Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T01:35:14.980Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of Sclerotinia sclerotiorum on the Interference between Bluebunch Wheatgrass (Agropyron spicatum) and Spotted Knapweed (Centaurea maculosa)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

James S. Jacobs ,
Roger L. Sheley  and
Bruce D. Maxwell
James S. Jacobs
Affiliation:
Plant, Soil and Environ. Sci., Montana State Univ., Bozeman, MT 59717
Roger L. Sheley
Affiliation:
Plant, Soil and Environ. Sci., Montana State Univ., Bozeman, MT 59717
Bruce D. Maxwell
Affiliation:
Plant, Soil and Environ. Sci., Montana State Univ., Bozeman, MT 59717
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Effectiveness of the common soil fungus Sclerotinia sclerotiorum as a biological control for spotted knapweed and its effect on competitive interactions between spotted knapweed and bluebunch wheatgrass were evaluated in a growth chamber study using addition series methods. Total seeding densities ranged from 2000 to 60 000 seeds/m2. Mean bluebunch wheatgrass plant weight was 3.5 times greater than spotted knapweed weight per plant, respectively. Coefficient ratios estimating species interaction showed bluebunch wheatgrass density had a greater influence than spotted knapweed density on both bluebunch wheatgrass and spotted knapweed weights (2.11 and 0.51, respectively) when not under the influence of S. sclerotiorum. Niche differentiation ratios indicated a lack of resource partitioning between species (1.11). S. sclerotiorum reduced spotted knapweed density by 68 to 80% without reducing bluebunch wheatgrass density. Spotted knapweed weight per plant also was reduced by the addition of 5. sclerotiorum (1.4 to 1.2 mg) but there was not a corresponding increase in bluebunch wheatgrass weight. S. sclerotiorum decreased competition between spotted knapweed and bluebunch wheatgrass. This study provides evidence that establishment of bluebunch wheatgrass on spotted knapweed infested rangeland may be improved by combining S. sclerotiorum with high grass seeding rates.

Keywords

Spotted knapweed, Centaurea maculosa Lam. #3 CENMAbluebunch wheatgrass, Agropyron spicatum (Pursh.) Scribn. and SmithSclerotinia sclerotiorum (Lib.) deBary (Adams, 1974; Purdy, 1979)Addition seriesbiological controlcompetition
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 10 , Issue 1 , March 1996 , pp. 13 - 21
Copyright
Copyright © 1996 by the 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

1. Aarssen, L. W. 1983. Ecological combining ability and competitive combining ability in plants: Toward a general evolutionary theory of coexistence in systems of competition. Am. Nat. 122:707–731.Google Scholar
2. Chicoine, T. K., Fay, P. K., and Nielsen, G. A. 1985. Predicting weed migration from soil and climate maps. Weed Sci. 34:57–61.Google Scholar
3. Davis, E. S., Fay, P. K., Chicoine, T. K., and Lacey, C. A. 1993. Persistence of spotted knapweed. Weed Sci. 41:57–61.Google Scholar
4. Donald, C. M. 1951. Inter-specific competition among annual pasture plants. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 2:355–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Ford, E. J. 1989. Sclerotinia as a Mycoherbicide. p. 182–190 in Fay, P. K. and Lacey, J. R., eds. Knapweed Symp. Proc. Montana State Univ., Bozeman, MT.Google Scholar
6. Griffith, D. and Lacey, J. R. 1991. Economic evaluation of spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa) control using picloram. J. Range Manage. 44:43–47.Google Scholar
7. Harris, G. A. 1967. Some competitive relationships between Agropyron spicatum and Bromus tectorum . Ecol. Monogr. 37:89–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. 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
9. Maddox, D. M. 1982. Biological control of diffuse knapweed (Centaurea diffusa) and spotted knapweed (C. maculosa). Weed Sci. 30:76–82.Google Scholar
10. Miller, V., Ford, E. J., Zidack, N. J., and Sands, D. S. 1989. A pyrimidine auxotroph of Sclerotinia sclerotiorum for use in biological weed control. J. Gen. Microbiol. 135:2085–2091.Google Scholar
11. Mortenson, K. and Molloy, M. M. 1989. Fungi detected on Acroptilon repens (Russian knapweed) during surveys from 1981 to 1988. Can. Plant Dis. Surv. 69:143–145.Google Scholar
12. Muller-Scharer, H. and Schroeder, D. 1993. The biological control of Centaurea spp. in North America: do insects solve the problem? Pestic Sci. 37:343–353.Google Scholar
13. Prather, T. S. and Callihan, R. H. 1991. Interference between yellow starthistle and pubescent wheatgrass. J. Range Manage. 44:443–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Purdy, L. H. 1979. Sclerotinia sclerotiorum history, diseases, symptomatology, host, range, geographic distribution, and impact. Phytopathology 69:875–880.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Radosevich, S. R. 1987. Methods to study interactions among crops and weeds. Weed Technol. 1:190–198.Google Scholar
16. Ratkowski, D. A. 1983. Nonlinear Regression Modeling: A Unified Practical Approach. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, NY. 276 p.Google Scholar
17. Roché, B. F. Jr. and Talbott, C. J. 1986. The collection history of Centaureas found in Washington State. Agric. Res. Cent., Washington State Univ. Res. Bull. XB0978. 36 p.Google Scholar
18. Roush, M. L. 1988. Models of a four-species annual weed community: growth, competition, and community dynamics. , Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, OR. 218 p.Google Scholar
19. Sheley, R. L., and Larson, L. L. 1994. Comparative growth and interference between cheatgrass and yellow starthistle seedlings. J. Range Manage. 47:470–474.Google Scholar
20. Sheley, R. L. and Larson, L. L. 1995. Emergence date effects on resource partitioning between diffuse knapweed seedlings. J. Range Manage. [in press].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21. Shirman, R. 1981. Seed production and spring seedling establishment of diffuse and spotted knapweed. J. Range Mange. 34:45–47.Google Scholar
22. Spitters, T. J. 1983. An alternative approach to the analysis of mixed cropping experiments. I. Examinations of competition effects. Netherlands. J. Agric. Sci. 31:1–11.Google Scholar
23. Story, J. M., Boggs, K. W., Good, W. R. and Nowierski, R. M. 1989. The seed moth, Metzneria paucipuntella: Its impact on spotted knapweed seed production and two seed head flies, Urophora spp. p. 172–174 in Fay, P. K. and Lacey, J. R., eds. Proc. Knapweed Symp. Montana State Univ., Bozeman, MT.Google Scholar
24. Strang, R. M., Lindsay, K. M., and Price, R. S. 1979. Knapweeds: British Columbia's undesirable aliens. Rangelands 1:141–143.Google Scholar
25. Tyser, W. T., and Key, C. H. 1988. Spotted knapweed in natural area fescue grasslands: an ecological assessment. Northwest Sci. 68:151–160.Google Scholar
26. 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
27. Watson, A. K., Copeman, R. L., and Renney, A. J. 1974. A first record of Sclerotinia sclerotiorum and Microsphoaeropsis centaureae on Centaurea diffusa . Can. J. Bot. 52:2639–2640.Google Scholar
28. Weldon, C. W. and Slauson, W. L. 1986. The intensity of competition versus its importance: An overlooked distinction and some implications. Q. Rev. Biol. 61:23–44.Google Scholar
29. Zimdall, R. L. 1980. Weed crop competition: A review. International Plant Protection Center, Corvallis, OR. 195 p.Google Scholar