Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-g78kv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-31T02:42:11.336Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Emergence and Growth of Trumpetcreeper (Campsis radicans) as Affected by Rootstock Size and Planting Depth

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Jeffrey T. Edwards*
Affiliation:
Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72704
Lawrence R. Oliver
Affiliation:
Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72704
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: jte01@uark.edu

Abstract

Trumpetcreeper, a deciduous, perennial vine found in the midwestern and southeastern United States, causes crop losses through direct competition and by crop entanglement, and control measures include both herbicides and tillage. The regenerative capacity of trumpetcreeper rootstocks of varying length and diameter when planted at different depths was evaluated in greenhouse experiments in Arkansas. Deeper placement of rootstocks delayed trumpetcreeper emergence but had no effect on shoot growth after emergence. Larger rootstock segments produced more shoots per plant and more total biomass production. However, smaller rootstock segments produced more shoots and total biomass per centimeter of rootstock. Overall, decreasing trumpetcreeper rootstock size will delay shoot emergence but may not result in increased long-term control.

Type
Research
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

Abdullahi, A. E. and Cavers, P. B. 1997. Factors affecting regeneration from root fragments in two Physalis species. Phytoprotection 78:2333.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2002. National tillage survey: 2002 report reveals no-till still growing. CTIC Partners 20/6:89.Google Scholar
Chachalis, D. and Reddy, K. N. 2000. Factors affecting Campsis radicans seed germination and seedling emergence. Weed Sci. 48:212216.Google Scholar
Dowler, C. C. 1998. Weed survey—southern states broadleaf crops subsection. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 51:299313.Google Scholar
Elmore, C. D. 1984. Perennial vines in the Delta of Mississippi. Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station Bull. 927. 9 p.Google Scholar
Elmore, C. D., Heatherly, L. G., and Wesley, R. A. 1989. Perennial vine control in multiple cropping systems on a clay soil. Weed Technol. 3:282287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurst, H. R. 1994. Redvine response to late-season herbicide tillage combinations on lay-out land. Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station Rep. 19. 3 p.Google Scholar
Miller, J. H. and Miller, K. V. 1999. Forest plants of the southeast and their wildlife uses. Champaign, IL: Southern Weed Science Society. Pp. 270271.Google Scholar
Rankins, A. Jr., Byrd, J. D. Jr., Mask, D. B., and Barrett, J. W. Jr. 2001. Survey of weeds infesting Mississippi soybeans. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 54:155.Google Scholar
Smith, B. S., Pawlak, J. A., Murray, D. S., Verhalen, L. M., and Green, J. D. 1990. Interference from established stands of silverleaf nightshade (Solanum elaeagnifolium) on cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) lint yield. Weed Sci. 38:129133.Google Scholar
Soteres, J. K. and Murray, D. S. 1982. Root distribution and reproductive biology of honeyvine milkweed (Cynancbum laeve). Weed Sci. 30:158163.Google Scholar
Thompson, L. Jr., Slack, C. H., Augenstein, R. D., and Herron, J. W. 1973. Action and fate of 2,4-D and glyphosate behavior in trumpetcreeper. Weed Sci. 21:429432.Google Scholar
Zollinger, R. K. and Kells, J. J. 1993. Perennial sowthistle (Sonchus arvensis) interference in soybean (Glycine max) and dry edible bean (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Technol. 7:5257.Google Scholar