Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T23:36:56.580Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Changes in biomass and root:shoot ratio of field-grown Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), a noxious, invasive weed, with elevated CO2: implications for control with glyphosate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Lewis H. Ziska ,
Shaun Faulkner  and
John Lydon
Shaun Faulkner
Affiliation:
Alternate Crop and Systems Laboratory, USDA-ARS, 10300 Baltimore Avenue, Beltsville, MD 20705
John Lydon
Affiliation:
Sustainable Agricultural Systems Laboratory, USDA-ARS, Building 001, Room 343, 10300 Baltimore Avenue, Beltsville, MD 20705
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Canada thistle was grown under field conditions in 2000 and 2003 at ambient and elevated (∼ 350 μmol mol−1 above ambient) carbon dioxide [CO2] to assess how rising [CO2] alters growth, biomass allocation, and efficacy of the postemergent herbicide glyphosate. By the time of glyphosate application, approximately 2 mo after emergence, elevated CO2 had resulted in significant increases in both root and shoot biomass. However, the relative positive effect of [CO2] was much larger for root, relative to shoot growth, during this period (2.5- to 3.3-fold vs. 1.2- to 1.4-fold, respectively) with a subsequent increase in root to shoot ratio. Glyphosate was applied at 2.24 kg ae ha−1 in 2000 and 2003. Subjective classification of leaf damage in shoots after spraying indicated no significant difference in the extent of necrosis in aboveground tissue as a function of CO2 concentration. After a 6-wk regrowth period, significant reductions in shoot and root biomass relative to unsprayed plots were observed under ambient [CO2]. However, the decrease in the ratio of sprayed to unsprayed biomass was significantly less at elevated relative to ambient [CO2] conditions for roots in both years, and no difference in shoot biomass was observed between sprayed and unsprayed plots for Canada thistle grown at elevated [CO2] in either year. The observed reduction in glyphosate efficacy at the enriched [CO2] treatment did not appear to be associated with differential herbicide uptake, suggesting that tolerance was simply a dilution effect, related to the large stimulation of root relative to shoot biomass at elevated [CO2]. Overall, the study indicates that carbon dioxide–induced increases in root biomass could make Canada thistle and other perennial weeds that reproduce asexually from belowground organs harder to control in a higher [CO2] world.

Keywords

Canada thistle, Cirsium arvense L. Scop. CIRARClimate changecarbon dioxide levelsherbicide efficacy
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 52 , Issue 4 , August 2004 , pp. 584 - 588
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

Bernston, G. N. and Woodward, F. I. 1992. The root system architecture and development of Senecio vulgaris in elevated CO2 and drought. Funct. Ecol 6:324–333.Google Scholar
Bradshaw, L. D., Padgette, S. R., Kimball, S. L., and Wells, B. H. 1997. Perspectives on glyphosate resistance. Weed Technol 11:189–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeLucia, E. N., Sasek, T. W., and Strain, B. R. 1985. Photosynthetic inhibition after long-term exposure to elevated levels of atmospheric CO2 . Photosynth. Res 7:175–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donald, W. W. 1990. Management and control of Canada thistle. Rev. Weed Sci 5:193–250.Google Scholar
Hiroyoshi, O., Masaaki, T., and Makoto, K. 1993. Effects of polyoxyethylene nonylphenyl ether and silicon surfactants on penetration of propanil through adaxial epidermis of Commelina communis . J. Pestic. Sci 18:85–90.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. J., Canziani, O. F., Leary, N. A., Dokken, D. J., and White, K. S. 2001. Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Cambridge, Great Britain: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 7–56.Google Scholar
Patterson, D. T. 1995a. Effects of environmental stress on weed/crop interactions. Weed Sci 43:483–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, D. T. 1995b. Weeds in a changing climate. Weed Sci 43:685–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, D. T. and Flint, E. P. 1990. Implications of increasing carbon dioxide and climate change for plant communities and competition in natural and managed ecosystems. Pages 83–110 in Kimball, B. A., Rosenburg, N. J., and Allen, L. H. Jr. eds. Impact of Carbon Dioxide, Trace Gases and Climate Change on Global Agriculture. Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy, ASA Special Publication No. 53.Google Scholar
Pimental, D. L., Lach, L., Zuniga, R., and Morrison, D. 2000. Environmental and economic costs associated with non-indigenous species in the United States. Bioscience 50:53–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prentiss, A. N. 1889. On root propagation of Canada thistle. Cornell Univ. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull 15:190–192.Google Scholar
Prior, S. A., Rogers, H. H., Runion, G. B., and Mauney, J. R. 1994. Effects of free-air enrichment on cotton root growth. Agric. For. Meteorol 70:69–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robbins, W. W., Bellue, M. K., and Ball, W. S. 1970. Weeds of California. Sacramento, CA: University of California Press. Pp. 450–453.Google Scholar
Rogers, H. H., Cure, J. D., and Smith, J. M. 1986. Soybean growth and yield response to elevated carbon dioxide. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ 16:112–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salzman, F., Renner, K., and Kells, J. 1997. Chemical Control of Canada Thistle. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, Extension Bulletin E-2245.Google Scholar
Skinner, K., Smith, L., and Rice, P. 2000. Using noxious weed lists to prioritize targets for developing weed management strategies. Weed Sci 48:640–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, D. J., Haber, E., and Keddy, C. 1993. Invasive Plants of Natural Habitats in Canada: An Integrated Review of Wetland and Upland Species and Legislation Governing their Control. Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Wildlife Service.Google Scholar
Zabkiewicz, J. A. 2000. Adjuvants and herbicidal efficacy: present status and future prospects. Weed Res 40:139–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ziska, L. H. 2000. The impact of elevated carbon dioxide on yield loss from a C3 and C4 weed in field grown soybean. Global Change Biol 6:899–905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ziska, L. H. 2003. Evaluation of the growth response of six invasive species to past, present and future carbon dioxide concentrations. J. Exp. Bot 54:395–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ziska, L. H., Teasdale, J. R., and Bunce, J. A. 1999. Future atmospheric carbon dioxide may increase tolerance to glyphosate. Weed Sci 47:608–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar