Etymology

Field bindweed has been known by many different names over time (Mitich 1991), several of which reference the species' vining habit. For example, first century (C.E.) Greeks referred to it as the “curling plant” (periklumenon). Field bindweed's scientific name, Convolvulus arvensis, which was recorded in Linnaeus's Species Plantarum (1753), can be roughly translated as “to entwine the field.” Nowick (2015) provides many historical names for field bindweed, including bearbind, bellbind, cornbind, corn-lily, creeping Jenny, European bindweed, European glory-bind, European morning glory, field-corn, hairy bindweed, hedgebell, lap-love, Nebraska glorybind, perennial morning-glory, sheep-bine, sheep-blue, small bindweed, Western bindweed, and with-wind. Other monikers include devil's guts and possession vine (Mitich 1991).

Toxicity

Relatively little information is available about the impacts of field bindweed on livestock and wildlife, although data suggest its palatability and nutritive value may vary considerably among species that consume it. Allen (1968) and Taylor and Smith (2005) reported that whitetail deer and migratory birds may feed on bindweed shoots and roots. Singh (1962) found that sheep can consume bindweed foliage without detriment; Bell (1990), Georgia (1919), Shaw (1893) and Stahler and Carlson (1947) reported on the use of sheep grazing for vine suppression. Schutte and Lauriault (2015) evaluated the forage value of field bindweed roots and suggested that uprooted fragments could be nutritionally beneficial to some ruminants. Burrows and Tyrl (2001) concluded ingestion of small to moderate quantities by livestock may cause diarrhea, but consumption of large quantities or for prolonged intervals may result in decreased digestive tract motility. Horses and pigs, unlike sheep, may be sensitive to alkaloids present in bindweed shoots and roots (Callihan et al. 1990; Todd et al. 1995). Because the impermeability of bindweed seed supports survival after being ingested by an animal, it is possible that foraging on mature plants could facilitate propagule dispersal (Harmon and Keim 1934; Proctor 1968; Rolston 1978).

Field bindweed flowers and flower buds.

Weediness and Control

Field bindweed is a significant weedy pest in many annual and perennial crops, as well as in urban and industrial environments and even some natural areas, especially after disturbance. Field bindweed can reduce crop yields through direct competition; its vining habit also allows it to grow overtop of crops and impede the movement of harvest machinery in the field (Sosnoskie, personal observation). In Western rangelands, field bindweed infestations can reduce the diversity of native species and alter ecosystem functions (DiTomaso 2000). Although the economic implications of bindweed interference have not been regularly reported in scientific literature, Rosenthal (1983) and Boldt et al. (1998) suggested yield reductions in the United States can be considerable. Results from a survey of California agricultural commissioners and extension farm advisors estimated crop losses in response to bindweed at approximately $25 million yr^–1 (Rosenthal 1983). Boldt et al. (1998) reported that field bindweed infestations in the 10 most severely affected states resulted in crop losses that exceeded $377 million yr^–1.

Field bindweed's weediness is directly related to its long-lived seeds and extensive root system. Field bindweed seeds are impermeable to water and can remain viable in the soil for many years (Brown and Porter 1942; Gehan Jayasuriya et al. 2008; Rolston 1978; Sripleng and Smith 1960; Timmons 1949; Whitesides 1979). Dormancy can be alleviated in the laboratory in several ways, including cold stratification, mechanical scarification, and treatment with sulfuric acid or boiling water; under field conditions, mechanical abrasion via soil disturbance and temperature fluctuations are likely responsible for mitigating dormancy (Brown and Porter 1942; Rolston 1978; Xiong et al. 2018). Although most bindweed seedlings emerge in spring and early summer (20 to 25 C is optimum), germination can occur over a wide range of temperatures (10 to 40 C) if enough moisture is available in the soil profile (Rolston 1978; Tanveer et al. 2013). Most seedlings emerge from seed burial depths no greater than 6 cm (Asgharipour 2011; Benvenuti et al. 2001). Management recommendations often suggest controlling field bindweed at the seedling stage, when the species is most susceptible to physical, chemical, and cultural control measures. This developmental phase, however, can be short-lived because seedlings develop regenerative root buds that support regrowth after defoliation within a month of emergence (Sosnoskie, personal observation; Weaver and Riley 1982).

The root system of field bindweed is also responsible for facilitating the species' survival and spread over time and space. Holdich and Sinclair (1826) stated that established field bindweed could not be controlled with ordinary weed-control methods. They suggested deep tillage combined with root-fragment removal for an entire fallow season followed by intensively cultivated crops. This recommendation was repeated in other early weed-management texts by Darlington (1847), Michener (1872), and Shaw (1893). Other research to evaluate field bindweed control found that multiple years of repeated (i.e., every 2 to 3 wk) soil disturbance were required to exhaust belowground energy reserves (Bioletti 1911; Frazier 1943; Timmons and Bruns 1951). Infrequent cultivation, however, may lead to the physical spread of root and rhizome pieces within and among fields (Buhler et al. 1994). Larger segments (with more root buds) and pieces originating from depths less than 20 cm in the soil are more likely to reestablish successfully than smaller fragments or fragments originating from deeper soil profiles (Omezine and Harzallah-Skhiri 2010; Sherwood 1945), although the timing of disturbance and seasonal variability in carbohydrate reserves may influence success (Barr 1940; Swan and Chancellor 1976; Willeke et al. 2015). For example, Willeke et al. (2015) reported that resprouting potential was greatest in April and May.

As an established perennial, systemic products (e.g., 2,4-D, dicamba, and glyphosate) are commonly recommended for managing perennial field bindweed vines, although, as with cultivation, repeated applications are often necessary, sometimes over years (Davison 1976; Hoss et al. 2003; Stone et al. 2005; Westra et al. 1992; Wiese and Lavake 1986; Wiese and Rea 1959). The control of field bindweed with systemic herbicides is not consistent throughout the year and can vary with the flow of assimilates to the root system, although vigorous, flowering plants have been reported to be most sensitive to treatment (Wiese and Lavake 1986; Wiese and Rea 1959). In addition to timing, herbicide efficacy can also be affected by diluent volume, adjuvant selection, growth conditions, and plant vigor at the time of application (Dall'Armellina and Zimdahl 1989; Duncan Yerkes and Weller 1996; Sherrick et al. 1986; Wiese and Lavake 1986). Differential susceptibility among bindweed populations in response to glyphosate and 2,4-D has also been reported (DeGennaro and Weller 1984b; Westwood et al. 1997b; Westwood and Weller 1997; Whitworth and Muzik 1967). Westwood et al. (1997b) and Westwood and Weller (1997) suggested that multiple mechanisms were contributing to the differences in glyphosate tolerance between their study biotypes. Although PRE-applied herbicides are mostly used to control bindweed seedlings, some products, like trifluralin, can suppress perennial vine emergence (Sosnoskie and Hanson 2016). Results from meta-analyses suggest that integrated practices, with or without herbicides, can be effective for managing field bindweed, although only a few studies have been conducted and few describe bindweed population dynamics over an extended time (Davis et al. 2018; Orloff et al. 2018).

Uses

Dioscorides, a Greek herbalist, suggested drinking a tea brewed from the seeds of field bindweed to treat hiccups, alleviate weariness, and treat spleen problems, but warned that continued consumption could result in blood in the urine and cause sterility (Mitich 1991). The use of bindweed as a laxative and diuretic was reported by Barker (2001) and Holm et al. (1977). Bindweed's arrival in Oregon was purportedly due to its purposeful planting as a cover crop in orchards (Swan 1980). Interviews with members of the Okanagan-Colville people in the Pacific Northwest indicate field bindweed historically has been used to make pack ropes (Turner et al. 1980). Members of the Ramah Navajo of western New Mexico used a cold infusion of the plant parts as a lotion for spider bites (Moerman 1998). A decoction made from plant parts was taken as a gynecological aid for excessive menstruation by members of the Ramah Navajo as well as the Kashaya Pomo, who inhabited the western coast of Sonoma County, CA.

Several species of bees have been associated with field bindweed flowers and foraged pollen, including honeybees (Apis mellifera L.) and sweat bees (Halictidae), among others (Abdel-Halim et al. 2013; Colteaux et al. 2013; O'Neal and Waller 1984; Pearce et al. 2012; Waddington 1976). Other insect species have also been reported foraging in field bindweed flowers, such as the beetle Aethina concolor (Macleay) (Logan and Rowe 2012). The adults and larvae of several tortoise beetles are known to feed destructively on the foliage, including golden tortoise beetle (Charidotella sexpunctata L.), Argus tortoise beetles (Chelymorpha cassidae Fab.), and mottled tortoise beetle (Deloyala guttata Olivier) (Hilty 2019). Aceria malherbae Nuzzaci (bindweed gall mite) infests both field and hedge bindweed (Boldt and Sobhian 1993; Boydston and Williams 2004; McClay et al. 1999). In addition to the presence of galls, which are abnormal swellings, on leaves and stems, signs of bindweed gall mite include stunted plants and reduced flowering. Larvae of the moth Tyta luctuosa Denis & Schiffermuller can also feed, nonselectively, on field and hedge bindweeds (Chessman et al. 1997). Fungal pathogens, including several members of Phaeosphaeriaceae have been investigated as possible mycoherbicides (Gomzhina et al. 2020; Heiny and Templeton 1991; Morin et al. 1989; Pfirter and Defago 1998).

The literature would suggest that, unlike many weeds, field bindweed can be successful in any manmade agricultural or landscape setting and in many natural settings. That it is such a successful weed in such diverse habitats enables it to keep mankind all tied up.