Skip the header
Open access
Technical Factsheet
Basic
19 November 2019

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
English
asses' thistle
Queen Mary's thistle
winged thistle
Spanish
alcachofa borriquera
French
onoporde cotonneuse
Russian
onopordum kolyuchii
Portuguese
acanto-bastardo
Local Common Names
Australia
heraldic thistle
woolly thistle
Australia/Tasmania
cotton thistle
Canada
onoporde acanthe
Czech Republic
ostropes trubil
Denmark
aeselfoder
Germany
Eseldistel
Italy
acanzio
Netherlands
wegdistel, witte
New Zealand
cotton thistle
Poland
poploch pospolity
Sweden
ulltistel
UK
cotton thistle
USA
cotton thistle
silver thistle
EPPO code
ONRAC (Onopordum acanthium)

Pictures

Onopordum acanthium (scotch thistle); habit. USA.
Habit
Onopordum acanthium (scotch thistle); habit. USA.
©Vince Belleci/Bugwood.org - CC BY 3.0 US
Leaves of Onopordum acanthium (Scotch Thistle).
Onopordum acanthium
Leaves of Onopordum acanthium (Scotch Thistle).
magnolia1000
Onopordum acanthium (scotch thistle); flowers and stem. USA.
Flowers and stem
Onopordum acanthium (scotch thistle); flowers and stem. USA.
©Bonnie Million/National Park Service/Bugwood.org - CC BY-NC 3.0 US
Onopordum acanthium (scotch thistle); flowers. USA.
Flowers
Onopordum acanthium (scotch thistle); flowers. USA.
©Bonnie Million/National Park Service/Bugwood.org - CC BY-NC 3.0 US
Onopordum acanthium (scotch thistle); leaves. USA.
Leaves
Onopordum acanthium (scotch thistle); leaves. USA.
©Bonnie Million/National Park Service/Bugwood.org - CC BY-NC 3.0 US
Eric Coombs, Oregon Department of Agriculture, bugwood.org
Onopordum acanthium
Eric Coombs, Oregon Department of Agriculture, bugwood.org
Refer to Bugwood: http://www.bugwood.org/ImageUsage.html
Eric Coombs, Oregon Department of Agriculture, bugwood.org
Onopordum acanthium
Eric Coombs, Oregon Department of Agriculture, bugwood.org
Refer to Bugwood: http://www.bugwood.org/ImageUsage.html
Norman E. Rees, USDA ARS, bugwood.org
Onopordum acanthium
Norman E. Rees, USDA ARS, bugwood.org
Refer to Bugwood: http://www.bugwood.org/ImageUsage.html
Norman E. Rees, USDA ARS, bugwood.org
Onopordum acanthium
Norman E. Rees, USDA ARS, bugwood.org
Refer to Bugwood: http://www.bugwood.org/ImageUsage.html
Norman E. Rees, USDA ARS, bugwood.org
Onopordum acanthium
Norman E. Rees, USDA ARS, bugwood.org
Refer to Bugwood: http://www.bugwood.org/ImageUsage.html

Distribution

This content is currently unavailable.

Host Plants and Other Plants Affected

HostHost statusReferences
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

History

Published online: 19 November 2019

Language

English

Authors

Metrics & Citations

Metrics

VIEW ALL METRICS

SCITE_

Citations

Export citation

Select the format you want to export the citations of this publication.

EXPORT CITATIONS

View Options

View options

Get Access

Login Options

Restore your content access

Enter your email address to restore your content access:

Note: This functionality works only for purchases done as a guest. If you already have an account, log in to access the content to which you are entitled.

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Copy the content Link

Share on social media

Related Articles

Skip the navigation