Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T07:00:06.206Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rhinocyllus conicus Establishment for Biocontrol of Thistles in Virginia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

W. W. Surles ,
L. T. Kok  and
R. L. Pienkowski
W. W. Surles
Affiliation:
Dep. of Entomol., Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061
L. T. Kok
Affiliation:
Dep. of Entomol., Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061
R. L. Pienkowski
Affiliation:
Dep. of Entomol., Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Rhinocyllus conicus Froel. (Col.: Curculionidae) larvae feeding within the capitula of Carduus thistles may reduce production of viable seeds. Each R. conicus larva destroyed 9.7 developing musk thistle (Carduus nutans L.) seeds. An average musk thistle capitulum, 29.2 mm diameter, produced 15.3 viable achenes per millimeter of diameter for an average of 447 viable seeds. Surveys of 23 release sites in Virginia revealed that thistles at 12 had sustained a population of weevils. Weevil eggs at six sites have increased in abundance, and establishment appears assured. Colonization of R. conicus was enhanced by spring or early summer releases; larger stocks of insects were required for late summer releases. The weevils exhibited better synchronization with musk thistle than with plumeless thistle (Carduus acanthoides L.); and best success has been achieved where extensive, persistent stands of musk thistle were available.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 22 , Issue 1 , January 1974 , pp. 1 - 3
Copyright
Copyright © 1974 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. Feldman, I., McCarty, M.K., and Scifres, C.J. 1968. Ecological and control studies of musk thistle. Weed Sci. 16:1–4.Google Scholar
2. Higgins, R.E. 1966. Musk thistle and its control. University of Idaho Agr. Ext. Serv., Idaho Current Information Ser. No. 20. 2 pp.Google Scholar
3. Huffaker, C.B. 1959. Biological control of weeds with insects. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 4:251–276.Google Scholar
4. Kates, A.H. 1968. Control of curled and musk thistle with 2,4-D. Virginia Polytechnic Inst. and State Univ. Ext. Div. Leaf. 328. 4 pp.Google Scholar
5. Kates, A.H., Bingham, S.W., and Foy, C.L. 1972. Curled and musk thistle control. Virginia Polytechnic Inst. and State Univ. Coop. Ext. Serv. C.S. 110. 2 pp.Google Scholar
6. McCarty, M.K. 1964. New and problem weeds. Musk thistle (Carduus nutans L.). Proc. N. Cent. Weed Contr. Conf. 20:62–63.Google Scholar
7. Zwölfer, H. 1967. The host range, distribution and life-history of Rhinocyllus conicus Froel. (Col., Curculionidae). Commonwealth Inst. Biol. Cont. Progr. Rep. No. XVIII. 21 pp.Google Scholar