Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-fvjsw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T12:01:41.388Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Interacting Effects of CO2 and Nutrient Concentration

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

David T. Patterson and
Elizabeth P. Flint
David T. Patterson
Affiliation:
South. Weed Sci. Lab., U.S. Dep. Agric., Agric. Res. Serv., Stoneville, MS 38776
Elizabeth P. Flint
Affiliation:
Duke Univ. Phytotron, Durham, NC 27706
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr. ‘Tracy′] and two associated weeds, sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia L.) and showy crotalaria (Crotalaria spectabilis Roth), were grown in controlled-environment chambers with day/night temperatures of 29/23 C, photosynthetic photon flux density (PPFD) of 600 μE·m−2·s-1, CO2 concentrations of 350 or 675 ppm, and one-eighth or one-half strength Hoagland's nutrient solution applied three times daily. Leaf areas and dry weights of plant parts were determined at 1, 3, and 5 weeks. Stomatal resistances, transpiration rates, leaf water potentials, and leaf chlorophyll contents were measured, and net assimilation rates (NAR) and leaf area durations (LAD) were calculated. In all species, growth in 675 ppm CO2 enhanced dry-matter production through increases in both NAR and LAD. The increased dry-matter production with one-half strength compared to one-eighth strength Hoagland's solution was, however, caused by increased LAD. Stomatal conductances and transpiration rates decreased in 675 ppm CO2, but were not affected by nutrient level. High CO2 concentration or low nutrient level generally decreased leaf chlorophyll content per unit area. Growth enhancement by high CO2 was greater in one-half strength than in one-eighth strength Hoagland's solution.

Keywords

Glycine maxCassia obtusifoliaCrotalaria spectabilisgrowth analysisbiomass partitioning

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 30 , Issue 4 , July 1982, pp. 389 - 394
Copyright
Copyright © 1982 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. Arnon, D. I. 1949. Copper enzymes in isolated chloroplasts. Polyphenoloxidases in Beta vulgaris . Plant Physiol. 24:1–15.Google Scholar
2. Downs, R. J. and Hellmers, H. 1975. Environment and the Experimental Control of Plant Growth. Academic Press, New York. p. 107.Google Scholar
3. Enoch, H. Z. and Hurd, R. G. 1979. The effect of elevated CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere on plant transpiration and water use efficiency. A study with potted carnation plants. Int. J. Biometeorol. 23:343–351.Google Scholar
4. Gates, D. M., Strain, B. R., and Weber, J. A. 1981. Changing atmospheric CO2 concentration and plant responses. Encycl. Plant Physiol. (In press).Google Scholar
5. Gifford, R. M. 1979. Growth and yield of CO2-enriched wheat under water limited conditions. Aust. J. Plant Physiol. 6:367–378.Google Scholar
6. Hellmers, H. and Giles, L. J. 1979. Carbon dioxide: Critique I. Pages 229–234 in Tibbits, T. W. and Kozlowski, T. T., eds. Controlled Environmental Guidelines for Plant Research. Academic Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Imai, K. and Murata, Y. 1978. Effects of carbon dioxide concentration on growth and dry matter production of crop plants. III. Relationship between CO2 concentration and nitrogen nutrition in some C3 and C4 species. Jpn. J. Crop Sci. 47:118–123.Google Scholar
8. Kramer, P. J. 1981. Carbon dioxide concentration, photosynthesis, and dry matter production. BioScience 31:29–33.Google Scholar
9. Kvet, J., Ondok, J. P., Necas, J., and Jarvis, P. G. 1971. Methods of growth analysis. Pages 343–391 in Sestak, Z., Catsky, J., and Jarvis, P. G., eds. Plant Photosynthetic Production: Manual of Methods. Dr. W. Junk N.V. Publ., The Hague.Google Scholar
10. McWhorter, C. G. and Patterson, D. T. 1980. Ecological factors affecting weed competition in soybeans. Pages 371–392 in Corbin, F. T., ed. Proceedings: World Soybean Research Conference II. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.Google Scholar
11. Moran, R. and Porath, D. 1980. Chlorophyll determination in intact tissues using N,N-dimethylformamide. Plant Physiol. 65:478–479.Google Scholar
12. Patterson, D. T. and Flint, E. P. 1980. Potential effects of global atmospheric CO2 enrichment on the growth and competitiveness of C3 and C4 weed and crop plants. Weed Sci. 28:71–75.Google Scholar
13. Scholander, P. F., Hammel, H. T., Hemmingsen, E. A., and Bradstreet, E. D. 1964. Hydrostatic pressure and osmotic potential in leaves of mangroves and some other plants. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 52:119–125.Google Scholar
14. Sionit, N., Mortensen, D. A., Strain, B. R., and Hellmers, H. 1981. Growth response of wheat to CO2 enrichment with different levels of mineral nutrition. Agron. J. 73:1023–1027.Google Scholar
15. Sionit, N., Strain, B. R., Hellmers, H., and Kramer, P. J. 1981. Effects of atmospheric CO2 concentration and water stress on water relations of wheat. Bot. Gaz. 142:191–196.Google Scholar
16. Steel, R.G.D. and Torrie, J. H. 1960. Principles and Procedures of Statistics. McGraw-Hill, New York. 481 pp.Google Scholar
17. Wittwer, S. H. 1979. Future technological advances in agriculture and their impact on the regulatory environment. BioScience 29:603–610.Google Scholar
18. Wong, S. C. 1980. Elevated atmospheric partial pressure of CO2 and plant growth. I. Interactions of nitrogen nutrition and photosynthetic capacity in C3 and C4 plants. Oecologia 44:68–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar