Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Teasel: Why is it Here and How Do We Get Rid
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Teasel: Why is it Here and How Do We Get Rid

996
views

Published on

Presentation on the invasive teasel.

Presentation on the invasive teasel.

Published in: Technology, Business

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
996
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
8
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Teasel: Why Is It Here andHow Do We Get Rid of It? Reid J. Smeda and Diego J. Bentivegna University of Missouri
  • 2. Cut-leaf teasel(Dipsacus laciniatus L.)
  • 3. • Exotic- Invasive weed (USDA)• Declared Noxiousin Missouri, Iowa, Colorado andOregon • Dipsacus is derived from the Greek word dipsakos, which means thirst
  • 4. A sheepish beginning
  • 5. Origin Introduced as a “crop” to New England from France in 1780’s; “teaseling” wool Abandoned in 1800’s; mechanization Movement follows interstate highway corridor Desirable as a dried flower Teasel in Argentina, 2009
  • 6. Biology Biennial, with emergence in fall andspring  Leaves: large, opposite, and sessile with deep serrations  Prickly stem and spine in the mid-rib of the leaves  Deep taproot : Extracts nutrients and water from deficient soils
  • 7. Emergence of teasel in Missouri (Data 2003-2004) 200 180 AEmergence (N° /meter2) 160 140 A 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June Time
  • 8. Seedling (2 months) Pre-flowering (1 month) Seed RosetteDevelopment (12 months) (3 months)
  • 9. Total above ground Biomass
  • 10. Plants capable of growth late into year
  • 11. Taproot (DW)
  • 12. Reproductive Phase (Stem – Seedheads)
  • 13. Methodology Fifteen plants growing alone and in a group (2 plants within 60cm) were randomly selected in two locations and two years Primary Seedhead x x x x Alone Group  Number of seedheads, seed production of the primary seedhead, and total seed production per plant was evaluated  Regression used to estimate seed production
  • 14. Total Seed Production per Individual Plant
  • 15. Summary of seed production study Seed production is more than five times greater than wasregistered in other locations (Werner 1975, Glass 1991) Seed production was affected by location, year, andgrowth habit Principal seedheads produce more than 1000 seeds  Maximum seeds produced per plant was 33,000  First viable seed produced 12 days following first flowers on primary seedhead
  • 16. Seed persistence study 150 seeds were put in pots in 09/04 in New Franklinand Columbia (Bradford); 5 pots harvested eachspring, summer and fall. Tetrazolium test was done to assess the viability.
  • 17. If we don’t want teasel, what do we do about it? Fire= insufficient fuel to burn through infested areas (Solecki 1993) Biological= slow and doesn’t have natural enemies in USA (Rector 2006) Mechanical= - immature seeds complete maturation in stem - plants regrowth (Solecki 1993) 5 months Chemical= most cost effective (Missouri Vegetation ManagementManual 1997)
  • 18. Mowing Determine the optimum timing to mow bolting plants: Mowing (15-30 July) Frequency (one time) Height (12 cm) 08/18/04
  • 19. 10/04/04
  • 20. 12/18/04Plant mowed above 12 cm atthe beginning of JulyFlowering on 10/04/04
  • 21. What about control practices?Determine the efficacy of herbicides on teaselrosettes as well as residual activity on newemergence Herbicides
  • 22. Herbicides treatmentsMode of action Herbicide Rate (kg ai ha-1) Time - Untreated -- --AA biosynthesis Glyphosate 2.52 Fall and Spring Dicamba + Diflufenzopyr 0.29 Fall and Spring 2,4-D 1.68 Fall and Spring Growth 2,4-D + Triclopyr 1.68 + 0.84 Spring regulator 2,4-D + Picloram 1.68 + 0.45 Spring 2,4-D + Clopyralid 1.68 + 0.32 Spring Acetolactate Metsulfuron Methyl 0.008 Spring Synthaseinhibitors (ALS) Imazapyr 0.84 Spring Sulfometuron methyl 0.11 Spring Sulfosulfuron 0.11 SpringCell Membrane Paraquat 0.94 Spring Disrupters
