Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-5wvtr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-20T11:14:03.048Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Maintaining Plant Community Diversity in a Waterfowl Production Area by Controlling Canada Thistle (Cirsium arvense) Using Glyphosate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Jane Krueger-Mangold ,
Roger L. Sheley  and
Bobbi D. Roos
Jane Krueger-Mangold*
Affiliation:
Land Resources and Environmental Sciences, P.O. Box 173120, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 59717
Roger L. Sheley
Affiliation:
Land Resources and Environmental Sciences, P.O. Box 173120, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 59717
Bobbi D. Roos
Affiliation:
Land Resources and Environmental Sciences, P.O. Box 173120, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 59717
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: jkrueger@montana.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Our objective was to maximize Canada thistle control and plant community diversity in a waterfowl production area administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. We tested three rates (1.5, 3.0, and 4.5 ai/ha) of glyphosate applied during spring, summer, or fall using two application methods. The lowest rate of glyphosate decreased the Canada thistle density by about 30% relative to the control. Glyphosate applied in the fall decreased Canada thistle density below that of the control more consistently than when applied in spring or summer. Wick application generally resulted in less Canada thistle biomass than did broadcast application. Species richness was generally higher when glyphosate was wick applied, and all rates of this application method increased species richness when compared with the control. We recommend fall wick application of glyphosate at 1.5 kg ai/ha to control Canada thistle near the riparian areas. This application provided optimum Canada thistle control, while maintaining species richness important for waterfowl.

Keywords

GlyphosateCanada thistle, Cirsium arvense L. #3 CIRAR
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 16 , Issue 2 , June 2002 , pp. 457 - 463
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

Anonymous. 1998. Glyphosate label. In Crop Protection Reference. New York: C & P Press. pp. 1376–1380.Google Scholar
Begon, M., Harper, J. L., and Townsend, C. R. 1990. Ecology: Individuals, Populations, and Communities. 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. pp. 616–618.Google Scholar
Burke, M.J.W. and Grime, J. P. 1996. An experimental study of plant community invasibility. Ecology 77: 776–790.Google Scholar
Elton, C. S. 1958. The Ecology of Invasions by Animals and Plants. London: Methuen. 181 p.Google Scholar
Faber, P. A., Keller, E., Sands, A., and Masser, B. M. 1989. The ecology of riparian habitats of the southern California coastal region: a community profile. Biol. Rep. (Wash. D C) 85: 7-27. (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.). 152 p.Google Scholar
Friesen, H. A. 1968. Trend in Canadian research to control Canada thistle. Proc. Northeast. Weed Control Conf. 22: 27–36.Google Scholar
Hansen, P. L., Pfister, R. D., Boggs, K., Cook, B. J., Joy, J., and Hinckley, D. K. 1995. Classification and Management of Montana's Riparian and Wetland Sites. Montana Forest and Conservation Experiment Station School of Forestry. Publication No. 54. Missoula, MT: University of Montana. 646 p.Google Scholar
Hodgson, J. M. 1958. Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop.) control with cultivation, cropping, and chemical sprays. Weeds 6: 1–11.Google Scholar
Hunter, J. H. 1996. Control of Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) with glyphosate applied at the bud vs. rosette stage. Weed Sci. 44: 934–938.Google Scholar
Morishita, D. W. 1999. In Sheley, R. L. and Petroff, J. K., eds. Biology and Management of Noxious Rangeland Weeds. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press. pp. 168–170.Google Scholar
Naiman, R. J. and Decamps, H. 1997. The ecology of interfaces: riparian zones. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 28: 621–658.Google Scholar
Patten, D. T. 1998. Riparian ecosystems of semi-arid North America: diversity and human impacts. Wetlands 18: 498–512.Google Scholar
Patterson, M. P. and Best, L. B. 1996. Bird abundance and nesting success in Iowa CRP fields: the importance of vegetation structure and composition. Am. Midl. Nat. 135: 153–167.Google Scholar
Peterson, R. G. 1985. Design and Analysis of Experiments. New York: Marcel Dekker. pp 72-75.Google Scholar
Pysek, P. and Prach, K. 1993. Plant invasions and the role of riparian habitats: a comparison of four species alien to central Europe. J. Biogeogr. 20: 412–420.Google Scholar
Radosevich, S., Holt, J., and Ghersa, C. 1997. Weed Ecology: Implications for Management. 2nd ed. New York: J. Wiley. pp. 277–299.Google Scholar
Santillo, D. J., Brown, P. W., and Leslie, D. M. 1989. Response of songbirds to glyphosate-induced habitat changes on clearcuts. J. Wildl. Manag. 53: 64–71.Google Scholar
Sheley, R. L., Mullin, B. H., and Fay, P. K. 1999. Riparian Weed Management. Montana State University EB 137. Bozeman, MT: Montana State University. p. 2.Google Scholar
Stauffer, D. F. and Best, L. B. 1980. Habitat selection by birds of riparian communities: evaluating effects of habitat alterations. J. Wildl. Manag. 44: 1–15.Google Scholar
Windell, J. T. 1992. Stream, Riparian and Wetland Ecology. Boulder, CO: University of Colorado Press. 292 p.Google Scholar
Zimdahl, R. L. and Foster, G. 1993. Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) control with disking and herbicides. Weed Technol. 7: 146–149.Google Scholar