Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T17:13:10.587Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Herbicide Effects on Density and Biomass of Russian Knapweed (Acroptilon repens) and Associated Plant Species

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Stephen M. Laufenberg ,
Roger L. Sheley ,
James S. Jacobs  and
John Borkowski
Stephen M. Laufenberg
Affiliation:
Land Resources and Environmental Sciences, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 59717
Roger L. Sheley*
Affiliation:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Burns, OR 97720
James S. Jacobs
Affiliation:
Land Resources and Environmental Sciences, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 59717
John Borkowski
Affiliation:
Mathematical Sciences, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 59717
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Sustainable invasive weed management must address treatment effects on desired vegetation. Our objective was to determine the influence of clopyralid plus 2,4-D, glyphosate, and fosamine, at various application rates and timing, on the density and biomass of Russian knapweed and desired plant groups growing in association with this invasive weed. In a randomized complete block design with four replications, three herbicides by three herbicide rates by three herbicide application timings and a nontreated control were factorially applied to two sites located along the Missouri River riparian corridor in Montana. Clopyralid plus 2,4-D, glyphosate, and fosamine were applied during the spring rosette stage of Russian knapweed (June), the bud to bloom stage of Russian knapweed (July), or the flowering stage of Russian knapweed (August). Herbicide rates were considered low, medium, and high based on label rates of clopyralid plus 2,4-D, glyphosate, or fosamine. Density and biomass of all species were sampled 3 yr after treatment. Russian knapweed biomass decreased from 125 to about 25 g/m2 using clopyralid plus 2,4-D, irrespective of rate or timing of application. Russian knapweed density was reduced by about half by this mixture of herbicides. Nonnative grass density and biomass were maintained, whereas native grasses increased using clopyralid plus 2,4-D at medium or high rates. Neither glyphosate nor fosamine provided substantial Russian knapweed control or increases in grasses. Too few forbs were present to analyze their response to the treatments. We believe that herbicides must be combined with revegetation in areas lacking a diverse mixture of desired species capable of capturing resources made available by controlling Russian knapweed.

Keywords

Clopyralid2,4-DfosamineglyphosateRussian knapweed, Acroptilon repens (L) DC. # CENRENative plantsrestorationSEstandard error
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 19 , Issue 1 , March 2005 , pp. 62 - 72
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

Barring, U. 1982. Results of country-wide experiments in forestry. Weeds Weed Control 23:270–276.Google Scholar
Benz, L. J., Beck, K. G., Whitson, T. D., and Koch, D. W. 1999. Reclaiming Russian knapweed infested rangeland. J. Range Manag 52:351–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bottoms, R. M. and Whitson, T. D. 1998. A systems approach for the management of Russian knapweed (Centaurea repens). Weed Technol. 12:363–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bussan, A. J., Dewey, S. A., Whitson, T. D., and Trainor, M. A. 2001. Montana/Utah/Wyoming Weed Management Handbook; 2001–2002. Cooperative Extension Services. Bozeman, MT: Montana State University Press. P. 263.Google Scholar
Bussan, A. J. and Dyer, W. E. 1999. Herbicides and rangeland. in Sheley, R. and Petroff, J., eds. Biology and Management of Noxious Rangeland Weeds. Corvallis, OR: University of Oregon Press. Pp. 116–132.Google Scholar
Carpenter, A. T. and Murray, T. A. 1999. Element Stewardship Abstract for Acroptilon repens (L.) De Candolle/(Centaurea repens (L.)): Russian Knapweed. in Invasives on the Web. The Nature Conservancy: Web page: http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu/esadocs/acrorepe.html. Accessed: May 1, 2003.Google Scholar
Cronquist, A., Holmgren, A. H., Holmgren, N. H., Reveal, J. L., and Holmgren, P. K. 1977. Intermountain Flora: Vascular Plants of the Intermountain West, U.S.A. New York: Columbia University Press. 584 p.Google Scholar
Dorn, R. D. 1984. Vascular Plants of Montana. Cheyenne, WY: Mountain West. 276 p.Google Scholar
Duncan, C. L. 1994. Knapweed. Pullman, WA: Cooperative Extension, Washington State University, U.S. Department of Agriculture and Washington Counties. Vol. 8, No. 3.Google Scholar
Duncan, C. L. 2001. Knapweed management: another decade of change. in Smith, L., ed. Proceedings of the 1st International Knapweed Symposium of the 21st Century; March 15–16, 2001; Coeur d' Alene, ID. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service. Pp. 1–7.Google Scholar
Hakim, S. E. A. 1979. Range Condition of the Threemile Game Range in Western Montana. M.S. thesis. University of Montana, Missoula, MT. 62 p.Google Scholar
Hansen, P. L., Pfister, R. D., Boggs, K., Cook, B. J., Joy, J., and Hinckley, D. K. 1995. Classification and Management of Montana's Riparian and Wetland Sites. Miscellaneous Publication No. 54. Missoula, MT: Montana Forest and Conservation Experiment Station, School of Forestry, The University of Montana. Pp. 346–350.Google Scholar
Hanson, H. C. and Whitman, W. C. 1938. Characteristics of major grassland types in western North Dakota. Ecol. Monogr 8:57–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hernandez, T. J., Hudson, W. H., and Gonzalez, F. E. 1978. A progress report on “Krenite” brush control agent. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 28:261–263.Google Scholar
Jorgensen, H. E. 1979. Vegetation of the Yellow Water Triangle, Montana. Billings, MT: Montana Department of Fish and Game–U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management Unnumbered Publication. 57 p.Google Scholar
Kurz, G. L., Olson, R. A., and Whitson, T. D. 1995. Ecological implications of Russian knapweed (Centaurea repens L.) infestation: small mammal and habitat associations. Proc. West. Soc. Weed Sci. P. 56.Google Scholar
Lacey, C. A. 1989. Knapweed Symposium Proceedings. Bozeman, MT: Montana State University Extension Bull. 45. Pp. 1–6.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lym, R. G. and Messersmith, C. G. 1987. Leafy Spurge Control with Resulting Forage Production from Several Herbicide Treatments. Research Progress Rep. Fargo, ND: Western Society of Weed Science. 212 p.Google Scholar
Mackie, R. J. 1970. Range Ecology and Relations of Mule Deer, Elk, and Cattle in the Missouri River Breaks, Montana. Wildlife Monograph 20. Bethesda, MD: The Wildlife Society. 79 p.Google Scholar
Maddox, D. M., Mayfield, A., and Poritz, N. H. 1985. Distribution of yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis) and Russian knapweed (Centaurea repens). Weed Sci. 33:315–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marrs, R. H. 1985. The effects of potential bracken and scrub control herbicides on lowland Calluna and grass heath communities in East Anglia, UK. Biol. Conserv 32:13–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Panter, K. E. 1991. Neurotoxicity of the knapweeds (Centaurea spp.) in horses. in James, L. F. and Evans, J. O., eds. Noxious Range Weeds. Boulder, CO: Westview. Pp. 316–324.Google Scholar
Pokorny, M. L. 2002. Plant Functional Group Diversity as a Mechanism for Invasion Resistance. M.S. thesis. Montana State University, Bozeman, MT. P. 12.Google Scholar
Renny, A. J. and Dent, W. J. 1958. Growth Inhibition Caused by Russian Knapweed (Centaurea repens L). Research Report National Weed Committee Section. Ottawa, ON, Canada: Canada Department of Agriculture. Pp. 122–123.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robles, M., Wang, N., Kim, R., and Choi, B. H. 1997. Cytotoxic effects of repin, a principal sesquiterpene lactone of Russian knapweed. J. Neurosci. Res 47:90–97.3.0.CO;2-E>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, C. F. 1928. Canada Thistle and Russian Knapweed and Their Control. Bull. 348. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado Agricultural College, Colorado Experiment Station. 44 p.Google Scholar
Sebastian, J. R. and Beck, K. G. 1993. Russian Knapweed Control with Herbicides on Colorado Rangeland. Newark, CA: Western Society of Weed Science Research Progress Rep. Pp. 139–140.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, M. J. 1996. Winter foraging response of elk to spotted knapweed removal. Northwest Sci 70:10–19.Google Scholar
Trammel, M. A. and Butler, J. L. 1995. Effects of exotic plants on native ungulate use of habitat. J. Wildl. Manag 59:808–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tu, M., Hurd, C., and Randall, J. M. 2001. Weed Control Methods Handbook: Tools and Techniques for Use in Natural Areas. The Nature Conservancy. Web page: http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu/handbook.html. Accessed: May 1, 2003.Google Scholar
Tyser, R. W. and Key, C. H. 1988. Spotted knapweed in natural area fescue grasslands: an ecological assessment. Northwest Sci 62:151–160.Google Scholar
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1988. Soils—Comprehensive Progress Field Review of Fergus Co., Montana, Soil Survey. MT: Soil Conservation Service. Washington, DC: Agricultural Experimental Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Pp. 136–137.Google Scholar
Vencill, W. K. 2002. Herbicide Handbook. 8th ed. Lawrence, KS: Weed Science Society of America. 493 p.Google Scholar
Watson, A. K. 1980. The biology of Canadian weeds. 43. Acroptilon (Centaurea) repens (L.) DC. Can. J. Plant Sci 60:993–1004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitson, T. D. 1999. Russian knapweed. in Sheley, R. L. and Petroff, J. K., eds. Biology and Management of Noxious Rangeland Weeds. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press. Pp. 315–322.Google Scholar
Whitson, T. D., Baker, J. L., Cunningham, R. D., and Heald, T. E. 1991. Control of Russian Knapweed with Various Herbicides Applied at Three Growth Stages. Newark, CA: Western Society of Weed Science Research Progress Rep. Pp. 88–89.Google Scholar
Whitson, T. D., Swearingen, R. J., and Tatman, W. R. 1992. The Effects of Fall Applications of Various Herbicides on Russian Knapweed (Centaurea repens) Control. Newark, CA: Western Society of Weed Science Research Progress Rep. Pp. V6–V7.Google Scholar
Zouhar, K. L. 2001. Acroptilon repens . in Fire Effects Information System. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (April 2003): Web page: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/. Accessed: May 1, 2003.Google Scholar