Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Growth and Reproductive Characteristics of Field Bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) Biotypes

  • Francis P. Degennaro (a1) and Stephen C. Weller (a1)

Abstract

Five presumed biotypes were identified among field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis L. ♯3 CONAR) clones collected from a field population near Lafayette, IN. Consistent variations in leaf morphology, floral characteristics, and accumulation of shoot and root biomass were found between biotypes when grown in a controlled environment. The biotypes also differed in their flowering capacity. The earliest flowering biotype formed flowers 23 days before the latest and produced 19 times more flowers per plant, which indicated further differences in seed production potential between biotypes. Pollination studies helped to differentiate biotypes within the population and showed that the presumed biotypes were self-incompatible. Vegetative reproduction potential of the biotypes varied from 1.8 to 74.5% in the number of root buds that developed into shoots. The variability in growth and reproduction observed between these field bindweed biotypes may explain the survival and adaptability of a population of this weed as environmental conditions and control practices change.

Copyright

References

Hide All
1. Brown, E. O. 1946. Notes on some variations in field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis L.). Iowa State J. Sci. 20:269276.
2. Brown, E. O. and Porter, R. H. 1942. The viability and germination of seeds of Convolvulus arvensis L. and other perennial weeds. Iowa Res. Bull. 294:473504.
3. Davison, J. G. 1970. The establishment of Convolvulus arvensis in a non-competitive situation. Proc. 10th Brit. Weed Contr. Conf. 1:352357.
4. Hodgson, J. M. 1964. Variations in ecotypes of Canada thistle. Weeds 12:167171.
5. Hodgson, J. M. 1970. The response of Canada thistle ecotypes to 2,4-D, amitrole, and intensive cultivation. Weed Sci. 18:253255.
6. Kiss, A. 1973. Morphological variations and herbicide sensitivity of Convolvulus arvensis L. in the wine district of Mor. Acta Agron. Acad. Sci. Hung. 22:222225.
7. Lewis, D. 1979. Sexual Incompatibility in Plants. Page 3 in The Institute of Biology's Studies in Biology, no. 110. E. Arnold, London.
8. Rochecouste, E. 1962. Studies of biotypes of Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers. I. Botanical investigations. Weed Res. 2:123.
9. Rochecouste, E. 1962. Studies on the biotypes of Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers. II. Growth response to trichloroacetic and 2,2-dichloropropionic acids. Weed Res. 2:136145.
10. Schoner, C. A., Norris, R. F., and Chilcote, W. 1978. Yellow foxtail (Setaria lutescens) biotype studies: Growth and morphological characteristics. Weed Sci. 26:632636.
11. Sexsmith, J. J. 1964. Morphological and herbicide susceptibility differences among strains of hoary cress. Weeds 12:1922.
12. Swan, D. G. 1980. Field bindweed, Convolvulus arvensis L. Washington State Univ. Bull. 0888, p. 8.
13. Valentine, D. H. 1975. The taxonomic treatment of polymorphic variation. Watsonia 10:385390.
14. Weaver, S. E. and Riley, W. R. 1982. The biology of Canadian weeds. 53. Convolvulus arvensis L. Can. J. Plant Sci. 62:461472.
15. Whitworth, J. W. and Muzik, T. J. 1967. Differential response of selected clones of bindweed to 2,4-D. Weeds 15:275280.

Keywords

Growth and Reproductive Characteristics of Field Bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) Biotypes

  • Francis P. Degennaro (a1) and Stephen C. Weller (a1)

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.