Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T05:46:41.676Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Meta-Analysis of Field Bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) Management in Annual and Perennial Systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 July 2018

Stacy Davis ,
Jane Mangold ,
Fabian Menalled ,
Noelle Orloff ,
Zach Miller  and
Erik Lehnhoff
Stacy Davis*
Affiliation:
Research Associate (ORCID: 0000-0002-0287-3871), Department of Land Resources and Environmental Sciences, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT, USA
Jane Mangold
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Department of Land Resources and Environmental Sciences, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT, USA
Fabian Menalled
Affiliation:
Professor, Montana State University, Department of Land Resources and Environmental Sciences, Bozeman, MT, USA
Noelle Orloff
Affiliation:
Associate Extension Specialist, Schutter Diagnostic Lab, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT, USA
Zach Miller
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor and Superintendent, Western Agricultural Research Center, Montana State University, Corvallis, MT, USA
Erik Lehnhoff
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Department of Entomology, Plant Pathology, and Weed Science, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM, USA
*
*Author for correspondence: Stacy Davis, Research Associate, Montana State University, P.O. Box 173120, Bozeman, MT 59717. (Email: [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis L.) is a persistent, perennial weed species that infests a variety of temperate habitats around the globe. To evaluate the efficacy of general management approaches and impacts on crop yield and to identify research gaps, we conducted a series of meta-analyses using published studies focusing on C. arvensis management in annual cropping and perennial systems. Our analysis of 48 articles (560 data points) conducted in annual systems indicated that 95% of data points measured efficacy over short time frames (within 2 yr of treatment). Furthermore, only 27% of data points reported impacts of C. arvensis management on crop yield. In annual systems, herbicide control dominated the literature (~80% of data points) and was an effective management technique up to 2 yr posttreatment. Integrated management, with or without herbicides, and three nonchemical techniques were similarly effective as herbicide at reducing C. arvensis up to 2 yr posttreatment. In addition, integrated approaches, with or without herbicides, and two nonchemical techniques had positive effects on crop yield. There were few differences among herbicide mechanism of action groups on C. arvensis abundance in annual systems. There were only nine articles (28 data points) concerning C. arvensis management in perennial systems (e.g., pasture, rangeland, lawn), indicating more research effort has been directed toward annual systems. In perennial systems, biocontrol, herbicide, and non-herbicide integrated management techniques were equally effective at reducing C. arvensis, while competition and grazing were not effective. Overall, our results demonstrate that while chemical control of C. arvensis is generally effective and well studied, integrated and nonchemical control practices can perform equally well. We also documented the need for improved monitoring of the efficacy of management practices over longer time frames and including effects on desired vegetation to develop sustainable weed management programs.

Keywords

J. Anita DilleKansas State UniversityIntegrated managementinvasive plantsliterature reviewnoxious weedsperennial weeds
Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 66 , Issue 4 , July 2018 , pp. 540 - 547
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2018 

