Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nr4z6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-13T16:02:08.161Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Natural Dormancy of Vegetative Buds on the Rhizomes of Quackgrass

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

B. G. Johnson  and
K. P. Buchholtz
B. G. Johnson
Affiliation:
Agronomy University of Wisconsin
K. P. Buchholtz
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin
Get access

Abstract

Rhizomes were sampled from quackgrass sod weekly during two seasons. The activity of buds on one-bud sections from mature rhizomes was used to determine periods of growth and dormancy. The rhizome buds showed a steady decrease in activity from mid-April to June 1. During June, the buds were dormant. Recovery began in late June and continued the rest of the summer. Only one-third of all rhizome material in a three-year-old sod was viable. The amount of viable mature rhizomes decreased during the season while the viable new rhizomes increased, and the total viable level remained fairly constant. This suggested a definite cycle in rhizome production and decomposition from year to year and a short life-period in the soil. The term “late-spring dormancy” is suggested for quackgrass rhizomes, based on the prevailing cool and moist weather conditions and the late-spring time of occurrence during the year. This distinguishes the type of dormancy described from “summer dormancy”.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weeds , Volume 10 , Issue 1 , January 1962 , pp. 53 - 57
Copyright
Copyright © 1962 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.)

References

Literature Cited

1. Dexter, S. T. 1937. The drought resistance of quackgrass under various degrees of fertilization with nitrogen. J. Am. Soc. Agron. 29:568–576.Google Scholar
2. Dexter, S. T. 1942. Seasonal variations in drought resistance of exposed rhizomes of quackgrass. J. Am. Soc. Agron. 34:1125–1136.Google Scholar
3. Dunham, R. S., Buchholtz, K. P., Derscheid, L. A., Grigsby, B. H., Helgeson, E. A., and Staniforth, D. W. 1956. Quackgrass control. Minnesota Agr. Expt. Sta. Bull. 434 and North Central Regional Pub. 71.Google Scholar
4. Johnson, B. G. and Buchholtz, K. P. 1961. An in vitro method of evaluating the activity of buds on the rhizomes of quackgrass (Agropyron repens). Weeds 9:600–606.Google Scholar
5. Johnson, B. G. and Buchholtz, K. P. 1958. Factors affecting the bud dormancy of quackgrass rhizomes. Weed Soc. Am. Abstracts 2:38–39.Google Scholar
6. Kephart, L. W. 1931. Quackgrass. U. S. Dept. Agr. Farmers' Bull. 1307.Google Scholar
7. Laude, H. M. 1953. The nature of summer dormancy in perennial grasses. Bot. Gaz. 114:284–292.Google Scholar
8 Stoa, T. E., Sturlaugson, V., and McColly, H. F. 1930. Control of quackgrass by tillage. North Dakota Agr. Expt. Sta. Bull. 244.Google Scholar
9. Wolcott, A. R. and Carlson, R. F. 1947. Preliminary report on field applications of IPC in the control of quackgrass in an established sod. Michigan Agr. Expt. Sta. Quart. Bull. 30:218–229.Google Scholar