**Convolvulus arvensis L. (Convolvulaceae)**

**Orchard Morning-Glory, Field Bindweed**

**Description**. Herbaceous perennial from persistent, vertical and
horizontal rhizomes; rhizomes often spirally twisted, to 2 m or more in
depth; stems 20- 100 cm long, prostrate, spreading, or twining, often
forming tangled mats, angular, puberulent. Leaves alternate; petioles
0.5-3 cm long; blades 1-5(10) cm long, 1-3(4) cm wide, sagittate to
hastate, puberulent, becoming glabrous, somewhat glaucous, margins
entire, apices rounded. Flowers solitary, sometimes 2-3 per node;
peduncles 0.5-6 cm long, often remotely bracted; bracts 2, 2-4 mm long,
linear; sepals 3-5 mm long, oblong to obovate, margins minutely ciliate,
apices obtuse; corolla 1.5-3 cm long, 1.5-2.5 cm wide, funnelform, white
to pink, sometimes purplish near the margins; anthers 5, 2-3 mm long.
Fruit a capsule, 5-8 mm long; seeds 3-4 mm long, ovoid to obovoid, dark
brown. Flowering in California from May to October. (Abrams 1951, Austin
1986, Clapham et al. 1962; Dempster 1993, Fernald 1950, Holmgren 1984,
Munz 1959, Stace 1972, Wagner et al. 1990, Webb et al. 1988).

**Geographic distribution**. A native of Mediterranean Europe, bindweed
has been introduced throughout most temperate and dry subtropical
climates, including northern Africa, Australia, Eurasia, India, New
Zealand, Hawaii, Chile, and North America (Aneja and Srinivas 1990,
Austin 1986, Carretero 1995, Chapman 1991, Clapham et al. 1962, Fernald
1950, Gleason and Cronquist 1991, Holm et al. 1977, Holmgren 1984,
Leaden et al. 1994, Wagner et al. 1990, Webb et al. 1988).

The earliest reported record in California is from San Francisco
(Bolander 1870). Collections cited by Jepson (1939) suggest that it had
become widespread in California prior to 1900.Naturalized populations of
bindweed in California occur on San Nicolas, Santa Catalina, Santa Cruz,
and Santa Rosa islands (Junak et al. 1997) and throughout much of the
mainland (Anonymous 1998).

**Ecological distribution**. In its native range, bindweed occurs in
cultivated and fallow fields, along roadsides and railroad
right-of-ways, and disturbed open sites (Clapham et al. 1962, Stace
1972) and occupies similar habitats where naturalized (Abrams 1951,
Dempster 1993, Fernald 1950, Gleason and Cronquist 1991, Holm et al.
1977, Mitich and Kyser 1990, Munz 1959, Swan 1989).

**Reproductive and vegetative biology**. Field bindweed is
self-incompatible and thus requires insect-pollination for seed set
(Westwood et al. 1997a). In Europe the principal pollinators are small
bees (Richards 1978). Dormant seeds retain high viability and
germinability under field conditions, surviving for at least as long as
20 years (Conn 1990, Conn and Deck 1995, Frazier 1943b, Timmons 1949).
Dispersal can be effected by birds (Proctor 1968), but are primarily
dispersed in cultivated fields by irrigation and by vehicles (Holm et
al. 1977).

Although initially dispersed by seeds to new sites, it also can
reproduce successfully and vigorously by underground rhizomes (Brown and
Porter 1942, Frazier 1943a, Dexter 1937, Kiltz 1930, Mitich 1991, Weaver
and Riley 1982). Deep-set rhizomes also may persist for several years as
a function of efficient use of carbohydrate reserves (Bailey and Davison
1984b, Bakke et al. 1944, Frazier 1943b). Fragmentation of rhizomes is
one of the primary mechanisms by which it disperses and persists in
cultivated fields (Buhler et al. 1994). Re-establishment by means of
root or rhizome fragments, however, may be reduced by techniques that
either minimize tilling or expose such fragments to desiccation and sun
(Sherwood 1995).

