Advertisement

Sustainable Control of Spotted Knapweed (Centaurea stoebe)

  • D. G. Knochel
  • T. R. Seastedt
Part of the Invading Nature – Springer Series In Invasion Ecology book series (INNA, volume 5)

Abstract

Spotted knapweed is native to Eastern Europe, with a locally scarce but widespread distribution from the Mediterranean to the eastern region of Russia. The plant is one of over a dozen Centaurea species that were accidentally introduced into North America and now is found in over 1 million ha of rangeland in the USA and Canada. Land managers spend millions of dollars annually in an attempt to control spotted knapweed and recover lost forage production, and meanwhile the plant perseveres as a detriment to native biodiversity and soil stability. These ecological concerns have motivated intense scientific inquiry in an attempt to understand the important factors explaining the unusual dominance of this species. Substantial uncertainty remains about cause-effect relationships of plant dominance, and sustainable methods to control the plant remain largely unidentified or controversial. Here, we attempt to resolve some of the controversies surrounding spotted knapweed's ability to dominate invaded communities, and focus on what we believe is a sustainable approach to the management of this species in grasslands, rangelands, and forests. Application of both cultural and biological control tools, particularly the concurrent use of foliage, seed, and root feeding insects, is believed sufficient to decrease densities of spotted knapweed in most areas to levels where the species is no longer a significant ecological or economic concern.

