Photoperiod Responses in Monoecious and Dioecious Hydrilla verticillata
Thirty-eight percent of monoecious hydrilla [Hydrilla verticillata (L.f.) Royle # HYLLI] grown from tubers produced new tubers after 28 days exposure to a 10-h photoperiod. One hundred percent of the plants grown at a 10-h photoperiod produced tubers by 56 days while only thirty-eight percent of tho...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Weed science 1986-07, Vol.34 (4), p.551-557 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 557 |
---|---|
container_issue | 4 |
container_start_page | 551 |
container_title | Weed science |
container_volume | 34 |
creator | Spencer, David F. Anderson, Lars W.J. |
description | Thirty-eight percent of monoecious hydrilla [Hydrilla verticillata (L.f.) Royle # HYLLI] grown from tubers produced new tubers after 28 days exposure to a 10-h photoperiod. One hundred percent of the plants grown at a 10-h photoperiod produced tubers by 56 days while only thirty-eight percent of those grown at a 12-h photoperiod did so. Plants grown at 14- or 16-h photoperiods did not produce tubers. Tubers appeared to be produced at the expense of new root and shoot tissue. Dioecious hydrilla (female) grown under similar conditions did not produce tubers by 56 days at any photoperiod examined. Relative growth rates (total dry weight) for both types did not differ with photoperiod and ranged between 81 ± 63 and 284 ± 52 mg·g-1·wk-1 (regression coefficient ± standard error; n = 30). In general, total chlorophyll (a+b) was greater for dioecious than for monoecious plants. The ratios of chlorophyll “a” to chlorophyll “b” and carotenoids to chlorophyll a changed with increasing photoperiod and plant age in a similar manner for both monoecious and dioecious plants. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1017/S0043174500067412 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_14395874</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><cupid>10_1017_S0043174500067412</cupid><jstor_id>4044236</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>4044236</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c319t-5493052b2143330d75c4702d9d0d852266edbad231b84741e3719e77aa7320b03</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kEtPwzAQhC0EEqXwA0AcckDcAutXnBwRjxapCETpOXJip7hK42CnSP33OErpBYnTevXNjsaD0DmGGwxY3M4BGMWCcQBIBMPkAI0w5xATwbNDNOpx3PNjdOL9CgAnBGcjNHn7tJ1ttTNWRe_at7bx2kemiV5sY3Vp7MZHslHRg_ndplvlTF3L6Fu7zpT9s5On6KiStddnuzlGi6fHj_tpPHudPN_fzeKS4qyLOcsocFIQzCiloAQvmQCiMgUq5YQkiVaFVITiImXhG5oKnGkhpBSUQAF0jK4H39bZr432Xb42vtQhQ6NDuDz4ZjwVLAjxICyd9d7pKm-dWUu3zTHkfWX5n8rCzdXOXPpS1pWTTWn8_jAVPOWCB9nlIFv5zro9ZsAYoUnAFwOupM3l0gWHxTwVgFOWBkh3seS6cEYtdb6yG9eEzv4J9gPt34p_</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>14395874</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Photoperiod Responses in Monoecious and Dioecious Hydrilla verticillata</title><source>JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing</source><creator>Spencer, David F. ; Anderson, Lars W.J.</creator><creatorcontrib>Spencer, David F. ; Anderson, Lars W.J.</creatorcontrib><description>Thirty-eight percent of monoecious hydrilla [Hydrilla verticillata (L.f.) Royle # HYLLI] grown from tubers produced new tubers after 28 days exposure to a 10-h photoperiod. One hundred percent of the plants grown at a 10-h photoperiod produced tubers by 56 days while only thirty-eight percent of those grown at a 12-h photoperiod did so. Plants grown at 14- or 16-h photoperiods did not produce tubers. Tubers appeared to be produced at the expense of new root and shoot tissue. Dioecious hydrilla (female) grown under similar conditions did not produce tubers by 56 days at any photoperiod examined. Relative growth rates (total dry weight) for both types did not differ with photoperiod and ranged between 81 ± 63 and 284 ± 52 mg·g-1·wk-1 (regression coefficient ± standard error; n = 30). In general, total chlorophyll (a+b) was greater for dioecious than for monoecious plants. The ratios of chlorophyll “a” to chlorophyll “b” and carotenoids to chlorophyll a changed with increasing photoperiod and plant age in a similar manner for both monoecious and dioecious plants.