  • 23. Environmental conditions  Soil pH= 5.9-7.6  Soil OM= 1.8 -2.9%  Wind speed: < 4 mph  Air temperature > 8.5C in Fall > 15C in Spring At 2, 4 and 8 weeks following applications, teasel plants werevisually evaluated for injury A scale of 0 to 100 was used: 0 = no effect and 100 = plant death Residual activity was evaluated in two 0.3 x 0.3 m areas in plots ofselected treatments by counting seedlings through the year
  • 24. AA Biosynthesis Growth regulatorsMembrane disrupters Acetolactate synthase
  • 25. Evaluation 2 Weeks after treatment Treatments Time Highway Fairground Bradford Moberly Fall 30 def 23 cd 28 b 28 b Glyphosate Spring 43 bcd 88 b 59 b 65 b Fall 34 cde 19 d 25 b 20 b Dicamba + Spring 43 bcd 53 b 49 b 56 b Diflufenzopyr Fall 24 efg 6d 13 c 15 c 2,4-D Spring 31 de 36 b 25 b 49 b 2,4-D+Triclopyr Spring 48 bc 50 b 38 b 50 b 2,4-D+Picloram Spring 53 b 49 b 51 b 55 b 2,4-D+Clopyralid Spring 39 bcd 39 b 35 b 42 bMetsulfuron-methyl Spring 15 fg 29 c 16 c 16 c Imazapyr Spring 16 fg 31 c 11 c 14 cSulfometuron-methyl Spring 13 gh 23 c 23 c 18 c Sulfosulfuron Spring 0h 6e 1c 5c Paraquat Spring 95 a 95 a 86 a 88 a
  • 26. Evaluation 8 Weeks after treatment Treatments Time Highway Fairground Bradford Moberly Fall 95 a 90 a 96 ab 100 a Glyphosate Spring 85 abc 98 a 93 ab 100 a Fall 100 a 96 a 100 a 100 a Dicamba + Spring 95 a 100 a 100 a 100 a Diflufenzopyr Fall 89 ab 96 a 66 d 83 b 2,4-D Spring 95 a 100 a 76 cd 100 a 2,4-D+Triclopyr Spring 98 a 100 a 86 bc 100 a 2,4-D+Picloram Spring 100 a 100 a 100 a 100 a 2,4-D+Clopyralid Spring 100 a 100 a 100 a 100 aMetsulfuron-methyl Spring 100 a 100 a 100 a 100 a Imazapyr Spring 100 a 100 a 100 a 99 aSulfometuron-methyl Spring 64 c 81 b 78 cd 98 a Sulfosulfuron Spring 0d 9c 3e 33 c Paraquat Spring 70 bc 88 b 100 a 100 a
  • 27. Accumulated emergence after 210 days of herbicides treatments for year 2005.
  • 28. Remote Sensing Remote sensing consists of the acquisition and recording ofinformation about an object or interest target without touching it Growth regulator Advantages:  Non destructive measurement  Objective periodical data  Large spatial distribution Acetolactate Synthase
  • 29. Data Collection and Pre- ProcessingBradford Research & Extension Center Highway I70 (Miles 89-93) Hyperspectral, 2006 (63 bands) Multispectral, 2007 (4 bands)
  • 30. Determine the best band for cut-leaved teasel Normalized Difference : (G-T)/G 9000 8000 Teasel Grass Bare soil TreeRelectance (x1000) 7000 11 24 31 41 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61 Blue Green Red Infrared Bands
  • 31. 6000 Teasel Bare Soil Grass Others 5000Reflectance (x1000) 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 Blue Green Red Infrared Bands
  • 32. 2006 2007 2006 2007 ChangeTeasel 8.5% 13% +4.5%Grass 78.4% 74.5% -3.9Bare Soil 11.8% 3.3%Grass death -8.5Others 1.3% 7.8 +6.5
  • 33. Percentage of Cut-leaved Teasel Control and Grass Cover Visual in June 2007 Teasel Grass CoverTreat Fall 2006 Spring 2007 Tall Canada Rosette Seedlings Fescue Wildrye 1 Triclopyr Triclopyr 16.3 C 31.3A 66.3 A 67.5 A Metsulfuron- 2 Dicamba 73.8 B 66.3 A 80 A 84.8 A methyl 3 Dicamba Dicamba 98.8 A 58.8 A 70 A 78.8 A 4 Aminopyralid Aminopyralid 100 A 63.8 A` 82 A 79.5 A Metsulfuron- Metsulfuron- 5 92.5 B 40 A 67.5 A 65 A methyl methyl * Means within a column followed by the same letter are not statistical different. T test p>0.05
  • 34. What do we know now? Plants emerge during 2 distinct periods in Missouri Teasel has two important peaks of above ground growth Teasel stores resources in the taproot to catapault plants intoreproduction Seed production is greatest when plants invade new areas;seeds reach viability quickly following initial flowering Mowing below 12 cm precludes plant flowering; plants remainalive and flower the following year Herbicides can reduce the number of existing plantsand imazapyr reduces the emergence Remote sensing can identify teasel; combination of herbicidesand seeding desirable grasses is most effective strategy
  • 35. Chester McWhorter (USDA weed scientist)“I have spent the last 16 years of my career working on johnsongrass, and I can report that johnsongrass is a bigger problem today than when I began.” -1991 I have worked on teasel for about 8 years and cannot say populations are in decline!
  • 36. Questions?Questions