Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-v5vhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-20T22:28:32.716Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Morphological Comparison of Morningglory (Ipomoea and Jacquemontia spp.) Populations from the Southeastern United States

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Charles T. Bryson ,
Krishna N. Reddy  and
Ian C. Burke
Charles T. Bryson*
Affiliation:
USDA–ARS, Southern Weed Science Research Unit, P.O. Box 350, Stoneville, MS 38776
Krishna N. Reddy
Affiliation:
USDA–ARS, Southern Weed Science Research Unit, P.O. Box 350, Stoneville, MS 38776
Ian C. Burke
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Johnson Hall 201, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99163
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: charles.bryson@ars.usda.gov
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Morningglories are troublesome weeds in row crops and other agricultural areas throughout the United States. Plants of pitted morningglory, sharppod morningglory, and a fertile “hybrid” between pitted and sharppod morningglory (hybrid morningglory), were compared with cypressvine, ivyleaf, palmleaf, purple moonflower, red, and smallflower morningglories in greenhouse studies at Stoneville, MS. Plants from each of 76 accessions were studied for number of nodes to first internode elongation; stem color and pubescence; leaf area and dry weight of first four full expanded leaves; leaf blade pubescence on abaxial and adaxial surfaces and margins; leaf color, shape, and lobing; petiole length, color, and pubescence; sepal length, color, and pubescence; and corolla color, diameter, and length. Among these morningglories, the most diverse traits were pubescence and flower characteristics. Greatest morphological diversity was among hybrid morningglory accessions because characteristics were intermediate to pitted morningglory and sharppod morningglory accessions. Sharppod morningglory had five nodes to first internode elongation compared to three nodes in pitted and hybrid morningglory. Corolla color was white (90%) or white with faint pink veins (10%) in pitted morningglory, lavender (100%) in sharppod morningglory, and varied from pinkish lavender (45%), lavender (38%), white (12%), to white with pink veins (5%) in hybrid morningglory accessions. Pitted, red, and smallflower morningglory corolla diameters were not only smaller, but less variable in size than cypressvine, hybrid, ivyleaf, palmleaf, purple moonflower, and sharppod morningglories. Corolla diameter and lengths were most variable in sharppod morningglory accessions when compared to other morningglory accessions. The sepal tip shape was broader (broadly acute to obtuse) in palmleaf and sharppod than in hybrid, pitted, or other morningglories (acute to narrowly acute). In future studies, these morphological traits will be compared to determine if any are correlated with glyphosate sensitivity.

Keywords

Cypressvine morningglory, I. quamoclit L. IPOQUhybrid morningglory, Ipomoea × leucantha Jacq.ivyleaf morningglory, I. hederacea (L.) Jacq. IPOHEpalmleaf morningglory, I. wrightii Gray IPOWRpitted morningglory, I. lacunosa L. IPOLApurple moonflower, I. turbinata L. CLYMUred morningglory, I. coccinea L. IPOCCsharppod morningglory, I. cordatotriloba Dennst. IPOTCsmallflower morningglory, Jacquemontia tamnifolia (L.) Gresb. IAQTA.Accessionbiotypehybridizationleaf morphologyflower morphology
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 56 , Issue 5 , October 2008 , pp. 692 - 698
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

