Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-07T23:20:56.642Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hand Pulling Following Mowing and Herbicide Treatments Increases Control of Spotted Knapweed (Centaurea stoebe)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Neil W. MacDonald ,
Laurelin M. Martin ,
Corey K. Kapolka ,
Timothy F. Botting  and
Tami E. Brown
Neil W. MacDonald*
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, Grand Valley State University, Allendale, MI 49401
Laurelin M. Martin
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, Grand Valley State University, Allendale, MI 49401
Corey K. Kapolka
Affiliation:
Department of Environmental and Plant Biology, Ohio University, Athens, OH 45701
Timothy F. Botting
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, Grand Valley State University, Allendale, MI 49401
Tami E. Brown
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, Grand Valley State University, Allendale, MI 49401
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Extensive areas in the upper Midwest have been invaded by spotted knapweed, and effective management strategies are required to reestablish native plant communities. We examined effects of mowing, mowing plus clopyralid, or mowing plus glyphosate in factorial combination with hand pulling and burning on knapweed abundances on a knapweed-infested site in western Michigan. We applied mowing and herbicide treatments in summer 2008, and seeded all plots with native grasses and forbs in spring 2009. We conducted the knapweed pulling treatment from 2009 to 2012 in July. The prescribed burn was conducted in April 2012. By 2012, hand pulling reduced adult knapweed densities to 0.57 ± 0.12 m−2 (0.053 ± 0.011 ft−2) (mean ± SE), which was 5.8% of nonpulled treatments, juvenile densities to 0.29 ± 0.07 m−2 (2.1% of nonpulled treatments), and seedling densities to 0.07 ± 0.06 m−2 (2.6% of nonpulled treatments). After 3 yr, hand pulling reduced seed bank densities to 68 ± 26 m−2 as compared to 524 ± 254 m−2 in nonpulled treatments and 369 ± 66 m−2 in adjacent untreated areas of the study site. Without hand pulling, effects of mowing or mowing plus glyphosate were short-lived and allowed knapweed to rapidly resurge. In comparison, although a single mowing plus clopyralid treatment maintained significantly reduced densities of knapweed for 4 yr, by 2012 knapweed biomass in the nonpulled clopyralid treatment was approximately 60% of that in the other nonpulled treatments. Burning had minimal impacts on knapweed densities regardless of treatment combination, probably as a result of low fire intensity. Results demonstrated that persistent hand pulling used as a follow-up to single mowing or mowing plus herbicide treatments can be an effective practice for treating isolated spotted knapweed infestations or for removing small numbers of knapweed that survive herbicide applications.

Keywords

Clopyralidglyphosatespotted knapweed, Centaurea stoebe L.Burningmowingnative plantsrestorationweed control
Type
Research
Information
Invasive Plant Science and Management , Volume 6 , Issue 4 , December 2013 , pp. 470 - 479
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America

