Hostname: page-component-68945f75b7-55759 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-04T11:18:05.211Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tropical Spiderwort (Commelina benghalensis): A Tropical Invader Threatens Agroecosystems of the Southern United States

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Theodore M. Webster ,
Michael G. Burton ,
A. Stanley Culpepper ,
Alan C. York  and
Eric P. Prostko
Theodore M. Webster*
Affiliation:
Crop Protection and Management Research Unit, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Coastal Plain Experiment Station, P.O. Box 748, Tifton, GA 31793-0748
Michael G. Burton
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, North Carolina State University, Box 7620, Raleigh, NC 27695
A. Stanley Culpepper
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, University of Georgia, P.O. Box 1209, Tifton, GA 31793
Alan C. York
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, North Carolina State University, Box 7620, Raleigh, NC 27695
Eric P. Prostko
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, University of Georgia, P.O. Box 1209, Tifton, GA 31793
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: twebster@tifton.usda.gov
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Tropical spiderwort (more appropriately called Benghal dayflower) poses a serious threat to crop production in the southern United States. Although tropical spiderwort has been present in the United States for more than seven decades, only recently has it become a pest in agricultural fields. Identified as an isolated weed problem in 1999, tropical spiderwort became the most troublesome weed in Georgia cotton by 2003. Contributing to the significance of tropical spiderwort as a troublesome weed is the lack of control afforded by most commonly used herbicides, especially glyphosate. Vegetative growth and flower production of tropical spiderwort were optimized between 30 and 35 C, but growth was sustained over a range of 20 to 40 C. These temperatures are common throughout much of the United States during summer months. At the very least, it appears that tropical spiderwort may be able to co-occur with cotton throughout the southeastern United States. The environmental limits of tropical spiderwort have not yet been determined. However, the rapid spread through Georgia and naturalization in North Carolina, coupled with its tolerance to current management strategies and aggressive growth habit, make tropical spiderwort a significant threat to agroecosystems in the southern United States.

Keywords

Exotic invasive weedfederal noxious weedBenghal dayflower
Type
Invasive Weed Alert
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 19 , Issue 3 , September 2005 , pp. 501 - 508
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

Abbe, D. S. and Messer, C. S. 2002. Georgia Agricultural Facts, 2001 ed. Athens, GA: Georgia Agricultural Statistics Service. 91 p.Google Scholar
Abbe, D. S. and Messer, C. S. 2004. Georgia Agricultural Facts, 2003 ed. Athens, GA: Georgia Agricultural Statistics Service. 92 p.Google Scholar
Australia's Virtual Herbarium. 2004. Web page: http://www.flora.sa.gov.au/avh/. Accessed: July 26, 2004.Google Scholar
Bass, R. T. and Messer, C. S. 2000. Georgia Agricultural Facts, 1999 ed. Athens, GA: Georgia Agricultural Statistics Service. 94 p.Google Scholar
Budd, G. D., Thomas, P. E. L., and Allison, J. C. S. 1979. Vegetative regeneration, depth of germination, and seed dormancy in Commelina benghalensis L. Rhodesian J. Agric. Res. 17:151–153.Google Scholar
Burton, M. G., Sermons, S., and Rufty, T. W. 2003a. Temperature optima for growth of tropical spiderwort. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 56:345–346.Google Scholar
Burton, M. G., Webster, T. M., Prostko, E. P., Culpepper, A. S., York, A. C., and Sermons, S. 2003b. Rapid increase of tropical spiderwort (Commelina benghalensis L.) in herbicide-resistant crops of southeastern USA agroecosystems. Abst. Ecol. Soc. America 88:51–52.Google Scholar
