CHAPTER 2: TECHNICAL PAPER The efficacy of herbicidal control methods on the invasive plant common teasel (Dispsacus fullonum

L.)

2.1 Abstract Common teasel (Dipsacus fullonum L.) has become an aggressive invasive species throughout most of North America, invading roadsides, ditches, rights of way, pastures, and natural areas. This study examined three herbicides used to control common teasel: 1) BK 800, a 2,4-D based broad-leaf herbicide mixed in diesel fuel; 2) Glyphomax a non-selective glyphosate-based product mixed in water with 5 mL/L of a non-ionic surfactant (Nu-Film-IR) added; and 3) Transline, a clopyralid based broad-leaf herbicide used for non-crop areas with 5 mL/L of the Nu-Film-IR. The herbicides were applied in three concentrations taken directly from the label specifications: the low end, the high end, and the midpoint between the low and high ends. Plant rosette counts taken two weeks after application were compared to counts taken earlier to create a survival ratio. The majority of the applications resulted in total kill of all common teasel rosettes. Ratios were compared among all treatment groups and the control. All herbicide treatments resulted in significantly (p<0.001) more kills than the control. The different concentrations of each treatment were compared against each

41 other to determine the optimum concentration for common teasel control. The 2 mL/L concentration of Transline, the 13 mL/L concentration of Glyphomax and the 55 mL/L of BK 800 were the most effective treatments. There was no significant difference among the efficacies of the three above herbicides. This study provides the first known quantitative study of herbicidal control of common teasel, and it should serve as a starting point for future studies on controlling this invasive plant.

2.2 Introduction Nonindigenous species cost the United States up to $137 billion a year in environmental impacts and economic losses. Nonnative plants account for over $34 billion of that amount (Pimentel et al. 2000). Invasive plants can fundamentally alter ecosystem processes by replacing native plants, altering the hydrologic and fire regimes, disrupting nutrient cycling, or changing the fluvial geomorphology of native ecosystems (Cronk and Fuller 2001, Gordon 1998, Mack et al. 2000). Predicting invasions and preventing invasive species from being established is the most effective control method (Naylor 2000), but as many invasive species are already established, this is not always possible (Committee on the Scientific Basis 2002). In these situations control efforts, such as chemical control, must occur. Because plant responses to chemicals vary, it is important to implement studies that document invasive plant responses to these control methods (Cronk and Fuller 2001). 2.2.1 Study Species Common teasel (Dipsacus fullonum L.) (syn. D. sylvestris Huds.) is a monocarpic perennial native to Eurasia and Northern Africa, having been brought to North America

42 for use as a tool in yarn production and as a dried ornamental plant in flower arrangements (Rodale 1984, Werner 1975). It forms low, almost prostrate vegetative rosettes up to 60 cm in diameter. After reaching a diameter of 30 cm and undergoing a subsequent over-wintering, the plant forms a flowering stem 0.5 to 2.5 m in height. Each stem can contain over 3,000 achenes, with germination rates ranging from 28 to 86% (Werner 1972, Werner 1975). The species was first collected in Niagara Falls, Ontario in 1877 (Werner 1975). Currently, it is widespread throughout much of the contiguous United States (USDA, NRCS 2007). It has the capacity to cover prairies, sedge meadows, seeps, and savannas in the Midwestern United States, as well as waterways in the more arid climates of the Southwestern United States (Solecki 1993, Glass 1991, Huenneke and Thomson 1995). It is listed as a noxious weed in Colorado, Missouri, Iowa, and New Mexico (USDA, NRCS 2007). 2.2.2 Control Methods There are few detailed sources of information on the control of common teasel. One study based on the knowledge of Illinois land managers was written by William Glass (1991). The only specific recommendation for herbicide control was to use Roundup at a 1.5% concentration during the late fall or early spring. He also stated that the herbicides 2,4-D and triclopyr can be used for control, but he gave no concentration guidelines (Glass 1991). Solecki (1993) recommended that periodic late-spring burns could control isolated rosettes, though they could be unaffected if the fire does not reach a high enough temperature. Even a hot fire had no effect on large clumps of teasel because of the absence of dead plant material to burn (Glass 1991, Solecki 1993). Digging up teasel plants can be effective in areas of small infestation, but plants can grow

43 back if not enough root is removed (Glass 1991). Werner (1975) suggested that repeated cutting of flowering stems prior to flowering can reduce population effectively, but if the stems are not cut low enough, the plants can resprout flowering stems (Glass 1991). Mowing an infested area can actually increase the amount of teasel plants by increasing potential germination sites (Cheeseman 1998). Like cutting, mowing can cause teasel plants to resprout flowing stems (Glass 1991). 2.2.3 Study Objectives Herbicidal methods to control common teasel have not been quantitatively investigated in the past. Therefore the purpose of this study was to provide baseline, qualitative data pertaining to the efficacy of three herbicides used for controlling D. fullonum. Additionally, the adjuvants used in this study were tested to see if they had any effect when used in isolation. This research was guided by the following hypotheses: (1) Herbicidal treatments will reduce the density of common teasel; (2) Adjuvant treatments will not reduce the density of common teasel; and (3) One concentration of each herbicide will reduce the density of common teasel more than the other concentrations of the same herbicide.

