Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T00:03:37.415Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Effects of Selected Herbicides on Musk Thistle (Carduus nutans) Viable Achene Production

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

K. George Beck
Affiliation:
Colo. State Univ., Ft. Collins, CO 80523
Robert G. Wilson
Affiliation:
Univ. Nebr., Panhandle Res. Ext. Cent., Scottsbluff, NE 69361
M. Ann Henson
Affiliation:
Development Representative E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc., Longmont, CO 80501

Abstract

Chlorsulfuron, metsulfuron, clopyralid, 2,4-D, picloram, and dicamba plus 2,4-D were spring-applied to musk thistle in rosette, bolting, bud, and early flower growth stages. All treatments reduced viable achene production at all musk thistle growth stages at Mcgrew, NE, and Longmont, CO. However, differences occurred at Evergreen, CO, among treatments and growth stages. No achenes developed at Evergreen when herbicides were applied during the rosette stage with dicamba plus 2,4-D, picloram, or metsulfuron at 21 g ai/ha or during bolting with chlorsulfuron or metsulfuron at 21 g/ha. Chlorsulfuron applied during early bloom reduced viable achene production over 99% compared to untreated plants and the picloram treatment.

Type
Research
Copyright
Copyright © 1990 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. Andres, L.A. 1982. Integrating weed biological control agents into a pest-management program. Weed Sci. 30(Suppl. 1):2530.Google Scholar
2. Beck, K. G., Henson, M A., and Wilson, R. G. 1988. Chlorsulfuron and metsulfuron effects on musk thistle viable achene production. Proc. West. Soc. Weed Sci. 41:69.Google Scholar
3. Dunn, P. H. 1976. Distribution of Carduus nutans, C. acanthoides, C. pycnocephalus, and C. crispus in the United States. Weed Sci. 24:518524.Google Scholar
4. Feldman, I., McCarty, M. K., and Scifres, C. J. 1968. Ecological and control studies of musk thistle. Weed Sci. 16:14.Google Scholar
5. McCarty, M. K. 1982. Musk thistle (Carduus thoemeri) seed production. Weed Sci. 30:441445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. McCarty, M. K., and Hatting, J. L. 1975. Effects of herbicides or mowing on musk thistle seed production. Weed Res. 15:363367.Google Scholar
7. McCarty, M. K., and Scifres, C. J. 1969. Life cycle studies with musk thistle. Univ. Nebr. Res. Bull. 300.Google Scholar
8. McCarty, M. K., Scifres, C. J., Smith, A. L., and Horst, G. L. 1969. Germination and early seedling development of musk and plumeless thistles Univ. Nebr. Res. Bull. 299.Google Scholar
9. Roeth, F. W. 1979. Comparisons of dicamba, picloram, and 2,4-D for musk thistle (Carduus nutans) control. Weed Sci. 27:651655.Google Scholar
10. Snedecor, G. W., and Cochran, W. G. 1967. Statistical Methods. Iowa State Univ. Press, Ames, p. 365.Google Scholar
11. Tetrazolium Committee of Association of Official Seed Analysis. 1970 p. 62 in Grabe, D. F., ed. Tetrazolium Testing, Handb. Agric. Seed. No. 29 Assoc. Official Seed Analysts.Google Scholar
12. Trumble, J. T., and Kok, L. T. 1979. Compatibility of Rhinocyllus conicus and 2,4-D (LVA) for musk thistle control. Environ. Entomol. 8:421422.Google Scholar