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0043-1745</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1550-2759</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1017/S0043174500067412</identifier><identifier>CODEN: WEESA6</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press</publisher><subject>AMBIENTE ACUATICO ; AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT ; AQUATIC WEEDS ; Biological and medical sciences ; Carotenoids ; Chlorophylls ; FOTOPERIODISMO ; Freshwater ; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology ; Generalities, botany, ecology, damages, economic importance ; Hydrilla verticillata ; MALEZAS ACUATICAS ; MAUVAISE HERBE AQUATIQUE ; MILIEU AQUATIQUE ; Parasitic plants. Weeds ; Photoperiod ; PHOTOPERIODICITE ; PHOTOPERIODICITY ; Phytopathology. Animal pests. Plant and forest protection ; Pigments ; Plant growth ; Plant roots ; Plants ; Tubers ; Water temperature ; Weed Biology and Ecology ; Weeds</subject><ispartof>Weed science, 1986-07, Vol.34 (4), p.551-557</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 1986 by the Weed Science Society of America</rights><rights>Copyright 1986 The Weed Science Society of America</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c319t-5493052b2143330d75c4702d9d0d852266edbad231b84741e3719e77aa7320b03</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c319t-5493052b2143330d75c4702d9d0d852266edbad231b84741e3719e77aa7320b03</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/4044236$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/4044236$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,803,27924,27925,58017,58250</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=8758575$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Spencer, David F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Anderson, Lars W.J.</creatorcontrib><title>Photoperiod Responses in Monoecious and Dioecious Hydrilla verticillata</title><title>Weed science</title><addtitle>Weed sci</addtitle><description>Thirty-eight percent of monoecious hydrilla [Hydrilla verticillata (L.f.) Royle # HYLLI] grown from tubers produced new tubers after 28 days exposure to a 10-h photoperiod. One hundred percent of the plants grown at a 10-h photoperiod produced tubers by 56 days while only thirty-eight percent of those grown at a 12-h photoperiod did so. Plants grown at 14- or 16-h photoperiods did not produce tubers. Tubers appeared to be produced at the expense of new root and shoot tissue. Dioecious hydrilla (female) grown under similar conditions did not produce tubers by 56 days at any photoperiod examined. Relative growth rates (total dry weight) for both types did not differ with photoperiod and ranged between 81 ± 63 and 284 ± 52 mg·g-1·wk-1 (regression coefficient ± standard error; n = 30). In general, total chlorophyll (a+b) was greater for dioecious than for monoecious plants. The ratios of chlorophyll “a” to chlorophyll “b” and carotenoids to chlorophyll a changed with increasing photoperiod and plant age in a similar manner for both monoecious and dioecious plants.</description><subject>AMBIENTE ACUATICO</subject><subject>AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT</subject><subject>AQUATIC WEEDS</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Carotenoids</subject><subject>Chlorophylls</subject><subject>FOTOPERIODISMO</subject><subject>Freshwater</subject><subject>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</subject><subject>Generalities, botany, ecology, damages, economic importance</subject><subject>Hydrilla verticillata</subject><subject>MALEZAS ACUATICAS</subject><subject>MAUVAISE HERBE AQUATIQUE</subject><subject>MILIEU AQUATIQUE</subject><subject>Parasitic plants. Weeds</subject><subject>Photoperiod</subject><subject>PHOTOPERIODICITE</subject><subject>PHOTOPERIODICITY</subject><subject>Phytopathology. Animal pests. Plant and forest protection</subject><subject>Pigments</subject><subject>Plant growth</subject><subject>Plant roots</subject><subject>Plants</subject><subject>Tubers</subject><subject>Water temperature</subject><subject>Weed Biology and Ecology</subject><subject>Weeds</subject><issn>0043-1745</issn><issn>1550-2759</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1986</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kEtPwzAQhC0EEqXwA0AcckDcAutXnBwRjxapCETpOXJip7hK42CnSP33OErpBYnTevXNjsaD0DmGGwxY3M4BGMWCcQBIBMPkAI0w5xATwbNDNOpx3PNjdOL9CgAnBGcjNHn7tJ1ttTNWRe_at7bx2kemiV5sY3Vp7MZHslHRg_ndplvlTF3L6Fu7zpT9s5On6KiStddnuzlGi6fHj_tpPHudPN_fzeKS4qyLOcsocFIQzCiloAQvmQCiMgUq5YQkiVaFVITiImXhG5oKnGkhpBSUQAF0jK4H39bZr432Xb42vtQhQ6NDuDz4ZjwVLAjxICyd9d7pKm-dWUu3zTHkfWX5n8rCzdXOXPpS1pWTTWn8_jAVPOWCB9nlIFv5zro9ZsAYoUnAFwOupM3l0gWHxTwVgFOWBkh3seS6cEYtdb6yG9eEzv4J9gPt34p_</recordid><startdate>19860701</startdate><enddate>19860701</enddate><creator>Spencer, David F.</creator><creator>Anderson, Lars W.J.</creator><general>Cambridge University Press</general><general>Weed Science Society of America</general><scope>FBQ</scope><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>H95</scope><scope>L.G</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19860701</creationdate><title>Photoperiod Responses in Monoecious and Dioecious Hydrilla verticillata</title><author>Spencer, David F. ; Anderson, Lars W.J.