Preprint Article Version 1 Preserved in Portico This version is not peer-reviewed

Light Reflected from Different Plant Canopies Affected Beta Vulgaris Growth and Development

Version 1 : Received: 7 October 2020 / Approved: 8 October 2020 / Online: 8 October 2020 (21:17:04 CEST)

How to cite: Adjesiwor, A.T.; Kniss, A.R. Light Reflected from Different Plant Canopies Affected Beta Vulgaris Growth and Development. Preprints 2020, 2020100184 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202010.0184.v1). Adjesiwor, A.T.; Kniss, A.R. Light Reflected from Different Plant Canopies Affected Beta Vulgaris Growth and Development. Preprints 2020, 2020100184 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202010.0184.v1).

Abstract

Studies on crop response to light quality [red (R) to far-red (FR) light ratio] often recommend early weed removal to reduce the effects of shade avoidance responses on crop yield. However, it is unclear whether crops are able to distinguish reflected light quality of kin from that of non-kin. We evaluated the response of sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris L.) to reflected FR light from sugarbeet, common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album L.), Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis L.), alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.), and bare soil (control) under outdoor conditions in 2016 and 2017. Treatments were completely randomized with 10 replications per treatment. The study methods ensured there was no direct resource competition. The reflected R:FR of plant species ranged from 0.06 (common lambsquarters) to 0.24 (sugarbeet) compared to 0.7 for the bare soil. In both 2016 and 2017, there were 2 to 4 more leaves in the sugarbeet surrounded by soil compared to sugarbeet surrounded by neighboring species. There was up to 47, 57, 43, and 23% reduction in sugarbeet leaf area, shoot dry weight, root diameter, and root dry weight, respectively, due to reflected R:FR light from neighboring species. Sugarbeet did not respond differently to reflected light quality of kin compared to non-kin.

Subject Areas

far-red light; kin recognition; light quality; shade avoidance; weed competition

Comments (0)

We encourage comments and feedback from a broad range of readers. See criteria for comments and our diversity statement.

Leave a public comment
Send a private comment to the author(s)
Views 0
Downloads 0
Comments 0
Metrics 0


×
Alerts
Notify me about updates to this article or when a peer-reviewed version is published.
We use cookies on our website to ensure you get the best experience.
Read more about our cookies here.