Low light conditions, as experienced in agricultural fields and with
denser plant cover, induces dormancy in field bindweed (Bakke and
Gaessler 1945). Although field bindweed is a poor competitor under
conditions of low light intensity and low water stress, its deep
rhizomes provide an important dormancy mechanism for survival
(Dall\'Armelliana and Zimdahl 1988, 1989, Mashadi and Evans 1988).
Bindweed root systems apparently do not utilize the same soil-water and
nutrient resources as do those of most cultivated crops. Several studies
showed that field bindweed does not apparently compete for water with
most irrigated crops, primarily because root penetration and depth does
not overlap between bindweed and preferred crops (Bakke 1939, Black et
al. 1994, Blank 1987, Stahler 1948). However, under conditions of water
stress, field bindweed can be a better competitor than most cultivated
crops (Stahler 1948).

**Weed status**. Field bindweed is included among the world's most
undesirable agricultural weeds (Holm et al. 1977), including the United
States (Lorenzi and Jeffery 1987, Phillps 1967). As early as 1939,
Jepson considered it a "difficult weed to eradicate, the most
troublesome orchard and garden pest yet naturalized in California". In
California, field bindweed is considered an important weed in cultivated
fields and vineyards (Holt and Wright 1990, Mitich and Kyser 1990,
Rosenthal 1985), but has not been listed as one of greatest ecological
concern in California (Anonymous. 1996).

**Microbial pathogens**. Several fungal pathogens have been reported to
infect bindweed, including *Alternaria*, *Fusarium*, *Phoma proboscis*,
and *Phomus convolvulus* (Abbas et al. 1995, Aneja and Srinivas 1990,
Ansari et al. 1990, Heiny 1990, Heiny and Templeton 1991, Morin et al.
1989, Ormeno-Nunez 1988a, 1988b, Sparace et al. 1991). *Phomus
convolvulus* appears to be the most successful fungal biocontrol, but
sporulates optimally only under conditions of high humidity (Morin et al
1989). *Phoma* *proboscis* was found to be resistant to herbicide
treatment and may act synergistically in the control of bindweed growth
(Heiny 1994). Like *Phomus*, however, it develops best under conditions
of high humidity (Heiny and Templeton 1991).

**Insect pathogens.** Several phytophagous insects (i.e., Noctuid moths,
whiteflies) and gall-forming mites (e.g., *Aceria*, *Epitrimerus*,
*Aculus*) are reported to be destructive to bindweed (Boldt and Sobhian
1993, Chessman et al. 1997, Coudriet et al. 1986, Craemer 1995,
Rosenthal 1985, 1996, Rosenthal and Buckingham 1982, Rosenthal, et al.
1988). Chessman et al. (1997) found that moth larvae fed on leaves and
stems of several bindweed "biotypes", but development to pre-pupal
maturity was delayed relative to larvae feeding on other "biotypes".
Introduction and establishment of gall-forming mites (*Aceria
malherbae*), which reduces productivity in field bindweed, was initially
successful in Texas, but mite populations did not persist (Boldt and
Sobhian 1993).

**Herbicide control.** Several kinds of herbicides (e.g., arsenicals,
chlorates, dicamba, flouroxypyr, 2,4-D, glyphosates, imazapyr,
metasulfuron) have been used primarily in cultivated fields, with
varying results (Bakke 1941, Crafts 1937, Flint and Barrett 1989,
Heering and Peeper 1988, Hulbert et al. 1930, Lynes 1935, MacDonald et
al. 1993, 1994, Mashadi and Evans 1986, 1988, Packer and Krall 1989,
Schoenhals et al. 1990, Tingey 1994, Wiese and Lavake 1986). Pandey and
Singh (1994) reported that bindweed could not be controlled with
sulphonyl urea herbicides, at least in wheat fields. Field conditions,
including amount and time of cultivation, and soil moisture, appear to
be critical factors determining effectiveness of some herbicides
(Hulbert et al. 1930, Lynes 1935, MacDonald et al. 1994, Wiese et al.
1997a, 1997b). Use of surfactants (e.g., sodium carbonate) and soil
nutrient (e.g., nitrates, phosphates) levels have been reported to
reduce the effectiveness of certain herbicides (Nalewaja et al. 1990,
Shaw et al. 1985). One or more different herbicides appear to be
effective when combined with appropriate tillage conditions (Bailey and
Davison 1984a, Lynes 1935, Matic and Black 1994).