Keywords

Biological control Biological invasions Centaurea stoebe L. ssp micranthos Centaurea maculosa Knapweed Sustainable management 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alper J (2004) The wicked weed of the West. Smithsonian Mag 35(7): 33–36Google Scholar
  2. Bais HP, Vepachedu R, Gilroy S, Callaway RM, Vivanco JM (2003) Allelopathy and exotic plant invasions: from molecules and genes to species interactions. Science 301: 1377–1380PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blair AC, Hanson BD, Brunk GR, Marrs RA, Westra P, Nissen SJ, Hufbauer RA (2005) New techniques and findings in the study of a candidate allelochemical implicated in invasion success. Ecol Lett 8: 1039–1047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blair AC, Nissen SJ, Brunk GR, Hufbauer RA (2006) A lack of evidence for an ecological role of the putative allelochemical (±)-catechin in spotted knapweed invasion success. J Chem Ecol 32(10): 2327–2331PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blair AC, Schaffner U, Häfliger P, Meyer SK, Hufbauer RA (2008) How do biological control and hybridization affect enemy escape? Biol Control doi:10.1016/j.biocontrol.2008.04.014Google Scholar
  6. Callaway RM, Ridenour WM (2004) Novel weapons: invasive success and the evolution of increased competitive ability. Front Ecol Environ 2(8): 436–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Callaway RM, DeLuca TH, Belliveau WM (1999) Biological-control herbivores may increase competitive ability of the noxious weed Centaurea maculosa. Ecology 80(4): 1196–1201Google Scholar
  8. Callaway RM, Newingham B, Zabinski CA, Mahall BE (2001) Compensatory growth and competitive ability of an invasive weed are enhanced by soil fungi and native neighbours. Ecol Lett 4(5): 429–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Callaway RM, Thelen GC, Barth S, Ramsey PW, Gannon JE (2004) Soil fungi alter interactions between the invader Centaurea maculosa and North American natives. Ecology 85(4): 1062–1071CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Callaway RM, Ridenour WM, Laboski T, Weir T, Vivanco JM (2005) Natural selection for resistance to the allelopathic effects of invasive plants. J Ecol 93: 576–583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Callaway RM, Kim J, Mahall BE (2006) Defoliation of Centaurea solstitialis stimulates compensatory growth and intensifies negative effects on neighbors. Biol Invasions 8(6): 1389–1397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Coombs EM, Clark JK, Piper GL, Cofrancesco AF Jr (2004) Biological control of invasive plants in the United States. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, ORGoogle Scholar
  13. Corn JG, Story J, White LJ (2006) Impacts of the biological control agent C achates on spotted knapweed, Centaurea maculosa, in experimental plots. Biol Control 37: 75–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Corn JG, Story JM, White LJ (2007) Effect of summer drought relief on the impact of the root weevil Cyphocleonus achates on spotted knapweed. Environ Entomol 36(4): 858–863PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cortilet AB, Northrop N (2006) Biological control of European buckthorn and spotted knapweed. Minn Dept Agri Final Program Report, St Paul, MN. http://www.mda.state.mn.us/news/publi-cations/pestsplants/weedcontrol/knapweedlcmrfinalreport.pdf. Accessed 27 May 2008.
  16. Davis ES, Fay PK, Chicoine TK, Lacey CA (1993) Persistence of spotted knapweed (Centaurea-maculosa) seed in soil. Weed Sci 41(1): 57–61Google Scholar
  17. Duncan CA, Jachetta JJ, Brown ML, Carrithers VF, Clark JK, DiTomaso JM, Lym RG, McDaniel KC, Renz MJ, Rice PM (2004) Assessing the economic, environmental, and societal losses from invasive plants on rangeland and wildlands. Weed Technol 18: 1411–1416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Emery SM, Gross KL (2005) Effects of timing of prescribed fire on the demography of an invasive plant, spotted knapweed Centaurea maculosa. J Appl Ecol 42: 60–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gerlach JD, Rice KJ (2003) Testing life history correlates of invasiveness using congeneric plant species. Ecol Appl 13(1): 167–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Harris P (1980) Effects of Urophora affinis Frfld and U quadrifasciata (Meig) (Diptera: Tephritidae) on Centaurea diffusa Lam and Centaurea maculosa Lam (Compositae). Zeitschrigt fur Angewandte Entomologie 90: 190–210Google Scholar
  21. Hilbert DW, Swift DM, Detling JK, Dyer MI (1981) Relative growth rates and the grazing optimization hypothesis. Oecologia 51: 14–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hill JP, Germino MJ, Wraith JM, Olsen BE, Swan MB (2006) Advantages in water relations contribute to greater photosynthesis in Centaurea maculosa compared with established grasses. Int J Plant Sci 167(2): 269–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hook PB, Olson BE, Wraith JM (2004) Effects of the invasive forb Centaurea maculosa on grassland carbon and nitrogen pools in Montana, USA. Ecosystems 7(6): 686–694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hufbauer RA, Sforza R (2008) Multiple introductions of two invasive Centaurea taxa inferred from cpDNA haplotypes. Divers Distrib 14: 252–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jacobs JS, Sing