2.3 Methods 2.3.1 Study Site Research was conducted in East-central Indiana at Cooper Farm; a field station property owned by Ball State University (UTM coordinates: Zone 16; 631379E; 4454074N; elevation: 288 meters above sea level). This site is in the process of being restored to native prairie. In the fall of 2003 and the spring of 2004 the site was sprayed

44 with 1% solution of 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) and a 2% solution of glyphosate. The area was then seeded with prairie grasses and a cover crop in June of 2004. By the fall of 2005, common teasel was the dominant plant of the area. All of the teasel plants present were first or second-year vegetative rosettes due to past herbicide spraying. In areas not treated during the study, flowering stalks were observed after the study period. 2.3.2 Experimental Design A 50 m by 50 m section was marked off during the fall of 2005 to prevent exposure to herbicidal treatments done by staff during the study period. Within this section, twenty 4 m by 5.5 m plots were set up. Each block contained 12 one-meter squared plots, delineated by stakes and flagging. There was a 0.5 m buffer zone set up between every plot to reduce herbicidal drift from adjacent plots. For every block, each plot was randomly assigned one of twelve different treatments (Table 2.1). Three herbicides were tested, each at three concentrations. The concentration choices were the low and high amounts listed in the herbicides label, as well as halfway in between the two. BK 800 (PBIGordon Co., Kansas City, MO, USA), a 2,4-D ester product, was tested at 37, 55, and 74 mL/L of diesel fuel. Diesel fuel was chosen as the mixing agent because it is listed as an acceptable adjuvant on the specimen label. Glyphomax (Dow AgroSciences LLC., Indianapolis, IN, USA), a glyphosate product with 41% active ingredient was tested at 5, 13, and 21 mL/L of water with 5 mL/L of Nu Film-IR (Miller Chemical & Fertilizer Co., Hanover, PA, USA), a non-ionic surfactant. Transline (Dow AgroSciences LLC., Indianapolis, IN, USA), a clopyralid product, was tested at 2, 3, and 4 mL/L of water with 5 mL/L of Nu Film-IR added. In addition to a

45 no-treatment control, treatments of the non-ionic surfactant at 5 mL/L of water and straight diesel fuel were run to test for any effects they might have had. Spraying occurred on a warm, nearly windless day (April 21, 2006) from 1:00 pm until 3:30 pm. Each plot was sprayed completely, until the plants were coated and herbicide dripped from the leaves. This amounted to about 150 mL for each plot, which equals 1500L/ha. A Solo 457V (Newport News, VA, USA), 11.5 L handheld sprayer, with a 21 psi. nozzle (CFValves, Forestry Suppliers) was used to apply treatments. The CFValve allowed a constant pressure to be used consistently for every application. Each treatment was pre-mixed and stored in jugs to allow for quick application. After each treatment application, the sprayer was washed and the spray hose was emptied of herbicide. Table 2.1. Tested treatments, concentrations, and volume to volume percentage. Treatment BK 800 Low BK 800 Medium BK 800 High Glyphomax Low Glyphomax Medium Glyphomax High Transline Low Transline Medium Transline High Diesel Fuel Nu-Film-IR No Treatment Control
1 Mixed in diesel fuel 2 Mixed in water at 5 mL/L Nu-Film-IR * Percentages are based on volume to volume

Concentration mL/L 37 1 55 1 74 1 52 13 2 21 2 22 32 42 N/A 5 N/A

Percent* 3.7% 5.5% 7.4% 0.5% 1.3% 2.1% 0.2% 0.3% 0.4% N/A 0.5% N/A

46 2.3.3 Herbicide effects on Dipsacus fullonum L. One week before spraying and ten days after spraying, teasel rosettes in every plot were counted. A rosette was considered in the plot if more than 50% of the plant was within the boundary. If a plot contained less than five plants on the first count, it was not used in this experiment (four plots total). Since no attempt was made to equalize pretreatment plot densities, a survival ratio was calculated for each plot by dividing the number of plants after treatment by the number of plants before treatment. This provided a statistic that was comparable between plots. For ease of discussion, kill rates in percentages were then determined by subtracting the survivor ratio from one and then calculating the percentage. The resulting ratios violated the ANOVA assumption for normality, despite transformations applied. All treatments, including the adjuvants, were tested for differences among treatment effects using the nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis test. An alpha-value of 0.05 was used in all tests of significance. Post hoc Mann-Whitney U tests for difference were used to compare every treatment to the control. Additional MannWhitney U tests were used to compare the survival ratio of the concentrations of each herbicide to the rest of the concentrations of the same herbicide. These results were then used to evaluate the most effective concentration of each herbicide. These three herbicide concentrations were then compared against each other to find the overall best herbicide treatment.

