Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-r6qrq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T05:13:50.168Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Combined effects of Aceria malherbae and herbicides on field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) growth

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Rick A. Boydston  and
Martin M. Williams II
Martin M. Williams II
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, 1102 South Goodwin Avenue, Urbana, IL 61801
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The effects of a gall mite (Aceria malherbae) and sublethal doses of either 2,4-DB or glyphosate on field bindweed growth were evaluated under laboratory conditions. Mite feeding reduced field bindweed shoot biomass 37 to 48% and root biomass 46 to 50%. 2,4-DB at 0.07 to 0.14 kg ae ha−1 or glyphosate at 0.14 to 0.28 kg ai ha−1 reduced field bindweed root biomass 25 to 52%. Combining A. malherbae feeding with either 2,4-DB or glyphosate application reduced root biomass of field bindweed plants more than mites or either herbicide alone. Live A. malherbae were present on field bindweed 3 wk after treatment with either herbicide. Combination of A. malherbae with sublethal herbicide doses may allow for field bindweed suppression while reducing potential herbicide injury to crops and maintaining A. malherbae populations.

Keywords

2,4-DBglyphosatefield bindweed, Convolvulus arvensis L. CONARBiocontrolbiological controlgall miteintegrated pest management
Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 52 , Issue 2 , April 2004 , pp. 297 - 301
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.)

References

Literature Cited

Ahn, Y. J., Kim, Y. J., and Yoo, J. K. 2001. Toxicity of the herbicide glufosinate-ammonium to predatory insects and mites of Tetranychus urticae (Acari: Tetranychidae) under laboratory conditions. J. Econ. Entomol 94:157–161.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Andres, L. A. 1982. Integrating weed biological control agents into a pest-management program. Weed Sci 30:(Suppl.). 25–30.Google Scholar
Boldt, P. E. and Sobhian, R. 1993. Release and establishment of Aceria malherbae (Acari: Eriophydae) for control of field bindweed in Texas. Environ. Entomol 22:234–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brecke, B. J., Funderburk, J. E., Teare, I. D., and Gorbet, D. W. 1996. Interaction of early-season herbicide injury, tobacco thrips injury, and cultivar on peanut. Agron. J 88:14–18.Google Scholar
Browde, J. A., Pedigo, L. P., Owen, M. D. K., and Tylka, G. L. 1994. Soybean yield and pest management as influenced by nematodes, herbicides, and defoliating insects. Agron. J 86:968–974.Google Scholar
Campbell, B. C. 1988. The effects of plant growth regulators and herbicides on host plant quality to insects. Pages 205–247 in Heinrichs, E. A. ed. Plant Stress-Insect Interactions. New York: Wiley Interscience/J. Wiley.Google Scholar
Charudattan, R. 1986. Integrated control of water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) with a pathogen, insects, and herbicides. Weed Sci 34:(Suppl. 1). 26–30.Google Scholar
Craemer, C. 1995. Host specificity, and release in South Africa, of Aceria malherbae Nuzzaci (Acari: Eriophyoidea), a natural enemy of Convolvulus arvensis L. (Convolvulaceae). Afr. Entomol 3:213–215.Google Scholar
Flint, J. L. and Barrett, M. 1989. Effects of glyphosate combinations with 2,4-D or dicamba on field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis). Weed Sci 37:12–18.Google Scholar
Harris, P. 1991. Invitation paper (C. P. Alexander fund): classical biocontrol of weeds: its definition, selection of effective agents, and administrative-political problems. Can. Entomol 123:827–849.Google Scholar
Holm, L. G., Plucknett, D. L., Pancho, J. V., and Herberger, J. P. 1991. The World's Worst Weeds: Distribution and Biology. Malabar, FL: Krieger. Pp. 98–104.Google Scholar
Huckaba, R. M., Coble, H. D., and Van Duyn, J. W. 1988. Joint effects of acifluorfen applications and soybean thrips (Sericothrips variabilis) feeding on soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci 36:667–670.Google Scholar
Lym, R. G. and Nelson, J. A. 2002. Integration of Aphthona spp. flea beetles and herbicides for leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) control. Weed Sci 50:812–819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maxwell, R. C. and Harwood, R. F. 1960. Increased reproduction of pea aphids on broadbeans treated with 2,4-D. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am 53:199–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McClay, A. S., Littlefield, J. L., and Kashefi, J. 1999. Establishment of Aceria malherbae (Acari: Eriophyidae) as a biological control agent for field bindweed (Convolvulaceae) in the northern Great Plains. Can. Entomol 131:541–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Messersmith, C. G. and Adkins, S. W. 1995. Integrating weed-feeding insects and herbicides for weed control. Weed Technol 9:199–208.Google Scholar
Mitich, L. W. 1991. Intriguing world of weeds series: field bindweed. Weed Technol 5:913–915.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, R. F. and Kogan, M. 2000. Interactions between weeds, arthropod pests, and their natural enemies in managed ecosystems. Weed Sci 48:94–158.Google Scholar
Ogg, A. G. 1975. Control of Canada thistle and field bindweed in asparagus. Weed Sci 23:458–461.Google Scholar
Oka, I. N. and Pimentel, D. 1976. Herbicide (2,4-D) increases insect and pathogen pests on corn. Science 193:239–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paynter, Q. 2003. Integrated weed management: effect of herbicide choice and timing of application on the survival of a biological control agent of the tropical wetland weed, Mimosa pigra . Biol. Control 26:162–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenthal, S. S. and Platts, B. E. 1990. Host specificity of Aceria (Eriophyes) malherbae (Acari: Eriophyidae), a biological control agent for the weed, Convolvulus arvensis (Convolvulaceae). Entomophaga 35:459–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stoyer, T. L. and Kok, L. T. 1987. Insect/plant interactions in integrating Trichosirocalus horridus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) and 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid for Carduus thistle control. Environ. Entomol 16:864–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swan, D. G. and Chancellor, R. J. 1976. Regenerative capacity of field bindweed roots. Weed Sci 24:306–311.Google Scholar
Trumble, J. T. and Kok, L. T. 1980. Impact of 2,4-D on Ceuthorhynchidius horridus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) and their compatibility for integrated control of Carduus thistles. Weed Res 20:73–75.Google Scholar
Westra, P., Chapman, P., Stahlman, P. W., Miller, S. D., and Fay, P. K. 1992. Field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) control with various herbicide combinations. Weed Technol 6:949–955.Google Scholar
Westra, P. H., Wyse, D. L., and Cook, E. F. 1981. Weevil (Notaris bimaculatus) feeding reduces effectiveness of glyphosate on quackgrass (Agropyron repens). Weed Sci 29:540–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiese, A. F. and Lavake, D. E. 1985. Control of field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) with postemergence herbicides. Weed Sci 34:77–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimdahl, R. L. 1980. Weed-Crop Competition: A Review. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. Pp. 83–94.Google Scholar