Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T10:52:10.573Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of Environment on Shoot Growth and Total Carbohydrate Reserves of Saltcedar

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Eugene E. Hughes
Eugene E. Hughes*
Affiliation:
Crops Research Division, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Los Lunas, New Mexico
Get access

Abstract

Studies conducted near Bernardo, New Mexico, from 1962 to 1964 involved the influence of environment on weekly shoot growth and carbohydrate storage in roots and stems of undisturbed saltcedar (Tamarix pentandra Pall.) and of regrowth (plants regrown from having been mowed the previous winter). Environmental variables were air and soil temperatures, relative humidity, wind, solar radiation, barometric pressure, evaporation from a free-water surface, depth to water table, and water quality. No variable or combination of variables could be used to predict accurately the maximum shoot growth period or the minimum carbohydrate storage. An analysis of the individual weekly growth patterns of plants showed considerable week-to-week variation in the rate of growth. Wide variations in total carbohydrate storage in roots and stems within weeks also were evident, and probably reflected the variation in growth.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weeds , Volume 15 , Issue 1 , January 1967 , pp. 46 - 49
Copyright
Copyright © 1967 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. Bakke, A. L., Goessler, W. G., and Loomis, W. E. 1939. Relation of food reserves to control of European Bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis L.). Iowa Agr. Expt. Sta. Res. Bull. 254. pp. 113–144.Google Scholar
2. Bartley, T. E. and Otto, N. E. 1963. Carbohydrate reserves in Tamarisk (saltcedar). U.S. Bur. of Reclam. Water Conserv. Rept. No. W-7. 10 p.Google Scholar
3. Cords, H. P. and Badiei, A. A. 1964. Root reserves and susceptibility to systemic herbicides in two phreatophytes. Weeds 12:299–301.Google Scholar
4. Fisher, C. E., Meadors, C. H., and Behrens, R. 1956. Some factors that influence the effectiveness of 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid in killing mesquite. Weeds 4:139–147.Google Scholar
5. Grandfield, C. O. 1930. The relation of organic food reserves to the effect of cutting pasture weeds at different stages of growth. J. Am. Soc. Agron. 22:709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Hughes, E. E. 1964. A comparison of single treatments and combinations of burning, mowing, and spraying treatments for control of saltcedar. Res. Prog. WWCC pp. 35–36.Google Scholar
7. Timmons, F. L. 1941. Results of bindweed control experiments at the Fort Hays Branch Station. Hays, Kansas, 1935–1940. Kansas Agr. Expt. Sta. Bull. 299. 50 p.Google Scholar