Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-s6l46 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T01:21:14.190Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Canada Thistle (Cirsium arvense) Control with Aminopyralid in Range, Pasture, and Noncrop Areas

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Stephen F. Enloe ,
Rodney G. Lym ,
Robert Wilson ,
Phil Westra ,
Scott Nissen ,
George Beck ,
Michael Moechnig ,
Vanelle Peterson ,
Robert A. Masters  and
Mary Halstvedt
Stephen F. Enloe*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences, 1000 E. University Avenue, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming 82071
Rodney G. Lym
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences, North Dakota State University, Fargo, North Dakota 58105
Robert Wilson
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska, Scottsbluff, NE 69361
Phil Westra
Affiliation:
Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523
Scott Nissen
Affiliation:
Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523
George Beck
Affiliation:
Department of Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523
Michael Moechnig
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences, South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD, 57007
Vanelle Peterson
Affiliation:
Dow AgroSciences, 28884 S. Marshall Road, Mulino, OR 97042
Robert A. Masters
Affiliation:
Dow AgroSciences, 9330 Zionsville Road, Indianapolis, IN 46268
Mary Halstvedt
Affiliation:
Dow AgroSciences, 3311 Horton Smith Lane, Billings, MT 59106
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: sfenloe@uwyo.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Canada thistle is a serious weed of many crop, rangeland, pasture, and natural areas throughout North America. Aminopyralid is a new pyridine carboxylic acid herbicide that has activity on Canada thistle at lower use rates than current standard treatments. The objectives of this study were to compare aminopyralid efficacy, rates, and application timing with several commercial standards for Canada thistle control. Studies were conducted across the Great Plains at ten locations, which encompassed a wide range of environments. Aminopyralid provided Canada thistle control comparable to picloram, picloram + 2,4-D amine, and clopyralid and better control than clopyralid + 2,4-D amine, dicamba, dicamba + 2,4-D amine and dicamba + diflufenzopyr. Canada thistle control was similar when aminopyralid was applied between 0.08 and 0.11 kg ai/ha and application timing (spring bolting vs. fall rosette/regrowth) did not strongly influence control 1 yr after treatment (YAT). Aminopyralid provided effective Canada thistle control at lower use rates than current commercial standards and might be useful in areas where herbicides such as picloram and clopyralid are not recommended for use.

Keywords

Aminopyralidclopyraliddicambadiflufenzopyrpicloram2,4-D amineCanada thistle, Cirsium arvense L. Scop. CIRARApplication timingrate-response

Information

Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 21 , Issue 4 , December 2007 , pp. 890 - 894
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