Glyphosates appear to be among the more effective herbicides in
cultivated fields (Ahrens and Pill 1985, Dall\'Armellina and Zimdahl
1989, Packer and Krall 1989, Sherrick et al. 1986). Yerkes and Weller
(1996) reported differing response to glyphosate, suggesting variation
in susceptibility or resistance. Westwood et al. (1997b) reported
various levels of susceptibility to glyphosates, which were related
partly to differences in adsorption and translocation. Mixtures of
glyphosates with other herbicides appear to be synergistic and may be
more effective (Flint and Barrett 1989, Westra et al. 1992).

**Other control measures**. The use of dark polyethylene film to
increase soil temperature has been shown to be effective than herbicides
for small infestations (Elmore et al. 1993). Under some conditions,
defoliation has reduced productivity and reduced infestation levels
(Bailey and Davison 1984b, Timmons and Bruns 1951). Combinations of both
herbicide treatments and mechanical removal methods also have been shown
to be effective (Derscheid et al. 1970, Wiese et al. 1997a, 1997b).

**Literature Cited**

Abbas, H, T. Tanaka, S. Duke, and C. Boyette. 1995. Susceptibility of
various crop and weed species to AAL-toxin, a natural herbicide. Weed
Technology 9: 125-130.

Abrams, L. 1951. Illustrated flora of the Pacific states. Volume 3.
Geraniaceae to Scrophulariaceae. Stanford University Press, Stanford,
California. 866 pp.

Ahrens, W. and W. Pill. 1985. Gel-incorporated glyphosate for perennial
weed control. HortScience. 20: 64-66.

Aneja, K. and B. Srinivas. 1990. Leaf-spot disease of field bindweed,
*Convolvulus arvensis*\--a

new disease record. Tropical Pest Management. 36: 75.

Anonymous. 1996. Exotic pest plants of greatest ecological concern in
California as of August 1996. California Exotic Pest Plant Council. 8
pp.

Anonymous 1998. California county flora database version 2, Santa
Barbara Botanic Garden and USDA National Plants Data Center, Santa
Barbara and New Orleans. URL = plants.usda.gov

Ansari, N., M. Khan, and A. Muheet. 1990. Host range of *Alternaria
brassicae*. Acta botanica Indica. 18: 104-105.

Austin, D. 1986. Convolvulaceae. pp. 652-661. In Great Plains Flora
Association (eds.). Flora of the Great Plains. University of Kansas
Press, Lawrence. 1392 pp.

Bailey, J. and J. Davison 1984a. The effect of annual application of
chlorthiamid and 2,4-D amine on the shoot growth and root and
underground stems of *Convolvulus arvensis*. Aspects of Applied Biology.
8: 17-24.

Bailey, J. and J. Davison. 1984b. The response of *Convolvulus arvensis*
to repeated defoliation: effects on shoot growth and underground stems
and roots. Aspects of Applied Biology. 8: 9- 16.

Bakke, A. 1939. The soil moisture relationship of European bindweed
growing in corn.

Journal of the American Society of Agronomy. 31: 352-357.

Bakke, A. 1941. The use of tetrachlorethane in the eradication of the
European bindweed.

Journal of the American Society of Agronomy. 33: 759-761.

Bakke, A. and W. Gaessler. 1945. The effect of reduced light intensity
on the aerial and subterranean parts oif European bindweed. Plant
Physiology 20: 246-257.

