Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T17:08:37.488Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Distribution and Survival of Quackgrass (Elytrigia repens) Rhizome Buds

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Claudel Lemieux ,
Daniel C. Cloutier  and
Gilles D. Leroux
Claudel Lemieux
Affiliation:
Res. Stn., Agric. Canada, 2560 Hochelaga Blvd., Sainte-Foy, QC. Canada G1V 2J3
Daniel C. Cloutier
Affiliation:
Exp. Farm, Agric. Canada, P.O. Box 3398, L'Assomption, QC, Canada J0K 1G0
Gilles D. Leroux
Affiliation:
Dep. Plant Sci., Laval Univ., Cité Universitaire, QC, Canada G1K 7P4
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An experiment was established at three sites to determine the longevity and distribution of rhizome buds of two quackgrass biotypes in the soil profile under two tillage systems (no-till or fall-plow). The experiments were established in May 1987 at sites initially free of quackgrass. Rhizome segments with three nodes were planted 2 to 5 cm deep to give an initial density of 21 buds m-2. Production of new buds was prevented in subsequent years. Rhizome bud populations were sampled every 6 mo between October 1987 and October 1989. Buds were produced until snow cover, indicating the need to control quackgrass until late fall to prevent a bud population increase. Under no-till conditions, 94% of quackgrass buds occurred in the top 10 cm of soil while 68 and 19% were found below 10 and 20 cm, respectively, in the fall-plow treatments. A control program against quackgrass should aim at keeping the majority of rhizomes in the top 10 cm in order to facilitate control by having most shoots emerging at the same time. There was no statistically significant difference in bud longevity between biotypes, sites, and tillage systems. Viability of the rhizome buds declined rapidly during the first year. In most cases it took 2 yr for the bud populations to reach extinction although 0.6% of buds of one biotype survived as long as 30 mo in one of the three sites. Therefore, a minimum of 2 yr of total control would be required to eradicate quackgrass from most locations.

