Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T20:13:41.876Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Canada Thistle (Cirsium arvense) Response to Simulated Insect Defoliation and Plant Competition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Ban N. Ang ,
Loke T. Kok ,
Golde I. Holtzman  and
Dale D. Wolf
Ban N. Ang
Affiliation:
Dep. Entomol., Virginia Polytechnic Inst. and State Univ., Blacksburg, VA 24061
Loke T. Kok
Affiliation:
Dep. Statistics, Virginia Polytechnic Inst. and State Univ., Blacksburg, VA 24061
Golde I. Holtzman
Affiliation:
Dep. Statistics, Virginia Polytechnic Inst. and State Univ., Blacksburg, VA 24061
Dale D. Wolf
Affiliation:
Dep. Crop Sci. and Environ. Sci., Virginia Polytechnic Inst. and State Univ., Blacksburg, VA 24061
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The combined influence of plant competition and defoliation on development of Canada thistle was investigated in a 2-yr field study. Plant competition was induced by seeding tall fescue and crown vetch. Artificial defoliation was used to simulate various levels of leaf removal by insects. Both defoliation and induced competition reduced biomass of Canada thistle but their impact varied with environmental conditions. Defoliation had a greater detrimental influence than induced competition on thistle biomass in a dry year when growth of the plant competitors was suppressed. In a wet year, induced competition was more important in suppressing Canada thistle than defoliation, and moderate levels of defoliation (25%), applied once when the thistles were 12 to 15 cm in diam, stimulated root weight within the top 20 cm of soil. Reduction in thistle biomass increased with level of defoliation and was greatest when defoliation was applied repeatedly at 14-d intervals in the presence of induced competition. Crown vetch showed very little growth in one season and tall fescue was the primary source of competition for the thistles. The results confirm the hypothesis that combined stresses can substantially reduce biomass development of Canada thistle plants.

Keywords

Canada thistle, Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop # CIRARcrown vetch, Coronilla varia L. # CZRVAtall fescue, Festuca arundinaceae Schreb. # FESARBiological weed controldefoliationplant competitionCZRVAFESAR
Type
Weed Control and Herbicide Technology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 42 , Issue 3 , September 1994 , pp. 403 - 410
Copyright
Copyright © 1994 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. Barber, H. S. 1916. A review of North American tortoise beetles. Proc. Entomol. Soc. Washington. 18:113–127.Google Scholar
2. Boucher, T. J. and Pfeiffer, D. G. 1989. Influence of Japanese beetle (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) foliar feeding on ‘Seyval Blanc’ grapevines in Virginia. J. Econ. Entomol. 82:220–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Cartwright, B. and Kok, L. T. 1990. Feeding by Cassida rubiginosa (Coleop: Chrysomelidae) and the effects of defoliation on growth of musk thistles. J. Entomol. Sci. 25:538–547.Google Scholar
4. Cox, C. S. and McEvoy, P. B. 1983. Effect of summer moisture on the capacity of tansy ragwort (Senecio jacobaea) to compensate for defoliation by cinnabar moth (Tyria jacobaeae). J. Appl. Ecol. 20:225–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Doll, J. D. 1984. Controlling Canada thistle. North Cent. Reg. Ext. Publ. No. 218. Urbana-Champaign: Coop. Serv. Univ. Illinois. 4 pp.Google Scholar
6. Freund, R. J. and Littell, R. C. 1991. SAS System for regression. SAS Inst., Inc., Cary, NC. Page 157.Google Scholar
7. Hall, F. R. and Ferree, D. C. 1976. Effects of insect injury simulation on photosynthesis of apple leaves. J. Econ. Entomol. 69:245–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Harris, P. 1974. A possible explanation of plant yield increase following insect damage. Agro-Ecosystems 1:219–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Holm, L. G., Plucknett, D. L., Pancho, J. V., and Herberger, J. P. 1977. Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop. Asteraceae, Aster Family. Pages 217–224 in The world's worst weeds: Distribution and biology. Univ. Hawaii, Honolulu.Google Scholar
10. Julien, M. H. 1992. Biological control of weeds. A world catalogue of agents and their target weeds. Commonw. Agric. Bur. U.K. Pages 25, 26, and 129.Google Scholar
11. Kok, L. T., McAvoy, T. J., and Mays, W. T. 1986. Impact of tall fescue grass and Carduus thistle weevils on the growth and development of musk thistle (Carduus nutans). Weed Sci. 34:966–971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Lentner, M. and Bishop, T. 1986. Experimental Design and Analysis. Valley Book Co., Blacksburg, VA. Pages 128 and 360-363.Google Scholar
13. Maw, M. G. 1976. An annotated list of insects associated with Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) in Canada. Can. Entomol. 108:235–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. McAllister, R. S. and Haderlie, L. C. 1985. Seasonal variations in Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) root bud growth and root carbohydrate reserves. Weed Sci. 33:44–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Michaud, J. P. 1991. Biomass allocation in fireweed Epilobium angustifolium L. (Onagraceae) in response to simulated defoliation. Bot. Gaz. 152:208–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Poston, F. L., Pedigo, L. P., Pearce, R. B., and Hammond, R. B. 1976. Effects of artificial and insect defoliation on soybean net photosynthesis. J. Econ. Entomol. 69:109–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Reece, P. E. and Wilson, R. G. 1983. Effects of Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) and musk thistle (Carduus nutans) control on grass herbage. Weed Sci. 31:488–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. SAS Institute, Inc. 1989. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Version 6. 4th ed., Vol. 2. SAS Inst., Inc., Cary, NC. Pages 895–896.Google Scholar
19. Schröder, D. 1980. The biological control of thistles. Biocontrol News and Information 1:1–26.Google Scholar
20. Smith, D. 1969. Removing and analyzing total nonstructural carbohydrate from plant tissue. Wis. Agric. Exp. Stn. Res. Rep. 41:1–11.Google Scholar
21. Story, J. M., DeSmet-Moens, H., and Morrill, W. L. 1985. Phytophagous insects associated with Canada thistle, Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop., in Southern Montana. J. Kansas Entomol. Soc. 58:472–478.Google Scholar
22. Todd, J. W. and Morgan, L. W. 1972. Effects of hand defoliation on yield and seed weight of soybeans. J. Econ. Entomol. 65:567–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23. Winder, J. A. and vanEmden, H. F. 1980. Selection of effective biological control agents from artificial defoliation/insect cage experiments. Pages 415–439 in Delfosse, E. S., ed. Proc. 5th Int. Symp. Biol. Control of Weeds. CSIRO, Melbourne.Google Scholar
24. Wright, S. L., Hall, R. W., and Peacock, J. W. 1989. Effect of simulated insect damage on growth and survival of northern red oat (Quercus rubra L.) seedlings. Environ. Entomol. 18:235–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25. Zar, J. 1984. Biostatistical Analysis. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Pages 64–65.Google Scholar
26. Zwölfer, H. 1965. Preliminary list of phytophagous insects attacking wild Cynareae (Compositae) species in Europe. Commw. Inst. Biol. Control Tech. Bull. 6:81–154.Google Scholar