Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T20:28:30.227Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Growth and Development of Curly Dock and Broadleaf Dock

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

T. J. Monaco  and
E. L. Cumbo
T. J. Monaco
Affiliation:
North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
E. L. Cumbo
Affiliation:
North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Studies were conducted to determine the stage of growth at which curly dock (Rumex crispus L.) and broadleaf dock (Rumex obtusifolius L.) can propagate vegetatively from a rootstock. Curly dock plants were grown from seed in the greenhouse and phytotron under long-day conditions. Curly dock seedlings were capable of regrowth from a rootstock 47 days from seeding in the greenhouse. Some of the phytotrongrown plants attained this capacity 31 to 38 days after seeding; while all demonstrated this ability at 41 days. Broadleaf dock produced flower stalks within 38 days in phytotron studies but was not capable of regeneration during this same period of time. Broadleaf dock was capable of regrowth from a rootstock approximately 51 days after seeding in the phytotron.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 20 , Issue 1 , January 1972 , pp. 64 - 67
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

1. Cavers, P. B. and Harper, J. L. 1964. Biological flora of the British Isles Rumex obtusifolius L. and Rumex crispus L. J. Ecol. 52:737–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Coble, H. D. and Slife, F. W. 1970. Development and control of honeyvine milkweed. Weed Sci. 18:352–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Ford, R. T. G. and Combellack, J. H. 1966. The use of asulam for the control of docks in pasture. Proc. Brit. Weed Contr. Conf. 8:355–359.Google Scholar
4. Harper, J. L. and Chancellor, A. P. 1959. The comparative biology of closely related species living in the same area. IV. Rumex: Interference between individuals in populations of one and two species. J. Ecol. 47:679–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Jeffery, L. S. and Robison, L. R. 1971. Growth characteristics of common milkweed. Weed Sci. 19:193–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Maun, M. A. and Cavers, P. B. 1969. Influence of photoperiod on flowering of Rumex crispus L. Agron. J. 61:823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Maun, M. A. and Cavers, P. B. 1970. Effects of 2,4-D on seed production and embryo development of curly dock. Weed Sci. 18:553–536.Google Scholar
8. Meadly, G. R. W. 1958. Weeds of Western Australia. Docks (Rumex spp.). J. Agr. W. Aust. 7:621–623.Google Scholar
9. Steinbauer, G. P. and Grigsby, Buford. 1960. Dormancy and germination of the docks (Rumex spp.). Proc. Assoc. Seed Anal. N. Amer. 50:112–117.Google Scholar