161 in Baker, K.F., ed. The U. C. system for producing healthy container-grown plants. Calif. Agr. Exp. Sta. Ext. Serv. Manual 23.Google Scholar
3. Bassham, J. and Calvin, M. 1957. The path of carbon in photosynthesis. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs. 104 pp.Google Scholar
4. Black, C.C., Chen, T.M., and Brown, R.N. 1969. Biochemical basis for plant competition. Weed Sci. 17:338–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Bravdo, B.A. 1968. Decrease in net photosynthesis caused by respiration. Plant Physiol. 43:479–483.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Carlson, G.E., Pearce, R.B., Lee, D.R., and Hart, R.H. 1971. Photosynthesis and photorespiration in two clones of orchardgrass. Crop Sci. 11:35–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Chen, T.M., Brown, R.H., and Black, C.C. 1970. CO2 compensation concentration, rate of photosynthesis, and carbonic anhydrase activity of plants. Weed Sci. 18:399–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Cooper, R.L. and Brun, W.A. 1967. Response of soybeans to a carbon dioxide-enriched atmosphere. Crop Sci. 7:455–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. El-Sharkawy, M. and Hesketh, J. 1965. Photosynthesis among species in relation to characteristics of leaf anatomy and CO2 diffusion resistances. Crop Sci. 5:517–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Everson, R.G. and Slack, C.R. 1968. Distribution of carbonic anhydrase in relation to the C4 pathway of photosynthesis. Phytochemistry 7:581–584.Google Scholar
11. Gaastra, P. 1959. Photosynthesis of crop plants as influenced by light, carbon dioxide, temperature, and stomatal diffusion resistance. Mededel Landbouwhogesch. Wageningen. 59(13):1–68.Google Scholar
12. Hatch, M.D. and Slack, C.R. 1966. Photosynthesis of sugarcane leaves. A new carboxylation reaction and the pathway of sugar formation. Biochem. J. 101:103–111.Google Scholar
13. Hesketh, J.D. and Moss, D.N. 1963. Variation in the response of photosynthesis to light. Crop Sci. 3:107–110.Google Scholar
14. Nevins, D.J. and Loomis, R.S. 1970. A method for determining net photosynthesis and transpiration of plant leaves. Crop Sci. 19:3–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Shibles, R.M. and MacDonald, H.A. 1962. Photosynthetic area and rate in relation to seedling vigor of birdsfoot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus L.). Crop Sci. 2:299–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Schreiber, M.M. 1967. A technique for studying weed competition in forage legume establishment. Weeds 15:1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Schreiber, M.M. and Oliver, L.R. 1971. Microenvironment of weed competition in birdsfoot trefoil establishment. Abstr., Weed Sci. Soc. Amer. p. 116.Google Scholar
18. Wolf, D.D., Pearce, R.B., Carlson, G.E., and Lee, D.R. 1969. Measuring photosynthesis of attached leaves with air sealed chambers. Crop Sci. 9:24–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar