Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nr4z6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-20T22:25:14.524Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Efficacy of increasing application rates and combination of herbicides and mowing at different growth stages of common teasel (Dipsacus fullonum)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 November 2020

Juan F. F. Daddario Open the ORCID record for Juan F. F. Daddario [Opens in a new window] ,
Guillermo Tucat ,
Osvaldo A. Fernandez  and
Diego J. Bentivegna
Juan F. F. Daddario*
Affiliation:
Teaching Assistant Faculty, Departamento de Agronomía, Universidad Nacional del Sur, Bahía Blanca; and Postdoctoral Researcher, Centro de Recursos Naturales Renovables de la Zona Semiárida, Centro Científico Tecnológico del Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CERZOS-CCT CONICET) Bahía Blanca, Bahía Blanca, Buenos Aires, Argentina
Guillermo Tucat
Affiliation:
Postdoctoral Researcher, CERZOS-CCT CONICET Bahía Blanca, Bahía Blanca, Buenos Aires, Argentina
Osvaldo A. Fernandez
Affiliation:
Professor, Departamento de Agronomía, Universidad Nacional del Sur, Bahía Blanca, Buenos Aires, Argentina
Diego J. Bentivegna
Affiliation:
Associate Researcher, CERZOS-CCT CONICET Bahía Blanca, Bahía Blanca, Buenos Aires, Argentina
*
Author for correspondence: Juan F.F. Daddario, Research Center of Renewable Natural Resources of the Semiarid Zone, National Research Council of Argentina, Camino de la Carrindanga Km 7, B8000FWB, Bahía Blanca, Argentina. (Email: jdaddario@criba.edu.ar)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Common teasel is a troublesome invasive weed in North and South America. Additional information on the efficacy of herbicide application and mowing at different growth stages will help in common teasel management. First, an outdoor pot experiment was performed to assess the effects of increasing application rates and combinations of glyphosate and 2,4-D amine when applied at the 4-leaf, rosette, and bolting stages. Second, field experiments were performed to evaluate the impact of time of cutting on invasive common teasel height, head number, and head length. Finally, germinability of seeds collected from naturally growing plants was determined to evaluate the feasibility of mowing invasive common teasel after flowering. Only glyphosate applied at 1.08 kg ae ha−1 at the 4-leaf stage provided adequate control (>90%). Although control was not satisfactory (<90%) when applying glyphosate at 2.16 kg ae ha−1 at the rosette and bolting stages, and 2,4-D at 1.75 kg ai ha−1 at 4-leaf stage, significant injury and biomass decline were observed. Glyphosate and 2,4-D combinations did not improve common teasel control compared with single applications of each. Cutting rosettes strongly reduced inflorescence production (34%–49%) and cutting flowering plants prevented total regrowth. Germination of seeds averaged 14% when harvested 10 d after flowering, and maximum seed germination (>90%) occurred 30 d after flowering. Glyphosate applied alone at the recommended commercial rate early in the growing season, together with cutting at the flowering stage, may be the most beneficial way of controlling invasive common teasel.

Keywords

2,4-Dglyphosatecommon teaselDipsacus fullonum L. DIWSIInvasive weedherbicidesherbicide mixingcuttingseed development
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 35 , Issue 3 , June 2021 , pp. 476 - 484
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the 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.)

Footnotes

Associate Editor: Michael Walsh, University of Sydney

References

Abramoff, MJ, Magalhães, PJ, Ram, SJ (2004) Image processing with Image J. Biophotonics Intern 11:36–43 Google Scholar
Alves de Figueiredo, M (2015) Interaçoes entre os herbicidas 2,4D e glifosato: aspectos químicos, bioquímicos e fisiológicos. M.S. thesis, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brasil. 114 pGoogle Scholar
Arregui, C, Puricelli, E, eds. (2013) Mecanismos de acción de plaguicidas. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Dow Agrosciences. 265 p Google Scholar
Bentivegna, DJ, Smeda, RJ (2008) Chemical management of cut-leaved teasel (Dipsacus laciniatus) in Missouri. Weed Technol 22:502–506 10.1614/WT-08-043.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bentivegna, DJ, Smeda, RJ (2011) Cutleaf teasel (Dipsacus laciniatus L.): seed development and persistence. Invasive Plant Sci Manag 4:31–37 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boutin, C, Aya, KL, Carpenter, D, Thomas, PJ, Rowland, O (2012) Phytotoxicity testing for herbicide regulation: shortcomings in relation to biodiversity and ecosystem services in agrarian systems. Sci Total Environ 415:79–92 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
CAB International (2020) Invasive Species Compendium. Wallingford, UK: CAB International. www.cabi.org/isc. Accessed: January 13, 2020Google Scholar
[CASAFE] Cámara de Sanidad Agropecuaria y Fertilizantes (2011) Guía de productos fitosanitarios. Buenos Aires, Argentina: CASAFE. 1978 pGoogle Scholar
Caswell, H, Werner, PA (1978) Transient behavior and life history analysis of teasel (Dipsacus sylvestris Huds.). Ecology 59: 53–66 10.2307/1936631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caylor, P (1998). Herbicides help Illinois DOT control roadside weeds. American City and County 113:17–18 Google Scholar
Cheesman, OD (1998) The impact of some field boundary management practices on the development of Dipsacus fullonum L. flowering stems, and implications for conservation. Agr Ecosyst Environ 68:41–49 10.1016/S0167-8809(97)00131-XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daddario, JF, Tucat, G, Molinari, M, Bentivegna, DJ, Fernández, OA (2014). Estudios bioecológicos asociados a la emergencia de Dipsacus fullonum L. In: Proceedings of the XXIX Congresso Brasileiro da Ciéncia das Plantas Daninhas, Gramado, Brazil, September 2–6, 2014; electronic version. 5 p.Google Scholar
Damos, R, Parrish, JAD (2013) The effects of the herbicides aminopyralid and glyphosate on growth and survival of Dipsacus laciniatus (Dipsacaceae) rosettes with different taproot diameters. Illinois State Academy of Science. Transactions 106:35–37 Google Scholar
Datta, A, Sindel, BM, Jessop, RS, Kristiansen, P, Felton, WL (2007) Phytotoxic response and yield of chickpea (Cicer arietinum) genotypes with pre-emergence application of isoxaflutole. Aust J Exp Agric 47:1460–1467 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeGennaro, FP, Weller, SC (1984) Differential susceptibility of field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) biotypes to glyphosate. Weed Sci 32:472–476 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Di Rienzo, JA, Casanoves, F, Balzarini, MG, Gonzalez, L, Tablada, M, Robledo, CW (2015) InfoStat, Grupo InfoStat, FCA, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, Argentina http://www.infostat.com.ar. Accessed: February 20, 2015Google Scholar
DiTomaso, JM, Enloe, SF, Pitcairn, MJ (2007) Exotic plant management in California annual grasslands. Pages 281–296 in Stromberg MR, Corbin JD, D’Antonio CM, eds. Ecology and Management of California Grasslands. Berkeley, CA: University of California PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dudley, MP, Parrish, JAD, Post, SL, Helm, CG, Wiedenmann, RN (2009) The effects of fertilization and time of cutting on regeneration and seed production of Dipsacus laciniatus (Dipsacacae). Nat Areas J 29:140–145 10.3375/043.029.0206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dugan, FM, Rector, BG (2007) Mycoflora of seed of common teasel (Dipsacus fullonum) in Washington State. Pacific Northwest Fungi 2:1–10 Google Scholar
Flint, JL, Barrett, M (1989) Effects of glyphosate combinations with 2,4-D or dicamba on field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis). Weed Sci 37:12–18 10.1017/S0043174500055776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giolitti, F, Bejerman, N, Lenardon, S (2009) Dipsacus fullonum: an alternative host of sunflower chlorotic mottle virus in Argentina. J Phytopathol 157:325–328 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glass, WD (1991) Vegetation management guideline: cut-leaved teasel (Dipsacus laciniatus L.) and common teasel (Dipsacus sylvestris Huds.). Nat Areas J 11:213–214 Google Scholar
Hurrell, JA, Bazzano, DH, Delucchi, G (2007) Dicotiledóneas herbáceas 2: nativas y exóticas. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Ed. LOLA (Literature of Latin America). 288 pGoogle Scholar
Leon, RG, Ferrell, JA, Sellers, BA (2016) Seed production and control of sicklepod (Senna obtusifolia) and pitted morningglory (Ipomoea lacunosa) with 2,4-D, dicamba, and glyphosate combinations. Weed Technol 30:76–84 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCauley, CL, Young, BG (2019) Differential response of horseweed (Conyza canadensis) to halauxifen-methyl, 2,4-D, and dicamba. Weed Technol 33:673–679 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rector, BG, Harizanova, V, Sforza, R, Widmer, T, Wiedenmann, RN (2006). Prospects for biological control of teasels, Dipsacus spp., a new target in the United States. Biol Control 36:1–14 10.1016/j.biocontrol.2005.09.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reeve, T (2007) Efficacy of herbicidal control methods on common teasel (Dipsacus fullonum L.). M.Sc thesis. Ball State University, Muncie, IN.Google Scholar
Roberts, HA (1986) Seed persistence in soil and seasonal emergence in plant species from different habitats. J Appl Ecol 23:639–656 10.2307/2404042CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schuster, CL, Shoup, DE, Al-Khatib, K (2007) Response of common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) to glyphosate as affected by growth stage. Weed Sci 55:147–151 10.1614/WS-06-130.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snedecor, GW, Cochran, WG, eds. (1956) Statistical Methods Applied to Experiments in Agriculture and Biology. Ames, IA: Iowa State College Press. 534 p Google Scholar
Solecki, MK (1989) The viability of cut-leaved teasel Dipsacus laciniatus L. seed harvested from flowering stems: management implications. Nat Areas J 9:102–105 Google Scholar
Solecki, MK (1993) Cut-leaved and common teasel (Dipsacus laciniatus L. and D. sylvestris Huds.): profile of two invasive aliens. Pages 85-92 in McKnight BN, ed. Biological Pollution: the Control and Impact of Invasive Exotic Species. Indianapolis, IN: Indiana Academy of ScienceGoogle Scholar
Werner, PA (1975) The biology of Canadian weeds. 12 Dipsacus sylvestris Huds. Can J Plant Sci 55:783–794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimmerman, LM, Porter, NM, Riney, JL, Parrish, JA (2013) The effects of herbicide treatment, life history stage, and application date on cut and uncut teasel, Dipsacus laciniatus (Dipsacacae). Nat Resour 4:170–174 Google Scholar
Zhu, H, Salyani, M, Fox, RD (2011) A portable scanning system for evaluation of spray deposit distribution. Comput Electron Agr 76:38–43 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zuloaga, FO, Morrone, O, eds. (1999) Catálogo de las Plantas Vasculares de la República Argentina II. St. Louis, MO: Missouri Botanical Garden Press. 1269 p Google Scholar