Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T11:25:49.009Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of Two Methods of Identifying Weed Seedlings

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Jon M. Stucky
Jon M. Stucky*
Affiliation:
Dep. Bot., North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC 27650
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A multiple access key, or polyclave, and a traditional dichotomous key were constructed for the identification of 40 species of weed seedlings. The polyclave contained 3.4 times more information than the dichotomous key; however, there was no difference in the frequency of accurate identifications or in the time required to make accurate identifications using either system. The relative values of traditional keys and polyclaves for weed seedling identifications are discussed.

Keywords

Plant identificationdichotomous keymultiple access keypolyclave
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 32 , Issue 5 , September 1984 , pp. 598 - 602
Copyright
Copyright © 1984 by the 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

1. Brazier, J. D. and Franklin, G. L. 1961. Identification of hardwoods. For. Prod. Res. Bull. 46.Google Scholar
2. Chancellor, R. J. 1966. The identification of weed seedlings of farm and garden. Blackwell Sci. Publ., London.Google Scholar
3. Clark, S. H. 1938. The use of perforated cards in multiple entry identification keys and in the study of the interrelation of variable properties. Chron. Bot. 4:517–518.Google Scholar
4. Hall, N. and Johnston, R. D. 1953. La identificacion de los eucaliptos sobre el terreno; empleo de un sistema de clasificacion por fichas. Unasylva 7:71–77.Google Scholar
5. Hall, N. and Johnston, R. D. 1955. Field identification of dicotyledons: A punched card system for the identification of families. Aust. J. Bot. 3:82–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Kummer, A. P. 1951. Weed Seedlings. Univ. Chicago Press.Google Scholar
7. Leenhouts, P. W. 1966. Keys in biology: A survey and a proposal of a new kind. Proc. K. Ned. Akad. Wet. Ser. C. 69:571–596.Google Scholar
8. Little, E. L. 1968. Clave con fichas perforadas de las familias de los arboles mexicanos. Turrialba 18:45–59.Google Scholar
9. Morse, L. E. 1971. Specimen identification and key construction with time-sharing computers. Taxon 20:269–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Osborne, D. V. 1963. Some aspects of the theory of dichotomous keys. New Phytol. 62:144–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Pankhurst, R. J. 1971. Botanical keys generated by computer. Watsonia 8:357–368.Google Scholar
12. Pankhurst, R. J. 1974. Automated identification in systematics. Taxon 23(1):45–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Phillips, E. W. J. 1948. Identification of softwoods. For. Prod. Res. Bull., 22.Google Scholar
14. Sokal, R. R. and Rohlf, F. J. 1969. Biometry. W. H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco.Google Scholar
15. Stucky, J. M., Monaco, T. J., and Worsham, A. D. 1980. Identifying Seedling and Mature Weeds Common in the Southeastern United States. N. C. Agric. Res. Serv. and N. C. Ext. Serv. Bull. 461.Google Scholar
16. Swain, E. H. F. 1927. A universal index to wood. Queensl. For. Serv., For. Bull. 7.Google Scholar
17. University of Georgia Cooperative Extension service. 1979. Common Weed Seedlings.Google Scholar