4.3 Article

Annuals sprouting adventitiously from the hypocotyl: their compensatory growth and implications for weed management

Journal

BIOLOGIA
Volume 64, Issue 5, Pages 923-929

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.2478/s11756-009-0174-8

Keywords

bud bank; disturbance; hypocotyl; vegetative regeneration; weed control

Categories

Funding

  1. Grant Agency of the Czech Republic [GD206/08/H044]
  2. Institute of Botany AS CR [AV0Z60050516]
  3. Research Plan MSM [6007665801]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Habitats, disturbed severely at least once a year, are often dominated by annual plants, which avoid disturbance by means of a short life span and massive production of seeds. Contrary to perennials, they lack pools of reserve meristems on and storage carbon in below-ground organs necessary for vegetative regeneration after disturbance. However, some annuals are able to initiate a bud bank on the hypocotyl after loss of their shoot. In three experiments, we investigated how the timing of disturbance or population origin affects adventitious bud formation on the hypocotyl for regeneration and compensatory growth in some annual weeds. The best regenerative abilities were observed in Kickxia spuria and K. elatine, with 87% and 80% of individuals regenerating, respectively, followed by Microrrhinum minus with almost 70%. Less than 30% of individuals regenerated in Euphorbia peplus and Anagallis arvensis. The time of injury did not affect the regeneration capacity of species for which the timing was examined, nor their consequent compensatory growth. The best compensation for biomass and fruit production was observed in M. minus, albeit two populations differed in this respect. The injured plants were shorter and produced more shoots than intact plants. Mechanical control of weeds capable of forming adventitious buds on hypocotyl by harrowing, brushing, or cutting may not be sufficient in organically farmed lands.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available