Keywords

Bromoxynil, 3,5-dibromo-4-hydroxybenzonitriledicamba, 3,6-dichloro-2-methoxybenzoic acidparaquat, 1,1′-dimethyl-4,4′-bipyridinium ionquackgrass, Elytrigia repens (L.) Nevski # AGRREAgropyron repensElymus repensrhizome bud longevityAGRRE
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 41 , Issue 4 , December 1993 , pp. 600 - 606
Copyright
Copyright © 1994 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. Alex, J. F. 1987. Quackgrass: origin, distribution, description and taxonomy. Pages 7–22 in Glick, H. L., ed. Quackgrass Action Committee Workshop Tech. Proc. March 10 and 11, 1987. Westin Hotel, Winnipeg, Manitoba.Google Scholar
2. Allen, O. B., Burton, J. H., and Holt, J. D. 1983. Analysis of repeated measurements from animal experiments using polynomial regression. J. Anim. Sci. 57:765–770.Google Scholar
3. Anonymous. 1987. Environment Canada, Atmospheric Environment Service. Monthly records meteorological observations in Canada. UDC; 551.506.1(71); 551.521.12(71).Google Scholar
4. Buccholtz, K. P. 1962. Some characteristics of quackgrass and their relation to control. Proc. Northeast. Weed Control Conf. 16:16–22.Google Scholar
5. Chandrasena, J.P.N.R. and Sagar, G. R. 1984. Effects of fluazifop-butyl on shoot growth and rhizome buds of Elymus repens (L.) Gould. Weed Res. 24(4):297–303.Google Scholar
6. Coupland, D. 1987. Influence of environmental factors on the performance of sethoxydim against Elymus repens (L.). Weed Res. 27(5):329–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Cousens, R., Brain, P., O'Donovan, J. T., and O'Sullivan, P. A. 1987. The use of biologically realistic equations to describe the effects of weed density and relative time of emergence on crop yield. Weed Sci. 35:720–725.Google Scholar
8. Darwent, A. L. 1987. Problems and losses caused by quackgrass in reduced tillage systems. Pages 69–78 in Glick, H. L., ed. Quackgrass Action Committee Workshop Tech. Proc. March 10 and 11, 1987. Westin Hotel, Winnipeg, Manitoba.Google Scholar
9. Dekker, J. H. and Chandler, K. 1985. Herbicide effect on the viability of quackgrass (Agropyron repens) rhizome buds. Can. J. Plant Sci. 65(4):1057–1064.Google Scholar
10. Freyman, S. and Freeman, J. 1987. Problems and losses caused by quackgrass in horticultural crops. Pages 23–41 in Glick, H. L., ed. Quackgrass Action Committee Workshop Tech. Proc. March 10 and 11, 1987. Westin Hotel, Winnipeg, Manitoba.Google Scholar
11. Håkansson, S. 1969. Experiments with Agropyron repens (L.) Beauv. VI. Rhizome orientation and life length of broken rhizomes in the soil, and reproductive capacity of different underground shoot parts. Lantbrukshogsk. Ann. 35:869–894.Google Scholar
12. Håkansson, S. 1971. Agropyron repens (L.) Beauv. and Sonchus arvensis L. as weeds in arable land—some comparisons concerning behaviour and possible methods of control. Weeds and Weed Control 12th Swed. Weed Control Conf. 1971. E6–E10.Google Scholar
13. Håkansson, S. and Wallgren, B. 1976. Agropyron repens (L.) Beauv., Holcus mollis L. and Agrostis gigantea Roth as weeds—Some properties. Swed. J. Agric. Res. 6:109–120.Google Scholar
14. Holm, L. G., Plucknett, D. L., Pancho, J. V., and Herberger, J. P. 1977. Pages 153–158 in The World's Worst Weeds: Distribution and Biology. University Press of Hawaii, Honolulu.Google Scholar
15. Johnson, B. J. and Buccholtz, K. P. 1961. An in vitro method of evaluating the activity of buds on rhizomes of quackgrass (Agropyron repens). Weeds 9:600–606.Google Scholar
16. Lemieux, C., Cloutier, D. C., and Leroux, G. D. 1992. Sampling quackgrass (Elytrigia repens) populations. Weed Sci. 40:534–541.Google Scholar
17. Leroux, G. D. 1987. Problems and losses caused by quackgrass in forage crop. Pages 43–51 in Glick, H. L., ed. Quackgrass Action Committee Workshop Tech. Proc. March 10 and 11, 1987. Westin Hotel, Winnipeg, Manitoba.Google Scholar
18. Merivani, Y. N. 1985. Effect of tillage, glyphosate, and sethoxydim on quackgrass (Agropyron repens) in corn (Zea mays) and soybean (Glycine max) rotation. Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. Minnesota.Google Scholar
19. Meyer, R. E. and Buccholtz, K. P. 1963. Effect of temperature, carbon dioxide and oxygen levels on quackgrass rhizome buds. Weeds 11:1–3.Google Scholar
20. Mortimer, A. M. and McMahon, D. J. 1982. Time space and the growth of couch grass. Pages 771–778 in Proceedings of the 1982 Br. Crop Prot. Conf.—Weeds, Br. Crop Prot. Counc., Croydon.Google Scholar
21. Palmer, J. H. 1962. Studies in the behaviour of the rhizome of Agropyron repens (L.) Beauv. II. Effect of soil factors on the orientation of the rhizome. Physiol. Plant. 15:445–451.Google Scholar
22. Palmer, J. H. and Sagar, G. R. 1963. Biological flora of the British Isles: Agropyron repens (L.) Beauv. J. Ecol. 51:783–794.Google Scholar
23. SAS Institute, Inc. 1985. SAS® User's Guide: Statistics. Version 5 ed. SAS Inst., Inc., Cary, NC. 956 pp.Google Scholar
24. Sagar, G. R. 1960. Agropyron repens—an introduction. Proc. Br. Weed Control Conf. 5:259–263.Google Scholar
25. Stoller, E. W. 1977. Differential cold tolerance of quackgrass and johnsongrass rhizomes. Weed Sci. 25(4):348–351.Google Scholar
26. Stoltenberg, D. E. and Wyse, D. L. 1986. Regrowth of quackgrass (Agropyron repens) following postemergence applications of haloxyfop and sethoxydim. Weed Sci. 34(5):664–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27. Tardif, F. and Leroux, G. D. 1991. Variability of quackgrass (Agropyron repens) biotypes in Québec. Phytoprotection 72:115–121.Google Scholar
28. Vengris, J. 1962. The effect of rhizome length and depth of planting on the mechanical and chemical control of quackgrass. Weeds 10:71–74.Google Scholar
29. Wemer, P. A. and Rioux, R. 1977. The biology of Canadian weeds. 24. Agropyron repens (L.) Beauv. Can. J. Plant Sci. 57:905–919.Google Scholar