Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T20:55:30.276Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Control of skunk-vine (Paederia foetida L.) with preemergence and postemergence herbicides in central Florida during the winter season

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 May 2019

S. Christopher Marble Open the ORCID record for S. Christopher Marble [Opens in a new window]  and
Annette Chandler
S. Christopher Marble*
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Environmental Horticulture Department, University of Florida/Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Mid-Florida Research and Education Center, Apopka, FL, USA
Annette Chandler
Affiliation:
Biological Scientist III, Environmental Horticulture Department, University of Florida/Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Mid-Florida Research and Education Center, Apopka, FL, USA
*
Author for correspondence: S. Christopher Marble, Assistant Professor, Environmental Horticulture Department, University of Florida/Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Mid-Florida Research and Education Center, 2725 S. Binion Road, Apopka, FL 32703, USA. (Email: [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Skunk-vine (Paederia foetida L.) is an invasive vine native to eastern and southern Asia and is widely distributed in Florida, Hawaii, and other southeastern U.S. states; however, little research has focused on herbicide control. Greenhouse and field experiments were conducted to determine efficacy of aminocyclopyrachlor, aminopyralid, fluroxypyr, glyphosate, imazapic, triclopyr amine, and triclopyr ester at low and high labeled rates when foliar applied to P. foetida at various growth stages in greenhouse experiments. Longer-term control was evaluated in field experiments in central Florida using the same herbicides. PRE herbicides labeled for use in landscape plantings, including dimethenamid-P, flumioxazin, indaziflam, isoxaben, and prodiamine, were also evaluated in greenhouse trials by seeding containers with P. foetida seed. In greenhouse experiments, POST herbicides, including aminocyclopyrachlor, aminopyralid, glyphosate, both triclopyr formulations, and the high rate of fluroxypyr (0.24 kg ae ha−1), provided >90% control across all growth stages at 4 mo after treatment with no regrowth observed. Imazapic provided 49% to 89% control, with efficacy decreasing with P. foetida size, and generally provided less control than other treatments. Field experiments confirmed results from greenhouse studies. In PRE trials, flumioxazin and prodiamine provided better control than all other PRE herbicides evaluated, reducing shoot weights by 99% and 84%, respectively, compared with nontreated controls. Our data suggest all herbicides evaluated POST could potentially be used to manage P. foetida, although less control was achieved with imazapic compared with other herbicides. Further research is needed to determine herbicide efficacy on more mature plants and to develop application methods that would be less injurious to non-target vegetation. In landscapes, flumioxazin or prodiamine could be used for PRE control, but POST options that are labeled for landscape use should be identified in future research.

Keywords

James K. Leary, University of Hawaii at ManoaInvasivelandscapeperennial vinenatural areapostemergencepreemergence
Type
Research Article
Information
Invasive Plant Science and Management , Volume 12 , Issue 1 , March 2019 , pp. 51 - 59
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2019 

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

Ahrens, WH, Cox, DJ, Budhwar, G (1990) Use of the arcsine and square root transformations for subjectively determined percentage data. Weed Sci 38:452–458 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coombs, EM, Clark, JK, Piper, GL, Cofrancesco, AF, eds (2004) Biological Control of Invasive Plants in the United States. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press. 467 pGoogle Scholar
Crone, EE, Marler, M, Pearson, DE (2009) Nontarget effects of broadleaf herbicide on a native perennial forb; a demographic framework for assessing and minimizing impacts. J Appl Ecol 46:673–682 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dey, PM, Dixon, RA (1985) Biochemistry of Storage Carbohydrate in Green Plants. Royal Holloway College. London, UK: London University Press. 378 pGoogle Scholar
Diamond, P (1999) Paederia foetida (Rubiaceae) new to the flora of North Carolina. Sida 18:1273–1276 Google Scholar
EDDMapS (2018) Early detection and distribution mapping system. University of Georgia– Center for Invasive Species and Ecosystem Health. http://www.eddmaps.org. Accessed: August 9, 2018Google Scholar
Enloe, SF, Kniss, AR (2009) Does a diflufenzopyr plus dicamba premix synergize Russian knapweed (Acroptilon repens) control with auxinic herbicides? Invasive Plant Sci Manag 2:318–323 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enloe, SF, Langeland, K, Ferrell, J, Sellers, B, MacDonald, G (2018a) Integrated Management of Nonnative Plants in Natural Areas of Florida. University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, EDIS Pub. SP 242. http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/wg209. Accessed: December 21, 2018Google Scholar
Enloe, SF, Netherland, MD (2017) Evaluation of three-grass specific herbicides on torpedograss (Panicum repens) and seven nontarget, native aquatic plants. J Aquat Plant Manage 55:65–70 Google Scholar
Enloe, SF, O’sullivan, SE, Loewenstein, JN, Brantley, E, Lauer, DK (2018b) The influence of treatment timing and shrub size on Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) control with cut stump herbicide treatments in the southeastern United States. Invasive Plant Sci Manag 11:49–55 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fletcher, JS, Johnson, FL, McFarlane, JC (1990) Influence of greenhouse versus field testing and taxonomic differences on plant sensitivity to chemical treatment. Environ Toxicol Chem 9:769–776 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Florida Climate Center (2018) 1981-2010 Monthly Normal Temperatures, Orlando, FL. https://climatecenter.fsu.edu/products-services/data/1981-2010-normals/Orlando. Accessed: October 11, 2018Google Scholar
[FDACS] Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (2016) Florida Noxious Weeds List. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. 2 pGoogle Scholar
Gann, G, Gordon, DR (1998) Paederia foetida (skunk vine) and P. cruddasiana (sewer vine): threats and management strategies. Nat Area J 18:169–174 Google Scholar
Grey, TL, Webster, TM, Li, X, Anderson, W, Cutts, GS III (2015) Evaluation of control of napiergrass (Pennisetum purpuream) with tillage and herbicides. Invasive Plant Sci Manag 8:393–400 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gucker, CL (2009) Paederia foetida. In fire effects information system. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis. Accessed: May 15, 2015Google Scholar
Hall, D (1993) Skunk vine time. Resour Manage Notes 5:11–12 Google Scholar
Jordan, DL, York, AC, Griffin, JL, Clay, PA, Vidrine, PR, Reynolds, DB (1997) Influence of application variables on efficacy of glyphosate. Weed Technol 11:354–362 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langeland, KA, Burks, KC, eds (1998) Identification and Biology of Non-native Plants in Florida’s Natural Areas. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida. 165 pGoogle Scholar
Langeland, KA, Stocker, RK, Brazis, DM (2006) Natural Area Weeds: Skunk-vine (Paederia foetida). University of Florida EDIS No. SS-AGR-80. http://www.floridainvasives.org/Heartland/links/FloridaStewardship117/skunk-vineedisWG20800.pdf. Accessed: March 24, 2016Google Scholar
Liu, H, Pemberton, RW (2008) Differential soil seed bank longevity of Paederia foetida L., an invasive woody vine, across three habitats in Florida. J Torrey Bot Soc 135:491–496 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, H, Pemberton, RW, Stiling, P (2006) Native and introduced pollinators promote a self- incompatible invasive woody vine (Paederia foetida L.) in Florida. J Torrey Bot Soc 133:304–311 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacDonald, GE, Ferrell, JA, Sellers, B, Langeland, K, Duperron-Bond, OT, Ketterer-Guest, E (2008) Skunk-vine—Paederia foetida (L.) Rubiaceae. University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants. http://plants.ifas.ufl.edu/node/303. Accessed: December 6, 2016Google Scholar
Obrigawitch, TT, Kenyon, WH, Kuratle, H (1990) Effect of application timing on rhizome johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) control with DPX-V9360. Weed Sci 38:45–49 Google Scholar
Puff, C (1991) Selected aspects of the reproductive biology of Paederia L. (Rubiaceae-Paederieae). Pages 167–178 in Puff, C, ed. The Genus Paederia L. (Rubiaceae-Paederieae): A Multidisciplinary Study. Opera Botanica Belgica. Volume 3. Meise, Belgium: National Botanic Garden of Belgium Google Scholar
Puff, C, Werbowsky, I (1991). Size, shape, weight, fall behavior and dispersal potential of the anemochorous diaspores of the genus Paederia L. (Rubiaceae-Paederieae). Pages 179– 192 in Puff, C, ed. The Genus Paederia L. (Rubiaceae-Paederieae): A Multidisciplinary Study. Opera Botanica Belgica. Volume 3. Meise, Belgium: National Botanic Garden of Belgium Google Scholar
Riemens, MM, Duek, T, Kempenaar, C (2008) Predicting sublethal effects of herbicides on terrestrial non-crop plant species in the field from greenhouse data. Environ Pollut 155:141–149.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Seeruttun, S, Barbe, C, Gaungoo, A (2005) Vine weeds in sugarcane: fluroxypyr provides cost- effective post-emergence control in Mauritius. Sugar Cane Intl 23:3–5 Google Scholar
Sharpe, SM, Boyd, NS, Dittmar, PJ (2016) Clopyralid dose response for two black medic (Medicago lupulina) growth stages. Weed Technol 30:717–724 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, S, Singh, M (2004) Effect of growth stage on trifloxysulfuron and glyphosate efficacy in twelve weed species of citrus groves. Weed Technol 18:1031–1036 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Takahashi, K, Kamitani, T (2004) Factors affecting seed rain beneath fleshy-fruited plants. Plant Ecol 174:247–256 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture (2018) USDA Plant Hardiness Zone Map. https://planthardiness.ars.usda.gov/PHZMWeb. Accessed: November 29, 2018Google Scholar
[USDA-NRCS] U.S. Department of Agriculture-Natural Resources Conservation Service (2018) The PLANTS Database. Greensboro, NC: National Plant Data Team. https://plants.usda.gov. Accessed: October 14, 2018Google Scholar
[USDA-SCS] U.S. Department of Agriculture–Soil Conservation Service (1989) Soil Survey of Orange County, Florida. U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service Soils Report. 175 pGoogle Scholar
Washitani, I, Masuda, M (1990) A comparative study of the germination characteristics of seeds from a moist tall grassland community. Funct Ecol 4:543–557 CrossRefGoogle Scholar