Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T06:23:54.407Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Variation Among U.S. Accessions of Common Cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

James J. Wassom ,
Patrick J. Tranel  and
Loyd M. Wax
James J. Wassom
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801
Patrick J. Tranel*
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801
Loyd M. Wax
Affiliation:
USDA/ARS, Invasive Weed Management Research Unit, Urbana, IL 61801
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Common cocklebur is an adaptable species found in diverse environments. We grew 28 common cocklebur accessions from 14 states at Urbana, IL, to compare their growth, physiology, and morphology in a common environment to determine if regional control recommendations of specific biotypes might be practical. Accessions were evaluated for midseason and maximum heights and widths, flowering date, insect damage, and petiole color in 1998 and 1999. Weight of aboveground tissue, photosynthetic rate, stomatal conductance, chlorophyll content, and leaf and bur morphology descriptions were also taken in 1999. Midseason and maximum widths, midseason height, flowering date, and insect damage differed significantly based on the year of evaluation. The year by accession interaction was a significant source of variation for midseason and maximum heights and widths, flowering date, insect damage, and petiole color. Within each year, accessions differed significantly for all measured variables except maximum width in 1998 and stomatal conductance in 1999. Accessions from northern states usually flowered earlier, and flowering date was negatively correlated with latitude of origin (1998 r = −0.76; 1999 r = −0.60). Nevertheless, some of the earliest flowering accessions were from the southern states. Results from cluster analysis indicated that several accessions had phenotypes more similar to accessions from distant sites than to nearby accessions. We conclude that the accessions differ for traits that may affect weediness, but proximal accessions differ too frequently to recommend regional, biotype-specific control strategies.

Keywords

Common cockleburXanthium strumarium L. #3 XANSTBiotypecommon gardenecotypeintraspecies variabilityP, probability levelPn, net photosynthesis∗, significant at P ≤ 0.05∗∗, significant at P ≤ 0.01
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 16 , Issue 1 , March 2002 , pp. 171 - 179
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

Baldoni, G., Viggiani, P., Bonetti, A., Dinelli, G., and Catizone, P. 2000. Classification of Italian Xanthium strumarium complex based on biological traits, electrophoretic analysis and response to maize interference. Weed Res. 40: 191–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrentine, W. L. 1974. Common cocklebur competition in soybeans. Weed Sci. 22: 600–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrentine, W. L., Soignier, S. S., and Kilen, T. C. 1995. Characterization of a common cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium L.) biotype resistant to the imidazolinone herbicides. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 35:135.Google Scholar
Blais, P. A. and Lechowicz, M. J. 1989. Variation among populations of Xanthium strumarium (Compositae) from natural and ruderal habitats. Am. J. Bot. 76: 901–908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloomberg, J. R., Kirkpatrick, B. L., and Wax, L. M. 1982. Competition of common cocklebur (Xanthium pensylvanicum) with soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 30: 507–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byrd, J. D. Jr. and Coble, H. D. 1991. Interference of common cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium) and cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 5: 270–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, J. M., Shaw, D. R., and Barrentine, W. L. 1998. Soybean (Glycine max) seed quality and harvesting efficiency as affected by low weed densities. Weed Technol. 12: 166–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernald, M. L. 1950. Gray's Manual of Botany. 8th ed. New York: American Book Co. pp. New York,470-1,472.Google Scholar
Holm, L. G., Plucknett, D. L., Pancho, J. V., and Herberger, J. P. 1977. The World's Worst Weeds. Distribution and Biology. Honolulu, HA: University Press of Hawaii. pp. 479–481.Google Scholar
Lauer, M. J. and Shibles, R. 1987. Soybean leaf photosynthetic response to changing sink demand. Crop Sci. 27: 1,197–1,201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lechowicz, M. J. 1984. The effects of individual variation in physiological and morphological traits on the reproductive capacity of the common cocklebur, Xanthium strumarium L. Evolution 38: 833–844.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Löve, D. and Dansereau, P. 1959. Biosystematic studies on Xanthium: taxonomic appraisal and ecological status. Can. J. Bot. 37: 173–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marwat, K. B. and Nafziger, E. D. 1990. Cocklebur and velvetleaf interference with soybean grown at different densities and planting patterns. Agron. J. 82: 531–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMillan, C. 1975. The Xanthium strumarium complexes in Australia. Aust. J. Bot. 23: 173–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moran, G. F. and Marshall, D. R. 1978. Allozyme uniformity within and variation between races of the colonizing species Xanthium strumarium L. (noogoora burr). Aust. J. Biol. Sci. 31: 283–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ray, P. M. and Alexander, W. E. 1966. Photoperiodic adaptation to latitude in Xanthium strumarium . Am. J. Bot. 53: 806–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Royal, S. S., Brecke, B. J., and Colvin, D. L. 1997. Common cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium) interference with peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Sci. 45: 38–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rushing, G. S. and Oliver, L. R. 1998. Influence of planting date on common cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium) interference in early-maturing soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 46: 99–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Senseman, S. and Oliver, L. R. 1993. Flowering patterns, seed production, and somatic polymorphism of three weed species. Weed Sci. 41: 418–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steel, R. G. D. and Torrie, J. H. 1980. Principles and Procedures of Statistics. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. pp. 550–551.Google Scholar
Sultan, S. E. 1987. Evolutionary implications of phenotypic plasticity in plants. Evol. Biol. 21: 127–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tranel, P. J. and Wassom, J. J. 2001. Genetic relationships of common cocklebur accessions from the United States. Weed Sci. 49: 318–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, F. T. and Jund, M. F. 1991. Chlorophyll meter to predict nitrogen topdress requirement for semidwarf rice. Agron. J. 83: 926–928.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weaver, S. E. and Lechowicz, M. J. 1983. The biology of Canadian weeds. 56. Xanthium strumarium L. Can. J. Plant Sci. 63: 211–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weed Science Society of America. 1989. Composite List of Weeds. Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of America. 112 p.Google Scholar
Weed Society of America. 1960. Report of the Terminology Committee. Weeds 8: 487–521.Google Scholar
Weed Society of America. 1971. Report of the subcommittee on standardization of common and botanical names of Weeds. Weed Sci. 19: 453–476.Google Scholar
Yan, W. and Wallace, D. H. 1998. Simulation and prediction of plant phenology for five crops based on photoperiod × temperature interaction. Ann. Bot. 81: 705–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar