Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-fv566 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-18T08:30:06.094Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of Mowing or Spraying Carduus thoermeri on Rhinocyllus conicus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Philip W. Tipping
Philip W. Tipping*
Affiliation:
Md. Dep. Agric., 50 Harry S Truman Pkwy., Annapolis. MD 21401
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In 1988, mowing C. thoermeri once at the bud stage, twice at the bud stage, or once at early bloom of the primary inflorescences, eliminated emergence of Rhinocyllus conicus, a weevil introduced as a biological control agent. Mowing at full bloom reduced weevil survival by 78.8%, whereas mowing at senescence had no effect. In 1989, mowing at full bloom or senescence did not affect weevil survival. Dicamba applied at the full bloom or senescence stage did not affect R. conicus survival, whereas hexazinone reduced R. conicus survival when applied at all growth stages.

Keywords

Dicamba, 3,6-dichloro-2-methoxybenzoic acidhexazinone, 3-cyclohexyl-6-(dimethylamino)-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4(1H/3H)-dione)Carduus thoermeri WeinmRhinocyllus conicus FroelBiological control
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 5 , Issue 3 , September 1991 , pp. 628 - 631
Copyright
Copyright © 1991 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. Harris, P. 1984. Carduus nutans L., nodding thistle and C. acanthoides L., plumeless thistle (Compositae). p. 115–126 in Kelleher, J. S. and Hulme, M. A., eds. Biological Control Programmes Against Insects and Weeds in Canada 1969–1980. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, London.Google Scholar
2. Hodgson, J. M., and Rees, N. E. 1976. Dispersal of Rhinocyllus conicus for biocontrol of musk thistle. Weed Sci. 24:59–62.Google Scholar
3. Julien, M. H. 1987. Biological Control of Weeds: A World Catalogue of Agents and Their Target Weeds, 2nd ed. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.Google Scholar
4. McCarty, M. K. 1982. Musk thistle (Carduus thoermeri) seed production. Weed Sci. 30:441–445.Google Scholar
5. McCarty, M. K., and Hatting, J. L. 1975. Effects of herbicides or mowing on musk thistle seed production. Weed Res. 15:363–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Rees, N. E. 1977. Impact of Rhinocyllus conicus on thistles in Southwestern Montana. Environ. Entomol. 6:839–842.Google Scholar
7. Surles, W. W., Kok, L. T., and Pienkowski, R. L. 1974. Rhinocyllus conicus establishment for biocontrol of thistles in Virginia. Weed Sci. 22:1–3.Google Scholar
8. Tipping, P. W., and Hight, S. D. 1989. Status of Rhinocyllus conicus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) in Maryland. Md. Entomol. 3:123–128.Google Scholar
9. Trumble, J. T., and Kok, L. T. 1979. Compatibility of Rhinocyllus conicus Froelich and 2,4-D (LVA) for musk thistle control. Environ. Entomol. 8:421–422.Google Scholar