Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T00:11:50.606Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of Aminopyralid on Desirable Forb Species

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Jonathan R. Mikkelson  and
Rodney G. Lym
Jonathan R. Mikkelson
Affiliation:
Plant Sciences Department, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58105
Rodney G. Lym*
Affiliation:
Plant Sciences Department, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58105
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: Rod.Lym@ndsu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Native forbs are important for plant community function and diversity, and provide food and cover for wildlife. Field studies have been conducted throughout the western United States to determine the impact of herbicides applied to control invasive weeds on native forbs. However, locating adequate populations of native forbs for evaluation of tolerance to herbicides is often difficult. The susceptibility of nine native prairie forbs to aminopyralid applied at 30 to 120 g ha−1 was evaluated in a greenhouse study and results compared to the same or similar species in field trials. Forb susceptibility to aminopyralid varied by species. Of the forbs evaluated, azure aster, purple coneflower, and closed bottle gentian were the most tolerant to aminopyralid while prairie coneflower, great blue lobelia, harebell, and white prairie clover were the most susceptible and likely would be killed in the field. Blanket flower and showy goldenrod were moderately tolerant to aminopyralid even when applied at 120 g ha−1. The susceptibility of greenhouse-grown forbs to aminopyralid was comparable to results for the same or similar species in the field. Results from greenhouse trials could be used to predict native forb tolerance in the field.

Keywords

Aminopyralidazure aster, Symphyotrichum oolentangiense (Riddell) G.L. Nesomblanket flower, Gaillardia aristata Purshclosed bottle gentian, Gentiana andrewsii Griseb.great blue lobelia, Lobelia siphilitica L.harebell, Campanula rotundifolia L.prairie coneflower, Ratibida columnifera (Nutt.) Woot. & Standl.purple coneflower, Echinacea angustifolia DC.showy goldenrod, Solidago speciosa Nutt.white prairie clover, Dalea candida Michx. ex WilldAminopyralidnative forbstolerancewild flowers
Type
Research
Information
Invasive Plant Science and Management , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , March 2013 , pp. 30 - 35
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, . 2012. Native forb tolerance to Milestone. Invasive plant management guide for natural area managers. http://www.techlinenews.com/index.php?option=com_content &view=article&id=174:invasive-plant-management-guide-for-natural-area-managers &catid=59:western-rangleland-resources&Itemid=42. Accessed April 2, 2012.Google Scholar
Almquist, T. L. and Lym, R. G. 2010. Effect of aminopyralid on Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) and the native plant community in a restored tallgrass prairie. Inv. Plant Sci. Manage. 3 :155–168.Google Scholar
Becker, R. and Haar, M. 2008. Minnesota rankings for native forb tolerance to aminopyralid and clopyralid herbicides. Minnesota Extension Service. http://appliedweeds.cfans.umn.edu/pubs/Forb%20Tolerance%20to%20Aminopyralid%20and%20Clopyralid%20Herbicides.pdf. Accessed: February 16, 2010.Google Scholar
Carrithers, V. F., Burch, P. L., Kline, W. N., Masters, R. A., Nelson, J. A., Halstvedt, M. B., Troth, J. L., and Breuninger, J. M. 2005. Aminopyralid: A new reduced risk active ingredient for control of broadleaf invasive and noxious weeds. Proc. West. Soc. Weed Sci. 58 :59–60.Google Scholar
Duncan, C., Kulla, A., and Halstvedt, M. 2008. Effect of aminopyralid on non-target vegetation following aerial application. Proc. West. Soc Weed Sci. 61 :34–35.Google Scholar
Enloe, S. F., Lym, R. G., Wilson, R. W., Westra, P., Nissen, S., Beck, G., Moechnig, M., Peterson, V., Masters, R. A., and Halstvedt, M. 2007. Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) control with aminopyralid in range, pasture, and noncrop areas. Weed Technol. 21 :890–894.Google Scholar
Halstvedt, M. B., Cummings, D. C., Almquist, T., Samuel, L., Lym, R. G., Beck, K. G., Becker, R. L., Duncan, C. A., and Rice, P. M. 2010. Native forb and shrub tolerance to aminopyralid. Proc. West. Soc. Weed Sci. 63 :44–45.Google Scholar
Halstvedt, M. B., Peterson, V. F., Beck, K. G., Moechnig, M. J., and Rice, P. M. 2011. The effect of application timing on forb tolerance to aminopyralid. Proc. West. Soc. Weed Sci. 64 :61–62.Google Scholar
Halstvedt, M. B. and Rice, P. M. 2009. Plant community response to aminopyralid. Proc. West. Soc. Weed Sci. 62 :41–42.Google Scholar
Mayfield, M. M., Boni, M. F., Daily, G. C., and Ackerty, D. 2005. Species and functional diversity of native and human-dominated plant communities. Ecology 86 :2365–2372.Google Scholar
Rice, P. M., Toney, J. C., Bedunah, D. J., and Carlson, C. E. 1997. Plant community diversity and growth form responses to herbicide applications for control of Centaurea maculosa. J. Applied Ecol. 34 :1397–1412.Google Scholar
Rinella, M. J., Pokorny, M. L., and Rekaya, R. 2007. Grassland invader responses to realistic changes in native species richness. Ecol App. 17 :1824–1831.Google Scholar
Samuel, L. W. and Lym, R. G. 2008. Aminopyralid effects on Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) and native plant species. Inv. Plant Sci. Manage. 1 :265–278.Google Scholar
Sleugh, B. S., Peterson, V. F., Halstvedt, M., Whitson, T. D., Dewey, S. A., Lym, R. G., Knezevic, S. Z., Patten, K., and DiTomaso, J. M. 2009. Aminopyralid: new efficacy research on noxious and invasive weeds. Proc. West. Soc. Weed Sci. 62 :27.Google Scholar
Tilman, D., Wedin, D., and Knops, J. 1996. Productivity an sustainability influenced by biodiversity in grassland ecosystems. Nature 379 :718–721.Google Scholar