Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vfjqv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T14:35:00.527Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cutleaf Teasel (Dipsacus laciniatus): Seed Development and Persistence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Diego J. Bentivegna  and
Reid J. Smeda
Diego J. Bentivegna*
Affiliation:
Division of Plant Science, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211
Reid J. Smeda
Affiliation:
Division of Plant Science, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: dbentive@criba.edu.ar
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Cutleaf teasel (Dipsacus laciniatus) is an exotic, invasive plant that infests roadsides and other minimally disturbed areas. Plants in established stands appear to be a mixture of rapidly growing rosettes and rosettes with developing reproductive structures. Research that is focused on seed characteristics and their contribution to the spread of plants may be a key to precluding spread of cutleaf teasel in the field. Field studies were conducted to determine the viability and germinability of seeds after flowering, seedling emergence patterns, and seed persistence. Flowering (60% of anthesis) was observed under natural conditions on July 24, 2004, and July 16, 2005. Seeds harvested 12 d after flowering exhibited 43% viability and 2.5% germination. Seed weight and viability were greatest 30 d after flowering, but germination was < 32%. Seedling emergence was monitored over a 12-mo period with the greatest emergence in April and October with 33% of seeds germinating. Seed persistence was evaluated over a 3-yr period under field conditions. Up to 84% of the germinated seeds had germinated during the first year, with 6% of seeds remaining viable after 3 yr. Although seed persistence was relatively short, the rapid development of seeds following flowering as well as seedling emergence in both fall and spring suggests management practices are needed throughout the year to restrict reestablishment spread of cutleaf teasel.

Keywords

Cutleaf teasel, Dipsacus laciniatus L.Capituluminvasiveroadsideemergenceviability
Type
Research
Information
Invasive Plant Science and Management , Volume 4 , Issue 1 , March 2011 , pp. 31 - 37
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

Bentivegna, D. J. 2006. Biology and management of cut-leaved teasel (Dipsacus laciniatus L.) in central Missouri. M.S. thesis. Columbia, MO University of Missouri. 67 p.Google Scholar
Bentivegna, D. J. and Smeda, R. J. 2008. Chemical management of cut-leaved teasel (Dipsacus laciniatus L.) in Missouri. Weed Technol 22:502–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caswell, H. and Werner, P. A. 1978. Transient behavior and life history analysis of teasel (Dipsacus sylvestris Huds.). Ecology 59:53–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caylor, P. 1998. Herbicides help Illinois DOT control roadside weeds. Am. City Country 113:17–18.Google Scholar
Cheesman, O. D. 1998. The impact of some field boundary management practices on the development of Dipsacus fullonum L. flowering stems, and implication for conservation. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ 68:41–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Copeland, L. O. 1976. Seed viability and viability testing. Principles of Seed Science and Technology. Minneapolis, MN Burgess Publishing Company. 103–120.Google Scholar
Ferguson, I. K. 1965. The genera of Valerianaceae and Dipsacaceae in the southeastern United States. J. Arnold Arboretum 46:218–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glass, W. D. 1991. Vegetation management guideline: cut-leaved teasel (Dipsacus laciniatus L.) and common teasel (Dipsacus sylvestris Huds.). Nat. Areas J 11:213–214.Google Scholar
Hubbell, S. P. and Werner, P. A. 1979. On measuring the intrinsic rate of increase of populations with heterogeneous life histories. Am. Nat 113:277–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Missouri Vegetation Management Manual 1997. 44–49. In Smith, T. E. ed. Jefferson City, MO Missouri Department of Conservation.Google Scholar
[NRCS] Natural Resources Conservation Service 2008. Official Soil Series Descriptions. http://soils.usda.gov/technical/classification/osd/index.html. Accessed: February 15, 2008.Google Scholar
Rector, B. G., Harizanova, V., Sforza, R., Widmer, T., and Wiedenmann, R. N. 2006. Prospects for biological control of teasels, Dipsacus spp., a new target in the United States. Biol. Control 36:1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, H. A. 1986. Seed persistence in soil and seasonal emergence in plant species from different habitats. J. Appl. Ecol 23:639–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snedecor, G. W. and Cochran, W. G. 1956. Statistical Methods Applied to Experiments in Agriculture and Biology. Ames, IA Iowa State College Press. 534 p.Google Scholar
Solecki, M. K. 1989. The viability of cut-leaved teasel (Dipsacus laciniatus L.) seed harvested from flowering stems: management implications. Nat. Areas J 9:102–105.Google Scholar
Solecki, M. K. 1993. Cut-leaved and common teasel (Dipsacus laciniatus L. and D. sylvestris Huds.): profile of two invasive aliens. Pages 85–92. In McKnight, B. N. ed. Biological Pollution: The Control and Impact of Invasive Exotic Species. Indianapolis, IN Indiana Academic of Science.Google Scholar
Steel, R. G. D. and Torrie, J. H. 1980. Principles and Procedures of Statistics: A Biometrical Approach. New York McGraw-Hill College. 633 p.Google Scholar
Terres, J. K. and Ratcliffe, B. 1979. Teasel, as in tease. Audubon 9:108–109.Google Scholar
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture 2008. The PLANTS Database. http://plants.usda.gov. Accessed: May 5, 2008.Google Scholar
Werner, P. A. 1975. The biology of Canadian weeds. 12. Dipsacus sylvestris Huds. Can. J. Plant Sci 55:783–794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Werner, P. A. 1977. Colonization success of a “biennial” plant species: experimental field studies of species cohabitation and replacement. Ecology 58:840–849.CrossRefGoogle Scholar