Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-7pwfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T14:45:09.206Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Canada Thistle (Cirsium arvense) Suppression by Sudangrass Interference and Defoliation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Abram J. Bicksler,
John B. Masiunas and
Adam Davis
Abram J. Bicksler
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois, 1201 W. Gregory Dr., Urbana, IL 61801
John B. Masiunas*
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois, 1201 W. Gregory Dr., Urbana, IL 61801
Adam Davis
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois, 1201 W. Gregory Dr., Urbana, IL 61801USDA–ARS Global Change and Photosynthesis Research Unit, Urbana, IL 61801
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: masiunas@illinois.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

Canada thistle is difficult to manage in organic farming systems and others with reduced reliance on herbicides. Previous field studies found that defoliation or sudangrass interference suppressed Canada thistle. Our objective was to understand the factors causing suppression of Canada thistle observed in the field. Three greenhouse studies were conducted utilizing frequency of defoliation, sudangrass interference and defoliation, and interspecific phytotoxicity to discern mechanisms of Canada thistle suppression. Increased defoliation frequency (up to four defoliations) decreased Canada thistle shoot height, shoot and root mass, and root-to-shoot ratio. Plants with larger root mass had greater shoot mass and number (r = 0.87 and 0.73, respectively), indicating a probable interdependence of root size (carbohydrate reserves), bud density, and subsequent shoot growth. In the sudangrass interference and defoliation study, Canada thistle shoot dry mass was 38.7, 2.76, and 0.39 g pot−1 in the defoliation only, sudangrass interference only, and defoliation + interference + surface mulch treatments, respectively. Sudangrass interference by itself was effective in suppressing thistle growth; combining interference with defoliation did not further reduce growth (2.76 and 2.83 g pot−1, respectively). In the experiment minimizing interspecific competition, we found no evidence of sudangrass having a phytotoxic effect on Canada thistle. Overall results indicate that sudangrass competition or frequent shoot removal suppresses growth of Canada thistle.

Keywords

Canada thistle, Cirsium arvense (L.) Scopsudangrass, Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench spp. drummondii (Nees ex Steud.) de Wet and HarlanCompetitioncover cropmowingmulchperennial weed

Information

Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 60 , Issue 2 , June 2012, pp. 260 - 266
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

Footnotes

Current address: Position, International Sustainable Development Studies Institute, 48/1 Chiang Mai-Lamphun Rd., Chaing Mai, Thailand 50300.

References

Literature Cited

Ang, B. N., Lok, L. T., Holtzman, G. I., and Wolf, D. D. 1994. Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) response to stimulated insect defoliation and plant competition. Weed Sci. 42:403–410.Google Scholar
Bhowmik, P. C. and Inderjit, . 2003. Challenges and opportunities in implementing allelopathy for natural weed management. Crop Prot. 22:661–671.Google Scholar
Bicksler, A. J. and Masiunas, J. B. 2009. Perennial Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) suppression with buckwheat or sudangrass cover crops and mowing. Weed Technol. 23:556–563.Google Scholar
Bohm, H. and Verschwele, A. 2004. Control of Rumex spp. and Cirsium arvense in organic farming. Landbauforschung Volkenrode. 273:39–47.Google Scholar
Cathey, H. M. and Campbell, L. E. 1975. Effectiveness of five vision-lighting sources on photo-regulation of 22 species of ornamental plants. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 100(1):65–71.Google Scholar
Cicek, M. and Esen, A. 1998. Structure and expression of a dhurrinase (β-glucosidase) from sorghum. Plant Physiol. 116:1469–1478.Google Scholar
Clapp, J. G. and Chamblee, D. S. 1970. Influence of different defoliation systems on the regrowth of pearl millet, hybrid sudangrass, and two sorghum-sudangrass hybrids from terminal, axillary, and basal buds. Crop Sci. 10:345–349.Google Scholar
Cormack, W. F. 2002. Effect of mowing a legume fertility-building crop on shoot numbers of creeping thistle (Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop.). Pages 225–226 in Powell, J., ed. Proceedings of the UK Organic Research 2002 Conference. Aberystwyth, UK Institute of Rural Studies, University of Wales.Google Scholar
Czarnota, M. A., Paul, R. N., Dayan, F. E., Nimbal, C. I., and Weston, L. A. 2001. Mode of action, localization of production, chemical nature, and activity of sorgoleone: a potent PSII inhibitor in Sorghum spp. root exudates. Weed Technol. 15:813–825.Google Scholar
Czarnota, M. A., Rimando, A. M., and Weston, L. A. 2003. Evaluation of root exudates of seven sorghum accessions. J. Chem. Ecol. 29:2073–2083.Google Scholar
Derksen, D. A., Thomas, A. G., Lafond, G. P., Loeppky, H. A., and Swanton, C. J. 1994. Impact of agronomic practices on weed communities: fallow within tillage systems. Weed Sci. 42:184–194.Google Scholar
Edwards, G. R., Bourdôt, G. W., and Crawley, M. J. 2000. Influence of herbivory, competition and soil fertility on the abundance of Cirsium arvense in acid grassland. J. Appl. Ecol. 37:321–334.Google Scholar
Einhellig, F. A. 1999. An integrated view of allelochemicals amid multiple stresses. Pages 479–494 in Inderjit, K. M., Dakshini, M., and Foy, C. L., eds. Principles and Practices in Plant Ecology: Allelochemical Interactions. Boca Raton, FL CRC Press.Google Scholar
Einhellig, F. A., Rasmussen, J. A., Hejl, A. M., and Souza, I. F. 1993. Effects of root exudates sorgoleone on photosynthesis. J. Chem. Ecol. 19:369–375.Google Scholar
Einhellig, F. A. and Souza, I. F. 1992. Phytotoxicity of sorgoleone found in grain sorghum root exudates. J. Chem. Ecol. 18:1–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Graglia, E., Melander, B., and Jensen, R. K. 2006. Mechanical and cultural strategies to control Cirsium arvense in organic arable cropping systems. Weed Res. 46:304–312.Google Scholar
Gustavsson, A-M. D. 1997. Growth and regenerative capacity of plants of Cirsium arvense . Weed Res. 37:229–236.Google Scholar
Hatcher, P. E. and Melander, B. 2003. Combining physical, cultural and biological methods: prospects for integrated non-chemical weed management strategies. Weed Res. 43:303–322.Google Scholar
Herrero, E. V., Mitchell, J. P., Lanini, W. T., Temple, S. R., Miyao, E. M., Morse, R. D., and Campiglia, E. 2001. Use of cover crop mulches in a no-till furrow-irrigated processing tomato production system. HortTechnol. 11:43–48.Google Scholar
Ketterings, Q. M., Cherney, J. H., Godwin, G., Kilcer, T. F., Barney, P., and Beer, S. 2007. Nitrogen management of brown midrib sorghum × sudangrass in the northeastern USA. Agron. J. 99:1345–1351.Google Scholar
Littell, R. C., Stroup, W., and Freund, R. J. 2002. SAS for linear models. 4th ed. Cary, NC SAS Institute. 496 p.Google Scholar
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.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
Netzly, D. H. and Butler, L. G. 1986. Roots of sorghum exude hydrophobic droplets containing biologically active compounds. Crop Sci. 26:775–778.Google Scholar
Ngouajio, M., McGiffen, M., and Hutchinson, C. M. 2003. Effect of cover crop and management system on weed populations in lettuce. Crop Protect. 22:57–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nielsen, K. A., Tattersall, D. B., Jones, P. R., and Moller, B. L. 2008. Metabolon formation in dhurrin biosynthesis. Phytochemistry. 69:88–98.Google Scholar
Nilsson, M. C. 1994. Separation of allelopathy and resource competition by the boreal dwarf shrub Empetrum hermaphroditum Hagerup. Oecologia. 98:1–7.Google Scholar
Patriquin, D. G., Hill, N. M., Baines, D., Bishop, M., and Allen, G. 1986. Observations on a mixed farm during the transition to biological husbandry. Biol. Agric. Hortic. 3:69–154.Google Scholar
Sagar, G. R. and Rawson, H. M. 1964. The biology of Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop. Pages 553–562 in Proceedings of the 7th British Weed Control Conference. Brighton, UK British Weed Control Conference.Google Scholar
Saxton, A. M. 1998. A macro for converting mean separation output to letter groupings in Proc Mixed. Pages 1243–1246 in Proceedings of the 23rd SAS Users Group International. Cary, NC SAS Institute.Google Scholar
Sciegienka, J. K., Keren, E. N., and Menalled, F. D. 2011. Impact of root fragment dimension, weight, burial depth, and water regime on Cirsium arvense emergence and growth. Can. J. Plant Sci. 91:1027–1036.Google Scholar
Snapp, S. S., Swinton, S. M., Labarta, R., Mutch, D., Black, J. R., Leep, R., Niyiraneza, J., and O'Neil, K. 2005. Evaluating cover crops for benefits, costs, and performance within cropping system niches. Agron. J. 97:322–332.Google Scholar
Stachon, W. J. and Zimdahl, R. L. 1980. Allelopathic activity of Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) in Colorado. Weed Sci. 28:83–86.Google Scholar
Tworkoski, T. 1992. Developmental and environmental effects on assimilate partitioning in Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense). Weed Sci. 40:79–85.Google Scholar
Weston, L. A. and Duke, S. O. 2003. Weed and crop allelopathy. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 22(3&4):367–389.Google Scholar
Weston, L. A., Harmon, R., and Mueller, S. 1989. Allelopathic potential of sorghum-sudangrass hybrid (sudex). J. Chem. Ecol. 15:1855–1865.Google Scholar
Weidenhamer, J. D. 2005. Biomimetic measurement of allelochemical dynamics in the rhizosphere. J. Chem. Ecol. 31:221–236.Google Scholar