Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T04:06:16.091Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Chemical Management of Cut-Leaved Teasel (Dipsacus Laciniatus) in Missouri

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Diego J. Bentivegna  and
Reid J. Smeda
Diego J. Bentivegna*
Affiliation:
Division of Plant Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211
Reid J. Smeda
Affiliation:
Division of Plant Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Cut-leaved teasel is an invasive weed along highway corridors and is classified noxious in four states, including Missouri. Few herbicides have been examined for cut-leaved teasel control. Herbicides were evaluated for efficacy on established plants and residual activity for suppressing seedling emergence. Various growth regulator herbicides, amino acid inhibitors, and paraquat were applied on established teasel at two locations in central Missouri in fall 2003 and spring 2004, and two additional locations in fall 2004 and spring 2005. At 2 wk after treatment (WAT), paraquat resulted in the highest injury of teasel (85%), but injury declined over time. At 4 WAT, teasel control was most consistent with dicamba + diflufenzopyr applied in spring, ranging from 75 to 94% control. At 8 wk, glyphosate, dicamba + diflufenzopyr, metsulfuron-methyl, imazapyr, and combinations of growth regulator herbicides with 2,4-D were most effective, with teasel control from 86 to 100%. Control with 2,4-D alone was inconsistent; sulfosulfuron, sulfometuron-methyl, and paraquat were ineffective. Residual herbicides did not reduce teasel seedling emergence the following year. A number of herbicides were effective in managing emerged plants but reinfestations of treated sites is likely, even with the residual herbicides used in this research.

Keywords

Dicamba + diflufenzopyrglyphosateimazapyrmetsulfuron-methylparaquat2,4-Dsulfosulfuronsulfometuron-methylteasel, Dipsacus laciniatus L., DIWLAEmergenceherbicide combinationsinvasiveresidual herbicidesroadside
Type
Weed Management — Other Crops/Areas
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 22 , Issue 3 , September 2008 , pp. 502 - 506
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

Bentivegna, D. J. and Smeda, R. J. 2007. Biology and management of cut-leaved teasel (Dipsacus laciniatus L.) in Missouri. in. Proceedings of 47th Weed Science Society of America. Lawrence, KS: Weed Science Society of America. 230.Google Scholar
Bradley, K. W. and Kendig, J. A. 2004. Weed and brush control guide for forage, pastures and non-cropland. Technical Report MP581. Columbia, MO University of Missouri Extension. 32.Google Scholar
Caylor, P. 1998. Herbicides help Illinois DOT control roadside weeds. American City and County. 113:17–18.Google Scholar
Cheesman, O. D. 1998. The impact of some field boundary management practices on the development of Dipsacus fullonum L. flowering stems, and implication for conservation. Agric. Ecosys. Environ. 68:41–49.Google Scholar
Crop Protection Reference 2006. New York C & O Press. 2665.Google Scholar
Czarapata, E. J. 2005. Teasels. Pages 59–60. in. Invasive Plants of the Upper Midwest. Madison, WI University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Glass, W. D. 1991. Vegetation management guideline: cut-leaved teasel (Dipsacus lacinatus L.) and common teasel (Dipsacus sylvestris Huds.). Nat. Areas J. 11:213–214.Google Scholar
Hoffman, R. and Kearns, K. 1997. Wisconsin Manual of Control. Recommendation for Ecologically Invasive Plants. Madison, WI Wisconsin Department of Natural Resource. 102.Google Scholar
Huenneke, L. F. and Thomson, J. K. 1994. Potential interference between a threatened endemic thistle and an invasive nonnative plant. Conserv. Biol. 9:416–426.Google Scholar
[INHS] Illinois Natural History Survey 1990. Vegetation management guidelines. Cut-leaved teasel (Dipsacus laciniatus L.) and common teasel (Dipsacus sylvestris Huds.). in. Vegetation Management Manual. Chicago Heights, IL Illinois Nature Preserve Commission. 24.Google Scholar
Jurica, H. S. 1921. Development of head and flower of Dipsacus sylvestris . Bot. Gaz. 71:138–145.Google Scholar
Lacey, J. R., Marlow, C. B., and Lane, J. R. 1989. Influence of spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa) on surface runoff and sediment yield. Weed Technol. 3:627–631.Google Scholar
Little, R. C., Milliken, G. A., Stroup, W. W., and Wolfinger, R. D. 1996. SAS System for Mixed Models. Cary, NC SAS Institute. 656.Google Scholar
Rector, B. G., Harizanova, V., Sforza, R., Widmer, T., and Wiedenmann, R. N. 2006. Prospects for biological control of teasels, Dipsacus spp., a new target in the United States. Biol. Control. 36:1–14.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems 2003. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Release 9.1 Software version 8e. Cary, NC Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 5135.Google Scholar
Smith, T. E., editor. 1997. Cut-leaved teasel (Dipsacus laciniatus L.) and common teasel (Dipsacus fullonum L.). Pages 44–49. in. Missouri Vegetation Management Manual. Jefferson City, MO Missouri Department of Conservation.Google Scholar
Solecki, M. K. 1993. Cut-leaved and common teasel (Dipsacus laciniatus L and D. sylvestris Huds): profile of two invasive aliens. Pages 85–92. in McKnight, B. N., editor. Biological Pollution: The Control and Impact of Invasive Exotic Species. Indianapolis, IN Indiana Academy of Science.Google Scholar
Steel, R. G. D. and Torrie, J. H. 1980. Principles and Procedures of Statistics: A Biometrical Approach. 2nd ed. New York McGraw-Hill. 633.Google Scholar
Ulbrich, A. V., Souza, J. R., and Shaner, D. 2005. Persistence and carryover effect of imazapic and imazapyr in Brazilian cropping systems. Weed Technol. 19:986–991.Google Scholar
USDA, NRCS 2008. The PLANTS Database. Version 3.5. http://plants.usda.gov. National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, LA 70874–4490 USA. Accessed: February 2008.Google Scholar
Walker, A. and Welch, S. J. 1989. The relative movement and persistence in soil of chlorsulfuron, metsulfuron-methyl and triasulfuron. Weed Res. 29:375–383.Google Scholar
Werner, P. A. 1975. The biology of Canadian weeds 12. Dipsacus sylvestris Huds. Can. J. Plant Sci. 55:783–794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Werner, P. A. 1977. Colonization success of a “Biennial” plant species: experimental field studies of species cohabitation and replacement. Ecol. 58:840–849.Google Scholar
WSSA 2007. Herbicide Handbook. 9th ed. Lawrence, KS Weed Science Society of America. 458.Google Scholar