Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-kwt9d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T05:38:08.237Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Light Quality and the Critical Period for Weed Control inSoybean

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Emily Green-Tracewicz,
Eric R. Page and
Clarence J. Swanton
Emily Green-Tracewicz
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Agriculture, Crop Science Building, University of Guelph, 50 Stone Road E., Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1, Canada
Eric R. Page
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Agriculture, Crop Science Building, University of Guelph, 50 Stone Road E., Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1, Canada
Clarence J. Swanton*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Agriculture, Crop Science Building, University of Guelph, 50 Stone Road E., Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1, Canada
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: cswanton@uoguelph.ca
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

The critical period for weed control (CPWC) is an integral component ofintegrated weed management strategies. Several studies have defined the CPWCin soybean under varying agronomic conditions, yet none have described themechanisms involved in crop yield losses caused by weed competition. Wehypothesized that under nonresource-limiting conditions, morphologicalchanges resulting from the expression of shade avoidance could be used todefine a period of developmental sensitivity to low red-to-far-red ratio (R: FR) that would overlap with the defined CPWC in soybean. Two experiments(a sequential harvest and a weed addition/removal series) were conducted in2008 and 2009 under controlled environmental conditions to address thishypothesis. Two light-quality treatments were used: (1) high R : FR ratio(i.e., weed-free), and (2) low R : FR ratio (i.e., weedy). The low R : FRratio treatment induced shade avoidance responses in soybean, which includedincreases in height, internode length, and the shoot : root ratio, as wellas a reduction in biomass accumulation and leaf number. Using themorphological changes in biomass and leaf number observed in the weedaddition/removal series, a period of developmental sensitivity to low R : FRwas defined between the first trifoliate (V1) and third trifoliate (V3)stages of soybean development. This period was found to be very similar tothe CPWC previously defined by field studies of soybean–weedcompetition.

Keywords

Soybean, Glycine max (L.) MerrGlycine maxsoybeanred to far-red ratiocompetition theoryshade avoidancephysiological costsphenotypic plasticity

Information

Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 60 , Issue 1 , March 2012, pp. 86 - 91
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

Footnotes

Current address: Agriculture and Agri-food Canada, Greenhouse and Crops Processing Centre, 2585 County Rd. 20, Harrow, Ontario, Canada, N0R 1G0.

