Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T14:44:32.168Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Release of Postsenescent Dormancy in Leafy Spurge (Euphorbia esula) by Chilling

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Stephen J. Harvey
Affiliation:
Dep. Entomol., Montana State Univ., Bozeman, MT 59717
Robert M. Nowierski
Affiliation:
Dep. Entomol., Montana State Univ., Bozeman, MT 59717

Abstract

The growth and development of leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula L. #3 EPHES) collected during postsenescent dormancy and grown in the greenhouse was increasingly stimulated by chilling treatments longer than 14 days duration at 0 to 6 C. Production of stems with flower buds, primary flowers, and secondary flowers was greater in plants chilled for 42 days or more. The effects of chilling on total number of stems, number of strictly vegetative stems, or number of stems with vegetative branching were not significant. The height of the tallest stem per pot was influenced by chilling longer than 42 days. Growth rate also increased as a function of chilling duration. Based on our findings, we believe that there is little possibility that any significant growth can occur in the postsenescent period because of the prevailing climatic conditions found in areas of leafy spurge distribution in North America.

Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Copyright
Copyright © 1988 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. Alley, H. P. and Messersmith, C. G. 1985. Chemical control of leafy spurge. Pages 6579 in Watson, A. K., ed., Leafy Spurge, Weed Sci. Soc. Am., Champaign, IL. 104 pp.Google Scholar
2. Coupland, R. T. 1955. The reproductive capacity of vegetative buds on the underground parts of leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula L.). Can. J. Agric. Sci. 35:477484.Google Scholar
3. Espenshade, E. B. 1976. Goode's World Atlas. Rand McNally and Co., Chicago, IL. Page 81.Google Scholar
4. Harvey, S. J., Nowierski, R. M., Mahlberg, P. G., and Story, J. M. 1988. Taxonomic evaluation of leaf and latex variability of leafy spurge (Euphorbia spp.) for Montana and European accessions. Weed Sci. 36:726733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. McIntyre, G. I. 1972. Developmental studies on Euphorbia esula. The influence of the nitrogen supply on the correlative inhibition of root bud activity. Can. J. Bot. 50:949956.Google Scholar
6. McIntyre, G. I. 1972. Developmental studies on Euphorbia esula. Evidence for competition for water as a factor in the mechanism of root bud inhibition. Can. J. Bot. 50:949956.Google Scholar
7. Messersmith, C. G. 1979. Leafy spurge chemical control workshop. Page 78 in Proc. Leafy Spurge Symposium. North Dakota Coop. Ext. Serv., Fargo. 84 pp.Google Scholar
8. Nissen, S. J. and Foley, M. E. 1987. Correlative inhibition and dormancy in root buds of leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula). Weed Sci. 35:155159.Google Scholar
9. Nissen, S. J. and Foley, M. E. 1987. Euphorbia esula L. root and root bud indole-3-acetic acid levels at three phenologic stages. Plant Physiology. 84:287290.Google Scholar
10. Raju, M.V.S. 1985. Morphology and anatomy of leafy spurge. Pages 2641 in Watson, A. K., ed. Weed Sci. Soc. Am., Champaign, IL. 104 pp.Google Scholar
11. Raju, M.V.S., Steeves, T. A., and Coupland, R. T. 1964. On the regeneration of root fragments of leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula L.). Weed Res. 4:211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Selleck, G. W., Coupland, R. T., and Frankton, C. 1962. Leafy spurge in Saskatchewan. Ecol. Monogr. 32:129.Google Scholar
13. Watson, A. K. 1985. Introduction – The leafy spurge problem. Pages 15 in Watson, A. K., ed. Weed Sci. Soc. Am., Champaign, IL. 104 pp.Google Scholar