Alley, H. P. and Humburg, N. E. 1977. Rangeland and perennial weed control. Res. J. Wyoming Agric. Exp. Sta. 112:44–47.Google Scholar
Anonymous 2005. Transline herbicide product label. EPA Reg. number 62719-259. Dow AgroSciences LLC. Indianapolis, IN 46268. 8.Google Scholar
Beck, K. G. 1988. Canada thistle control in a non-grazed Colorado pasture. Research Progress Report of the Western Society of Weed Sciences 4–5.Google Scholar
Beck, K. G. and Sebastian, J. R. 2000. Combining mowing and fall applied herbicides to control Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense). Weed Technol. 14:351–356.Google Scholar
Beck, K. G., Sebastian, J. R., and Hanson, D. E. 1989. Canada thistle control with chlorflurenol, dicamba, and clopyralid in a Colorado pasture. Research Progress Report of the Western Society of Weed Sciences 27–28.Google Scholar
Bultsma, P. M., Whitson, T. D., and Lamming, F. 1992. Comparison of several herbicides applied at different growth stages for control of Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) and musk thistle (Carduus nutans). Research Progress Report of the Western Society of Weed Sciences I-9.Google Scholar
Carrithers, V. F., Burch, P. L., Kline, W. N., Masters, R. A., Nelson, J. A., Halstvedt, M. B., Troth, J. L., and Breuninger, J. M. 2005. Aminopyralid: a new reduced risk active ingredient for control of broadleaf invasive and noxious weeds. Proc. West. Soc. Weed Sci. 58:59–60.Google Scholar
S. Dewey, S.F. Enloe, F. Menalled, ed. 2006. 2006–2007 Montana, Utah, and Wyoming Weed Management Handbook. University of Wyoming 245.Google Scholar
Haggar, R. J., Oswald, A. K., and Richardson, W. G. 1986. A review of the impact and control of creeping thistle (Cirsium arvense L.) in grassland. Crop Prot. 5:73–76.Google Scholar
Hare, D. D., McFadden, A. G., McGregor, W. R., Juras, L. T., Satchivi, N. M., and Turnbull, G. C. 2005. Aminopyralid: a new herbicide for broadleaf weed control in rangeland and pastures in Canada and United States. Proc. West. Soc. Weed Sci. 58:59.Google Scholar
Hunter, J. H. 1995. Effect of bud vs rosette growth stage on translocation of 14C-glyphosate in Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense). Weed Sci. 43:347–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jachetta, J. J., Havens, P. L., Dybowski, J. A., Kranzfelder, J. A., and Tiu, C. 2005. Aminopyralid: a new reduced risk herbicide for invasive species control: toxicology, ecotoxicology, and environmental fate profile. Proc. West. Soc. Weed Sci. 58:60–61.Google Scholar
Liebman, M. and Gallandt, E. 1997. Many little hammers: ecological approaches for the management of crop-weed interactions. Pages 291–343. in Jackson, L.E. ed. Ecology in Agriculture. San Diego, CA Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lym, R. G. 2005. Control of invasive weeds with aminopyralid in North Dakota. Proc. West. Soc. Weed Sci. 58:60.Google Scholar
Lym, R. G. and Diebert, K. J. 2005. Diflufenzopyr influences leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) and Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) Control by Herbicides. Weed Technol. 19:329–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lym, R. G. and Duncan, C. A. 2005. Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense L. Scop.). Pages 69–83. in Duncan, C.L., Clark, J.K. eds. Invasive Plants of Range and Wildlands and Their Environmental, Economic, and Societal Impacts. Lawrence, KS Weed Science Society of America.Google Scholar
Miller, B. R. and Lym, R. G. 1998. Using the rosette technique for Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) control in row crops. Weed Technol. 12:699–06.Google Scholar
Moore, R. J. 1975. The biology of Canadian weeds. 13. Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop. Can. J. Plant Sci. 55:1033–1048.Google Scholar
Moyer, J. R., Schaalje, G. B., and Bergen, P. 1991. Alfalfa (Medicago sativa) seed yield loss due to Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense). Weed Technol. 5:723–728.Google Scholar
O'Sullivan, P. A., Kossatz, V. C., Weiss, G. M., and Drew, D. A. 1982. An approach to estimating yield loss of barley due to Canada thistle. Can. J. Plant Sci. 62:725–731.Google Scholar
Piper, G. L. and Andres, L. A. 1995. 63. Canada Thistle. Pages 233–236. in Nechols, J.R. ed. Biological Control in the Western United States. Publication 3361. Oakland, California University of California.Google Scholar
Reece, P. E. and Wilson, R. G. 1983. Effect of Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) and musk thistle (Carduus nutans) control on grass herbage. Weed Sci. 31:488–492.Google Scholar
Sebastian, J. R., Owsley, C. J., and Beck, K. G. 1992. Canada thistle control with metsulfuron, picloram, 2,4-D, and split-applications of 2,4-D and the sulfonylureas. Research Progress Report of the Western Society of Weed Sciences, pp. I-10–I-11.Google Scholar
Skinner, K., Smith, L., and Rice, P. 2000. Using noxious weed lists to prioritize targets for developing weed management strategies. Weed Sci. 48:640–644.Google Scholar
Smith, K. A. 1985. Canada thistle response to prescribed burning (North Dakota). Restor. Manage. Notes 3:87.Google Scholar
Stachion, W. J. and Zimdahl, R. L. 1980. Allelopathic activity of Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) in Colorado. Weed Sci. 28:83–86.Google Scholar
University of Nebraska 2006. 2006 Guide for Weed Management in Nebraska. Lincoln, NE University of Nebraska Cooperative Extension EC-130-D. 184.Google Scholar
Wilson, R. G. and Kachman, S. D. 1999. Effect of perennial grasses on Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) control. Weed Technol. 13:83–87.Google Scholar
Wilson, R. G., Martin, A. R., and Kachman, S. D. 2006. Seasonal changes in carbohydrates in the root of Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) and the disruption of these changes by herbicides. Weed Technol. 20:242–248.Google Scholar