Bakke, A., W. Gaessler, L. Pultz, and S. Salmon. 1944. Relation of
cultivation to depletion of root reserves in European bindweed at
different soil horizons. Journal of Agricultural Research. 69: 137-147.
Plant Physiology 20: 246-257.

Black, I., Matic, R, and C. Dyson. 1994. Competitive effects of field
bindweed (*Convolvulus arvensis* L.) in wheat, barley and field peas.
Plant Protection Quarterly. 9: 12-14.

Blank, S. 1987. Field bindweed management program for winter
grain-fallow systems.

Proceedings, Western Society of Weed Science. 40: 109-110.

Bolander, H. 1870. A catalog of plants growing in the vicinity of San
Francisco. A. Roman and Co., San Francisco, California. 43 pp.

Boldt, P. and R. Sobhian. 1993. Release and establishment of *Aceria
malherbae* (Acari: Eriophyidae) for control of field bindweed in Texas.
Environmental Entomology. 22: 234- 237.

Brown, E. and R. Porter. 1942. The viability and germination of *C.
arvensis* and other perennial weeds. Research Bulletin 294. Iowa
Agricultural Experiment Station, Ames. 998 pp.

Buhler, D., D. Stoltenberg, R. Becker, and J. Gonsolus. 1994. Perennial
weed populations after 14 years of variable tillage and cropping
practices. Weed Science 42: 205-209.

Carretero, J. 1995. Summer agrestal vegetation of dryland crops in
Spain. Candollea. 50: 195- 216.

Chapman, A. 1991. Australian Plant Name Index. A-C. Australian
Biological Resources Study, Canberra. 897 pp.

Chessman, D., M. Horak, and J. Nichols. 1997. Host plant preference,
consumption, growth, development, and survival of *Tyta luctuosa*
(Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) on biotypes of field bindweed and hedge
bindweed. Environmental Entomology. 26: 966-972.

Clapham, A., T. Tutin, and E. Warburg. 1962. Flora of the British Isles.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 1269 pp.

Conn, J. 1990. Seed viability and dormancy of 17 weed species after
burial for 4.7 years in Alaska. Weed Science. 38: 134-138.

Conn, J. and R. Deck. 1995. Seed viability and dormancy of 17 weed
species after 9.7

years of burial in Alaska. Weed Science 43: 583-585.

Coudriet, D., D. Meyerdink, N. Prabhaker, and A. Kishaba. 1986.
Bionomics of sweetpotato whitefly (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae) on weed hosts
in the Imperial Valley, California.

Environmental Entomology. 15: 1179-1183.

Craemer, C. 1995. Host specificity, and release in South Africa, of
*Aceria malherbae* Nuzzaci (Acari: Eriophyoidea), a natural enemy of
*Convolvulus arvensis* L. (Convolvulaceae). African Entomology. 3:
213-215.

Crafts, A. 1937. The acid-arsenical method in weed control. Journal of
the American Society of Agronomy. 29: 934-943.

Dall\'Armelliana, A. and R. Zimdahl. 1988. Effect of light on growth and
development of field bindweed (*Convolvulus arvensis*) and Russian
knapweed (*Centaurea repens*). Weed Science. 36: 779-783.

Dall\'Armellina, A. and R. Zimdahl. 1989. Effect of watering frequency,
drought, and glyphosate on growth of field bindweed (*Convolvulus
arvensis*). Weed Science. 37: 314-318.

Dempster, L. T. 1993. *Convolvulus*. p. 521. In Hickman, J. (ed.) The
Jepson manual: higher plants of California. 1400 pp.

Derscheid, L., J. Stritzke, and W. Wright. 1970. Field bindweed control
with cultivation, cropping, and chemicals. Weed Science 18: 590-596.

Duncan, C. and S. Weller 1987. Heritability of glyphosate susceptibility
among biotypes of field bindweed. The Journal of Heredity. 78: 257-260.

Dexter, S. 1937. The winterhardiness of weeds. Journal of the American
Society of Agronomy. 29: 512-517.

Elmore, C., J. Roncoroni, and D. Giraud. 1993. Perennial weeds respond
to control by soil solarization. California Agriculture. 47: 19-22.

