Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T13:22:51.272Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Efficacy of Phomopsis convolvulus for Control of Field Bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Louise Morin ,
Alan K. Watson  and
Richard D. Reeleder
Louise Morin
Affiliation:
Macdonald Coll. of McGill Univ., Ste-Anne-de-Bellevue, Quebec, H9X 1C0
Alan K. Watson
Affiliation:
Macdonald Coll. of McGill Univ., Ste-Anne-de-Bellevue, Quebec, H9X 1C0
Richard D. Reeleder
Affiliation:
Macdonald Coll. of McGill Univ., Ste-Anne-de-Bellevue, Quebec, H9X 1C0
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Phomopsis convolvulus Ormeno, a fungus, reduced growth and regeneration of field bindweed under greenhouse environments. Field bindweed seedlings at the cotyledon stage were severely injured and killed (95% mortality) with 108 conidia/m2. Three- to five-leaf seedlings (2 weeks old) were controlled when inoculated with 109 conidia/m2 (70% mortality; 98 and 89% reduction in dry weight of aboveground biomass and roots, respectively). This inoculum density reduced aboveground and root biomass, and adversely affected regeneration of 4-week-old seedlings and established plants, but few plants were killed. In controlled-environment studies, two inoculations were superior (P = 0.02) to one inoculation in reducing foliage aboveground of well-established seedlings (4 weeks old). However, new shoots produced between the first and second inoculation treatments were less diseased than expected.

Keywords

Field bindweedConvolvulus arvensis L. ♯3 CONARBiological weed controlbioherbicideCONARmycoherbicide
Type
Special Topics
Information
Weed Science , Volume 37 , Issue 6 , November 1989 , pp. 830 - 835
Copyright
Copyright © 1989 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. Best, K. F. 1963. Note on the extent of lateral spread of field bindweed. Can. J. Plant Sci. 43:230–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Dean, R. A. and Kuć, J. 1986. Induced systemic protection in cucumber: effects of inoculum density on symptom development caused by Colletotrichum lagenarium in previously infected and uninfected plants. Phytopathology 76:186–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Derscheid, L. A., Stritzke, J. F., and Wright, W. G. 1970. Field bindweed control with cultivation, cropping, and chemicals. Weed Sci. 18:590–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. De Wit, P.J.G.M. 1985. Induced resistance to fungal and bacterial diseases. Pages 405–424 in Fraser, R.S.S., ed. Mechanisms of Resistance to Plant Diseases. Martinus Nijhoff/Dr W. Junk Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Khodayari, K., Smith, R. J. Jr., Walker, J. T., and TeBeest, D. O. 1987. Applicators for a weed pathogen plus acifluorfen in soybean. Weed Technol. 1:37–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Klerk, R. A., Smith, R. J., and TeBeest, D. O. 1985. Integration of a microbial herbicide into weed and pest control programs in rice (Oryza sativa). Weed Sci. 33:95–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Martin, J. T. 1965. Role of cuticle in the defense against plant disease. Ann. Rev. Phytopathol. 2:81–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Ormeno-Nunez, J., Reeleder, R. D., and Watson, A. K. 1988. A foliar disease of field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis L.) caused by Phomopsis convolvulus . Plant Dis. 72:338–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Phillips, W. M. 1978. Field bindweed: The weed and the problem. North. Cent. Weed Control Conf. Special Session on Field Bindweed 33:140–141.Google Scholar
10. Steel, R.G.D. and Torrie, J. H. 1980. Principles and Procedures of Statistics. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York. 633 pp.Google Scholar
11. TeBeest, D. O. 1985. Techniques for testing and evaluating plant pathogens for weed control. J. Agric. Entomol. 2:123–129.Google Scholar
12. Templeton, G. E., TeBeest, D. O., and Smith, R. J. Jr. 1979. Biological weed control with mycoherbicides. Ann. Rev. Phytopathol. 17:301–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Tuite, J. 1969. Plant Pathological Methods: Fungi and Bacteria. Burger Publisher Co., Minneapolis, MN. 239 pp.Google Scholar
14. Walker, H. L. and Riley, J. A. 1982. Evaluation of Alternaria cassiae for the biocontrol of sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia). Weed Sci. 30:651–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Weaver, S. E. and Riley, W. R. 1982. The biology of Canadian weeds. 53. Convolvulus arvensis L. Can. J. Plant Sci. 62:461–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Wiese, A. F. and Rea, H. E. 1959. Bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis L.) control and seedling emergence as affected by tillage, 2,4-D, and competitive crops. Agron. J. 51:672–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Wymore, L. A., Poirier, C., Watson, A. K., and Gotlieb, A. R. 1988. Colletotrichum coccodes, a potential bioherbicide for control of velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti). Plant Dis. 72:534–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Wymore, L. A., Watson, A. K., and Gotlieb, A. R. 1987. Interaction between Colletotrichum coccodes and thidiazuron for control of velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti). Weed Sci. 35:377–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar