Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-78dcdb465f-9mfzn Total loading time: 19.798 Render date: 2021-04-15T09:31:13.215Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

Article contents

Using noxious weed lists to prioritize targets for developing weed management strategies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Lincoln Smith
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS Northern Plains Agricultural Research Laboratory, 1500 N. Central Avenue, Sidney, MT 59270
Peter Rice
Affiliation:
Division of Biological Sciences, University of Montana, Missoula, MT 59812
Corresponding

Abstract

To identify the most commonly regulated weedy plants in the United States and southern Canada, we compiled a database of noxious weed lists obtained from the 48 continental states and six bordering provinces. The 10 most frequently listed weeds are Cirsium arvense, Carduus nutans, Lythrum spp. (includes purple loosestrife), Convolvulus arvensis, Euphorbia esula, Acroptilon repens, Sorghum spp. (includes johnsongrass and shattercane), Cardaria spp. (includes hoary cress, also called whitetop), Centaurea maculosa, and Sonchus arvensis. When genera are ranked, the top genus is Centaurea, which includes C. maculosa, C. diffusa, and C. solstitalis. Biological control programs have targeted many of the top dicotyledonous weeds of national concern, but none of the weedy grasses and sedges. We recommend that exploratory studies be initiated to determine the feasibility of developing biological control agents for the latter species. The complete database of noxious weed lists is available on the Internet at http://invader.dbs.umt.edu. This information may be useful to resource managers and regulatory officials in assessing which weeds are problematic in adjacent geographic areas and by researchers to help select which weeds to target with new management strategies.

Type
Research Article
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.

References

Anonymous. 1999. Invasive Species. Executive Order 13112 of February 3, 1999. Federal Register 64 (25): 61836186.Google Scholar
Daehler, C. C. and Strong, D. R. Jr. 1993. Prediction and biological invasions. Trends Ecol. Evol. 8:380.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Debach, P. and Rosen, D. 1991. Biological control by natural enemies. 2nd ed. Cambridge, Great Britain: Cambridge University Press. Page 252.Google Scholar
Forcella, F. and Wood, J. T. 1984. Colonization potentials of alien weeds are related to their native’ distributions: implications for plant quarantine. J. Aust. Inst. Agric. Sci. 50:3541.Google Scholar
Goeden, R. D. 1978. Biological control of weeds, Hypericaceae: St. Johnswort, Klamath weed (Hypericum perforatum Linnaeus). Pages 387393 In Clausen, C. P., ed. Introduced Parasites and Predators of Arthropod Pests and Weeds: A World Review. Washington, DC: USDAARS Agriculture Handbook 480.Google Scholar
Huffaker, C. B. 1967. A comparison of the status of biological control of St. Johnswort in California and Australia. Mushi Suppl. 39:5173.Google Scholar
Huffaker, C. B., Hamai, J., and Nowierski, R. M. 1983. Biological control of puncturevine, Tribulus terrestris in California after twenty years of activity of introduced weevils. Entomophaga 28:387400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Julien, M. H. and Griffiths, M. W., eds. 1999. Biological Control of Weeds: A World Catalogue of Agents and Their Target Weeds. 4th ed. Chippenham, Great Britain: CABI Publishing and the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research.Google Scholar
Kok, L. T. and Mays, W. T. 1991. Successful biological control of plumeless thistle, Carduus acanthoides L. [Campanulatae: Asteraceae: (= Compositae)] by Trichosirocalus horridus (Panzer) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) in Virginia. Biol. Control 1:197202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kok, L. T. and Pienkowski, R. L. 1985. Biological control of musk thistle by Rhinocyllus conicus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) in Virginia from 1969–1980. Pages 433438 In Delfosse, E. S., ed. Proceedings of the VI International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds. Vancouver, Canada.Google Scholar
Lorenz, R. J. and Dewey, S. A. 1988. Noxious weeds that are poisonous. Pages 309336 In James, L. F., Ralphs, M. H., and Nielsen, D. B., eds. The Ecology and Economic Impact of Poisonous Plants on Livestock Production. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Louda, S. M., Kendall, D., Connor, J., and Simberloff, D. 1997. Ecological effects of an insect introduced for the biological control of weeds. Science 277:10881090.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mack, R. N. 1996. Predicting the identity and fate of plant invaders: emergent and emerging approaches. Biol. Conserv. 78:107121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McEvoy, P. B., Coz, C. S., and Coombs, E. M. 1991. Successful biological control of ragwort. Ecol. Appl. 1:430432.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McFadyen, R.E.C. 1998. Biological control of weeds. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 43:369393.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morrison, K. D., Reekie, E. G., and Jensen, K.I.N. 1998. Biological control of common St. Johnswort (Hypericum perforatum) with Chrysolina hyperici and a host-specific Colletotrichum gloeosporioides . Weed Technol. 12:426435.Google Scholar
Mullin, B. H., Anderson, L.W.J., DiTomaso, J. M., Eplee, R. E., and Getsinger, K. D. 2000. Invasive Plant Species. Ames, IA: Council for Agricultural Science and Technology Issue Paper No. 13, February 2000. 18 pp.Google Scholar
Pimentel, D., Lach, L., Zuniga, R., and Morrison, D. 2000. Environmental and economic costs associated with non-indigenous species in the United States. Bioscience 50:5365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rees, N. E. 1991. Biological control of thistles. Pages 264273 In James, L. F., Evans, J. O., Ralphs, M. H., and Child, R. D., eds. Noxious Range Weeds. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Rees, N. E., Quimby, P. C. Jr., Piper, G. L., Coombs, E. M., Turner, C. E., Spencer, N. R., and Knutson, L. V., eds. 1996. Biological Control of Weeds in the West. Bozeman, MT: Western Society of Weed Science. 342 pp.Google Scholar
Reichard, S. H. and Hamilton, C. W. 1997. Predicting invasions of woody plants introduced into North America. Conserv. Biol. 11:193203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rejmanek, M. 1996. A theory of seed plant invasiveness: the first sketch. Biol. Conserv. 78:171181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rice, P. M. 2000. INVADERS Database System (http://invader.dbs.umt. edu). Missoula, MT: Division of Biological Sciences, University of Montana. Accessed May 8, 2000.Google Scholar
Sheley, R. L., Kenzie-Webb, S., and Maxwell, B. D. 1999. Integrated weed management on rangeland. Pages 5768 In Sheley, R. L. and Petroff, J. K., eds. Biology and Management of Noxious Rangeland Weeds. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press.Google Scholar
Sheley, R. L. and Krueger, J. M. 1999. How to get on the list: listing and delisting exotic plants as noxious. Rangelands 21:3941.Google Scholar
[USDA-AMS] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service. 1999. State noxious-weed seed requirements recognized in the administration of the Federal Seed Act. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. 144 pp.Google Scholar
[USDA-ARS] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service. 1971. Common Weeds of the United States. New York: Dover Publications. 463 pp.Google Scholar
[USDA-NRCS] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1999. The PLANTS Database (http://plants.usda.gov/plants). Baton Rouge, LA: National Plant Data Center. Accessed May 8, 2000.Google Scholar
White, P. S. and Schwarz, A. E. 1998. Where do we go from here? The challenges of risk assessment for invasive plants. Weed Technol. 12:744751.Google Scholar

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 14 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 20th January 2017 - 15th April 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Using noxious weed lists to prioritize targets for developing weed management strategies
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Using noxious weed lists to prioritize targets for developing weed management strategies
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Using noxious weed lists to prioritize targets for developing weed management strategies
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *