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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Weed science 1986-07, Vol.34 (4), p.551-557
Hauptverfasser: Spencer, David F., Anderson, Lars W.J.
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&amp;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 &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 1: Biological Sciences &amp; Living Resources</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; 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