Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T18:48:18.611Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Combining Mowing and Fall-Applied Herbicides to Control Canada Thistle (Cirsium arvense)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

K. George Beck*
Affiliation:
Department of Bioagricultural Science and Pest Management, Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, CO 80523
James R. Sebastian
Affiliation:
Department of Bioagricultural Science and Pest Management, Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, CO 80523
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected].

Abstract

Experiments were conducted in subirrigated and upland Colorado pastures to compare herbicides applied alone in fall to the same herbicides preceded by one, two, or three mowings. Picloram controlled Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) well at both sites, and in general, mowing did not improve its performance. Picloram at 560 g ai/ha and picloram plus 2,4-D at 280 plus 1,120 g ai/ha were the lowest rates that eliminated Canada thistle. Mowing did not improve chlorsulfuron performance at either site, but chlorsulfuron eliminated Canada thistle at the subirrigated site. Dicamba controlled 97% of Canada thistle at the subirrigated site, and mowing did not improve its performance; two or three mowings before spraying dicamba at the upland site improved performance, but 37% remained uncontrolled. Control from the reduced rate and the two lowest recommended rates of clopyralid plus 2,4-D was improved by two or three prior mowings at the subirrigated site, but only the highest rate benefited from two or three mowings at the upland site. Mowing alone three times per year for 2 yr controlled 85% of Canada thistle at the subirrigated site, but failed to control it at the upland site. Variability in results between experiments likely was due to a high water table at the subirrigated site, which may have restricted Canada thistle root growth and possibly made it easier to control. Inconsistent results prohibit concluding that mowing before spraying will consistently improve Canada thistle control, and such a treatment combination should not be commonly recommended.

Type
Research Article
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

Amor, R. L. and Harris, R. V. 1977. Control of Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop. by herbicides and mowing. Weed Res. 17: 303309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benz, L. J., Beck, K. G., Whitson, T. D., and Koch, D. W. 1999. Reclaiming Russian knapweed infested rangeland. J. Range Manage. 52: 351356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daubenmire, R. F. 1959. Canopy coverage method of vegetation analysis. Northwest Sci. 33: 4364.Google Scholar
Devine, M. D. and Vanden Born, W. H. 1985. Absorption, translocation, and foliar activity of clopyralid and chlorsulfuron in Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) and perennial sowthistle (Sonchus arvensis). Weed Sci. 33: 524530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donald, W. W. 1990. Management and control of Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense). In Foy, C. L., ed. Reviews of Weed Science. Volume 5. Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of America. pp. 193249.Google Scholar
Erickson, L. C. 1983. A review of early introductions of field (Canada) thistle [Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop.] to North America and its present distributions. Proc. West. Soc. Weed Sci. 36: 200204.Google Scholar
Hunter, J. H. 1995. Effect of bud vs rosette growth stage on translocation of 14C-glyphosate in Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense). Weed Sci. 43: 347351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunter, J. H. 1996. Control of Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) with glyphosate applied at the bud vs rosette stage. Weed Sci. 44: 934938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, P. J. and Swisher, B. A. 1985. Absorption, translocation, and metabolism of 14C-chlorsulfuron in Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense). Weed Sci. 33: 711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, C. F. 1928. Canada Thistle and Russian Knapweed and Their Control. Colorado Experiment Station Bulletin 348. 42 p.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis System. 1996. SAS/STAT Software: Changes and Enhancements through Release 6.11. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1104 p.Google Scholar
Schreiber, M. M. 1967. Effect of density and control of Canada thistle on production and utilization of alfalfa pasture. Weeds. 15: 138142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welton, F. A., Morris, V. H., and Hartzler, A. J. 1929. Organic Food Reserves in Relation to the Eradication of Canada Thistle. Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station. Bulletin 441. 25 p.Google Scholar
Whitson, T. D., Koch, D. W., Gale, A. E., and Ferrell, M. E. 1989. The Control of Leafy Spurge (Euphorbia esula L.) by the Integration of Herbicides and Perennial Grasses. University of Wyoming Rangeland Research and Extension Demonstrations, Cooperative Extension Service, Agricultural Experiment Station, College of Agriculture. pp. 4247.Google Scholar
Willard, C. J. and Lewis, R. D. 1939. Eradicating Canada Thistle. Ohio State University Agricultural College Extension Service 146. 8 p.Google Scholar
Wilson, R. G. and Kachman, S. D. 1999. Effect of perennial grasses on Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) control. Weed Technol. 13: 8387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar