Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T14:28:36.081Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

“Acceptable” Levels of Spotted Knapweed (Centaurea maculosa) Control

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Roger L. Sheley  and
James S. Jacobs
Roger L. Sheley
Affiliation:
Plant, Soil and Environmental Sciences, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 59717-3120
James S. Jacobs
Affiliation:
Plant, Soil and Environmental Sciences, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 59717-3120
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Competition between bluebunch wheatgrass and spotted knapweed was quantified using three addition series experiments in an environmental chamber. Using two density matrices, spotted knapweed plants were thinned by either 45 or 90% of their original densities 40 d after emergence. Another matrix of density combinations was not thinned. All plant material was harvested 90 d after thinning. Spotted knapweed was about four times more competitive than bluebunch wheatgrass. Reducing spotted knapweed by 45% did not alter the competitive relationship between the two species. We believe remaining knapweed individuals captured the majority of the newly available resources. Ninety percent reduction was necessary to shift the competitive relationship in favor of bluebunch wheatgrass. Successful integrated spotted knapweed management must exploit key mechanisms and processes directing plant community dynamics, in conjunction with weed density reduction, if communities are to be shifted toward those that are desired.

Keywords

Spotted knapweed, Centaurea maculosa Lam. # CENMAbluebunch wheatgrass, Agropyron spicatum (Pursh.) Scribn. and SmithAddition seriescompetitive relationshipsdensity reductionCENMA
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 11 , Issue 2 , June 1997 , pp. 363 - 368
Copyright
Copyright © 1997 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

Cate, J. R. and Hinkle, M. K. 1993. Integrated Pest Management: The Path of a Paradigm. Washington, DC: National Audubon Society. pp. 1–43.Google Scholar
Chicoine, T. K., Fay, P. K., and Nielsen, G. A. 1985. Predicting weed migration from soil and climate maps. Weed Sci. 34:57–61.Google Scholar
Davis, E. S. 1990. Spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa L.) seed longevity, chemical control and seed morphology. . Montana State University, Bozeman, MT. 109 p.Google Scholar
Griffith, D. and Lacey, J. R. 1991. Economic evaluation of spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa) control using picloram. J. Range Manage. 44:42–44.Google Scholar
Jacobs, J. S., Sheley, R. L., and Maxwell, B. D. 1996. Effect of Sclerotinia sclerotiorum on the interference between bluebunch wheatgrass (Agropyron spicatum) and spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa). Weed Technol. 10:13–21.Google Scholar
Kennett, G. A., Lacey, J. R., Butt, C. A., Olson-Rutz, K. M., and Haferkamp, M. R. 1992. Effects of defoliation, shading and competition on spotted knapweed and bluebunch wheatgrass. J. Range Manage. 45:363–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lacey, C. A. 1985. A weed education program, and the biology and control of spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa Lam.) in Montana. . Montana State University, Bozeman, MT. 179 p.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. 3:627–630.Google Scholar
Maddox, D. M. 1982. Biological control of diffuse knapweed (Centaurea diffusa) and spotted knapweed (C. maculosa). Weed Sci. 30:76–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maxwell, B. D. and Sheley, R. L. 1997. Noxious weed population dynamics education model. Weed Technol. 11:182–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maxwell, B. D., Wilson, M. B., and Radosevich, S. R. 1988. A population modeling approach to studying leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula). Weed Technol. 2:132–138.Google Scholar
Muller-Scharer, H. and Schroeder, D. 1993. The biological control of Centaurea spp. in North America: do insects solve the problem? Pestic. Sci. 37:343–353.Google Scholar
Neter, J., Wasserman, W., and Kutner, M. H. 1985. Applied Linear Statistical Models. Homewood, IL: Richard K. Irwin. 1127 p.Google Scholar
Olson, B. E., Wallander, R. T., and Lacey, J. R. 1997. Effects of sheep grazing on a spotted knapweed-infested Idaho fescue community. J. Range Manage. (in press)Google Scholar
Radosevich, S. R. 1987. Methods to study interactions among crops and weeds. Weed Technol. 1:190–198.Google Scholar
Radosevich, S. R. and Roush, M. L. 1990. The role of competition in agriculture. In Grace, J. and Tilman, D., eds. Perspectives on Plant Competition. London: Academic Press. pp. 341–363.Google Scholar
Roché, B. F. Jr., and Talbott, C. J. 1986. The Collection History of Centaurea Found in Washington State. Agricultural Research Center Research Bull. XB0978. Pullman, WA: Washington Stale University Cooperative Extension. 36 p.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1991. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Release 6.03. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1028 p.Google Scholar
Sheley, R. L. and Jacobs, J. S. 1997. Response of spotted knapweed and grass to picloram and fertilizer combinations. J. Range Manage. 50:260–264.Google Scholar
Sheley, R. L. and Larson, L. L. 1994. Observation: comparative live-history of cheatgrass and yellow starthistle. J. Range Manage. 47:450–456.Google Scholar
Sheley, R. L., Svejcar, T. J., and Maxwell, B. D. 1996. A theoretical framework for developing successional weed management strategies on rangeland. Weed Technol. 10:766–773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shirman, R. 1981. Seed production and spring seedling establishment of diffuse and spotted knapweed. J. Range Manage. 34:45–47.Google Scholar
Spitters, C. J. 1983. An alternative approach to the analysis of mixed cropping experiments. I. Estimation of competition effects. Neth. J. Agric. Sci. 31:1–11.Google Scholar
Spoon, C. W., Bowles, H. R., and Kulla, A. 1983. Noxious weeds on the Lolo National Forest. Situation Analysis Staff Paper. Missoula, MT: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 6 p.Google Scholar
Story, J. M., Boggs, K. W., Good, W. R., and Nowierski, R. M. 1989. The seed moth, Metzneria paucipuntella: its impact on spotted knapweed seed production and two seed head flies, Urophora spp. In Fay, P. K. and Lacey, J. R., eds. Proceedings of the Knapweed Symposium. Bozeman. MT: Montana State University. pp. 172–174.Google Scholar
Strang, R. M., Lindsay, K. M., and Price, R. S. 1979. Knapweeds: British Columbia's undesirable aliens. Rangelands 1:141–143.Google Scholar
Thompson, M. J. 1996. Winter foraging response of elk to spotted knapweed removal. Northwest Sci. 70:10–19.Google Scholar
Tyser, R. W. and Key, C. H. 1989. Spotted knapweed in natural area fescue grasslands: an ecological assessment. Northwest Sci. 62:151–160.Google Scholar
Watkinson, A. R. 1984. Yield-density relationships: the influence of resource availability on growth and self-thinning in populations of Vulpia fasciculata . Ann. Bot. 53:469–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, A. K. and Renney, A. J. 1974. The biology of Canadian weeds. Centaurea diffusa and C. maculosa. Can. J. Plant Sci. 54:687–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wattenbarger, D. W., Belles, W. S., and Lee, G. A. 1980. Spotted knapweed control and forage yields one year after herbicide treatments. Salt Lake City, UT: Western Society Weed Science Research Progress Rep. Vol. 33. pp. 61–62.Google Scholar