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c319t-5493052b2143330d75c4702d9d0d852266edbad231b84741e3719e77aa7320b03</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1986</creationdate><topic>AMBIENTE ACUATICO</topic><topic>AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT</topic><topic>AQUATIC WEEDS</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Carotenoids</topic><topic>Chlorophylls</topic><topic>FOTOPERIODISMO</topic><topic>Freshwater</topic><topic>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</topic><topic>Generalities, botany, ecology, damages, economic importance</topic><topic>Hydrilla verticillata</topic><topic>MALEZAS ACUATICAS</topic><topic>MAUVAISE HERBE AQUATIQUE</topic><topic>MILIEU AQUATIQUE</topic><topic>Parasitic plants. Weeds</topic><topic>Photoperiod</topic><topic>PHOTOPERIODICITE</topic><topic>PHOTOPERIODICITY</topic><topic>Phytopathology. Animal pests. Plant and forest protection</topic><topic>Pigments</topic><topic>Plant growth</topic><topic>Plant roots</topic><topic>Plants</topic><topic>Tubers</topic><topic>Water temperature</topic><topic>Weed Biology and Ecology</topic><topic>Weeds</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Spencer, David F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Anderson, Lars W.J.</creatorcontrib><collection>AGRIS</collection><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 1: Biological Sciences & Living Resources</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><jtitle>Weed science</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Spencer, David F.</au><au>Anderson, Lars W.J.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Photoperiod Responses in Monoecious and Dioecious Hydrilla verticillata</atitle><jtitle>Weed science</jtitle><addtitle>Weed sci</addtitle><date>1986-07-01</date><risdate>1986</risdate><volume>34</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>551</spage><epage>557</epage><pages>551-557</pages><issn>0043-1745</issn><eissn>1550-2759</eissn><coden>WEESA6</coden><abstract>Thirty-eight percent of monoecious hydrilla [Hydrilla verticillata (L.f.) Royle # HYLLI] grown from tubers produced new tubers after 28 days exposure to a 10-h photoperiod. One hundred percent of the plants grown at a 10-h photoperiod produced tubers by 56 days while only thirty-eight percent of those grown at a 12-h photoperiod did so. Plants grown at 14- or 16-h photoperiods did not produce tubers. Tubers appeared to be produced at the expense of new root and shoot tissue. Dioecious hydrilla (female) grown under similar conditions did not produce tubers by 56 days at any photoperiod examined. Relative growth rates (total dry weight) for both types did not differ with photoperiod and ranged between 81 ± 63 and 284 ± 52 mg·g-1·wk-1 (regression coefficient ± standard error; n = 30). In general, total chlorophyll (a+b) was greater for dioecious than for monoecious plants. The ratios of chlorophyll “a” to chlorophyll “b” and carotenoids to chlorophyll a changed with increasing photoperiod and plant age in a similar manner for both monoecious and dioecious plants.</abstract><cop>Cambridge, UK</cop><pub>Cambridge University Press</pub><doi>10.1017/S0043174500067412</doi><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0043-1745 |
ispartof | Weed science, 1986-07, Vol.34 (4), p.551-557 |
issn | 0043-1745 1550-2759 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_14395874 |
source | JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing |
subjects | AMBIENTE ACUATICO AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT AQUATIC WEEDS Biological and medical sciences Carotenoids Chlorophylls FOTOPERIODISMO Freshwater Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology Generalities, botany, ecology, damages, economic importance Hydrilla verticillata MALEZAS ACUATICAS MAUVAISE HERBE AQUATIQUE MILIEU AQUATIQUE Parasitic plants. Weeds Photoperiod PHOTOPERIODICITE PHOTOPERIODICITY Phytopathology. Animal pests. Plant and forest protection Pigments Plant growth Plant roots Plants Tubers Water temperature Weed Biology and Ecology Weeds |
title | Photoperiod Responses in Monoecious and Dioecious Hydrilla verticillata |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-04T05%3A35%3A56IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Photoperiod%20Responses%20in%20Monoecious%20and%20Dioecious%20Hydrilla%20verticillata&rft.jtitle=Weed%20science&rft.au=Spencer,%20David%20F.&rft.date=1986-07-01&rft.volume=34&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=551&rft.epage=557&rft.pages=551-557&rft.issn=0043-1745&rft.eissn=1550-2759&rft.coden=WEESA6&rft_id=info:doi/10.1017/S0043174500067412&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E4044236%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=14395874&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_cupid=10_1017_S0043174500067412&rft_jstor_id=4044236&rfr_iscdi=true |