Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-j7cmm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T09:02:05.005Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Shade Avoidance Influences Stress Tolerance in Maize

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Eric R. Page ,
Weidong Liu ,
Diego Cerrudo ,
Elizabeth A. Lee  and
Clarence J. Swanton
Eric R. Page
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Agriculture, Crop Science Building, University of Guelph, 50 Stone Road E., Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada
Weidong Liu
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Agriculture, Crop Science Building, University of Guelph, 50 Stone Road E., Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada
Diego Cerrudo
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Agriculture, Crop Science Building, University of Guelph, 50 Stone Road E., Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada
Elizabeth A. Lee
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Agriculture, Crop Science Building, University of Guelph, 50 Stone Road E., Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada
Clarence J. Swanton*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Agriculture, Crop Science Building, University of Guelph, 50 Stone Road E., Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: cswanton@uoguelph.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Previous studies have suggested that the reduction in the root/shoot ratio that accompanies the shade avoidance response may reduce the tolerance of individuals to subsequent nutrient or moisture limitations. In this work, we examined the impact of the shade avoidance response on maize seedling growth and development and the response of these plants to a subsequent abiotic stress. Seedlings were grown in a field fertigation system under two light quality environments, ambient and a low red to far-red ratio, which were designed to simulate weed-free and weedy conditions, respectively. This system also enabled the controlled restriction of water and nutrients, which reduced the relative growth rate of the crop and created a secondary stress. Results of this study indicate that, while the shade avoidance response did reduce the root/shoot ratio in maize, this effect did not reduce plant tolerance to subsequent abiotic stress. Rather, the apparent additivity or synergism of shade avoidance and the secondary stressor on yield loss depended on whether the net effect of these two stressors was sufficiently large to shift the population toward the point where reproductive allometry was broken.

Keywords

Maize, Zea mays LZea mayscornlight qualityred to far-red ratioroot to shoot ratiostressharvest indexreproductive allometry

Information

Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 59 , Issue 3 , September 2011 , pp. 326 - 334
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