References

Literature Cited

Abella, S. R. 2001. Effectiveness of different management strategies for controlling spotted knapweed in remnant and restored prairies. Ecol. Restor. 19:117–118.Google Scholar
Abella, S. R. and MacDonald, N. W. 2000. Intense burns may reduce spotted knapweed germination. Ecol. Restor. 18:203–205.Google Scholar
Anderson, M. J. 2005. PERMANOVA: A FORTRAN Computer Program for Permutational Multivariate Analysis of Variance. Auckland, New Zealand Department of Statistics, University of Auckland. 24 p.Google Scholar
Brown, M. L., Duncan, C. A., and Halstvedt, M. B. 1999. Spotted knapweed management with integrated methods. Proc. West. Soc. Weed Sci. 52:68–70.Google Scholar
Carey, E. V., Marler, M. J., and Callaway, R. M. 2004. Mycorrhizae transfer carbon from a native grass to an invasive weed: evidence from stable isotopes and physiology. Plant Ecol. 172:133–141.Google Scholar
Carpinelli, M. F., Sheley, R. L., and Maxwell, B. D. 2004. Revegetating weed-infested rangeland with niche-differentiated desirable species. J. Range Manag. 57:97–105.Google Scholar
Crone, E. E., Marler, M., and Pearson, D. E. 2009. Non-target effects of broadleaf herbicide on a native perennial forb: a demographic framework for assessing and minimizing impacts. J. Appl. Ecol. 46:673–682.Google Scholar
Davis, E. S., Fay, P. K., Chicoine, T. K., and Lacey, C. A. 1993. Persistence of spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa) seed in soil. Weed Sci. 41:57–61.Google Scholar
DiTomaso, J. M. 2000. Invasive weeds in rangelands: species, impacts, and management. Weed Sci. 48:255–265.Google Scholar
Duncan, C., Story, J., and Sheley, R. 2011. Biology, ecology, and management of Montana knapweeds. Extension Bulletin EB0204. Bozeman, MT Montana State University Extension. 19 p.Google Scholar
Emery, S. M. and Gross, K. L. 2005. Effects of timing of prescribed fire on the demography of an invasive plant, spotted knapweed Centaurea maculosa . J. Appl. Ecol. 42:60–69.Google Scholar
Emery, S. M., Gross, K. L., and Suding, K. N. 2003. Summer burns best for controlling spotted knapweed in prairie restoration experiment (Michigan). Ecol. Restor. 21:137–138.Google Scholar
Hastings, M. S. and DiTomaso, J. M. 1996. Fire controls yellow star thistle in California grasslands. Restor. Manag. Notes 14:124–128.Google Scholar
Herron, G. J., Sheley, R. L., Maxwell, B. D., and Jacobsen, J. S. 2001. Influence of nutrient availability on the interaction between spotted knapweed and bluebunch wheatgrass. Restor. Ecol. 9:326–331.Google Scholar
Hierro, J. L. and Callaway, R. M. 2003. Allelopathy and exotic plant invasion. Plant Soil 256:29–39.Google Scholar
Kennard, D. K., Outcalt, K. W., Jones, D., and O'Brien, J. J. 2005. Comparing techniques for estimating flame temperature of prescribed fires. Fire Ecol. 1:75–84.Google Scholar
Kennett, G. A., Lacey, J. R., Butt, C. A., Olson-Rutz, K. M., and Haferkamp, M. R. 1992. Effects of defoliation, shading and competition on spotted knapweed and bluebunch wheatgrass. J. Range Manag. 45:363–369.Google Scholar
Klute, A., ed. 1986. Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 1: Physical and Mineralogical Properties. 2nd ed. Madison, WI American Society of Agronomy and Soil Science Society of America. 1188 p.Google Scholar
Lutgen, E. R. and Rillig, M. C. 2004. Influence of spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa) management treatments on arbuscular mycorrhizae and soil aggregation. Weed Sci. 52:172–177.Google Scholar
MacDonald, N. W., Bosscher, P. J., Mieczkowski, C. A., Sauter, E. M., and Tinsley, B. J. 2001. Pre- and post-germination burning reduces establishment of spotted knapweed seedlings (Michigan). Ecol. Restor. 19:262–263.Google Scholar
MacDonald, N. W., Koetje, M. T., and Perry, B. J. 2003. Native warm-season grass establishment on spotted knapweed-infested gravel mine spoils. J. Soil Water Conserv. 58:243–250.Google Scholar
MacDonald, N. W., Scull, B. T., and Abella, S. R. 2007. Mid-spring burning reduces spotted knapweed and increases native grasses during a Michigan experimental grassland establishment. Restor. Ecol. 15:118–128.Google Scholar
Maron, J. and Marler, M. 2007. Native plant diversity resists invasion at both low and high resource levels. Ecology 88:2651–2661.Google Scholar
McArdle, B. H. and Anderson, M. J. 2001. Fitting multivariate models to community data: a comment on distance-based redundancy analysis. Ecology 82:290–297.Google Scholar
[NCDC] National Climatic Data Center. 2009. Local Climatological Data, Annual Summary with Comparative Data for Muskegon, Michigan (KMKG). Monthly Precipitation Data for 1980–2009 Obtained from the National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, NC. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/. Accessed October 12, 2010.Google Scholar
[NDMC] National Drought Mitigation Center. 2012. U. S. Drought Monitor, Michigan, July 24, 2012. National Drought Mitigation Center, University of Nebraska, Lincoln. http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/. Accessed July 31, 2012.Google Scholar
Packard, S. and Mutel, C. F., eds. 1997. The Tallgrass Restoration Handbook. Covel, CA Island Press. 463 p.Google Scholar
Page, A. L., Miller, R. H., and Keeney, D. R., eds. 1982. Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 2: Chemical and Microbiological Properties. 2nd ed. Madison, WI American Society of Agronomy and Soil Science Society of America. 1159 p.Google Scholar
Rice, P. M., Toney, J. C., Bedunah, D. J., and Carlson, C. E. 1997. Plant community diversity and growth form responses to herbicide applications for control of Centaurea maculosa . J. Appl. Ecol. 34:1397–1412.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
Rinella, M. J., Maxwell, B. D., Fay, P. K., Weaver, T., and Sheley, R. L. 2009. Control effort exacerbates invasive species problem. Ecol. Appl. 19:155–162.Google Scholar
Rinella, M. J., Pokorny, M. L., and Rekaya, R. 2007. Grassland invader responses to realistic changes in native species richness. Ecol. Appl. 17:1824–1831.Google Scholar
Schirman, R. 1981. Seed production and spring seedling establishment of diffuse and spotted knapweed. J. Range Manag. 34:45–47.Google Scholar
Sheley, R. S., Duncan, C. A., Halstvedt, M. B., and Jacobs, J. S. 2000. Spotted knapweed and grass response to herbicide treatments. J. Range Manag. 53:176–182.Google Scholar
Sheley, R. L. and Half, M. L. 2006. Enhancing native forb establishment and persistence using a rich seed mixture. Restor. Ecol. 14:627–635.Google Scholar
Sheley, R. L., Jacobs, J. S., and Carpinelli, M. F. 1998. Distribution, biology, and management of diffuse knapweed (Centaurea diffusa) and spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa). Weed Technol. 12:353–362.Google Scholar
Sheley, R. L., Jacobs, J. S., and Lucas, D. E. 2001. Revegetating spotted knapweed infested rangeland in a single entry. J. Range Manag. 54:144–151.Google Scholar
Skurski, T. C., Maxwell, B. D., and Rew, L. J. 2013. Ecological tradeoffs in non-native plant management. Biol. Conserv. 159:292–302.Google Scholar
Steel, R.G.D. and Torrie, J. H. 1980. Principles and Procedures of Statistics. 2nd edition. New York McGraw-Hill Book Company. 633 p.Google Scholar
Story, J. M., Smith, L., Corn, J. G., and White, L. J. 2008. Influence of seed head-attacking biological control agents on spotted knapweed reproductive potential in western Montana over a 30-year period. Environ. Entomol. 37(2):510–519.Google Scholar
Story, J. M., Smith, L., and Good, W. R. 2001. Relationship among growth attributes of spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa) in western Montana. Weed Technol. 15:750–761.Google Scholar
Tyser, R. W., Asebrook, J. M., Potter, R. W., and Kurth, L. L. 1998. Roadside revegetation in Glacier National Park: effects of herbicide and seeding treatments. Restor. Ecol. 6:197–206.Google Scholar
Vermeire, L. T. and Rinella, M. J. 2009. Fire alters emergence of invasive plant species from soil surface-deposited seeds. Weed Sci. 57:304–310.Google Scholar
Wally, A. L., Menges, E. S., and Weekley, C. W. 2006. Comparison of three devices for estimating fire temperatures in ecological studies. Appl. Veg. Sci. 9:97–108.Google Scholar
Watson, A. K. and Renney, A. J. 1974. The biology of Canadian weeds. 6. Centaurea diffusa and C. maculosa . Can. J. Plant Sci. 54:687–701.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, L. 1989. SYSTAT: The System for Statistics. Version 4. Evanston, IL SYSTAT Inc. 822 p.Google Scholar