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

Abu-Dieyeh, MH, Watson, AK (2007) Grass overseeding and a fungus combine to control Taraxacum officinale . J Appl Ecol 44:115–124 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, DC, Gurevitch, J, Rosenberg, MS (1997) Resampling tests for meta-analysis of ecological data. Ecology 78:1277–1283 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, WP (1999) Field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis). Pages 123–135 in Anderson WP, ed. Perennial Weeds: Characterestics and Identification of Selected Herbaceous Species. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press Google Scholar
Bell, CE (1990) Non chemical control of field bindweed. Pages 74–77 in Proceedings of the California Weed Conference. San Jose, CA: California Weed Science SocietyGoogle Scholar
Boldt, PE, Rosenthal, SS, Srinivasan, R (1998) Distribution of field bindweed and hedge bindweed in the USA. J Prod Agric 11:291–381 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burrows, G, Tyrl, R (2013) Convolvulaceae Juss. Pages 365–375 in Burrows G, Tyrl R, eds. Toxic Plants of North America. 2nd ed. Ames, IA: Wiley Google Scholar
Davis, S, Mangold, J, Menalled, F, Orloff, N, Miller, Z, Lehnhoff, E (2018) A meta-analysis of Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) management. Weed Sci, doi:10.1017/wsc.2018.6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeGennaro, FP, Weller, SC (1984) Differential sensitivity of field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) biotypes to glyphosate. Weed Sci 32:472–476 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Graaff, M-A, van Groenigen, K-J, Six, J, Hungate, B, van Kessel, C (2006) Interactions between plant growth and soil nutrient cycling under elevated CO2: a meta-analysis. Global Change Biol 12:2077–2091 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DiTomaso, JM (2000) Invasive weeds in rangelands: species, impacts, and management. Weed Sci 48:255–265 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, V, Castagneyrol, B, Koricheva, J, Gulis, V, Chauvet, E, Graca, MA (2015) A meta-analysis of the effects of nutrient enrichment on litter decomposition in streams. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 90:669–688 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ghosheh, HZ, Hurle, K (2011) Variations in morphology, phenology, and herbicide sensitivity of field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) populations from Jordan. Jordan J Agr Sci 7:634–643 Google Scholar
Greenbook (2017) Plant Protection Label Data. https://www.greenbook.net. Accessed: December 6, 2016Google Scholar
Guntli, D, Pfirter, HA, Moenne-Loccoz, Y, Defago, G (1998) Stagonospora convolvuli LA39 for biocontrol of field bindweed infesting cotoneaster in a cemetery. HortScience 33:860–861 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gurevitch, J, Hedges, LV (2001) Meta-analysis. Pages 347–369 in Scheiner SM, Gurevitch J, eds. Design and Analysis of Ecological Experiments. New York: Oxford University Press CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gurevitch, J, Morrow, LL, Wallace, A, Walsh, JS (1992) A meta-analysis of competition in field experiments. Am Nat 140:539–572 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hakansson, S (2003) Weeds with diverse life forms in various types of crops. Pages 16–55 in Hakansson S, ed. Weeds and Weed Management on Arable Land: An Ecological Approach. Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hedges, LV, Gurevitch, J, Curtis, PS (1999) The meta-analysis of response ratios in experimental ecology. Ecology 80:1150–1156 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kettenring, KM, Adams, CR (2011) Lessons learned from invasive plant control experiments: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Appl Ecol 48:970–979 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koricheva, J, Gurevitch, J (2014) Uses and misuses of meta-analysis in plant ecology. J Ecol 102:828–844 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koricheva, J, Gurevitch, J, Mengersen, K (2013) Handbook of Meta-analysis in Ecology and Evolution. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 498 pGoogle Scholar
Liebman, M, Mohler, CL, Staver, CP (2001) Ecological Management of Agricultural Weeds. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 546 pCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindenmayer, RB, Nissen, S, Westra, P, Shaner, DL, Brunk, G (2013) Aminocyclopyrachlor absorption, translocation and metabolism in field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis). Weed Sci 61:63–67 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McErlich, AF, Boydston, RA (2014) Current state of weed management in organic and conventional cropping systems. Pages 11–32 in Young SL, Pierce FJ, eds. Automation: The Future of Weed Control in Cropping Systems. New York: Springer CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menalled, F, Peterson, R, Smith, R, Curran, W, Páez, D, Maxwell, B (2016) The eco-evolutionary imperative: revisiting weed management in the midst of an herbicide resistance crisis. Sustainability-Basel 8:1297 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Philibert, A, Loyce, C, Makowski, D (2012) Assessment of the quality of meta-analysis in agronomy. Agr Ecosyst Environ 148:72–82 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips McDougall (2016) The Cost of New Agrochemical Product Discovery, Development and Registration in 1995, 2000, 2005–8 and 2010 to 2014. Pathhead, UK. 41 pGoogle Scholar
R Core Team (2016) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing Google Scholar
Shaner, DL, ed. (2014) Herbicide Handbook. 10th ed. Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of America. 513 pGoogle Scholar
Skinner, K, Smith, L, Rice, P (2000) Using noxious weed lists to prioritize targets for developing weed management strategies. Weed Sci 48:640–644 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Timmons, FL (1949) Duration of viability of bindweed seed under field conditions and experimental results in the control of bindweed seedlings. Agron J 41:130–133 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Timmons, FL (1950) Competitive relationships of four different lawn grasses with field bindweed and dandelion under frequent close clipping. Ecology 31:1–5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Todd, FG, Stermitz, FR, Schultheiss, PC, Knight, AP, Traubdargatz, JL (1995) Tropane alkaloids and toxicity of Convolvulus arvensis . Phytochemistry 39:301–303 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture (2018) The PLANTS Database. https://plants.usda.gov/core/profile?symbol=COAR4. Accessed: April 5, 2018Google Scholar
Ward, SM, Cousens, RD, Bagavathiannan, MV, Barney, JN, Beckie, HJ, Busi, R, Davis, AS, Dukes, JS, Forcella, F, Freckleton, RP, Gallandt, ER, Hall, LM, Jasieniuk, M, Lawton-Rauh, A, Lehnhoff, EA, Liebman, M, Maxwell, BD, Mesgaran, MB, Murray, JV, Neve, P, Nuñez, MA, Pauchard, A, Queenborough, SA, Webber, BL (2014) Agricultural weed research: a critique and two proposals. Weed Sci 62:672–678 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weaver, SE, Riley, WR (1982) The biology of Canadian weeds. 53. Convolvulus arvensis L. Can J Plant Sci 62:461–472 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westra, P, Chapman, P, Stahlman, PW, Miller, SD, Fay, PK (1992) Field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) control with various herbicide combinations. Weed Technol 6:949–955 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiese, AF, Rea, HE (1959) Bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis L.) control and seedling emergence as affected by tillage, 2,4-D, and competitive crops. Agron J 51:672–675 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiese, AF, Rea, HE (1962) Factors affecting the toxicity of phenoxy herbicides to field bindweed. Weeds 10:58–61 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, SL, Pitla, SK, Van Evert, FK, Schueller, JK, Pierce, FJ (2017) Moving integrated weed management from low level to a truly integrated and highly specific weed management system using advanced technologies. Weed Res 57:1–5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Davis et al. supplementary material

Appendix S1

Download Davis et al. supplementary material(File)
File 26.4 KB
Supplementary material: File

Davis et al. supplementary material

Tables S1-S2

Download Davis et al. supplementary material(File)
File 31.5 KB