Onopordum acanthium (scotch thistle)
Identity
- Preferred Scientific Name
- Onopordum acanthium L.
- Preferred Common Name
- scotch thistle
- Other Scientific Names
- Acanos spina Scop.
- Onopordum acanthifolium Gilib.
- International Common Names
- Englishasses' thistleQueen Mary's thistlewinged thistle
- Spanishalcachofa borriquera
- Frenchonoporde cotonneuse
- Russianonopordum kolyuchii
- Portugueseacanto-bastardo
- Local Common Names
- Australiaheraldic thistlewoolly thistle
- Australia/Tasmaniacotton thistle
- Canadaonoporde acanthe
- Czech Republicostropes trubil
- Denmarkaeselfoder
- GermanyEseldistel
- Italyacanzio
- Netherlandswegdistel, witte
- New Zealandcotton thistle
- Polandpoploch pospolity
- Swedenulltistel
- UKcotton thistle
- USAcotton thistlesilver thistle
- EPPO code
- ONRAC (Onopordum acanthium)
Pictures
Distribution
Host Plants and Other Plants Affected
Host | Host status | References |
---|---|---|
Poaceae (grasses) | Other | |
Triticum aestivum (wheat) | Main |
Prevention and Control
Cultural Control
The ability of thistles to invade pastures can be changed by grazing management (Sindel, 1991), primarily by changing the competitiveness of desirable pasture species (Sindel, 1996). Establishing and maintaining dense, vigorous, competitive pasture can effectively prevent O. acanthium establishment. Stocking pastures is an essential step in thistle control. Sheep, goats and horses, but not cattle, have a significant effect on thistles in the early stages of infestation when they eat young thistle plants (Wheatley, 1981). In a study, J. Leigh (in Davidson, 1990) showed that goats, which have a reputation for eating everything, ignored the leaves of O. acanthium, but they ate all the capitula (flower heads) and thus completely prevented seed dispersal from mature plants. Competition from deep-rooted perennial pasture grasses, such as Phalaris aquatica, can control O. acanthium, given at least 5-8 years continuous pasture (Michael, 1968).
Mechanical Control
A study has shown that in pastures previously given weed control treatments, cultivation and cropping was a successful control method. Small infestations can be eradicated by digging. After first flowering, mowing and slashing appears to be useful but were not very effective due to variation in cypsela maturity. Mowing will not kill the plant but will lessen the seed production by preventing seed heads from maturing (Qaderi, 1998). For total kill, plants must be cut off below the soil surface and no leaves must remain attached. When mowing is carried out too early, it may only delay flowering. However, when plants are cut too late in the flowering process, viable seed may still develop in the capitula. As there can be wide variation in plant maturity, a single mowing is unlikely to provide satisfactory control (Sindel, 1991) whereas repeated mowing throughout the entire growing season was successful (Wheatley, 1981). In addition, reduced vegetative matter from mowing will allow autumn herbicide use to be more effective. Besides encouraging competing vegetation where possible, every effort should be made to prevent established plants from going to seed. It is worth mentioning that this kind of control is very labour-intensive.
Chemical Control
Most herbicides give only temporary control of thistles. Young and Evans (1969) reported that application of the expensive and extremely phytotoxic herbicide picloram was the only chemical control method that consistently suppressed O. acanthium in northern California, USA. In Tasmania, Hyde-Wyatt (1968) recommended 2,4-D for overall spraying and, amitrole for spot treatment. In New Zealand, seedlings of O. acanthium were susceptible to emulsifiable esters of 2,4-D, and as young plants, to amitrole, dicamba and picloram (Matthews, 1975). Amitrole and dicamba gave a slow kill of O. acanthium, whereas diquat gave a rapid kill. However, the first two caused unrecoverable damage to adjacent pasture plants, while after application of diquat, pasture plants recovered quickly and even occupied the open spaces left by the killed thistles (Hyde-Wyatt, 1968). At the rosette stage, amitrole, dicamba and diquat have been shown to give effective chemical control of O. acanthium (Hyde-Wyatt, 1968). To control small rosettes, application of dicamba has been recommended (Wheatley, 1981); dicamba + 2,4-D and metsulfuron are also effective (Beck, 1991). Michael (1968) showed that the combined effects of amitrole and competition from five perennial grasses decreased the yield of O. acanthium for the first year of application, but these effects disappeared in two or three years. Application rates can vary, depending on stand density and environmental conditions. Herbicides should generally be applied to rosettes in autumn or in the spring before the plants bolt (Beck, 1991).