SE, Martin JM (2006) Influence of herbivory and competition on invasive weed fitness: observed effects of Cyphocleonus achates (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) and grass-seeding treatments on spotted knapweed performance. Environ Entomol 35: 1590–1596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. LeJeune KD, Suding KN, Seastedt TR (2006) Nutrient availability does not explain invasion and dominance of a mixed grass prairie by the exotic forb Centaurea diffusa Lam. Appl Soil Ecol 32 (1): 98–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Maron J, Marler M (2007) Native plant diversity resists invasion at both low and high resource levels. Ecology 88(10): 2651–2661PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Marler MJ, Zabinski CA, Callaway RM (1999) Mycorrhizae indirectly enhance competitive effects of an invasive forb on a native bunchgrass. Ecology 80(4): 1180–1186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. MacDonald NW, Scull BT, Abella SR (2007) Mid-spring burning reduces spotted knapweed and increases native grasses during a Michigan experimental grassland establishment. Restor Ecol 15(1): 118–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Michels GJ Jr, Carney VA, Jurovich D, Kassymzhanova-Mirik S, Jones E, Barfot K, Bible J, Mirik M, Best S, Bustos E, Karl B, Jimenez D (2007) Biological control of noxious weeds on federal installations in Colorado and Wyoming. Texas Agric Experiment Station 2006 Annual Report, 222 pp. http://amarillotamuedu/programs/entotaes/CNWB%20Annual%20Reports.htm. Accessed 27 May 2008
  31. Mitchell CE, Power AG (2003) Release of invasive plants from fungal and viral pathogens. Nature 421(6923): 625–627PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mitchell CE, Agrawal AA, Bever JD, Gilbert GS, Hufbauer RA, Klironomos JN, Marion JL, Morris WF, Parker IM, Power AG, Seabloom EW, Torchin ME, Vazquez DP (2006) Biotic interactions and plant invasions. Ecol Lett 9: 726–740PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Müller-Schärer H, Schroeder D (1993) The biological-control of Centaurea spp in North-America — do insects solve the problem? Pestic Sci 37: 343–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Myers JH, Risley C (2000) Why reduced seed production is not necessarily translated into successful biological weed control. In: Spencer NR (ed) Proceedings of the X international symposium on biological control MSU, Bozeman, Montana, pp. 569–581Google Scholar
  35. Myers JH, Bazely DR (2003) Ecology and control of introduced plants. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  36. Newingham BA, Callaway RM (2006) Shoot herbivory on the invasive plant, Centaurea maculosa, does not reduce its competitive effects on conspecifics and natives. Oikos 114: 397–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Newingham BA, Callaway RM, BassiriRad H (2007) Allocating nitrogen away from an herbivore: a novel compensatory response to root herbivory. Oecologia 153: 913–920PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Norton AP, Blair AC, Hardin JG, Nissen SJ, Brunk GR (2008) Herbivory and novel weapons: no evidence for enhanced competitive ability or allelopathy induction of Centaurea diffusa by biological controls. Biol Invasions 10(1): 79–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ochsmann J (2001) On the taxonomy of spotted knapweed. In: Smith L (ed) Proceedings, First international knapweed symposium of the 21st century, Coeur d'Alene, ID USDA-ARS, Albany, CA, pp. 33–41.Google Scholar
  40. Ortega YK, Pearson DE, McKelvey KS (2004) Effects of biological control agents and exotic plant invasion on deer mouse populations. Ecol Appl 14: 241–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ortega YK, McKelvey KS, Six DL (2006) Invasion of an exotic forb impacts reproductive success and site fidelity of a migratory songbird. Oecologia 149: 340–351PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pearson DE, Callaway RM (2003) Indirect effects of host-specific biological control agents. Trends Ecol Evol 18: 456–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pearson DE, Callaway RM (2005) Indirect non-target effects of host-specific biological control agents: implications for biological control. Biol Control 35: 288–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pearson DE, Callaway RM (2006) Biological control agents elevate hantavirus by subsidizing deer mouse populations. Ecol Lett 9: 443–450PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pearson DE, Fletcher RJ (2008) Mitigating exotic impacts: restoring deer mouse populations elevated by an exotic food subsidy. Ecol Appl 18(2): 321–334PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pearson DE, McKelvey KS, Ruggiero LF (2000) Non-target effects of an introduced biological control agent on deer mouse ecology. Oecologia 122(1): 121–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pokorny ML, Sheley RL, Zabinski CA, Engel RE, Svejcar TJ, Borkowski JJ (2005) Plant functional group diversity as a mechanism for invasion resistance. Restor Ecol 13(3): 448–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rinella MJ, Pokorny ML, Rekaya R (2007) Grassland invader responds to realistic changes in native species richness. Ecol Appl 17(6): 1824–1831PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rinella MJ, Maxwell BD, Fay PK, Weaver T, Sheley RL (2008) Control effort exacerbates invasive species problem. Ecol Appl (in press)Google Scholar
