Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T06:33:01.487Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Interactions between Two Biological Control Agents and an Herbicide for Canada Thistle (Cirsium arvense) Suppression

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Joanna K. Sciegienka ,
Elai N. Keren  and
Fabian D. Menalled
Joanna K. Sciegienka
Affiliation:
Department of Land Resources and Environmental Sciences, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 59717-3120
Elai N. Keren
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematical Sciences, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 59717
Fabian D. Menalled*
Affiliation:
Department of Land Resources and Environmental Sciences, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 59717-3120
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We investigated the single and combined effects of two biological control agents, the stem-mining weevil Hadroplontus litura and the pathogen Pseudomonas syringae pv. tagetis, with a herbicide (reduced or full application of glyphosate: 0.63 kg ae ha−1, or 3.78 kg ae ha−1, respectively) on the growth of Canada thistle, Cirsium arvense. We hypothesized that first, although each control method would have a negative effect on Canada thistle shoot biomass, root biomass, and shoot number, the integration of more than one control method would have greater impact than individual control methods. Second, we hypothesized that the order in which control methods are applied affects the outcome of the management program, with a pathogen application following weevil infestation being more effective than one prior to it. Although control methods impacted Canada thistle growth (P < 0.001, expect for a nonsignificant impact of glyphosate on shoot number), the combined effect of the three control methods behaved, generally, in an additive manner. A marginal interaction between the pathogen and the herbicide (P = 0.052) indicated a slight antagonistic interaction between these control methods. An interaction between the two biological control agents tested (P < 0.001) indicated that application of a pathogen prior to the release of weevil larvae could be more deleterious to Canada thistle than a late application. The observed, mostly additive, relationship between biological control agents and herbicides implies that integrating control methods rather than using a single approach could lead to greater Canada thistle control.

Keywords

GlyphosatePseudomonas syringae pv. tagetis (Hellmers) Young et al.stem-boring weevil, Hadroplontus litura (Fabricius)Canada thistle, Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop.Integrated weed managementinvasive speciesbiological control
Type
Research
Information
Invasive Plant Science and Management , Volume 4 , Issue 1 , March 2011 , pp. 151 - 158
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

Ainsworth, N. 2003. Integration of herbicides with arthropod biocontrol agents for weed control. Biocontrol Sci. Technol 13:547–570.Google Scholar
Almquist, T. L. and Lym, R. G. 2010. Effect of aminopyralid on Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) and the native plant community in a restored tallgrass prairie. Invasive Plant Sci. Manag 3:155–168.Google Scholar
Bailey, K., Boyetchko, S. M., Derby, J., Hall, W., Sawchyn, K., Nelson, T., and Johnson, D. R. 2000. Evaluation of fungal and bacterial agents for biological control of Canada thistle. Proceedings of the X International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds. Bozeman, MT Montana State University. 203–208.Google Scholar
Barbosa, P. 1991. Plant pathogens and non-vector herbivores. Pages 341–382. In Barbosa, P., Krischik, V. A., and Jones, C. G. eds. Microbial Mediation of Plant-Herbivore Interactions. New York J. Wiley.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E., Harker, K. N., O'Donovan, J. T., Beckie, H. J., and Smith, E. G. 2008. Ongoing development of integrated weed management systems on the Canadian prairies. Weed Sci 56:146–150.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, R. E., O'Donovan, J. T., Harker, K. N., Clayton, G. W., and Stougaard, R. N. 2006. Reduced herbicide doses in field crops: a review. Weed Biol. Manag 6:10–17.Google Scholar
Bostock, R. M., Karban, R., Thaler, J. S., Weyman, P. D., and Gilchrist, D. 2001. Signal interactions in induced resistance to pathogens and insect herbivores. Eur. J. Plant Pathol 107:103–111.Google Scholar
Bourdôt, G. W., Hurrell, G. A., Saville, D., and Leathwick, D. M. 2006. Impacts of applied Sclerotinia sclerotiorum on the dynamics of a Cirsium arvense population. Weed Res 46:61–72.Google Scholar
Boyette, C. D., Hoagland, R. E., and Weaver, M. A. 2008. Interaction of a bioherbicide and glyphosate for controlling hemp sesbania in glyphosate-resistant soybean. Weed Biol. Manag 8:18–24.Google Scholar
Chikowo, R., Faloya, V., Petit, S., and Munier-Jolain, N. M. 2009. Integrated weed management systems allow reduced reliance on herbicides and long-term weed control. Agric. Ecosys. Environ 132:237–242.Google Scholar
Collier, T. R., Enloe, S. F., Sciegienka, J. K., and Menalled, F. D. 2007. Combined impacts of Ceutorhynchus litura and herbicide treatments for Canada thistle suppression. Biol. Control 43:231–236.Google Scholar
Coombs, E. M., Clark, J. K., Piper, G. L., and Cofrancesco, A. F. Jr. eds. 2004. Biological Control of Invasive Plants in the United States. Corvallis Oregon State University Press. 467 p.Google Scholar
Cripps, M. G., Edwards, G. R., Bourdot, G. W., Saville, D. J., Hinz, H. L., and Fowler, S. V. 2010. Effects of pasture competition and specialist herbivory on the performance of Cirsium arvense . Biocontrol Sci. Technol 20:641–656.Google Scholar
Donald, W. W. 1990. Management and control of Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense). Weed Sci 5:193–250.Google Scholar
Edwards, G. R., Hay, M. J. M., and Brock, J. L. 2005. Seedling recruitment dynamics of forage and weed species under continuous and rotational sheep grazing in a temperate New Zealand pasture. Grass Forage Sci 60:186–199.Google Scholar
Enloe, S. F., Lym, R. G., Wilson, R., et al. 2007. Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) control with aminopyralid in range, pasture, and noncrop areas. Weed Technol 21:890–894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferrero-Serrano, A., Collier, T. R., Hild, A. L., Mealor, B. A., and Smith, T. 2008. Combined impacts of native grass competition and introduced weevil herbivory on Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense). Rangeland Ecol. Manag 61:529–534.Google Scholar
Frantzen, J. 1994. An epidemiological study of Puccinia punctiformis (Str). Röhl as a stepping-stone to the biological control of Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop. New Phytol 127:147–154.Google Scholar
Friedli, J. and Bacher, S. 2001. Mutualistic interaction between a weevil and a rust fungus, two parasites of the weed Cirsium arvense . Oecologia 129:571–576.Google Scholar
Gronwald, J. W., Plaisance, K. L., and Bailey, B. A. 2004. Effects of the fungal protein Nep1 and Pseudomonas syringae on growth of Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia), and common dandelion (Taraxacum officinale). Weed Sci 52:98–104.Google Scholar
Gronwald, J. W., Plaisance, K. L., Ide, D., and Wyse, D. 2002. Assessment of Pseudomonas syringae pv. tagetis as a biocontrol agent for Canada thistle. Weed Sci 50:397–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatcher, P. E. 1995. Three-way interactions between plant pathogenic fungi, herbivorous insects and their host plants. Biol. Rev 70:639–694.Google Scholar
Hein, G. L. and Wilson, R. 2004. Impact of Ceutorhynchus litura feeding on root carbohydrate levels in Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense). Weed Sci 52:628–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoeft, E. V., Jordan, N., and Zhang, J. H. 2001. Integrated cultural and biological control of Canada thistle in conservation tillage soybean. Weed Sci 49:642–646.Google Scholar
Hunter, J. H. 1996. Control of Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) with glyphosate applied at the bud vs. rosette stage. Weed Sci 44:934–938.Google Scholar
Hunt-Joshi, T. R. and Blossey, B. 2005. Interactions of root and leaf herbivores on purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria). Oecologia 142:554–563.Google Scholar
Jordan, N., Niemi, H., Simmons, S., Becker, R., Gunsolus, J., and White, S. 2006. Learning groups for implementation of integrated weed management: principles and practical guidelines. Pages 825–853. In Singh, H. P., Batish, D. R., and Kohli, R. K. eds. Handbook of Sustainable Weed Management. New York Haworth Press.Google Scholar
Kaplan, I. and Denno, R. F. 2007. Interspecific interactions in phytophagous insects revisited: a quantitative assessment of competition theory. Ecology Letters 10:977–994.Google Scholar
Kluth, S., Kruess, A., and Tscharntke, T. 2001. Interactions between the rust fungus Puccinia punctiformis and ectophagous and endophagous insects on creeping thistle. J. Appl. Ecol 38:548–556.Google Scholar
Kluth, S., Kruess, A., and Tscharntke, T. 2003. Influence of mechanical cutting and pathogen application on the performance and nutrient storage of Cirsium arvense . J. Appl. Ecol 40:334–343.Google Scholar
Kok, L. T., Abad, R. G., and Baudoin, A. B. A. M. 1996. Effects of Puccinia carduorum on musk thistle herbivores. Biol. Control 6:123–129.Google Scholar
Kruess, A. 2002. Indirect interaction between a fungal plant pathogen and a herbivorous beetle of the weed Cirsium arvense . Oecologia 130:563–569.Google Scholar
Liebman, M. and Gallandt, E. R. 1997. Many little hammers: ecological approaches for the management of crop–weed interactions. Pages 291–343. In Jackson, L. E. ed. Ecology in Agriculture. San Diego, CA Academic.Google Scholar
Littell, R. C., Milliken, G. A., Stroup, W. W., and Wolfinger, R. D. 1996. SAS® System for Mixed Models. Cary, NC SAS Institute. 633 p.Google Scholar
Lym, R. G. 2005. Integration of biological control agents with other weed management technologies: successes from the leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) IPM program. Biol. Control 35:366–375.Google Scholar
Mathews, D. E. and Durbin, R. D. 1990. Tagetitoxin inhibits RNA synthesis directed by RNA polymerases from chloroplasts and Escherichia coli . J. Biol. Chem 265:493–498.Google Scholar
Mathews, D. E. and Durbin, R. D. 1994. Mechanistic aspects of tagetitoxin inhibition of RNA polymerase from Escherichia coli . Biochemistry 33:11987–11992.Google Scholar
Menalled, F. D., Costamagna, A. C., Marino, P. C., and Landis, D. A. 2004. Temporal variation in the response of parasitoids to agricultural landscape structure. Agr. Ecosys. Environ 96:29–35.Google Scholar
Moore, R. J. 1975. The biology of Canadian weeds: 13. Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop. Can. J. Plant Sci 55:1033–1048.Google Scholar
Pardo, G., Riravololona, M., and Munier-Jolain, N. M. 2010. Using a farming system model to evaluate cropping system prototypes: are labour constraints and economic performances hampering the adoption of integrated weed management? Eur. J. Agric 33:24–32.Google Scholar
Peschken, D. P. and Wilkinson, A. T. S. 1981. Biocontrol of Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense): releases and effectiveness of Ceutorhynchus litura (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) in Canada. Can. Entomol 113:777–785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rayamajhi, M. B., Pratt, P. D., Center, T. D., and Van, T. K. 2010. Insects and a pathogen suppress Melaleuca quinquenervia cut-stump regrowth in Florida. Biol. Control 53:1–8.Google Scholar
Reed, C., Larson, D., and Larson, J. 2006. Canada thistle biological control agents on two South Dakota wildlife refuges. Nat. Areas J 26:47–52.Google Scholar
Rees, N. 1990. Establishment, dispersal, and influence of Ceutorhynchus litura on Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) in the Gallatin Valley of Montana. Weed Sci 38:198–200.Google Scholar
Rhodehamel, N. H. and Durbin, R. D. 1985. Host range of strains of Pseudomonas syringae pv. tagetis . Plant Dis 69:589–591.Google Scholar
Rydberg, N. T. and Milberg, P. 2000. A survey of weeds in organic farming in Sweden. Biol. Agric. Hort 18:175–185.Google Scholar
Shea, K., Sheppard, A., and Woodburn, T. 2006. Seasonal life-history models for the integrated management of the invasive weed nodding thistle Carduus nutans in Australia. J. Appl. Ecol 3:517–526.Google Scholar
Smith, K. P., Handelsman, J., and Goodman, R. M. 1999. Genetic basis in plants for interactions with disease suppressive bacteria. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 96:4786–4790.Google Scholar
Solé, M., Durka, W., Eber, S., and Brandl, R. 2004. Genotypic and genetic diversity of the common weed Cirsium arvense (Asteraceae). Int. J. Plant Sci 165:437–444.Google Scholar
Tichich, R. and Doll, J. D. 2006. Field-based evaluation of a novel approach for infecting Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) with Pseudomonas syringae pv. tagetis . Weed Sci 54:166–171.Google Scholar
Tichich, R., Doll, J. D., and McManus, P. S. 2006. Pseudomonas syringae pv. tagetis (PST) population dynamics both on and in Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) leaves as affected by rain events. Weed Sci 54:934–940.Google Scholar
Tiley, G. E. D. 2010. Biological flora of the British Isles: Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop. J. Ecol 98:938–983.Google Scholar
Travnicek, A., Lym, R., and Prosser, C. 2005. Fall-prescribed burn and spring-applied herbicide effects on Canada thistle control and soil seedbank in a northern mixed-grass prairie. Rangeland Ecol. Manag 58:413–422.Google Scholar
Turner, P. J., Morin, L., Williams, D., and Kriticos, D. J. 2010. Interactions between a leafhopper and rust fungus on the invasive plant Asparagus asparagoides in Australia: a case of two agents being better than one for biological control. Biol. Control 54:322–330.Google Scholar
Westerman, P. R., Liebman, M., Menalled, F. D., Heggenstaller, A. H., Hartzler, R. G., and Dixon, P. M. 2005. Are many little hammers effective? Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) population dynamics in two- and four-year crop rotation systems. Weed Sci 53:382–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, M. M. II, Walsh, D. B., and Boydston, R. A. 2004. Integrating arthropod herbivory and reduced herbicide use for weed management. Weed Sci 52:1018–1025.Google Scholar
Wilson, R. G. and Kachman, S. D. 1999. Effect of perennial grasses on Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) control. Weed Technol 13:83–87.Google Scholar
Zhang, J., Weaver, S. E., and Hamill, A. S. 2000. Risks and reliability of using herbicides at below-labeled rates. Weed Technol 14:106–115.Google Scholar
Zidack, N. K., Backman, P. A., and Shaw, J. J. 1992. Promotion of bacterial infection of leaves by an organosilicone surfactant: implications for biological weed control. Biol. Control 2:111–117.Google Scholar
Zwölfer, H. and Harris, P. 1966. Ceutorhynchus litura (F.) (Col. Curculionidae), a potential insect for the biological control of thistle, Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop., in Canada. Can. J. Zool 44:23–38.Google Scholar