Skip to main content

Chemical Management of Cut-Leaved Teasel (Dipsacus Laciniatus) in Missouri

  • Diego J. Bentivegna (a1) and Reid J. Smeda (a1)

Cut-leaved teasel is an invasive weed along highway corridors and is classified noxious in four states, including Missouri. Few herbicides have been examined for cut-leaved teasel control. Herbicides were evaluated for efficacy on established plants and residual activity for suppressing seedling emergence. Various growth regulator herbicides, amino acid inhibitors, and paraquat were applied on established teasel at two locations in central Missouri in fall 2003 and spring 2004, and two additional locations in fall 2004 and spring 2005. At 2 wk after treatment (WAT), paraquat resulted in the highest injury of teasel (85%), but injury declined over time. At 4 WAT, teasel control was most consistent with dicamba + diflufenzopyr applied in spring, ranging from 75 to 94% control. At 8 wk, glyphosate, dicamba + diflufenzopyr, metsulfuron-methyl, imazapyr, and combinations of growth regulator herbicides with 2,4-D were most effective, with teasel control from 86 to 100%. Control with 2,4-D alone was inconsistent; sulfosulfuron, sulfometuron-methyl, and paraquat were ineffective. Residual herbicides did not reduce teasel seedling emergence the following year. A number of herbicides were effective in managing emerged plants but reinfestations of treated sites is likely, even with the residual herbicides used in this research.

Corresponding author
Corresponding author's E-mail:
Hide All
Bentivegna D. J. and Smeda R. J. 2007. Biology and management of cut-leaved teasel (Dipsacus laciniatus L.) in Missouri. in. Proceedings of 47th Weed Science Society of America. Lawrence, KS: Weed Science Society of America. 230.
Bradley K. W. and Kendig J. A. 2004. Weed and brush control guide for forage, pastures and non-cropland. Technical Report MP581. Columbia, MO University of Missouri Extension. 32.
Caylor P. 1998. Herbicides help Illinois DOT control roadside weeds. American City and County. 113:1718.
Cheesman O. D. 1998. The impact of some field boundary management practices on the development of Dipsacus fullonum L. flowering stems, and implication for conservation. Agric. Ecosys. Environ. 68:4149.
Crop Protection Reference 2006. New York C & O Press. 2665.
Czarapata E. J. 2005. Teasels. Pages 5960. in. Invasive Plants of the Upper Midwest. Madison, WI University of Wisconsin Press.
Glass W. D. 1991. Vegetation management guideline: cut-leaved teasel (Dipsacus lacinatus L.) and common teasel (Dipsacus sylvestris Huds.). Nat. Areas J. 11:213214.
Hoffman R. and Kearns K. 1997. Wisconsin Manual of Control. Recommendation for Ecologically Invasive Plants. Madison, WI Wisconsin Department of Natural Resource. 102.
Huenneke L. F. and Thomson J. K. 1994. Potential interference between a threatened endemic thistle and an invasive nonnative plant. Conserv. Biol. 9:416426.
[INHS] Illinois Natural History Survey 1990. Vegetation management guidelines. Cut-leaved teasel (Dipsacus laciniatus L.) and common teasel (Dipsacus sylvestris Huds.). in. Vegetation Management Manual. Chicago Heights, IL Illinois Nature Preserve Commission. 24.
Jurica H. S. 1921. Development of head and flower of Dipsacus sylvestris . Bot. Gaz. 71:138145.
Lacey J. R., Marlow C. B., and Lane J. R. 1989. Influence of spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa) on surface runoff and sediment yield. Weed Technol. 3:627631.
Little R. C., Milliken G. A., Stroup W. W., and Wolfinger R. D. 1996. SAS System for Mixed Models. Cary, NC SAS Institute. 656.
Rector B. G., Harizanova V., Sforza R., Widmer T., and Wiedenmann R. N. 2006. Prospects for biological control of teasels, Dipsacus spp., a new target in the United States. Biol. Control. 36:114.
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems 2003. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Release 9.1 Software version 8e. Cary, NC Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 5135.
Smith T. E., editor. 1997. Cut-leaved teasel (Dipsacus laciniatus L.) and common teasel (Dipsacus fullonum L.). Pages 4449. in. Missouri Vegetation Management Manual. Jefferson City, MO Missouri Department of Conservation.
Solecki M. K. 1993. Cut-leaved and common teasel (Dipsacus laciniatus L and D. sylvestris Huds): profile of two invasive aliens. Pages 8592. in McKnight B. N., editor. Biological Pollution: The Control and Impact of Invasive Exotic Species. Indianapolis, IN Indiana Academy of Science.
Steel R. G. D. and Torrie J. H. 1980. Principles and Procedures of Statistics: A Biometrical Approach. 2nd ed. New York McGraw-Hill. 633.
Ulbrich A. V., Souza J. R., and Shaner D. 2005. Persistence and carryover effect of imazapic and imazapyr in Brazilian cropping systems. Weed Technol. 19:986991.
USDA, NRCS 2008. The PLANTS Database. Version 3.5. National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, LA 70874–4490 USA. Accessed: February 2008.
Walker A. and Welch S. J. 1989. The relative movement and persistence in soil of chlorsulfuron, metsulfuron-methyl and triasulfuron. Weed Res. 29:375383.
Werner P. A. 1975. The biology of Canadian weeds 12. Dipsacus sylvestris Huds. Can. J. Plant Sci. 55:783794.
Werner P. A. 1977. Colonization success of a “Biennial” plant species: experimental field studies of species cohabitation and replacement. Ecol. 58:840849.
WSSA 2007. Herbicide Handbook. 9th ed. Lawrence, KS Weed Science Society of America. 458.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Weed Technology
  • ISSN: 0890-037X
  • EISSN: 1550-2740
  • URL: /core/journals/weed-technology
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *



Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 3 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 69 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 20th January 2017 - 12th December 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.