Fernald, M. 1950. Gray's Manual of Botany. Eighth Edition. American Book
Company, New York. 1632 pp.

Flint, J. and M. Barrett. 1989. Effects of glyphosate combinations with
2,4-D or dicamba on field bindweed (*Convolvulus arvensis*). Weed
Science 37: 12-18.

Frazier, J. 1943a. Nature and rate of development of the root system of
*Convolvulus arvensis*. Botanical Gazette 104: 417-425.

Frazier, J. 1943b. Amount, distribution, and seasonal trend of certain
organic reserves in root systems of field bindweed (*Convolvulus
arvensis*). Plant Physiology 18: 167-184.

Gleason, H. and A. Cronquist. 1991. Manual of vascular plants of
northeastern United States and adjacent Canada. The New York Botanical
Garden, Bronx. 910 pp.

Heering, D. and T. Peeper. 1988. Control of field bindweed with imazapyr
in winter wheat.

Proceedings, Southern Weed Science Society. 41: 93.

Heiny, D. 1990. *Phoma proboscis* sp. nov. pathogenic on *Convolvulus
arvensis*. Mycotaxon. 36:457-471.

Heiny, D. 1994. Field survival of *Phoma proboscis* and synergism with
herbicides for control of field bindweed. Plant Disease. 78: 1156-1164.

Heiny, D. and G. Templeton. 1991. Effects of spore concentration,
temperature, and dew period on disease of field bindweed caused by
*Phoma proboscis*. Phytopathology. 81: 905-909.

Holm, L., D. Plucknett, J. Pancho, and J. Herberger. 1977. The world's
worst weeds: distribution and ecology. University Press of Hawaii,
Honolulu. 609 pp.

Holmgren, N. 1984. Convolvulaceae. pp. 74-77. In Cronquist et al.
(eds.). Intermountain flora. Volume 4. The New York Botanical Gardens,
Bronx. 573 pp.

Holt, J. and S. Wright. 1990. Weed of the year: field bindweed biology
and distribution. Proceedings, California Weed Conference. 42: 64-67.

Hulbert, H., J. Remsberg, and H. Spence. 1930. Controlling perennial
weeds with chlorates.

Journal of the American Society of Agronomy. 22: 423-433.

Jepson, W. 1939. A flora of California. Volume 3. Part 1. Jepson
Herbarium and Library, University of California, Berkeley. 128 pp.

Junak, S., S. Chaney, R. Philbrick, and R. Clark. 1997. A checklist of
vascular plants of Channel Islands National Park. Southwest Parks and
Monuments Association, Tucson, AZ. 43 pp.

Kiltz, B. 1930. Perennial weeds which spread vegetatively. Journal of
the American Society of Agronomy. 22: 216-234.

Lorenzi, H. and L. Jeffery. 1987. Weeds of the United States and their
control. Van Nostrand Company, New York. 355 pp.

Leaden, M., F. Bedmar, and M. Casanovas. 1994. *Convolvulus arvensis* L.
(enredadera perenne), Maleza de importancia creciente en el sur y
Sudeste de la Provincia de Buenos Aires. Instituto Nacional de
Tecnologia Agropecuaria, Estacion Experimental Agropecuaria, Balcarce,
Argentina.

Lynes, F. 1935. Statistical analyses applied to research in weed
eradication. Journal of the American Society of Agronomy. 27: 980-987.

MacDonald, R., J. Hall, J. O'Toole, and C. Swanton. 1993. Field bindweed
(*Convolvulus arvensis*) control with fluroxypyr. Weed Technology 7:
966-971.

MacDonald, R, C. Swanton, and J. Hall 1994. Basis for the selective
action of fluroxypyr.

Weed Research. 34: 333-344.

Mashhadi, H. and J. Evans. 1986. Effect of bloom application of
metsulfuron on seed size, viability and seedling vigor of field bindweed
(*Convolvulus arvensis* L). Proceedings, Western Society of Weed
Science. 39: 36-39.