Biological Control
Biocontrol agents have been used to control O. acanthium in Australia (Delfosse, 1990), the first being released in 1987. Several potential agents, such as the capitulum weevil Larinus latus, or the stem-boring weevil Lixus cardui, have been released and confirmed as established in the field in 1992 and 1993, respectively. Tephritis postica was introduced into Australia in 1995 (Julien and Griffiths, 1998) and Trichosirocalus briesei in 1997. Studies have been conducted on the biology and impacts of two more potential agents, the rosette-bud weevil Trichosirocalus horridus in Spain (Alonso-Zarazaga and Sanchez-Ruiz, 2002) and the rosette fly Botanophila spinosa in France (Vitou et al., 2001). Surveys in Greece have shown that the weevil L. latus, found only on Onopordum spp., is one of the best candidates for biological control (Davidson, 1990). Scientists are currently evaluating the effectiveness of these control agents on O. acanthium and other Onopordum species (Pettit et al., 1996). No biological control agents are currently available in the USA. Some biocontrol insects released in Australia have failed host specificity tests in the USA and the US Department of Agriculture has been evaluating additional insects for release in the USA (Joley et al., 1998).
Integrated Control
The different control methods that have been used are either not very effective and just temporarily remove a thistle population from the site, or are costly and detrimental to crops (Michael, 1968; Young and Evans, 1969; Wheatley, 1981). The methods that are currently applied create many practical problems (Minehan, 1996), however, a combination of these methods may help prevent this species from further invasion. Pulling out the plants by hand, grazing young plants with goats or using herbicide on young plants to prevent cypsela set, and seeding disturbed areas with competitive native perennials could be parts of an integrated control and management programme.
Impact
O. acanthium, with its intermittent germination and its prickly stem and leaves at maturity, causes problems for agricultural products, poultry and other livestock farms (Hooper et al., 1970; Auld et al., 1979; Wheatley, 1981). Hooper et al. (1970) stated that infestation of O. acanthium in northern California, USA, caused annual losses to ranchers of US$25.20/ha in wet meadows, US$16.60/ha in wheatgrass stands and US$8.40/ha in downy brome (Bromus tectorum-dominated) rangelands. In Australia, O. acanthium and O. illyricum are considered to be the worst and most costly weeds of the genus Onopordum. These two thistles form problem infestations in 57% of the counties in New South Wales with infestations mainly in southern and central tablelands (Briese, 1988) and the area infested is almost 1.1 million ha (Briese et al., 1990). The median annual cost of control, including labour, was as high as $A50/ha (Briese, 1996a) and the annual cost was estimated to be $A15-20 million in 1987. They are considered to be gradually spreading and are difficult and expensive to control by herbicides, particularly as they are resistant to cheap and mild hormonal herbicides such as 2,4-D and MCPA. If farmers want to eradicate O. acanthium from their lands they need to use more potent and expensive herbicides but these can also destroy valuable pasture species (Davidson, 1990). O. acanthium can act as a living fence, limiting access to grazing and water (Hyde-Wyatt, 1968; Hooper et al., 1970; Sindel, 1991). It also causes both wool flaw and injury to animals (Auld et al., 1979).
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Copyright
Copyright © CABI. CABI is a registered EU trademark. This article is published under a Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)
History
Published online: 19 November 2019
Language
English
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
SCITE_
Citations
Export citation
Select the format you want to export the citations of this publication.
EXPORT CITATIONSExport Citation
View Options
View options
Get Access
Login Options
Check if you access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.