Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-pnlb5 Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2025-10-31T03:47:46.414Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Regenerative Capacity of Field Bindweed Roots

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

D. G. Swan  and
R. J. Chancellor
D. G. Swan
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron. and Soils, Washington State Univ., Pullman, Washington 99163
R. J. Chancellor
Affiliation:
ARC Weed Res. Org., Yarnton, Oxford, England 0X5 1PF
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Lateral roots of a clone of field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis L.) were dug each month for 12 months, cut into 6-cm long sections and grown in the dark on moist paper at 23 C to determine if regeneration varies seasonally. New shoots and roots were measured after 8, 11, and 14 days. After 14 days, 69% to 98% of the sections had produced shoots. The mean number of shoots per section was greatest in April (6.4) and least in November (2.0). The monthly mean shoot length ranged from 24 to 43 mm. Although most sections produced shoots, very few produced roots. In May, 31% of the sections grew roots, but only 2% to 16% had new root growth in the other months. For the test period, 83% of the sections produced shoots and only 10% produced roots.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 24 , Issue 3 , May 1976 , pp. 306 - 308
Copyright
Copyright © 1976 by the Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

1. Barr, C.G. 1940. Organic reserves in the roots of field bindweed. J. Agric. Res. 60:391–414.Google Scholar
2. Best, K.F. 1963. Note on the extent of lateral spread of field bindweed. Can. J. Plant Sci. 43:230–232.Google Scholar
3. Blair, A.M., Chancellor, R.J., Cussans, G.W., Holly, K., Holroyd, J., and Richardson, W.G. 1970. The evaluation of herbicides on perennial weeds with special reference to Agropyron repens . Proc. 10th Brit. Weed Contr. Conf. 1:126–133.Google Scholar
4. Davison, J.G. 1970. The establishment of Convolvulus arvensis in a non-competitive situation. Proc. 10th Brit. Weed Contr. Conf. 1:352–357.Google Scholar
5. Frazier, J.C. 1943. Amount, distribution and seasonal trend of certain organic reserves in the root system of field bindweed, Convolvulus arvensis L. Plant Physiol. 18:167–184.Google Scholar
6. Henson, I.E. 1969. Studies on the regeneration of perennial weeds in the glasshouse. I. Temperate species. Tech. Rep. Weed Res. Org. No. 12. 23 pp.Google Scholar
7. Hill, G.P. 1967. Morphogenesis in stem-callus cultures of Convolvulus arvensis L. Ann. Bot. 31:437–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Timmons, F.L. 1941. Results of bindweed control experiments at the Fort Hays Branch Experiment Station, Hays, Kansas, 1935 to 1940. Bull. Kansas Agric. Exp. Sta. 296. 50 pp.Google Scholar
9. Torrey, J.G. 1958. Endogenous bud and root formation by isolated roots of Convolvulus grown in vitro. Plant Physiol. 33:258–263.Google Scholar
10. Zhukov, I.N. 1958. The regeneration of the subterranean organs of field bindweed. Bull. Nauchno-Tekh. Inf. Sibirsk. Inst. Selsk. (3):27–32.Google Scholar