Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T20:49:54.977Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of Herbicide, Tillage, and Grass Seeding on Wild Chervil (Anthriscus sylvestris)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Timothy W. Miller  and
Danielle E. D'Auria
Timothy W. Miller*
Affiliation:
Washington State University, Mount Vernon, WA 98273
Danielle E. D'Auria
Affiliation:
Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, Bangor, ME 04401
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Wild chervil is an invasive biennial or short-lived perennial weed introduced into North America that negatively impacts forage production and degrades habitat for native plant species. A 2-yr study using prebloom mowing followed by combinations of herbicide, tillage, and grass seeding was conducted in the Pacific Northwest to identify an effective integrated weed management strategy for this species. By 2 mo after herbicide treatment (MAHT), wild chervil control with glyphosate + ammonium sulfate (AMS) and clopyralid was 83 and 73%, respectively. Tillage with or without herbicide pretreatment resulted in 92 to 98% wild chervil control at 2 MAHT, whereas herbicide without tillage gave only 45% control across all treatments. Tillage with or without subsequent grass seeding reduced wild chervil density four-fold compared to herbicide alone at 9 MAHT. Herbicide + tillage + grass seeding resulted in similar wild chervil cover (1 to 5% cover) as herbicide + tillage (1 to 6% cover) without subsequent grass seeding. Wild chervil biomass at 1 yr after herbicide treatment (YAHT) was reduced to 487 kg ha−1 (439 lb ac−1) with herbicide + tillage compared to 4,256 kg ha−1 for herbicide treatment alone. Herbicide + tillage + grass seeding increased grass dry weight at 1 YAHT from 201 kg ha−1 for herbicide + tillage to 1,575 kg ha−1, compared to 351 kg ha−1 in herbicide-only plots.

Keywords

Clopyraliddicambaglyphosatetriclopyr2,4-Dwild chervilAnthriscus sylvestris (L.) HoffmannIntegrated weed managementinvasive species
Type
Research
Information
Invasive Plant Science and Management , Volume 4 , Issue 3 , September 2011 , pp. 326 - 331
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

Berge, G. and Hestmark, G. 1997. Composition of seed banks of roadsides, stream verges and agricultural fields in southern Norway. Ann. Bot. Fenn. 34:77–90.Google Scholar
Crofts, A. and Jefferson, R. G., eds. 1999. The Lowland Grassland Management Handbook. 2nd ed. Peterborough, U.K. English Nature/The Wildlife Trusts. 238 p.Google Scholar
Darbyshire, S. J., Hoeg, R., and Haverkort, J. 1999. The biology of Canadian weeds. 111. Anthriscus sylvestris (L.) Hoffm. Can. J. Plant Sci. 79:671–682.Google Scholar
Derr, J. F. 2008. Common reed (Phragmites australis) response to mowing and herbicide application. Invasive Plant Sci. Manag. 1:12–16.Google Scholar
Evans, J. R., Nugent, J. J., and Meisel, J. K. 2003. Invasive Plant Species, Inventory and Management. Plan for the Hanford Reach National Monument. Seattle, WA The Nature Conservancy, Washington Field Office. 198 p.Google Scholar
Grime, J. P., Hodgson, J. G., and Hunt, R. 1988. Comparative Plant Ecology: A Functional Approach to Common British Species. London Unwin Hyman. 742 p.Google Scholar
Hansson, M. L. 1994. Response of Anthriscus sylvestris (L.) Hoffm. to defoliation and different nitrogen supply levels. Swed. J. Agric. Res. 24:21–29.Google Scholar
Hansson, M. L. and Persson, T. S. 1994. Anthriscus sylvestris—a growing conservation problem. Ann. Bot. Fenn. 31:205–213.Google Scholar
Hoeg, R., Doohan, D., Thomsen, T., and Harris, S. 1997. Control of Wild Chervil in Grass Forage. Province of Nova Scotia. AgCanada, Production Technology Branch. http://agri.gov.ns.ca/pt/projsum/97/b97cherv.htm. Accessed: May 31, 2010.Google Scholar
Hunter, J. H. 1996. Control of Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) with glyphosate applied at the bud vs. rosette stage. Weed Sci. 44:934–938.Google Scholar
Imhoff, H. and Kuhbauch, W. 1980. The distribution of 14C assimilates in wild chervil (Anthriscus sylvestris L.) and cow parsnip (Heracleum sphondylium L.) at different stages and the timing for effective herbicide application. Z. Acker. Pflanzenbau 149:35–45.Google Scholar
Imhoff, H., Voigtlander, G., and Kuhbauch, W. 1980. Assimilate distribution in persistent pasture weeds Rumex obtusifolium and Anthriscus sylvestris and herbicide treatment at different growth stages. Z. Acker Pflanzenbau 149:117–122.Google Scholar
Jacobsons, P. 1975. Control of wild chervil (Anthriscus sylvestris (L.) Hoffm.) in Norway. Mitt. Biol. Bundesanst. Land- Forstwirtsch. Berl.-Dahl. 165:197.Google Scholar
Mislevy, P., Mullahey, J., and Martin, F. G. 1999. Preherbicide mowing and herbicide rate on tropical soda apple (Solanum viarum) control. Weed Technol. 13:172–175.Google Scholar
Monteiro, A., Moreira, I., and Sousa, E. 1999. Effect of prior common reed (Phragmites austrialis) cutting on herbicide efficacy. Hydrobiologia 415:305–308.Google Scholar
Oswald, A. K. 1986. Effects of sulphonyl-urea herbicides on Anthriscus sylvestris at two stages of growth. Tests Agrochem. Cultiv. 7:102–103.Google Scholar
Parr, T. W. and Way, J. M. 1988. Management of roadside vegetation: the long-term effects of cutting. J. Appl. Ecol. 25:1073–1087.Google Scholar
Renz, M. J. and DiTomaso, J. M. 2006. Early season mowing improves the effectiveness of chlorsulfuron and glyphosate for control of perennial pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium). Weed Technol. 20:32–36.Google Scholar
Rew, L. J., Froud-Williams, R. J., and Boatman, N. D. 1996. Dispersal of Bromus sterilis and Anthriscus sylvestris seed within arable field margins. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 58:107–114.Google Scholar
Rinella, M. J., Jacobs, J. S., Sheley, R. L., and Borkowski, J. J. 2001. Spotted knapweed response to season and frequency of mowing. J. Range Manag. 54:52–56.Google Scholar
Thompson, K. J., Bakker, J. P., and Bekker, R. M. 1997. The Soil Seed Bank of Northwest Europe: Methodology, Density and Longevity. Cambridge, U.K. Cambridge University Press. 276 p.Google Scholar
van Mierlo, A. and van Groenendael, J. 1991. A population dynamic approach to the control of Anthriscus sylvestris (L.) Hoffm. J. Appl. Ecol. 28:128–139.Google Scholar