, Volume 88, Issue 1, pp 55–60 | Cite as

Growth schedule of Xanthium canadense: Does it optimize the timing of reproduction?

  • H. Sugiyama
  • T. Hirose
Original Papers


The effects of nutrition on the timing of reproductive initiation of a short-day annual plant Xanthium canadense (cocklebur) were examined with the following hypotheses in mind: If the plant always follows an optimal growth schedule, low-nutrient plants will initiate reproductive growth earlier than high-nutrient plants. On the other hand, if the plant flowers in response to photoperiodic stimuli, both plants will initiate reproductive growth on the same day. The sand-culture experiment showed that high-nutrient plants flowered earlier than the low-nutrient plants, leading to rejection of the first hypothesis. The predicted optimal flowering time is 2 days later than the actual flowering time in high-nutrient plants and 10 days earlier in low-nutrient plants. These deviations from the optimal times reduced the reproductive yield by 0.1% and 2.3%, respectively. The ratio of the final reproductive yield to the vegetative mass at flower initiation was 1.10 in high-nutrient plants and 0.63 in low-nutrient plants. Since the expected ratio for the optimal growth schedule is 1.0, high-nutrient plants followed the opitmal growth schedule more closely than the low-nutrient plants. Cocklebur is a fast-growing annual which is common in relatively nutrient-rich environments. This study suggests that cocklebur adapts itself to such environments through its photoperiodic response.

Key words

Annual plant Nutrition Optimization Reproductive allocation Xanthium canadense 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bazzaz FA, Carlson RW (1979) Photosynthetic contribution of flowers and seeds to reproductive effort of an annual colonizer. New Phytol 82:223–232Google Scholar
  2. Chiariello N, roughgarden J (1984) Storage allocation in seasonal races of an annual plant: Optimal versus actual allocation. Ecology 65:1290–1301Google Scholar
  3. Cohen D (1971) Maximizing final yield when growth is limited by time or by limiting resources. J Theor Biol 33:299–307Google Scholar
  4. Epstein E (1972) Mineral Nutrition of Plants: Principles and Perspectives. John Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Esashi Y, Leopold AC (1968) Physical forces in dormancy and germination of Xanthium seeds. Plant Physiol 43:871–876Google Scholar
  6. Evans LT, Wardlaw IF (1976) Aspects of the comparative physiology of grain yield in cereals. Adv Agron 28:301–359Google Scholar
  7. Grime JP (1979) Plant Strategies and Vegetation Processes. John Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  8. Hara T, Kawano S, Nagai Y (1988) Optimal reproductive strategy of plants, with special reference to the modes of reproductive resource allocation. Plant Species Biol 3:43–59Google Scholar
  9. Harper JL (1982) After description. In: Newman EI (ed) The Plant Community as a Working Mechanism. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 11–25Google Scholar
  10. Harper JL, Ogden J (1970) The reproductive strategy of higher plants. I. The concept of strategy with special reference to Senecio vulgaris L. J Ecol 58:681–698Google Scholar
  11. Hickman JC, Pitelka LF (1975) Dry weight indicates energy allocation in ecological strategy analysis of plants. Oecologia 21:117–121Google Scholar
  12. Hori Y, Oshima Y (1986) Life history and population dynamics of the Japanese yam, Dioscorea japonica Thunb. I. Effect of initial plant size and light intensity on growth. Bot Mag Tokyo 99:407–418Google Scholar
  13. Iwasa Y, Cohen D (1989) Optimal growth schedule of a perennial plant. Am Nat 133:480–505Google Scholar
  14. King D, Roughgarden J (1982) Multiple switches between vegetative and reproductive growth in annual plants. Theor Pop Biol 21:194–204Google Scholar
  15. King D, Roughgarden J (1983) Energy allocation patterns of the California grassland annuals Plantago erecta and Clarkia rubicundd. Ecology 64:16–24Google Scholar
  16. Kozlowski J, Wiegert RG (1986) Optimal allocation of energy to growth and reproduction. Theor Pop Biol 29:16–37Google Scholar
  17. McMillan C (1974) Photoperiodic adaptation of Xanthium strumarium in Europe, Asia Minor, and northern Africa. Can J Bot 52:1779–1791Google Scholar
  18. Paltridge GW, Denholm JV (1974) Plant yield and the switch from vegetative to reproductive growth. J Theor Biol 44:23–34Google Scholar
  19. Ray PM, Alexander WE (1966) Photoperiodic adaptation to latitude in Xanthium strumarium. Am J Bot 53:806–816Google Scholar
  20. Reekie EG, Bazzaz FA (1987) Reproductive effort in plants. 1. Carbon allocation to reproduction. Am Nat 129:876–896Google Scholar
  21. Salisbury FB (1981) Responses to photoperiod. In: Lange OL, Nobel PS, Osmond CB, Ziegler H (eds) Encycl Plant Physiol New Series Vol 12A. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp 135–167Google Scholar
  22. Schaffer WM, Inouye RS, Whittam TS (1982) Energy allocation by an annual plant when the effects of seasonality on growth and reproduction are decoupled. Am Nat 120:787–815Google Scholar
  23. Tateno M, Watanabe N (1988) Optimal growth schedule of deciduous tree seedlings. Functional Ecol 2:89–96Google Scholar
  24. Vincent TL, Pulliam HR (1980) Evolution of life history strategies for an asexual annual plant model. Theor Pop Biol 17:215–231Google Scholar
  25. Yokoi Y (1976) Growth and reproduction in higher plants. I. Theoretical analysis by mathematical models. Bot Mag Tokyo 89:1–14Google Scholar
  26. Yoshida S (1972) Physiological aspects of grain yield. Annu Rev Plant Physiol 23:437–464Google Scholar
  27. Zeide B (1978) Reproductive behavior of plants in time. Am Nat 112:636–639Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • H. Sugiyama
    • 1
  • T. Hirose
    • 1
  1. 1.Biological Institute, Faculty of ScienceTohoku UniversitySendaiJapan

Personalised recommendations