Burton, M. G. and York, A. C. 2004. Tropical spiderwort in North Carolina: a case for containment or eradication? Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 57:230.Google Scholar
Burton, M. G., York, A. C., Spears, J. F., and Rufty, T. W. 2003c. Tropical spiderwort colonizes North Carolina: ecology and containment of a noxious weed. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 56:183.Google Scholar
Chivinge, O. A. and Kawisi, M. 1989. The effect of node numbers on the regeneration of wandering jew (Commelina benghalensis). Zimbabwe J. Agric. Res. 27:131–138.Google Scholar
Clarke, C. B. 1881. Commelinaceae . in de Candolle, A. and de Candolle, C. eds. Monographiae phanerogamarum. Volume 3. Paris: Masson. Pp. 113–324.Google Scholar
Culpepper, A. S., Flanders, J. T., York, A. C., and Webster, T. M. 2004. Tropical spiderwort (Commelina benghalensis) control in glyphosate-resistant cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 18:432–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpepper, A. S. and York, A. C. 1998. Weed management in glyphosate-tolerant cotton. J. Cotton Sci. 4:147–185.Google Scholar
Culpepper, A. S. and York, A. C. 1999. Weed management and net returns with transgenic, herbicide-resistant, and nontransgenic cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Technol. 13:411–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowler, C. C. 1998. Weed survey—southern states—broadleaf crops subsection. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 51:299–313.Google Scholar
Duncan, W. H. 1967. Commelina benghalensis: a species new to United States. Brittonia 19:282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faden, R. B. 1992. Proposal to conserve Commelina benghalensis (Commelinaceae) with a conserved type under Art. 69.3. Taxon 41:341–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faden, R. B. 1993. The misconstrued and rare species of Commelina (Commelinaceae) in the eastern United States. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 80:208–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faden, R. B. 2000. Commelina . in Morin, N. R., ed. Flora of North America. New York: Oxford University Press. Pp. 192–197.Google Scholar
Faden, R. B. and Hafliger, E. 1982. Commelinaceae. in Hafliger, E., ed. Monocot Weeds. Basel, Switzerland: Ciba-Geigy. Pp. 100–111.Google Scholar
Fernandez-Cornejo, J. and McBride, W. D. 2002. Adoption of bioengineered crops. Agricultural Economic Report 810. U.S. Department of Agriculture—Economic Research Service. Web page: http://www.ers.udsa.gov/publications/aer810/aer810d.pdf. Accessed: June 8, 2005.Google Scholar
Ferreira, M. I., Reinhardt, C. F., and Ferreira, M. I. 1999. The role of temperature in the germination of subterranean and aerial seeds of Commelina benghalensis L. S. African J. Plant Soil 16:165–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonzalez, C. B. and Haddad, C. R. B. 1995. Light and temperature effects on flowering and seed-germination of Commelina benghalensis L. Arq. Biol. Tecnol. 38:651–659.Google Scholar
Haney, P. B., Lewis, W. J., and Lambert, W. R. 1996. Cotton production and the boll weevil in Georgia: history, cost of control, and benefits of eradication. The Georgia Agricultural Experiment Station, Research Bulletin 428. 48 p.Google Scholar
Harvard University Herbaria. 2004. Index of botanical specimens. Web page: http://brimsa.huh.harvard.edu/cms-wb/specimen_index.html Accessed: July 26, 2004.Google Scholar
Hauser, E. W. 1962. Development of purple nutsedge under field conditions. Weeds 10:315–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holm, L. G., Plucknett, D. L., Pancho, J. V., and Herberger, J. P. 1977. The World's Worst Weeds: Distribution and Biology. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii. 609 p.Google Scholar
Kaul, V., Sharma, N., and Koul, A. K. 2002. Reproductive effort and sex allocation strategy in Commelina benghalensis L., a common monsoon weed. Bot. J. Linnean Soc. 140:403–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krings, A., Burton, M. G., and York, A. C. 2002. Commelina benghalensis (Commelinaceae) new to North Carolina and an updated key to Carolina congeners. Sida 20:419–422.Google Scholar
Maheshwari, P. and Maheshwari, J. K. 1955. Floral dimorphism in Commelina forskalaei Vahl. and C. benghalenis L. Phytomorph. 5:413–422.Google Scholar
Maheshwari, P. and Singh, B. 1934. A preliminary note on the morphology of the aerial and underground flowers of Commelina benghalensis, Linn. Curr. Sci. 3:158–160.Google Scholar
Matsuo, M., Michinaga, H., Terao, H., and Tsuzuki, E. 2004. Aerial seed germination and morphological characteristics of juvenile seedlings in Commelina benghalensis L. Weed Biol. Manag. 4:148–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Missouri Botanical Garden. 2004. W3—Specimen Data Base. Web page: http://mobot.mobot.org/W3T/Search/vast.html. Accessed: July 26, 2004.Google Scholar
New York Botanical Garden. 2004. The Virtual Herbarium of the New York Botanical Garden. Web page: http://scisun.nybg.org:8890/searchdb/owa/wwwspecimen.searchform. Accessed: July 26, 2004.Google Scholar
Pacific Island Ecosystems at Risk. 2004. Plant Threats to Pacific ecosystems. Web page: http://www.hear.org/pier/threats.htm. Accessed: July 26, 2004.Google Scholar
Prostko, E. P., Culpepper, A. S., Webster, T. M., and Flanders, J. T. 2005. Tropical spiderwort identification and control in Georgia field crops. Tifton, GA: University of Georgia Cooperative Extension Service Bulletin. Web page: http://pubs.caes.uga.edu/caespubs/pubs/PDF/c884.pdf. Accessed: June 8, 2005.Google Scholar
Reed, C. F. 1977. Economically Important Foreign Weeds: Potential Problems in the United States. Agriculture Handbook 498. Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, USDA–Agricultural Research Service/APHIS. 746 p.Google Scholar
Royal Botanical Gardens Kew. 2004. Electronic Plant Information Centre. Web page: http://www.kew.org/searchepic/searchpage.do. Accessed: July 26, 2004.Google Scholar
Snipes, L. E. and Hammer, M. 1986. Georgia Agricultural Facts, 1985 ed. Athens, GA: Georgia Agricultural Statistics Service. 216 p.Google Scholar
Snipes, L. E. and Hammer, M. 1991. Georgia Agricultural Facts, 1990 ed. Athens, GA: Georgia Agricultural Statistics Service. 184 p.Google Scholar
Snipes, L. E. and Hammer, M. 1996. Georgia Agricultural Facts, 1995 ed. Athens, GA: Georgia Agricultural Statistics Service. 205 p.Google Scholar
Thomas, R. D. and Allen, C. M. 1993. Commelina benghalensis L. (Commelinaceae), Carex hyalina Boott (Cyperaceae), and Chloris subdolichostachya C. Muell. (Poaceae): new to Louisiana. Phytologia 75:336–338.Google Scholar
USDA–Agricultural Marketing Service. 2003. Cotton Varieties Planted 2003 Crop. Memphis, TN. 9 p.Google Scholar
USDA-APHIS. 2000. Federal Noxious Weed List. Web page: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/permits/fnwsbycat-e.PDF. Accessed: July 26, 2003.Google Scholar
USDA–Economic Research Service. 2003. Cotton and Wool Yearbook: Upland Harvested Acreage. Web page: http://ers.usda.gov/data/sdp/view.asp?f=crops/89004/. Accessed: July 26, 2004.Google Scholar
USDA–National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2004. Agricultural Chemical Use Database. Web page: http://www.pestmanagement.info/nass/. Accessed: July 26, 2004.Google Scholar
Walker, S. R. and Evenson, J. P. 1985. Biology of Commelina benghalensis L. in southeastern Queensland. 1. Growth, development and seed production. Weed Res. 25:239–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, T. M. 2001. Weed survey—southern states: broadleaf crops subsection. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc. 54:244–259.Google Scholar
Webster, T. M. 2004. Tropical spiderwort (Commelina benghalensis): and you thought sicklepod was bad?. Proc. Weed Sci. Soc. North Carolina. Web page: http://www.wssnc.ncsu.edu/2004/proceed.html. Accessed: July 26, 2004.Google Scholar
Webster, T. M. and MacDonald, G. E. 2001. A survey of weeds in various crops in Georgia. Weed Technol. 15:771–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, A. K. 1981. Commelinaceae—a review of the distribution, biology, and control of the important weeds belonging to this family. Tropical Pest Management 27:405–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar