Hostname: page-component-6898cfcb55-cbk24 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-11T10:59:51.778Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Characterization of compensatory weed growth

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Hank J. Mager,
Bryan G. Young and
John E. Preece
Hank J. Mager
Affiliation:
Department of Plant, Soil and Agricultural Systems, Southern Illinois University, MC-4415, Carbondale, IL 62901
John E. Preece
Affiliation:
Department of Plant, Soil and Agricultural Systems, Southern Illinois University, MC-4415, Carbondale, IL 62901
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field and greenhouse studies were conducted in 2002 and 2003 to evaluate mechanically stimulated compensatory growth response of ivyleaf morningglory, common waterhemp, and giant ragweed. Compensatory growth was initiated by the physical removal of the apical shoot to break apical dominance. The amount of apical shoot removed had an effect on mechanically stimulated compensatory growth of common waterhemp and giant ragweed. With these species, the more of the apical shoot removed from the plant, the less compensatory growth occurred. Removal of the shoot from above the cotyledons resulted in giant ragweed that were 48% shorter and weighed 41% less than control plants at 6 wk after shoot removal. However, the amount of apical shoot removed had no effect on the growth of ivyleaf morningglory compared with control plants at the completion of the study. The influence of plant height at the time of shoot removal on compensatory growth was specific to each weed species. Ivyleaf morningglory exhibited less compensatory growth when the plants were 10 cm at the time of shoot removal compared with 20-, 30-, and 40-cm-tall plants. Removal of the shoot when common waterhemp plants were 30 or 40 cm in height reduced plant weight by 23 and 21%, respectively, compared with control plants. However, no reductions in plant weight were observed when common waterhemp were 10 or 20 cm tall at the time of shoot removal. Giant ragweed subjected to shoot removal was smaller in most growth parameters than control plants, regardless of plant height at the time of shoot removal.

Keywords

Common waterhemp, Amaranthus rudis Sauer AMATAgiant ragweed, Ambrosia trifida L. AMBTRivyleaf morningglory, Ipomoea hederacea (L.) Jacq. IPOHEApical dominanceweed regrowth

Information

Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 54 , Issue 2 , April 2006, pp. 274 - 281
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

Andreasen, C., Hansen, C. H., Moller, C., and Kjaer-Pedersen, N. 2002. Regrowth of weed species after cutting. Weed Technol 16:873–879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baysinger, J. A. and Sims, B. D. 1992. Giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida) control in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol 6:13–18.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fietsam, J. F. W. 2003. Evaluation of Herbicide Drift Reduction Nozzles and Agents in Field and Wind Tunnel Experiments. M.S. thesis. Southern Illinois University, Carbonale, IL. 98 p.Google Scholar
Franssen, A. S. and Peterson, D. E. 1999. The effect of application timing on weed control and soybean tolerance with postemergence broadleaf herbicides. Proc. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc 54:27.Google Scholar
Hager, A. G., Wax, L. M., Bollero, G. A., and Stoller, E. W. 2003. Influence of diphenylether herbicide application rate and timing on common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) control in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol 17:14–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartzler, R. G. and Battles, B. A. 2001. Reduced fitness of velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) surviving glyphosate. Weed Technol 15:492–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Higgins, J. M., Whitwell, T., Murdock, E. C., and Toller, J. E. 1988. Recovery of pitted morningglory (Ipomoea lacunosa) and ivyleaf morningglory (Ipomoea hederacea) following applications of acifluorfen, fomesafen, and lactofen. Weed Sci 36:345–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaremo, J., Nilsson, P., and Toumi, J. 1996. Plant compensatory growth: herbivory or competition? Oikos 77:238–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, B. C. and Young, B. G. 2002. Influence of temperature and relative humidity on the foliar activity of mesotrione. Weed Sci 50:157–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langer, R. H. M. and Steinke, T. D. 1965. Growth of lucerne in response to height and frequency of defoliation. J. Agric. Sci 64:291–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sellers, B. A., Smeda, R. J., Johnson, W. G., Kendig, J. A., and Ellersieck, M. R. 2003. Comparative growth of six Amaranthus species in Missouri. Weed Sci 51:329–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smeda, R. J. and Weller, S. C. 2001. Biology and control of burcucumber. Weed Sci 49:99–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1992. National Agricultural Statistics Service. Agricultural Chemical Usage 1991. usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/other/pcu-bb/agch0392.txt.Google Scholar
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2003. National Agricultural Statistics Service. Agricultural Chemical Usage 2002 Field Crops Summary. usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/other/pcu-bb/agcs0503.txt.Google Scholar
Wichert, R. A., Bozsa, R., Talbert, R. E., and Oliver, L. R. 1992. Temperature and relative humidity effects on diphenylether herbicides. Weed Technol 6:19–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar