Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-tnzcf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T04:16:27.576Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Economic Evaluation of Scotch Thistle Suppression

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Jack F. Hooper,
James A. Young and
Raymond A. Evans
Jack F. Hooper
Affiliation:
Armendaris Land Development Corporation, Kansas City, Missouri, and Resource Economist, College of Natural Resources, Utah State University, Logan, Utah
James A. Young
Affiliation:
Range Scientists, Crops Research Division, Agr. Res. Serv., U. S. Dep. of Agr., Reno, Nevada
Raymond A. Evans
Affiliation:
Range Scientists, Crops Research Division, Agr. Res. Serv., U. S. Dep. of Agr., Reno, Nevada
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Economic evaluation of Scotch thistle (Onopordium acanthium L.) infestation of grazing land in northeastern California revealed potential annual losses to ranchers approximated $10.20/A for wet meadows, $6.70/A for wheatgrass (Agropyron spp.) stands, and $3.40/A on downy brome (Bromus tectorum L.) rangelands. Annual application of 0.06 lb/A of 4-amino-3,5,6-trichloropicolinic acid (picloram) provided the most economical ($3.57/A) means of suppressing Scotch thistle. Annual application of 0.06 lb/A also introduced less picloram into the environment than less frequent application of higher rates. Application of picloram to suppress Scotch thistle limits management options and reduces potential land values.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 18 , Issue 5 , September 1970, pp. 583 - 586
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

1. Fuller, T. C. 1958. Scotch thistle (Onopordium acanthium) in California. The Bulletin, California Dep. of Agr. 47:222–223.Google Scholar
2. Goring, C. A. I., Youngson, C. R., and Hamaker, J. W. 1965. Tordon herbicide—disappearance from soils. Down to Earth 20(4):3–5.Google Scholar
3. Herr, D. E., Stroube, E. W., and Ray, D. A. 1906. The movement and persistence of picloram in soil. Weeds 14:248–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Leftwich, R. H. 1966. The Price System and Resource Allocation. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York. 369 p.Google Scholar
5. Merkle, M. G., Bovey, R. W., and Davis, F. S. 1967. Factors affecting the persistence of picloram in soil. Agron. J. 59:413–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Salisbury, E. J. 1942. The Reproductive Capacity of Plants. Bell, London. 235 p.Google Scholar
7. Scifres, C. J. and McCarty, M. K. 1969. Some factors affecting germination and seedling growth of Scotch thistle. Res. Bull. 228, Univ. of Nebraska College of Agriculture and Home Economics, Agr. Exp. Sta. 27 p.Google Scholar
8. Scifres, C. J., Burnside, O. C., and McCarty, M. K. 1969. Movement and persistence of picloram in pasture soils of Nebraska. Weed Sci. 17:486–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Young, J. A. and Evans, R. A. 1969. Control and ecological studies of Scotch thistle. Weed Sci. 17:60–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Youngson, C. R., Goring, C. A. I., Merkle, R. W., Scott, H. H., and Griffith, J. D. 1967. Factors influencing the decomposition of Tordon herbicide in soils. Down to Earth 23(2):3–10.Google Scholar