Mashhadi, H., J. Evans, and B. Bugbee. 1987. Photosynthetic response of
field bindweed to different light intensities. Proceedings, Western
Society of Weed Science 40: 32-34.

Mashhadi, H. and J. Evans. 1988. Adsorption and translocation of
metsulfuron in field bindweed (*Convolvulus arvensis* L.). Proceedings,
Western Society of Weed Science. 41: 38-43.

Matic, R and I. Black. 1994. Short- and long-term chemical control of
field bindweed (*Convolvulus arvensis* L.) sprayed during summer and
resultant crop yields. Plant Protection Quarterly. 9: 111-113.

Mitich, L. 1991. Intriguing world of weeds: field bindweed. Weed
Technology. 5: 913-915.

Mitich, L. and G. Kyser. 1990. History and taxonomy of field bindweed.
Proceedings, California Weed Conference. 42: 55-63.

Morin, L., A. Watson, and R. Reeleder. 1989. Efficacy of *Phomopsis
convolvulus* for control of field bindweed (*Convolvulus arvensis*).
Weed Science. 37: 830-835.

Munz, P. 1959. A flora of California. University of California Press,
Berkeley. 1681 pp.

Nalewaja, J., Z. Woznica, and F. Manthey. 1990. Sodium bicarbonate
antagonism of 2,4-D amine. Weed Technology 4: 588-591.

Ormeno-Nunez, J., R. Reeleder, and A. Watson. 1988a. A foliar disease of
field bindweed (*Convolvulus arvensis*) caused by *Phomopsis
convolvulus*. Plant Disease. 72: 338-342.

Ormeno-Nunez, J., R. Reeleder, and A. Watson. 1988b. A new species of
*Phomopsis* recovered from field bindweed (*Convolvulus arvensis*).
Canadian Journal of Botany. 66: 2278-2233.

Packer, D. and J. Krall. 1989. Desiccation of field bindweed
(*Convolvulus arvensis*) in alfalfa (*Medicago sativa*) seed fields with
glyphosate. Weed Technology 3: 99-101.

Pandey, J and R. Singh. 1994. Effect of sulphonyl urea herbicides on
weed control in wheat (*Triticum aestivum*). Indian Journal of Agronomy.
39: 565-568.

Phillips, W. 1967. Field bindweed and its control. USDA Leaflet No. 496.
U.S. Govt. Printing Office, Washington DC. 7 pp..

Proctor, V. 1968. Long distance dispersal of seeds by retention in
digestive tracts of birds. Science 160: 321-322.

Richards, A. 1978. The pollination of flowers by insects. Linnean
Society Symposium Series 6: 1-213. Academic Press, London.

Rosenthal, S. 1985. Potential for biological control of field bindweed
in California\'s coastal vineyards. Agriculture, Ecosystems and
Environment. 13: 43-58.

Rosenthal, S. and G. Buckingham. 1982. Natural enemies of *Convolvulus
arvensis* in Western Mediterranean Europe. Hilgardia 50: 1-22

Rosenthal, S., S. Clement, N. Hostettler, and T. Mimmocchi. 1988.
Biology of *Tyta luctuosa* \[Lep.: Noctuidae\] and its potential value
as a biological control agent for the weed *Convolvulus arvensis*.
Entomophaga. 33: 185-192.

Rosenthal, S. 1996. Biological control of weeds: *Aceria*, *Epitrimerus*
and *Aculus* species and

biological control of weeds. pp. 729-739. In Lindquist, E. , M. Sabelis,
and J. Bruin (eds.). World Crop Pests. Vol. 6. Eriophyoid mites: Their
biology, natural enemies and control.

Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam, Netherlands. 790 pp.

Shaw, D., T. Pepper, and E. Basler. 1985. Effect of nitrogen and
phosphorus status on the translocation of three herbicides in field
bindweed (*Convolvulus arvensis* L.).

Plant Growth Regulation. 3: 79-86.

