4.4 Article

Acclimation of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) to shading

Journal

WEED SCIENCE
Volume 56, Issue 5, Pages 729-734

Publisher

WEED SCI SOC AMER
DOI: 10.1614/WS-07-203.1

Keywords

chlorophyll content; dark respiration; light compensation point; photosynthetic rate; plant growth rate; shade acclimation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Experiments were conducted to investigate the acclimation of Palmer amaranth to shading. Plants were grown in the field beneath black shade cloths providing 47 and 87% shade and in full sunlight (no shading). All photosynthetic measurements were taken 4 wk after initiating the shade treatments. Photosynthetic rates of Palmer amaranth grown under 47% shade increased with increasing photosynthetic active radiation (PAR) similar to 0% shade-grown plants. Light-saturated photosynthetic rates were predicted beyond the highest measured PAR of 1,200 mu mol m(-2) s(-1) for plants grown under 0 and 47% shade. Plants acclimated to increased shading by decreasing light-saturated photosynthetic rates from 60.5 mu mol m(-2) s(-1) under full sun conditions to 26.4 mu mol m(-2) s(-1) under 87% shade. Plants grown under 87% shade lowered their light compensation point. Rate of increase in plant height was similar among shade treatments. Plants responded to increased shading by a 13 to 44% reduction in leaf appearance rate (leaf number growing degree days [GDD](-1)) and a 22 to 63% reduction in main-stem branch appearance rate (main-stem branch number GDD(-1)) compared with full sunlight. Palmer amaranth specific leaf area increased from 68 to 97 cm(2) g(-1) as shading increased to 87%. Plants acclimated to 47% shade by increasing total leaf chlorophyll from 22.8 mu g cm(-2) in full sunlight to 31.7 mu g cm(-2) when shaded; however, the increase was not significant at 87% shading. Thus, it is concluded that Palmer amaranth shows photosynthetic and morphological acclimation to 87% or less shading.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available