47 2.4 Results The majority of the herbicide treatments had a mean survival ratio of less than 0.1 (Figure 2.1). For non-herbicide treatments, the non-ionic surfactant and control showed growth (survival ratio above 1), while the diesel fuel had a significant (p<0.001) kill effect (Figure2.2). Three herbicide treatments, the high concentration of BK 800, as well as the medium and high concentrations of Transline, resulted in a total kill (ratio of 0). In total, there were 159 total kills out of 236 test plots. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for normality showed that the data were significantly not normal (p<0.001), even after transformations were attempted. The Kruskal-Wallis test showed a significant difference (p<0.001) among the treatments. The first post hoc Mann-Whitney U tests revealed that for every treatment, except the non-ionic surfactant, the survival ratio was significantly lower (p<0.001) than the control. There were mixed results among the different concentrations of the three herbicides (Table 2.2). For BK 800, the survival ratio for the high concentration was significantly lower (p=0.033) than the low concentration. This was the only significant difference found between the differing concentrations of BK 800. For Glyphomax, the survival ratios for both the medium and high concentrations were significantly lower (p<0.001) than the low concentration, but there were no significant differences between the medium and high concentrations. There were no significant differences for any of the Transline concentrations.

48

0.5

0.4

Mean Survival Ratio

BK 800 Glyphomax Transline

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0

Low

Medium

High

Concentration

Figure 2.1. Mean survival ratios for herbicides tested. Values for low, medium, and high concentrations correspond to those found in Table 2.1.

49

1.4

1.2

Mean Survival Ratio

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0 Diesel Fuel NU Film-IR Control

Treatment

Figure 2.2. Mean survival ratios for adjuvants tested and the control.

Table 2.2. Significance values between treatments from post hoc MannWhitney U tests. Treatment 1 mL/L Treatment 2 mL/L P-Value BK 800 37 BK 800 55 0.263 BK 800 55 BK 800 74 0.152 BK 800 74 BK 800 37 0.033 Glyphomax 5 Glyphomax 13 <0.001 Glyphomax 13 Glyphomax 21 0.065 Glyphomax 21 Glyphomax 5 <0.001 Transline 2 Transline 3 0.076 Transline 3 Transline 4 1.000 Transline 4 Transline 2 0.076

50 2.5 Discussion 2.5.1 Herbicide Effects on Dipsacus fullonum L. All of the herbicidal treatments tested significantly (p<0.001) reduced the number of common teasel rosettes. These results show that common teasel is susceptible to several herbicidal control products. 2.5.2 Adjuvant Effects There was a reduction in teasel density from one of the adjuvants used. Diesel fuel significantly (p<0.001) reduced the density of rosettes by 73%. Diesel fuel alone has been shown to be an effective herbicide on honey mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa Torr.) (Bovey and Whisenant 1991). Diesel has also been shown to kill 92% of yaupon (Ilex vomitoria Ait.) in Texas post-oak savannahs, as compared to 96% kill rate for a 5% triclopyr mixture (Cathey et al. 2006). While diesel fuel effectively reduces the number of teasel plants, it should not be used as an herbicide in natural areas. Plants growing in areas that have been contaminated by diesel can incorporate the pollutants into their vegetation, making them potentially harmful to herbivores (Pichtel and Liskanen 2001). Unlike diesel fuel, the Nu-Film-IR treatment showed an increase in teasel rosettes similar to the no treatment control. This indicates no control effect from the non-ionic surfactant. 2.5.3 Individual Herbicide Efficacy Due to the large number of total kill plots it is difficult to determine the most efficient treatment for each of the herbicides. The mean kill rate of the BK 800 treatments was above 97% with a total kill occurring for the highest concentration

51 (74 mL/L). The median kill rate for all the BK 800 treatments was 100%. The only significant difference was found between the low and high rates (p=0.033). The mean kill rates for the Glyphomax treatments ranged from 57% for the low concentration to 98% for the medium concentration. Both the medium and high concentration had a 100% median kill rate. The low concentration had a significantly lower survival ratio (p<0.001) than both the medium and high concentrations, but the latter two showed no differences. The mean kill rates for the Transline treatments were 99% for the low concentration and 100% for both the medium and the high. All concentrations had a median kill rate of 100%. No statistical differences were found among any of the Transline treatments. The above information leads to some generalizations about which concentration works best for each herbicide. BK 800 should be applied at 55 mL/L of diesel fuel to achieve desired control (5.5% vol./vol.). Glyphomax should be applied at 13 mL/L of water (1.3% vol./vol.) with 5 mL/L of Nu-Film-IR. This amount is close to the 1.5% rate suggested by Glass (1991). Transline should be applied at 2 mL/L of water (0.2% vol./vol.) with 5 mL/L of NuFilm-IR. A Kruskal-Wallis test revealed no significant differences in control efficacy between the three optimal concentrations. Each treatment had a mean kill rate of above 98%. Decisions of which treatment to use will have to be made by land managers based on availability of the herbicide, financial needs, and ecological concerns (e.g. the effects on non-target plant and animal species). Due to the relatively low concentrations needed

