Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T14:29:17.802Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Regeneration of Canada Thistle (Cirsium arvense) from Intact Roots and Root Fragments at Different Soil Depths

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Mette Goul Thomsen ,
Lars-Olav Brandsæter  and
Haldor Fykse
Mette Goul Thomsen*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant and Environmental Sciences, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, N-1432, Ås, Norway Department of Agricultural Sciences, Hedmark University College, Blæstad, Norway Norwegian Institute for Agricultural and Environmental Research (Bioforsk), N-1432, Ås, Norway
Lars-Olav Brandsæter
Affiliation:
Department of Plant and Environmental Sciences, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, N-1432, Ås, Norway Norwegian Institute for Agricultural and Environmental Research (Bioforsk), N-1432, Ås, Norway
Haldor Fykse
Affiliation:
Department of Plant and Environmental Sciences, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, N-1432, Ås, Norway
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: mette.thomsen@bioforsk.no
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the present field study, the capability of Canada thistle to develop shoots from intact roots and root fragments at different soil depths was studied. The experiments were performed on four sites with high-density Canada thistle, with three or four replications per treatment. At each site, the soil in the plots was removed layer by layer (to 30 or 40 cm, depending on the site), within a 1 by 1-m quadrat, and spread out on a plastic sheet. All roots and other plant parts were removed, and the soil was either replaced without any root material (two sites), or the roots of the thistles were cut into 10-cm-long fragments and replaced into the source holes (two sites). The measured variables were shoot number and biomass. The number of shoots of Canada thistle decreased with increasing depth (P < 0.001) and increased with time. Additionally, the two factors interacted (P < 0.001) such that shoot development was slower from greater depths. Roots from ≤ 20 cm depth produced higher biomasses than did roots from below 20 cm depth. Replacement of root fragments did not affect the amount of biomass produced. It was concluded that the intact root system contributed considerably more to the total biomass produced by Canada thistle than did the root fragments in the upper soil layers.

Keywords

Canada thistle, Cirsium arvense (L.) ScopIntact root systemshoot biomass
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 61 , Issue 2 , June 2013 , pp. 277 - 282
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

Bacher, S. H., Heizmann, A., and Nentwig, W. 1997. Problemunkräuter in ökologischen Ausgleichsflächen im Ackerbau. Agrarforschung 4: 91–94 [In German]Google Scholar
Bàrberi, P. 2002. Weed management in organic agriculture: are we addressing the right issues? Weed Res. 42: 177–193.Google Scholar
Brandsæter, L. O., Bakken, A. K., Mangerud, K., Riley, H., Eltun, R., and Fykse, H. 2011. Effects of tractor weight, wheel placement and depth of ploughing on the infestation with perennial weeds in organic farmed cereals. Eur. J. Agron. 34: 239–246.Google Scholar
Brandsæter, L. O., Thomsen, M. G., Wærnhus, K., and Fykse, H. 2012. Effects of repeated clover undersowing in spring cereals and stubble treatments in autumn on Elymus repens, Sonchus arvensis and Cirsium arvense . Crop Prot. 32: 104–110.Google Scholar
Cormack, W. F. 1999. Testing a stockless arable organic rotation on a fertile soil. Pp. 115–123 in Olesen, J. E., Eltun, R., Gooding, M. J., Jensen, E. Steen., and Köpke, U., eds. Designing and Testing Crop Rotation for Organic Farming: Proceedings from an International Workshop. DARCOF Report 1. Foulum, Denmark: Danish Research Centre for Organic Farming.Google Scholar
Dock-Gustavsson, A-M. 1997. Growth and regenerative capacity of plants of Cirsium arvense . Weed Res. 37: 229–236.Google Scholar
Fykse, H. 1977. Untersuchungen über Sonchus arvensis L., Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop. und Tussilago farfara L. Meldinger 56 (27), 22 p.Google Scholar
Graglia, E., Melander, B., and Jensen, R. K. 2006. Mechanical and cultural strategies to control Cirsium arvense in organic arable cropping systems. Weed Res. 46: 304–312.Google Scholar
Gruber, S. and Claupein, W. 2009. Effect of tillage intensity on weed infestation in organic farming. Soil Tillage Res. 105: 104–111.Google Scholar
Hettwer, U. and Gerowitt, B. 2004. An investigation of genetic variation in Cirsium arvense field patches. Weed Res. 44: 289–297.Google Scholar
Håkansson, S. 2003. Weeds and Weed Management on Arable Land: An Ecological Approach. Wallingford, UK: CABI. 274 p.Google Scholar
Nadeau, L. B. and Vanden Born, W. H. 1989. The root system of Canada thistle. Can. J. Plant Sci. 69: 1199–1206.Google Scholar
Niederstrasser, J. and Gerowitt, B. 2008. Studies on the response of root fragment of Cirsium arvense on dryness. J. Plant Dis. Prot. 21 (SI):369–372.Google Scholar
Nkurunziza, L. and Streibig, J. 2011. Carbohydrate dynamics in roots and rhizomes of Cirsium arvense and Tussilago farfara . Weed Res. 51: 461–468.Google Scholar
Norwegian Meteorological Institute yr.no. 2012, http://www.yr.no/sted/Norge/Østlandet/klima.sommer.html Google Scholar
Salonen, J., Hyvönen, T., and Jalli, H. 2001. Weeds in spring cereal fields in Finland—a third survey. Agric. Food Sci. Finl. 10: 347–364.Google Scholar
Sciegienka, J. K., Keren, E. N., and Menalled, F. D. 2011. Impact of root fragment dimension, weight, burial depth, and water regime on Cirsium arvense emergence and growth. Can. J. Plant Sci. 91: 1027–1036.Google Scholar
Thomsen, M. G., Brandsæter, L. O., and Fykse, H. 2011. Sensitivity of Cirsium arvense to simulated mechanical treatment and competition. Acta Agric. Scand. Sect. B Soil Plant Sci. 61: 693–700.Google Scholar