Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-5g6vh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T18:44:46.167Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dry matter yield differences of five common cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium) biotypes grown at a common site

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

James M. Lee  and
Micheal D. K. Owen
James M. Lee
Affiliation:
Agronomy Department, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011-1010
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Five common cocklebur biotypes from southern Minnesota, central Iowa, southern Iowa, and Ohio were grown at the Iowa State University Curtiss Research Farm in 1995 and 1996 to examine intraspecific variations. Maximum plant heights were measured, and anthesis dates and day of bur set were recorded. At the end of the growing season, all plants were excised at the soil surface and weighed. Common cocklebur biotypes did not differ significantly in height. Flowering date was associated strongly with photoperiod and varied little between years within a biotype. But flowering date and bur set date differed among biotypes. The highest dry matter yields occurred in later flowering biotypes.

Keywords

Common cocklebur, Xanthium strumarium L. XANSTBiotypeanthesisphotoperiodenvironmental adaptation
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 51 , Issue 2 , April 2003 , pp. 186 - 190
Copyright
Copyright © 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

Barrentine, W. L. 1974. Common cocklebur competition in soybeans. Weed Sci. 22:600–603.Google Scholar
Blais, P. A. and Lechowicz, M. J. 1989. Variation among populations of Xanthium strumarium (Compositae) from natural and ruderal habitats. Am. J. Bot. 76:901–908.Google Scholar
Buchanan, G. A. and Burns, E. R. 1971. Influence of weed competition on cotton, sicklepod and tall morningglory. Weed Sci. 19:576–579.Google Scholar
Byrd, J. D. and Coble, H. D. 1991. Interference of common cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium) and cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 5:270–278.Google Scholar
Jordan, N. R. and Jannink, J. L. 1997. Assessing the practical importance of weed evolution: a research agenda. Weed Res. 37:237–246.Google Scholar
Klingman, T. E. and Oliver, L. R. 1994. Palmer Amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) interference in soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 42:523–527.Google Scholar
Lechowicz, M. J. 1984. The effects of individual variation in physiological and morphological traits on the reproductive capacity of the common cocklebur, Xanthium strumarium L. Evolution 38:833–844.Google Scholar
Löve, D. and Dansereau, P. 1959. Biosystematic studies on Xanthium taxonomic appraisal and ecological status. Can. J. Bot. 37:173–207.Google Scholar
Marwat, K. B. and Nafziger, E. D. 1990. Cocklebur and velvetleaf interference with soybean grown at different densities and planting patterns. Agron. J. 82:531–534.Google Scholar
McMillan, C. 1974. Experimental hybridization in Xanthium strumarium of American complexes with diverse photoperiodic adaptation. Can. J. Bot. 52:849–859.Google Scholar
McMillan, C. 1975. The Xanthium strumarium complexes in Australia. Aust. J. Bot. 23:173–192.Google Scholar
Mitchell-Olds, T. 1995. The molecular basis of quantitative genetic variation in natural populations. Trends Ecol. Evol. 10:324–327.Google Scholar
Moran, G. F. and Marshall, D. R. 1978. Allozyme uniformity within and variation between races of the colonizing species Xanthium strumarium L. (noogoora burr). Aust. J. Biol. Sci. 31:283–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, J. E. and Fawcett, R. S. 1981. Cocklebur. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Extension Bulletin PM-749.Google Scholar
Royal, S. S., Brecke, B. J., and Colvin, D. L. 1997. Common cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium) interference with peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Sci. 45:38–43.Google Scholar
Salisbury, F. B. and Ross, C. W. 1978. Plant Physiology. 2nd ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth pp. 336–342.Google Scholar
Snipes, C. E., Buchanan, G. A., Street, J. E., and Mcguire, J. A. 1982. Competition of common cocklebur (Xanthium pensylvanicum) with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. 30:553–556.Google Scholar
Tranel, P. J. and Wassom, J. J. 2001. Genetic relationships of common cocklebur accessions from the United States. Weed Sci. 49:318–325.Google Scholar
Wallace, D. H., Baudoin, J. P., Beaver, J., et al. 1993a. Improving efficiency of breeding for higher crop yield. Theor. Appl. Genet. 86:27–40.Google Scholar
Wallace, D. H., Yourstone, K. S., Masaya, P. N., and Zobel, R. W. 1993b. Photoperiod gene control over partitioning between reproductive and vegetative growth. Theor. Appl. Genet. 86:6–16.Google Scholar
Wallace, D. H., Zobel, R. W., and Yourstone, K. S. 1993c. A whole-system reconsideration of paradigms about photoperiod and temperature control of crop yield. Theor. Appl. Genet. 86:17–26.Google Scholar
Weaver, S. E. and Lechowicz, M. J. 1982. The biology of Canadian weeds. 56. Xanthium strumarium L. Can. J. Plant Sci. 63:211–225.Google Scholar