Hostname: page-component-6898cfcb55-zsp5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-11T11:50:10.392Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Laboratory Exercise for Teaching Plant Interference and Relative Growth Rate Concepts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Lance R. Gibson and
Matt Liebman
Lance R. Gibson*
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011
Matt Liebman
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: lgibson@iastate.edu
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Interference between weeds and crops is a key topic in undergraduate weed science courses. A laboratory exercise was developed at Iowa State University to actively demonstrate how small-seeded weeds can compete with large-seeded crops despite the initial seedling size disadvantage. Spring wheat and wild mustard were grown in pots in monoculture and in competition with each other. One set of plants was harvested at 1 wk after planting and another at 6 wk after planting. Relative growth rates (RGR) were calculated for the 5-wk period using the classical approach of plant growth analysis. The results from four semesters were analyzed to determine whether the experiment was meeting its intended outcomes. It was successful in this regard. In each of the four semesters, wild mustard had a lower initial dry weight and a greater RGR than did wheat. Students were required to write a scientific paper using the experimental results after completing a series of active-learning exercises. Assessment by students suggested that the experiment, active-learning exercises, and writing assignment were valuable activities.

Keywords

Spring wheat, Triticum aestivum L. ‘Sharp’wild mustard, Brassica kaber (DC.) L. C. Wheeler #3 SINAREducationweed biologyweed ecologyRGR, relative growth rate

Information

Type
Education/Extension
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 17 , Issue 2 , June 2003, pp. 394 - 402
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

References

Literature Cited

Aldrich, R. J. and Kremer, R. J. 1997. Principles in Weed Management. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press. pp. 170–171.Google Scholar
American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, Soil Science Society of America. 1998. Publications Handbook and Style Manual. Madison, WI: ASA, CSSA, SSSA. 154 p.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E. 1993. Downy brome (Bromus tectorum) density and relative time of emergence affects interference in winter wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Sci. 41: 551–556.Google Scholar
Cardoso-Vilhena, J. and Barnes, J. 2001. Does nitrogen supply affect the response of wheat (Triticum aestivum cv. Hanno) to the combination of elevated CO2 and O3? J. Exp. Bot. 52: 1901–1911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Causton, D. R. and Venus, J. C. 1981. The Biometry of Plant Growth. London: Edward Arnold. 307 p.Google Scholar
Chapin, F. S. III, Groves, R. H., and Evans, L. T. 1989. Physiological determinants of growth rate in response to phosphorus supply in wild and cultivated Hordeum species. Oecologia 79: 96–105.Google Scholar
Davis, A. S. and Liebman, M. 2001. Nitrogen source influences wild mustard growth and competitive effect on sweet corn. Weed Sci. 49: 558–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Equiza, M. A., Mirave, J. P., and Tognetti, J. A. 1997. Differential inhibition of shoot vs. root growth at low temperature and its relationship with carbohydrate accumulation in different wheat cultivars. Ann. Bot. 80: 657–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, G. C. 1972. The Quantitative Analysis of Plant Growth. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 734 p.Google Scholar
Holt, J. S. and Orcutt, D. R. 1991. Functional relationships of growth and competitiveness in perennial weeds and cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. 39: 575–584.Google Scholar
Hunt, R. 1982. Plant Growth Curves: The Functional Approach to Plant Growth Analysis. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press. 248 p.Google Scholar
Hunt, R. 1990. Basic Growth Analysis. London: Unwin Hyman. 112 p.Google Scholar
Hunt, R. and Cornelissen, J. H. C. 1997. Components of relative growth rate and their interrelations in 59 temperate plant species. New Phytol. 35: 395–417.Google Scholar
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., and Smith, K. A. 1998. Active Learning: Cooperation in the College Classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction Book. 332 p.Google Scholar
Natr, L., Cernohorska, J., Zvara, K., and Holubec, V. 1999. The effect of nitrogen and irradiance on growth parameters of Triticum aestivum L. and Aegilops tauschii seedlings. Sci. Agric. Bohemica. 30: 265–278.Google Scholar
Potter, J. R. and Jones, J. W. 1977. Leaf area partitioning as an important factor in growth. Plant Physiol. 59: 10–14.Google Scholar
Russelle, M. P., Wilhelm, W. W., Olson, R. A., and Power, J. F. 1984. Growth analysis based on degree days. Crop Sci. 24: 28–32.Google Scholar
Siebert, A. C. and Pearce, R. B. 1993. Growth analysis of weed and crop species with reference to seed weight. Weed Sci. 41: 52–56.Google Scholar
Spitters, C. J. T. and Kramer, T. 1985. Changes in relative growth rate with plant ontogeny in spring wheat genotypes grown as isolated plants. Euphytica 34: 833–837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spitters, C. J. T. and Kramer, T. 1986. Differences between spring wheat cultivars in early growth. Euphytica 35: 273–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steele, R. G. and Torrie, J. H. 1980. Principles and Procedures of Statistics. New York: McGraw-Hill. 672 p.Google Scholar
van Andel, J. and Biere, A. 1990. Ecological significance of variability in growth rate and plant productivity. In Lambers, H., ed. Causes and Consequences of Variation in Growth Rate and Productivity of Higher Plants. The Hague: SPB Academic Publishing. pp. 257–263.Google Scholar