References

Literature Cited

Ballaré, C. L., Sánchez, R. A., Scopel, A. L., Casal, J. J., and Ghersa, C. M. 1987. Early detection of neighbouring plants by phytochrome perception of spectral changes in reflected sunlight. Plant Cell Environ. 10:551–557.Google Scholar
Ballaré, C. L., Scopel, A. L., and Sánchez, R. A. 1990. Far-red radiation reflected from adjacent leaves: an early signal of competition in plant canopies. Science. 247:329–331.Google Scholar
Ballaré, C. L., Scopel, A. L., and Sánchez, R. A. 1991. Photocontrol of stem elongation in plant neighbourhoods: effects of photonfluence rate under natural conditions of radiation. Plant Cell Environ. 14:57–65.Google Scholar
Bosnic, A. C. and Swanton, C. J. 1997. Influence of barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) time of emergence and density on corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 45:276–282.Google Scholar
Bradburne, J. A., Kasperbauer, M. J., and Mathis, J. N. 1989. Reflected far-red light effects on chlorophyll and light-harvesting chlorophyll protein (LHC-II) contents under field conditions. Plant Physiol. 91:800–803.Google Scholar
Casal, J. J., Sanchez, R. A., and Deregibus, V. A. 1986. Effects of plant density on tillering: the involvement of the R/FR and the proportion of radiation intercepted per plant. Experimental Environmental Botany. 26:365–371.Google Scholar
Cowan, P., Weaver, S. E., and Swanton, C. J. 1998. Interference between pigweed (Amaranthus spp.) barnyardgrass (Echinochola crus-galli), and soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 46:533–539.Google Scholar
Dew, D. A. 1972. Index of competition for estimating crop losses due to weeds. Can. J. Plant Sci. 52:921–927.Google Scholar
Evans, S. P., Knezevic, S. Z., Lindquist, J. L., Shapiro, C. A., and Blankenship, E. E. 2003. Nitrogen application influences the critical period for weed control in corn. Weed Sci. 51:408–417.Google Scholar
Fehr, W. R., Caviness, C. E., Burmood, D. T., and Pennington, J. S. 1971. Stage of development descriptions for soybeans, Glycine max (L.) Merrill. Crop Sci. 11:929–931.Google Scholar
Green-Tracewicz, E., Page, E. R., and Swanton, C. J. 2011. Shade avoidance in soybean reduces branching and increases plant-to-plant variability in biomass and yield per plant. Weed Sci. 59:43–49.Google Scholar
Halford, C., Hamill, A. S., Zhang, J., and Doucet, C. 2001. Critical period of weed control in no-till soybean (Glycine max) and corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 15:737–744.Google Scholar
Hall, M. R., Swanton, C. J., and Anderson, G. W. 1992. The critical period of weed control in grain corn. Weed Sci. 40:441–447.Google Scholar
Hunt, P. G., Kasperbauer, M. J., and Matheny, T. A. 1989. Soybean seedling growth responses to light reflected from different colored soil surfaces. Crop Sci. 29:130–133.Google Scholar
Kasperbauer, M. J. 1971. Spectral distribution of light in a tobacco canopy and effects of end-of-day light quality on growth and development. Plant Physiol. 47:775–778.Google Scholar
Kasperbauer, M. J. 1987. Far-red light reflection from green leaves and effects of phytochrome-mediated partitioning under field conditions. Plant Physiol. 85:350–354.Google Scholar
Kasperbauer, M. J., Hunt, P. G., and Sojka, R. E. 1984. Photosynthate partitioning and nodule formation in soybean plants that received red or far-red light at the end of the photosynthetic period. Physiol. Plant. 61:549–554.Google Scholar
Kasperbaur, M. J. and Karlen, D. L. 1994. Plant spacing and reflected far-red light effects on phytochrome-regulated allocation in corn seedlings. Crop Sci. 34:1564–1569.Google Scholar
Knezevic, S. Z., Evans, S. P., and Mainz, M. 2003. Row spacing influences the critical timing for weed removal in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 17:666–673.Google Scholar
Knezevic, S. Z., Weise, S. F., and Swanton, C. J. 1994. Interference of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) in corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 42:568–573.Google Scholar
Kropff, M. J., Weaver, S. E., and Smits, M. A. 1992. Use of ecophysiological models for crop–weed interference: relations amongst weed density, relative time of weed emergence, relative leaf area, and yield loss. Weed Sci. 40:296–301.Google Scholar
Liu, J. L., Mahoney, K. J., Sikkema, P. H., and Swanton, C. J. 2009. The importance of light quality in crop–weed competition. Weed Res. 49:217–224.Google Scholar
Nieto, J. R., Brondo, M. A., and Gonzales, J. T. 1968. Critical periods of the crop growth cycle for competition from weeds. Pest Articles News Summaries. 14:159–166.Google Scholar
Page, E. R., Tollenaar, M., Lee, E. A., Lukens, L., and Swanton, C. J. 2009. Does shade avoidance contribute to the critical period for weed control in maize (Zea mays L.)? Weed Res. 49:563–571.Google Scholar
Page, E. R., Tollenaar, M., Lee, E. A., Lukens, L., and Swanton, C. J. 2011. Shade avoidance influences stress tolerance in maize. Weed Sci. 59:326–334.Google Scholar
Rajcan, I. R., Chandler, K. J., and Swanton, C. J. 2004. Red–far-red ratio of reflected light: a hypothesis of why early season weed control is important in corn. Weed Sci. 52:774–778.Google Scholar
Rajcan, I. R. and Swanton, C. J. 2001. Understanding maize–weed competition: resource competition, light quality and the whole plant. Field Crop. Res. 71:139–150.Google Scholar
Satterthwaite, F. E. 1946. An approximate distribution of estimates of error components. Biometrics Bull. 2:110–114.Google Scholar
Schmitt, J. and Wulff, R. D. 1993. Light spectral quality, phytochrome, and plant competition. Trends Ecol. Evol. 8:47–51.Google Scholar
Smith, H. 1982. Light quality, photoperception, and plant strategy. Ann. Rev. Plant Physiol. 33:481–518.Google Scholar
Smith, H. 1992. The ecological function of the phytochrome family. Clues to a transgenic programme of crop improvement. Photochem. PhotoBiol. 56:815–822.Google Scholar
Smith, H., Casal, J. J., and Jackson, G. M. 1990. Reflection signals and the perception of phytochrome of the proximity of neighbouring vegetation. Plant Cell Environ. 13:73–78.Google Scholar
Swanton, C. J., Mahoney, K. J., Chandler, K., and Gulden, R. H. 2008. Integrated weed management: knowledge-based weed management systems. Weed Sci. 56:168–172.Google Scholar
Van Acker, R. C., Swanton, C. J., and Weise, S. F. 1993. The critical period for weed control in soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.]. Weed Sci. 41:194–200.Google Scholar
Weaver, S. E., Kropff, M. J., and Groeneveld, R. M. W. 1992. Use of ecophysiological models for crop–weed interference: the critical period of weed interference. Weed Sci. 40:302–307.Google Scholar
Zimdahl, R. J. 1980. Weed–Crop Competition—A Review. Corvallis, OR International Plant Protection Center, Oregon State University. 195 p.Google Scholar