52 for control and their specificity to broadleaf plants, Transline and other clopyralid products would be a good choice for herbicidal control of teasel.

2.6 Recommendations for Future Research This study has shown that herbicidal control of D. fullonum works efficiently. As this plant continues to spread and invade natural areas, effective means of controlling it must be explored further. Additional studies that examine the exact amount of these products needed for complete control would be of great help. Further studies that document the differences in efficacy of physical, chemical, biological, and fire control options would be helpful for managers seeking information on these different control methods. In addition, other studies that examine the potential for resprouting from physical methods of control would be of great interest for those who employ large groups of volunteers. Finally, it would also be beneficial to look at the effect of timing on control measures. It has been noted by this researcher that common teasel will reach a point in development, usually around flowering, when herbicides no longer have any effect. It would be beneficial to know the exact timing of this change, so that control efforts are not wasted.

53

2.7 References Bovey, R.W. and S.G. Whisenant. 1991. Control of honey mesquite with clopyralid, triclopyr, or clopyralid:triclopyr mixtures. Journal of Range Management 44(1):52-55. Cathey, J.C., R. Mitchell, B. Dabbert, D.F. Prochaska, S. DuPree and R. Sosebee. 2006. Managing yaupon in the post oak savannah. Rangelands 28(3):24-27. Cheeseman, O.D. 1998. The impact of some field boundary management practices on the development of Dipsacus fullonum L. flowering stems, and implications for conservation. Agriculture, Ecosystems, and Environment 68:41-49. Committee on the Scientific Basis for Predicting the Invasive Potential of Nonindigenous Plants and Plant Pests in the United States. 2002. Predicting invasions of nonindigenous plants and plant pests. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., USA. Cronk, Q.C.B., and J.L. Fuller. 2001. Plant invaders: The threat to natural ecosystems. Earthscan Publications Ltd., London, United Kingdom. Glass, W.D. 1991. Vegetation management guideline: Cut-leaved Teasel (Dipsacus lacinatus L.) and (Dipsacus sylvestris Huds.). Natural Areas Journal 11(4):213214. Gordon, D.R. 1998. Effects of invasive, non-indigenous plant species on ecosystem processes: Lessons from Florida. Ecological Applications 8(4):975-989. Huenneke, L.F. and J.K. Thomson. 1995. Potential interference between a threatened endemic thistle and an invasive nonnative plant. Conservation Biology 9(2):416425. LeBlanc, D.C. 2004. Statistics: Concepts and Applications for Science. Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. Mack, M.N., Simberloff, W.M. Lonsdale, H. Evans, H. Clout, and F.A. Bazzaz. 2000. Biotic invasions: Causes, epidemiology, global consequences, and control. Ecological Applications 10(3):689-710. Naylor, R.L. 2000. The economics of alien species invasions. Pp. 241-260 in Mooney, H.A. and R.J. Hobbs, eds. Invasive species in a changing world. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA.

54 Pichtel, J. and P. Liskanen. 2001. Degradation of diesel fuel in rhizosphere soil. Environmental Engineering Science 18(3): 145-157, Pimentel, D., L. Lach, R. Zuniga, and D. Morrison. 2000. Environmental and economic costs of nonindigenous species in the United States. Bioscience 50(1):53-65. Rodale, R. 1984. Teasel in our lawn. Organic Gardening 31(11): 22-25. Solecki, M.K. 1993. Cut-leaved and common teasel (Dipsacus laciniatus L. and D. sylvestris Huds.): Profile of two invasive aliens. Pp. 85-92 in McKnight, B.N. (Ed.) Biological pollution: The control and impact of invasive exotic species. Indiana Academy of Science, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA. USDA, NRCS. 2007. The PLANTS Database, Version 3.5. Data compiled from various sources by M.W. Skinner. <http://plants.usda.gov>. Werner, P.A. 1972. Effect of the invasion of Dipsacus sylvestris on plant communities in early old-field succession. Ph.D. thesis, Michigan State University. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA. Werner, P.A. 1975. The biology of Canadian weeds. 12. Dipsacus sylvestris Huds.. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 55:783-794.