| Literature DB >> 32834774 |
Vartika Singh1, Sweta Gupta1, Hema Singh1, Akhilesh Singh Raghubanshi1.
Abstract
The objective of this research was to compare selected ecophysiological parameters for a wheat crop found in the Indo-Gangetic Plains of India and its five dominant weeds. The dominant and regionally ubiquitous weeds in the wheat field that was selected for the study were Anagallis arvensis, Chenopodium album, Melilotus albus, Phalaris minor and Rumex dentatus. Taller weeds, such as C. album and P. minor, constituted one group along with the crop, with a low photosynthetic rate, specific leaf area, leaf nitrogen mass basis, chlorophyll content, photosynthetic nitrogen-use efficiency and leaf area ratio, in comparison to shorter weeds, such as A. arvensis, M. albus and R. dentatus, which formed another group with a high photosynthetic rate, specific leaf area, leaf nitrogen mass basis, chlorophyll content, photosynthetic nitrogen-use efficiency and leaf area ratio. Interspecific variations in the photosynthetic rate were driven mainly by variability in the specific leaf area and leaf nitrogen content. The taller weeds and the crop had a low specific leaf area later in the season, whereas the smaller weeds had a relatively high specific leaf area, which might be an adaptation to the shaded environment below the canopy. The result indicates that any weed management in the wheat fields of the Indo-Gangetic Plains will need two different approaches because of the different strategies followed by the two weed groups that were identified in the present study.Entities:
Keywords: Indo‐Gangetic Plains; Rumex dentatus; discriminant analysis; photosynthetic nitrogen use efficiency; wheat field
Year: 2015 PMID: 32834774 PMCID: PMC7169674 DOI: 10.1111/wbm.12073
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Weed Biol Manag ISSN: 1444-6162 Impact factor: 1.059
Figure 1Mean daily temperature and rainfall during the study period (2008–2009) at Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, India. (□), Rainfall; (●), temperature.
Relative frequency (RF), relative density (RD), relative dominance (RA) and Importance Value Index (IVI) of the dominant weed species that were found in the wheat agroecosystem under study on different days after sowing (DAS)
| Species | 25 DAS | 60 DAS | 90 DAS | 105 DAS | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RF | RD | RA | IVI | RF | RD | RA | IVI | RF | RD | RA | IVI | RF | RD | RA | IVI | |
|
| 11.1 | 26.1 | 20.2 | 57.4 | 9.6 | 19.2 | 16.2 | 45.0 | 9.3 | 21.3 | 17.9 | 48.5 | 11.4 | 23.6 | 18.4 | 53.4 |
|
| 10.6 | 14.6 | 11.9 | 37.1 | 9.6 | 21.9 | 18.5 | 50.0 | 9.3 | 17.7 | 14.9 | 41.9 | 11.4 | 19.2 | 14.9 | 45.5 |
|
| 10.6 | 22.7 | 18.0 | 51.3 | 9.6 | 15.1 | 12.7 | 37.4 | 8.2 | 16.1 | 15.1 | 39.4 | 9.5 | 15.8 | 14.3 | 39.6 |
|
| 7.4 | 5.2 | 6.0 | 18.6 | 8.8 | 5.7 | 5.3 | 19.7 | 9.3 | 6.6 | 5.5 | 21.5 | 7.6 | 5.0 | 5.9 | 18.5 |
|
| 5.5 | 4.3 | 4.9 | 14.8 | 4.8 | 8.4 | 7.1 | 20.3 | 4.7 | 5.9 | 6.2 | 16.8 | 7.6 | 6.1 | 7.4 | 21.1 |
|
| 6.9 | 4.0 | 4.9 | 15.8 | 6.8 | 3.8 | 4.5 | 15.1 | 8.6 | 6.8 | 6.3 | 21.7 | 6.7 | 3.7 | 4.9 | 15.3 |
|
| 4.1 | 1.9 | 3.8 | 9.9 | 8.4 | 3.7 | 3.5 | 15.6 | 8.6 | 3.9 | 4.1 | 16.6 | 7.6 | 6.1 | 6.0 | 19.7 |
|
| 4.6 | 2.0 | 3.3 | 9.9 | 6.8 | 3.2 | 3.8 | 13.8 | 8.2 | 5.0 | 4.7 | 18.0 | 8.1 | 5.3 | 5.9 | 19.3 |
|
| 7.4 | 3.3 | 3.8 | 14.5 | 4.8 | 2.1 | 3.4 | 10.3 | 6.6 | 3.7 | 4.4 | 14.8 | 7.6 | 4.4 | 5.1 | 17.1 |
|
| 6.9 | 4.2 | 4.8 | 15.9 | 4.8 | 3.8 | 5.5 | 14.0 | 4.7 | 2.6 | 3.9 | 11.2 | 6.2 | 3.7 | 4.7 | 14.6 |
|
| 5.5 | 3.3 | 4.1 | 12.9 | 4.0 | 2.5 | 4.6 | 11.1 | 5.8 | 2.7 | 3.7 | 12.3 | 4.3 | 2.4 | 3.0 | 9.8 |
|
| 4.6 | 2.1 | 3.5 | 10.3 | 8.0 | 4.3 | 4.4 | 16.7 | 3.5 | 1.5 | 3.6 | 8.7 | 2.9 | 1.1 | 2.3 | 6.2 |
|
| 5.1 | 2.0 | 3.4 | 10.5 | 5.6 | 2.4 | 3.5 | 11.5 | 4.3 | 2.0 | 3.6 | 9.9 | 3.8 | 1.6 | 2.6 | 8.0 |
|
| 4.6 | 2.0 | 3.8 | 10.4 | 4.4 | 1.7 | 3.1 | 9.2 | 5.1 | 2.5 | 3.8 | 11.4 | 2.4 | 0.9 | 2.4 | 5.7 |
|
| 5.1 | 2.4 | 3.5 | 10.9 | 4.4 | 2.1 | 3.8 | 10.3 | 3.9 | 1.5 | 2.1 | 7.5 | 2.9 | 1.1 | 2.3 | 6.3 |
List of abbreviations
| Abbreviation | Description |
|---|---|
| A | Light‐saturated rate of net photosynthesis per unit area |
| E | Transpiration rate |
| gs | Stomatal conductance |
| LAR | Leaf area ratio: projected leaf area/whole‐plant dry mass |
| LMR | Leaf mass ratio: ratio of leaf mass to plant dry mass |
| LNCa | Leaf nitrogen concentration (area basis); equivalent to LNCm/SLA |
| LNCm | Leaf nitrogen concentration (mass basis), % |
| LNP | Leaf nitrogen productivity: rate of dry mass increase per unit leaf nitrogen |
| NAR | Net assimilation rate: instantaneous growth rate per unit projected area |
| PAR | Photosynthetically active radiation |
| PNUE | Photosynthetic nitrogen‐use efficiency: light‐saturated rate of net photosynthesis per mol of leaf nitrogen |
| RGR | Relative growth rate: increase in dry mass per unit mass per unit time |
| SLA | Specific leaf area: projected leaf area per unit dry mass |
| WUE | Water use efficiency |
Comparative growth performance of wheat and its weeds in terms of specific leaf area (SLA), leaf area ratio (LAR), relative growth rate (RGR), net assimilation rate (NAR), leaf mass ratio (LMR) and physiological traits
