Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T07:44:31.509Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Efficacy of Several Herbicides on Yellow Archangel (Lamiastrum galeobdolon)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Timothy W. Miller ,
Alison D. Halpern ,
Frances Lucero  and
Sasha H. Shaw
Timothy W. Miller*
Affiliation:
Washington State University, Mount Vernon, WA 98273
Alison D. Halpern
Affiliation:
Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board, Olympia, WA 98504
Frances Lucero
Affiliation:
King County Noxious Weed Control Program, Seattle, WA 98104
Sasha H. Shaw
Affiliation:
King County Noxious Weed Control Program, Seattle, WA 98104
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: twmiller@wsu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Yellow archangel is a twining perennial species that produces a dense evergreen canopy and may negatively affect forest floor vegetation. Because it is spreading rapidly in the Pacific Northwest (PNW), greenhouse and field trials were conducted on yellow archangel to determine its relative sensitivity to several herbicides. Products that slowed or prevented yellow archangel regrowth at 9 mo after treatment (MAT) in one or both iterations of the greenhouse trial were aminopyralid, diclobenil, glufosinate, imazapyr, isoxaben, metsulfuron, sulfometuron, triclopyr amine, and triclopyr ester + 2,4-D ester. In the field trial at 10 MAT, triclopyr and imazapyr were controlling 81 and 78% of treated yellow archangel, respectively, similar to aminopyralid, glyphosate, and metsulfuron (61 to 65%). Two applications of 20% acetic acid or 20% clove oil were controlling 53% at the same timing. At 13 MAT, only imazapyr and glyphosate were still providing good control of yellow archangel (81 and 80%, respectively), while all other products were controlling the weed at 53% or less. By 7 or 8 MAT after a second application, only imazapyr and glyphosate provided effective control of yellow archangel (86 to 94%).

Keywords

2,4-Dacetic acidaminopyralidclove oildiclobenilglufosinateglyphosateimazapyrisoxabenmetsulfuronsulfometurontriclopyryellow archangel, Lamiastrum galeobdolon (L.) Ehrend. & PolatschekInvasive speciesLamium galeobdolonnoxious weed
Type
Research Article
Information
Invasive Plant Science and Management , Volume 7 , Issue 2 , June 2014 , pp. 269 - 277
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 (2005) Written Findings of the Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board, Lamiastrum galeobdolon (L.) Ehrend. & Polatschek. http://www.nwcb.wa.gov/. Accessed September 3, 2013Google Scholar
DesCamp, WC (2010) Lamiastrum galeobdolon subsp. argentatum: An Invasive Plant Species in the Pacific Northwest. M.S. thesis. Seattle, WA University of Washington. 135 pGoogle Scholar
Devecchi, M (2006) The use of Labiatae of ornamental interest in the design of parks and gardens. Acta Hortic 723:51–57 Google Scholar
Dixon, FL, Clay, DV, Willoughby, I (2002) Susceptibility of woodland plants to herbicide drift. Q J For 96:32–36 Google Scholar
Eom, SH, Senesac, AF, Tsontakis-Bradley, I, Weston, LA (2005) Evaluation of herbaceous perennials as weed suppressive groundcovers for use along roadsides or in landscapes. J Environ Hortic 23:198–203 Google Scholar
Garibaldi, A, Bertetti, D, Minerdi, D, Gullino, ML (2007) First report of powdery mildew caused by Golovinomyces orontii (Erysiphe orontii) on Lamium galeobdolon in Italy. Plant Dis 91:635 Google Scholar
Graham, PA (2013) Yellow Archangel. In Invasive Plants of Southwestern British Columbia, Community Mapping Network. http://shim.bc.ca/invasivespecies/_private/yellowarchangel.htm. Accessed September 3, 2013Google Scholar
Hipps, NA, Davies, MJ, Dodds, P, Buckley, GP (2005) The effects of phosphorus nutrition and soil pH on the growth of some ancient woodland indicator plants and their interaction with competitor species. Plant Soil 271:131–141 Google Scholar
Jacobson, AL (2003) Plant of the Month: April 2003—Yellow Archangel or Golden Dead-Nettle. http://www.arthurleej.com/p-o-m-April03.html. Accessed September 3, 2013Google Scholar
Kartesz, JT (2013) The Biota of North America Program North American Plant Atlas. http://www.bonap.org/napa.html. Accessed December 9, 2013Google Scholar
Leiber, E (1964) Chemical weed control in ornamental crops. Gesunde Pflanzen 16:202–207 Google Scholar
Leuschner, C, Lendzion, J (2009) Air humidity, soil moisture and soil chemistry as determinants of the herb layer composition in European beech forests. J Veg Sci 20:288–298 Google Scholar
Onaindia, M, Dominguez, I, Albizu, I, Garbisu, C, Amezaga, I (2004) Vegetation diversity and vertical structure as indicators of forest disturbance. For Ecol Manag 195:341–354 Google Scholar
Packham, JR (1983) Biological flora of the British Isles: Lamiastrum galeobdolon . J Ecol 71:975–997 Google Scholar
Rodríguez-Loinaz, G, Amezaga, I, Onaindia, M (2012) Does forest fragmentation affect the same way all growth-forms? J Environ Manag 94:125–131 Google Scholar
Roovers, P, Gulinck, H, Hermy, M (2005) Experimental assessment of initial revegetation on abandoned paths in temperate deciduous forest. Appl Veg Sci 8:139–148 Google Scholar
Rotherham, I (2002) Aliens and woodlands—impact of variegated yellow archangel. Q J For 96:128–130 Google Scholar
Smirnova, OV, Toropova, NA (1972) The great life cycle of Galeobdolon luteum Huds. Byulleten Moskovskogo Obschetva Ispytatelei Prirody Ordel Biologichesckii 77:76–87 Google Scholar
Swearingen, J, Slattery, B, Reshetiloff, K, Zwicker, S (2010) Plant Invaders of Mid-Atlantic Natural Areas. 4th edn. Washington, DC National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 168 pGoogle Scholar
Verheyen, K, Hermy, M (2001) The relative importance of dispersal limitation of vascular plants in secondary forest succession in Muizen Forest, Belgium. J Ecol 89:829–840 Google Scholar