Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-fv566 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-18T18:28:46.078Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Canada Thistle (Cirsium arvense) Control in Established Alfalfa (Medicago sativa) Grown for Seed Production

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Abdel O. Mesbah*
Affiliation:
Powell Research and Extension Center, University of Wyoming, 747 Road 9, Powell, WY 82435
Stephen D. Miller
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences, University of Wyoming, 1000 East University Avenue, Laramie, WY 82071
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: sabah@uwyo.edu

Abstract

Canada thistle is one of the most troublesome and difficult weed species to control in established alfalfa grown for seed production. Current tools available for control are limited because of cultural management strategies associated with seed production. Alfalfa seed losses due to Canada thistle interference include both reduced yields from competition and increased seed loss during seed cleaning operations. Additional tools are needed to alleviate these losses. Field experiments were conducted in 1998, 1999, and 2000 at two locations in Park County, WY, to evaluate Canada thistle control and alfalfa tolerance to several postemergence herbicides. Bentazon, imazamox, imazethapyr, and MCPB were applied, alone or in combination, at different Canada thistle growth stages. Methylated seed oil (MSO) was added at 1.5% v/v to the treatments containing imazamox or imazethapyr. MCPB applied alone when Canada thistle was 7.5- or 15-cm tall caused severe alfalfa injury (28 to 40%) and resulted in less Canada thistle control (23 to 27%). Imazamox or imazethapyr applied alone when Canada thistle was 15-cm tall did not cause any significant alfalfa injury but resulted in unsatisfactory Canada thistle control (29 to 35%). Bentazon was the only treatment containing a single herbicide that provided more than 50% Canada thistle control. The treatments providing the best balance between Canada thistle control (>80%) and alfalfa injury (<13%) were a single application of bentazon combined with either imazamox or imazethapyr. These two treatments also yielded the highest, more than 800 kg/ha. Split applications of bentazon combined with imazamox or imazethapyr were similar to single applications.

Type
Research Article
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

Amor, R. L. and Harris, R. V. 1975. Seedling establishment and vegetative spread of Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop. in Victoria, Australia. Weed Res. 15:407411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Behrens, R. and Elakkad, M. A. 1981. Canada thistle interference in crops. Proc. North Cent. Weed Sci. Soc. 36:167169.Google Scholar
Boerboom, C. M. and Wyse, D. L. 1988. Response of Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) and birdsfoot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus) to bentazon. Weed Sci. 36:250253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donald, W. W. 1990. Management and control of Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense). Rev. Weed Sci. 5:193205.Google Scholar
Donald, W. W. and Khan, M. 1992. Yield loss assessment for spring wheat (Triticum aestivum) infested with Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense). Weed Sci. 40:590598.Google Scholar
Hamdoun, A. M. 1970. The anatomy of subterranean structures of Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop. Weed Res. 10:284287.Google Scholar
Hamdoun, A. M. 1972. Regenerative capacity of root fragments of Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop. Weed Res. 12:128136.Google Scholar
Hayden, A. 1934. Distribution and reproduction of Canada thistle in Iowa. Am. J. Bot. 21:355373.Google Scholar
Hodgson, J. M. 1955. Canada thistle control with cropping, and with cultural and chemical treatments. Res. Prog. Rept. West. Weed Control conf. Pp. 56.Google Scholar
Hodgson, J. M. 1968. The nature, ecology, and control of Canada thistle. Washington, DC: U.S. Department Agriculture Tech. Bull. 1386.Google Scholar
Holm, L. G., Plucknett, D. L., Pancho, J. V., and Herberger, J. P. 1977. Weeds of the World—Distribution and Biology. Honolulu, HI: The University Press of Hawaii. Pp. 217224.Google Scholar
Lloyd, D. G. and Myall, A. J. 1976. Sexual dimorphism in Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop. Ann. Bot. 40:115123.Google Scholar
Malik, N., Bowes, G. G., and Waddington, J. 1993. Residual herbicides for weed control in established alfalfa (Medicago sativa) grown for seed. Weed Technol. 7:483490.Google Scholar
McLennan, B. R., Ashford, R., and Devine, M. D. 1991. Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop. competition with winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L). Weed Res. 31:409415.Google Scholar
Miller, S. D., Fornstrom, K. J., and Mesbah, A. 1994. Canada thistle control and competition in sugarbeets. J. Sugar Beet Res. 29:921.Google Scholar
Moore, R. J. 1975. The biology of Canadian weeds: 13. Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop. Can. J. Plant Sci. 55:10331048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moyer, J. R., Schaalje, G. B., and Bergen, P. 1991. Alfalfa (Medicago sativa) seed yield loss due to Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense). Weed Technol. 5:723728.Google Scholar
O'Sullivan, P. A., Kossatz, V. C., Weiss, G. M., and Drew, D. A. 1982. An approach to estimating yield loss of barley due to Canada thistle. Can. J. Plant Sci. 62:725731.Google Scholar
Parker, R. and Krall, J. 1984. Weeds. in Alfalfa Seed Production and Pest Management. Western Regional Extension Publication 12.Google Scholar
Schreiber, M. M. 1967. Effect of density and control of Canada thistle on production and utilization of alfalfa pasture. Weeds 15:138142.Google Scholar
Sprague, C. L., Frasier, A. L., and Penner, D. 1999. Identifying acetolactate synthase inhibitors for potential control of Quackgrass (Elytrigia repens) and Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 13:5458.Google Scholar
Tipping, P. W. 2001. Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) control with hexazinone in crown vetch (Coronilla varia). Weed Technol. 15:559563.Google Scholar