  50. Schirman R (1981) Seed production and spring seedling establishment of diffuse and spotted knapweed. J Range Manage 34(1): 45–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Seastedt TR, Suding KN (2007) Biotic resistance and nutrient limitation controls the invasion of diffuse knapweed (Centaurea diffusa). Oecologia 151: 626–636PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Seastedt TR, Gregory N, Buckner D (2003) Reduction of diffuse knapweed by biological control insects in a Colorado grassland. Weed Sci 51: 237–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Seastedt TR, Suding KN, LeJeune KD (2005) Understanding invasions: the rise and fall of diffuse knapweed (Centaurea diffusa) in North America. In: Inderjit (ed) Invasive plants: ecological and agricultural aspects. Birkhouser-Verlag, Basal, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  54. Seastedt TR, Knochel DG, Garmoe M, Shosky SA (2007) Interactions and effects of multiple biological control insects on diffuse and spotted knapweed in the Front Range of Colorado. Biol Control 42: 345–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sheley RL, Jacobs JS, Carpinelli ML (1999) Spotted knapweed. In: Sheley RL, Petroff JK (eds) Biology and management of noxious rangeland weeds. Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, pp. 350–361Google Scholar
  56. Skinner K, Smith L, Rice P (2000) Using noxious weed lists to prioritize targets for developing weed management strategies. Weed Sci 48: 640–644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Smith L (2004) Impact of biological control agents on Centaurea diffusa (diffuse knapweed) in central Montana. In: Cullen J (ed) I Symposium on biological control of weeds, Canberra, Australia CSIRO, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  58. Smith L, Mayer M (2005) Field cage assessment of interference among insects attacking seed heads of spotted and diffuse knapweed. Biocontrol Sci Technol 15(5): 427–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Smith L, Story JM, DiTomaso JM (2001) Bibliography of spotted knapweed, yellow starthistle and other weedy knapweeds. In: Smith L (ed) Proceedings of the first international knapweed symposium of the twenty-first century, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho USDA-ARS, Albany, CAGoogle Scholar
  60. Steinger T, Müller-Schärer H (1992) Physiological and growth-responses of Centaurea-maculosa (Asteraceae) to root herbivory under varying levels of interspecific plant competition and soil-nitrogen availability. Oecologia 91(1): 141–149Google Scholar
  61. Story JM, Piper GL (2001) Status of biological control efforts against spotted and diffuse knapweed. In: Smith L (ed) Proceedings of the first international knapweed symposium of the twenty-first century. Coeur d'Alene, Idaho USDA-ARS, Albany, CA, pp. 11–17Google Scholar
  62. Story JM, Boggs KW, Good WR (1992) Voltinism and phenological synchrony of Urophora affinis and U. Quadriasciata (Diptera: Tephritidae), two seed head flies introduced against spotted knapweed in Montana. Env Entomol 21: 1052–1059.Google Scholar
  63. Story JM, Smith L, Good WR (2001) Relationship among growth attributes of spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa) in western Montana. Weed Technol 15: 750–761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Story JM, Coombs EM, Piper GL (2004) In: Coombs EM, Clark JK, Piper GL, Cofrancesco AF Jr (eds) Biological Control of Invasive Plants in the United States. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR, pp. 204–205Google Scholar
  65. Story JM, Callan W, Corn JG, White LJ (2006) Decline of spotted knapweed density at two sites in western Montana with large populations of the introduced root weevil, Cyphocleonus achates (Fahraeus). Biol Control 38: 227–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Suding KN, LeJeune KD, Seastedt TR (2004) Competitive impacts and responses of an invasive weed: dependencies on nitrogen and phosphorus availability. Oecologia 141(3): 526–535PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Thelen GC, Vivanco JM, Newingham G, Good W, Bais HP, Landres P, Caesar A, Callaway RM (2005) Insect herbivory stimulates allelopathic exudation by an invasive plant and the suppression of natives. Ecol Lett 8: 209–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Vivanco JM, Bais HP, Stermitz FR, Thelen GC, Callaway RM (2004) Biogeographical variation in community response to root allelochemistry: novel weapons and exotic invasion. Ecol Lett 7 (4): 285–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Walling SZ, Zabinski CA (2006) Defoliation effects on arbuscular mycorrhizae and plant growth of two native bunchgrasses and an invasive forb. Appl Soil Ecol 32: 111–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Wise MJ, Abrahamson WG (2007) Effects of resource availability on tolerance of herbivory: a review and assessment of three opposing models. Am Nat 169(4): 443–454PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. G. Knochel
    • 1
  • T. R. Seastedt
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology and INSTAAR, an Earth Systems InstituteUniversity of ColoradoBoulderUSA

Personalised recommendations