Abel, W. E. and Austin, D. F. 1981. Introgressive hybridization between Ipomoea trichocarpa and Ipomoea lacunosa (Convolvulaceae). Bull. Torrey Bot. Club. 108:231–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austin, D. F. 1978. The Ipomoea batatas complex—I. Taxonomy. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club. 105:114–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austin, D. F. 1997. Convolvulaceae (Morning Glory Family). http://fau.edu/divdept/biology/people/paper.htm. Accessed: October 2007.Google Scholar
Austin, D. F. and Huáman, Z. 1996. A synopsis of Ipomoea (Convolvulaceae) in the Americas. Taxon. 45:3–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austin, D. F. and Huáman, Z. 1997. Convolvulaceae (Morning glory family). http://www.fau.edu/divdept/biology/paper.htm. Accessed: October 2007.Google Scholar
Baucom, R. S. and Mauricio, R. 2004. Fitness costs and benefits of novel herbicide tolerance in a noxious weed. PNAS. 101:13386–13390.Google Scholar
Burke, I. C., Shultz, J., Ray, J., Bryson, C. T., and Reddy, K. N. 2007. Genomic variation and genetic relationships among pitted morningglory (Ipomoea lacunosa L.) accessions. Weed Sci. Soc. America Abstr. http://www.abstractsonline.com/viewer/SearchResults.asp. Accessed: October 2007.Google Scholar
Carter, R., Bryson, C. T., and Darbyshire, S. J. 2007. Preparation and use of voucher specimens for documenting research in weed science. Weed Technol. 21:1101–1108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chachalis, D., Reddy, K. N., Elmore, C. D., and Steele, M. L. 2001. Herbicide efficacy, leaf structure, and spray droplet contact angle among Ipomoea species and smallflower morningglory. Weed Sci. 49:628–634.Google Scholar
Correll, D. S. and Johnston, M. C. 1970. Manual of the Vascular Plants of Texas. Renner, TX Texas Research Foundation. 1882.Google Scholar
Crowley, R. H. and Buchanan, G. A. 1978. Competition of four morningglory (Ipomoea) species with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. 26:484–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elmore, C. D. 1986a. Mode of reproduction and inheritance of leaf shape in Ipomoea hederacea . Weed Sci. 34:391–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elmore, C. D. 1986b. Weed surveys—southern states. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 39:136–158.Google Scholar
Fernald, M. L. 1950. Gray's Manual of Botany. 8th ed. New York American Book Company. 1632.Google Scholar
Gianessi, L. P. 2005. Economic and herbicide use impacts of glyphosate-resistant crops. Pest Manag. Sci. 61:241–245.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Howe, O. W. III and Oliver, L. R. 1987. Influence of soybean (Glycine max) row spacing on pitted morningglory interference. Weed Sci. 35:185–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koger, C. H., Poston, D. H., and Reddy, K. N. 2004. Effect of glyphosate spray coverage on control of pitted morningglory (Ipomoea lacunosa). Weed Technol. 18:124–130.Google Scholar
Koger, C. H. and Reddy, K. N. 2005. Glyphosate efficacy, absorption, and translocation in pitted morningglory (Ipomoea lacunosa). Weed Sci. 53:277–283.Google Scholar
Mabberley, D. J. 1989. The Plant Book. 2nd ed. Cambridge Cambridge, UK University Press. 858.Google Scholar
McDonald, J. A. and Mabry, T. J. 1992. Phylogenetic systematics of New World Ipomoea (Convolvulaceae) based on chloroplast DNA restriction site variation. Plant Syst. Evol. 180:243–259.Google Scholar
McWhorter, C. G. and Barrentine, W. L. 1988. Research priorities in weed science. Weed Technol. 2:2–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norsworthy, J. K., Burgos, N. R., and Oliver, L. R. 2001. Differences in weed tolerance to glyphosate involve different mechanisms. Weed Technol. 15:725–731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norsworthy, J. K. and Oliver, L. R. 2002. Pitted morningglory interference in drill-seeded glyphosate-resistant soybean. Weed Sci. 50:26–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radford, A. E., Ahles, H. E., and Bell, C. R. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of thee Carolinas. Chapel Hill, NC The University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Reddy, K. N., Burke, I. C., and Bryson, C. T. 2007. Differences in relative tolerance to glyphosate in eleven pitted morningglory accessions. Weed Sci. Soc. America Abstr. http://www.abstractsonline.com/viewer/SearchResults.asp. Accessed: October 2007.Google Scholar
Reddy, K. N. and Whiting, K. 2000. Weed control and economic comparisons of glyphosate-resistant, sulfonylurea-tolerant, and conventional soybean (Glycine max) systems. Weed Technol. 14:204–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaw, D. R. and Arnold, J. C. 2002. Weed control from herbicide combinations with glyphosate. Weed Technol. 16:1–6.Google Scholar
Stephenson, D. O. IV, Oliver, R. R., and Gbur, E. E. Jr. 2006. Identification and characterization of pitted morningglory (Ipomoea lacunose) ecotypes. Weed Sci. 54:78–86.Google Scholar
[USDA] United States Department of Agriculture, NRCS 2007. Plants Database. http://plants.usda.gov. Accessed: October 2007.Google Scholar
Wallace, E. A. and Austin, D. F. 1981. Introgressive hybridization between Ipomoea trichocarpa and Ipomoea lacunosa (Convolvulaceae). Bull. Torrey Bot. Club. 108:231–239.Google Scholar
Webster, E. P., Bryant, K. J., and Earnest, L. D. 1999. Weed control and economies in nontransgenic and glyphosate-resistant soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 13:586–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, T. M. 2000. Weed survey—southern states grass crops subsection. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 53:247–264.Google Scholar
Webster, T. M. 2001. Weed survey—southern states broadleaf crops subsection. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 54:244–260.Google Scholar
Yatskievych, G. 2006. Steyermark's Flora of Missouri. Vol. 2. Revised ed. St. Louis, MO Missouri Botanical Garden Press. 1181.Google Scholar
Young, B. G. 2006. Changes in herbicide use patterns and production practices resulting from glyphosate-resistant crops. Weed Sci. 20:301–307.Google Scholar