Sherrick, S., H. Holt, and F. Hess. 1986. Effects of adjuvants and
environment during plant development on glyphosate absorption and
translocation in field bindweed (*Convolvulus arvensis*). Weed Science.
34: 811-816.

Sherwood, L. 1995. Field bindweed, *Convolvulus arvensis* L., root
fragments may grow.

Journal of the American Society of Agronomy. 37: 307-313.

Schoenhals, M., A. Wiese, and M. Wood. 1990. Field bindweed
(*Convolvulus arvensis*) control with imazapyr. Weed Technology 4:
771-775.

Sparace, S., L. Wymore, R. Menassa, and A. Watson. 1991. Effects of the
*Phomopsis convolvulus* conidial matrix on conidia germination and the
leaf anthracnose disease of field bindweed (*Convolvulus arvensis*).
Plant Disease. 75: 1175-1179.

Stace, C. 1972. *Convolvulus*. pp. 79-82. In Tutin et al. (eds.) Flora
Europaea. Volume 3. Diapensiaceae to Myoporaceae. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge. 370 pp.

Stahler, L. 1948. Shade and soil moisture as factors in competition
between selected crops and field bindweed, *Convolvulus arvensis*.
Journal of the American Society of Agronomy. 40: 490-502.

Swan, D. 1989. Field bindweed (*Convolvulus arvensis* L.). Extension
Bulletin, Washington State University, Cooperative Extension Service. 9
pp.

Timmons, F. 1949. Duration of viability of bindweed seed under field
conditions and experimental results in the control of bindweed
seedlings. Agronomy Journal. 41: 130-133.

Timmons, F. and V. Bruns. 1951. Frequency and depth of shootcutting in
eradication of certain creeping perennial weeds. Agronomy Journal 43:
371-375.

Tingey, D. 1994. The comparative cost and effectiveness of tillage and
of chlorates in the control of morning glory, Canada thistle, and
perennial sow thistle. Journal of the American Society of Agronomy. 26:
864-876.

Wagner, W., D. Herbst, and S. Sohmer. 1990. Manual of the flowering
plants of Hawaii. 1853 pp.

Weaver, S. and W. Riley. 1982. The biology of Canadian weeds. 53.
*Convolvulus arvensis* L. Candian Journal of Plant Science. 62: 461-472.

Webb, C., W. Sykes, and P. Garnock-Jones. 1988. Flora of New Zealand.
Volume 4. Naturalized pteridophytes, gymnosperms, dicotyledons.
Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, Christchurch. 1365 pp.

Westra, P., P. Chapman, P. Stahlman, S. Miller, and P. Fay. 1992. Field
bindweed (*Convolvulus arvensis*) control with various herbicide
combinations. Weed Technology 6: 949-955.

Westwood, J, T. Tominaga, and S. Weller. 1997a. Characterization and
breakdown of self- incompatibility in field bindweed (*Convolvulus
arvensis* L.). Journal of Heredity. 88: 459- 465.

Westwood, J, C. Yerkes, F. Degennaro and S. Weller. 1997b. Absorption
and translocation of glyphosate in tolerant and susceptible biotypes of
field bindweed (*Convolvulus arvensis*).

Weed Science 45: 658-663.

Wiese, A. and D. Lavake. 1986. Control of field bindweed (*Convolvulus
arvensis*) with postemergence herbicides. Weed Science. 34: 77-80.

Wiese, A., M. Schoenhals, B. Bean, and C. Salisbury. 1997a. Effect of
tillage timing on herbicide toxicity to field bindweed. Journal of
Production Agriculture. 10: 459-461.

Wiese, A., B. Bean, C. Salisbury, M. Schoenhals, and S. Amosson. 1997b.
Economic evaluation of field bindweed (*Convolvulus arvensis*) control.
Weed Science 45: 288-295.

Yerkes, C. and S. Weller. 1996. Diluent volume influences susceptibility
of field bindweed (*Convolvulus arvensis*) biotypes to glyphosate. Weed
Technology 10: 565-569.