| Characteristic |
|
|
|
|
| Wheat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SLA (m2 kg−1) | 22.48 ± 0.65b | 18.75 ± 0.69a | 24.54 ± 0.97b | 17.65 ± 0.16a | 22.21 ± 1.00b | 17.79 ± 0.52a |
| LAR (m2 kg−1) | 9.19 ± 0.96c | 2.95 ± 0.41ab | 8.59 ± 1.32c | 6.95 ± 2.50bc | 7.43 ± 3.17bc | 1.11 ± 0.08a |
| RGR (mg mg–1 per day) | 0.068 ± 0.006a | 0.10 ± 0.007a | 0.081 ± 0.004a | 0.069 ± 0.011a | 0.090 ± 0.005a | 0.076 ± 0.004a |
| NAR (mg mm–2 per day) | 0.003 ± 0.004a | 0.012 ± 0.003b | 0.005 ± 0.001a | 0.005 ± 0.002a | 0.003 ± 0.001a | 0.014 ± 0.003c |
| LMR (%) | 0.27 ± 0.04b | 0.14 ± 0.02ab | 0.25 ± 0.03b | 0.17 ± 0.04ab | 0.14 ± 0.04ab | 0.08 ± 0.03a |
| LNCm (%) | 5.65 ± 0.05a | 4.38 ± 0.02b | 6.07 ± 0.02c | 4.87 ± 0.05d | 5.60 ± 0.01a | 3.19 ± 0.01e |
| LNCa (g m−2) | 2.52 ± 0.07c | 2.34 ± 0.12b | 2.47 ± 0.02bc | 2.76 ± 0.03c | 2.52 ± 0.08c | 1.79 ± 0.04a |
| Chlorophyll (mg g−1) | 1.39 ± 0.02b | 1.18 ± 0.06ab | 1.81 ± 0.06c | 1.07 ± 0.07a | 1.41 ± 0.04b | 1.18 ± 0.11ab |
| A (μmol m−2 s−1) | 13.13 ± 0.24d | 7.67 ± 0.37b | 14.88 ± 0.19e | 5.78 ± 0.37a | 10.75 ± 0.54c | 5.47 ± 0.31a |
| gs (mol H2O m−2 s−1) | 0.21 ± 0.01b | 0.19 ± 0.04ab | 0.38 ± 0.03c | 0.10 ± 0.01a | 0.54 ± 0.04c | 0.11 ± 0.01ab |
| E (mmol H2O m−2 s−1) | 10.25 ± 0.38c | 7.42 ± 1.03b | 14.20 ± 0.89d | 4.03 ± 0.19a | 12.31 ± 0.77c | 3.99 ± 0.30a |
| WUE (μmol mol−1) | 1.29 ± 0.03ab | 1.20 ± 0.17ab | 1.09 ± 0.09ab | 1.43 ± 0.04b | 0.90 ± 0.07a | 1.4 ± 0.24c |
| PNUE (μmol mol−1 s−1) | 73.05 ± 0.68d | 45.92 ± 4.03b | 84.18 ± 1.45e | 29.30 ± 2.10a | 59.65 ± 4.73c | 42.77 ± 3.26b |
Values are the mean ± one standard error. The values in rows with different letters are significantly different from each other (Tukey's Honestly Significant Difference test at P < 0.05). A, photosynthetic rate; E, transpiration rate; gs, stomatal conductance; LNC, total nitrogen content; PNUE, photosynthetic nitrogen‐use efficiency; WUE, water use efficiency.
Figure 2Canonical discriminant functions of five weeds and wheat on the basis of their ecophysiological traits. Aa, Anagallis arvensis; Ca, Chenopodium album; Mi, Melilotus albus; Pm, Phalaris minor; Rd, Rumex dentatus; Ta, wheat.
Figure 3Path analysis of five weeds and wheat on the basis of their ecophysiological traits. A, photosynthetic rate; LAR, leaf area ratio; LMR, leaf mass ratio; SLA, specific leaf area.
Figure 4Relationship between the photosynthetic rate (A) as a dependent variable and (a) chlorophyll, (b) specific leaf area (SLA) and (c) leaf nitrogen concentration (LNC).
Figure 5Relationship between the net assimilation rate (NAR) and the leaf area ratio (LAR).