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

References

Literature Cited

Andrade, F. H., Vega, C., Uhart, S., Cirilo, A., Cantarero, M., and Valentinuz, O. 1999. Kernel number determination in maize. Crop Sci. 39:453–459.Google Scholar
Andrieu, B., Hillier, J., and Birch, C. 2006. Onset of sheath extension and duration of lamina extension are major determinants of the response of maize lamina length to plant density. Ann. Bot. (Lond.) 98:1005–1016.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. 1997. Foraging for light: photosensory ecology and agricultural implications. Plant Cell Environ. 20:820–825.Google Scholar
Bosnic, A. C. and Swanton, C. J. 1997. Influence of barnyard grass (Echinochloa crus-galli) time of emergence and density on corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 45:276–282.Google Scholar
Dubois, P. G., Olesefski, G. T., Flint-Garcia, S., Setter, T. L., Hoekenga, O. A., and Brutnell, T. P. 2010. Physiological and genetic characterization of end-of-day far-red light response in maize seedlings. Plant Physiol. 154:173–186.Google Scholar
Echarte, L. and Tollenaar, M. 2006. Kernel set in maize hybrids and their inbred lines exposed to stress. Crop Sci. 46:870–878.Google Scholar
Evans, J L. and Poorter, H. 2001. Photosynthetic acclimation of plants to growth irradiance: the relative importance of specific leaf area and nitrogen partitioning in maximizing carbon gain. Plant Cell Environ. 24:755–767.Google Scholar
Evers, J. B., Vos, J., Andrieu, B., and Struik, P. C. 2006. Cessation of tillering in spring wheat in relation to light interceptions and red: far-red ratio. Ann. Bot. (Lond.) 97:649–658.Google Scholar
Green-Tracewicz, E., Page, E. R., and Swanton, C. J. 2006. Shade avoidance in soybean reduces branching and increase plant-to-plant variability in biomass accumulation and yield per plant. Weed Sci. 59:43–49 Google Scholar
Hall, M. R., Swanton, C. J., and Anderson, G. W. 1992. The critical period of weed control in grain corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 40:441–447.Google Scholar
Kasperbauer, M. J. and Karlen, D. L. 1994. Plant spacing and reflected far-red light effects on phytochrome-regulated photosynthate allocation in corn seedlings. Crop Sci. 34:1564–1569.Google Scholar
Knezevic, S. V., 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. and Spitters, C.J.T. 1991. A simple model of crop loss by weed competition from early observations on relative leaf area of the weed. Weed Res. 31:97–105.Google Scholar
Lee, E. A., Good, B., Chakravarty, R., and Kannenberg, L. 2000. CG108 corn inbred line. Can. J. Plant Sci. 80:817–818.Google Scholar
Lee, E. A., Good, B., Chakravarty, R., and Kannenberg, L. 2001. CG102 corn inbred line. Can. J. Plant Sci. 81:455–456.Google Scholar
Maddonni, G. A. and Otegui, M. E. 2004. Intra-specific competition in maize: early establishment of hierarchies among plants affects final kernel set. Field Crop. Res. 85:1–13.Google Scholar
Massey, F. J. 1951. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for goodness of fit. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 46:68–78.Google Scholar
O'Donovan, J. T., De St Remy, A. E., O'Sullivan, P. A., Dew, D. A., and Sharma, A. K. 1985. Influence of relative time of emergence of wild oat (Avena fatua) on yield loss in barley (Hordeum vulgare) and wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Sci. 33:498–503.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. 2010a. Shade avoidance: an integral component of crop-weed competition. Weed Res. 50:281–288.Google Scholar
Page, E. R., Tollenaar, M., Lee, E. A., Lukens, L., and Swanton, C. J. 2010b. Timing, effect and recovery from intraspecific competition in maize. Agron. J. 102:1007–1013.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
Schmitt, J. 1997. Is photomorphogenic shade avoidance adaptive? Perspectives from population biology. Plant Cell Environ. 20:826–830.Google Scholar
Skinner, R. H. and Simmons, S. R. 1993. Modulation of leaf elongation, tiller appearance and tiller senescence in spring barley by far-red light. Plant Cell Environ. 16:555–562.Google Scholar
Smith, H. 1982. Light quality, photoperception, and plant strategy. Ann. Rev. Plant Physiol. 33:481–518.Google Scholar
Subedi, K. D. and Ma, B. L. 2009. Assessment of some major yield-limiting factors on maize production in a humid temperate environment. Field Crop. Res. 110:21–26.Google Scholar
Tollenaar, M. 1989. Response of dry matter accumulation in maize to temperature. I. Dry matter partitioning. Crop Sci. 29:1239–1246.Google Scholar
Tollenaar, M. and Daynard, T. B. 1978. Kernel growth and development at two positions on the ear of maize (Zea mays). Can. J. Plant Sci. 58:189–197.Google Scholar
Tollenaar, M., Dwyer, L. M., and Stewart, D. W. 1992. Ear and kernel formation in maize hybrids representing three decades of grain yield improvement in Ontario. Crop Sci. 33:432–438.Google Scholar
Tollenaar, M. and Lee, E. A. 2006. Dissection of physiological processes underlying grain yield in maize by examining genetic improvement and heterosis. Maydica. 51:399–408.Google Scholar
Tollenaar, M. and Migus, W. 1984. Dry matter accumulation of maize grown hydroponically under controlled-environment and field conditions. Can. J. Plant Sci. 64:465–485.Google Scholar
Vega, C. R. and Sadras, V. O. 2003. Size-dependent growth and the development of inequality in maize, sunflower and soybean. Ann. Bot. (Lond.) 91:795–805.Google Scholar
Weiner, J. 2003. Ecology—the science of agriculture in the 21st century. J. Agric. Sci. 141:371–377.Google Scholar
Young, I. T. 1977. Proof without prejudice: use of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for the analysis of histograms from flow systems and other sources. J. Histochem. CytoChem. 25:935–941.Google Scholar