The Effects of Herbicide Treatment, Life History Stage, and Application Date on Cut and Uncut Teasel, Dipsacus laciniatus (Dipsacacae)


Cutleaf teasel (Dipsacus laciniatus L.) is an invasive plant that is spreading through natural and disturbed areas. Teasel grows for two or more years as a rosette which stays green late in the growing season and begins growth earlier in spring than its native competitors. The purpose of this study was to find a time both seasonally and in cutleaf teasels life history when herbicides could be applied to decrease teasel with the least impact on the surrounding vegetation. We tested the effects of three different herbicides (glyphosate (Round-UpTM), triclopyr amine (GarlonTM), and clopyralid (LontrelTM)) on cut and uncut teasel at three different times of the year (July and October 2005, and April 2006) near Clinton Lake in Dewitt Co. Illinois. Photosynthetic measurements were taken before application to determine teasel’s susceptibility to the herbicides, and we harvested seed heads and rosettes in late October 2006. Results indicated teasel was photosynthetically active at all three application times. Cutting before herbicide application had no significant effect on the number of seeds produced or the dry weight of the rosettes. Herbicide treatment in April significantly reduced the amount of seeds produced, but there were no significant differences among the three herbicides. Clopyralid application in April significantly reduced rosette biomass, but none of the herbicides significantly affected rosette biomass at the other two times. Our studies suggest herbicide application early in the growing season may be beneficial in controlling the spread of teasel, and that mowing at the time of spraying will not increase effectiveness of the herbicide.

Share and Cite:

L. Zimmerman, N. Porter, J. Riney and J. Parrish, "The Effects of Herbicide Treatment, Life History Stage, and Application Date on Cut and Uncut Teasel, Dipsacus laciniatus (Dipsacacae)," Natural Resources, Vol. 4 No. 2, 2013, pp. 170-174. doi: 10.4236/nr.2013.42022.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.


[1] P. A. Werner, “Colonization Success of a ‘Biennial’ Plant Species: Experimental Field Studies of Species Cohabitation and Replacement,” Ecology, Vol. 58, No. 4, 1977, pp. 840-849. doi:10.2307/1936219
[2] K. C. Foote, “Central New York’s Rings of Teasel,” New York State Conservationist, Vol. 58, No. 1, 2003, p. 1. doi:10.1016/S0167-8809(97)00131-X
[3] O. D. Cheesman, “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, Vol. 68, No. 1-2, 1998, pp. 41-49.
[4] B. G. Rector, V. Harizanova, R. Sforza, T. Widmer and R. N. Wiedenmann, “Prospects for Successful Biological Control of Teasels, Dipsacus spp., a New Target in the United States,” Biological Control, Vol. 36, No. 1, 2006, pp. 1-14. doi:10.1016/j.biocontrol.2005.09.010
[5] D. J. Bentivegna and R. J. Smeda, “Cutleaf Teasel (Dipsacus laciniatus): Seed Development and Persistence,” Invasive Plant Science and Management, Vol. 4, No. 1, 2011, pp. 31-37. doi:10.1614/IPSM-D-10-00026.1
[6] M. K. Solecki, “Cut-leaved and Common Teasel (Dipsacus laciniatus L. and D. sylvestris Huds.): Profile of Two Invasive Aliens,” In: B. McKnight, Ed., Biological Pollution: The Control of Impact of Invasive Exotic Species,” Indiana Academy of Science, Indianapolis, 1993, pp. 85-92.
[7] R. Sforza, “Candidates for the Biological Control of Teasel, Dipsacus spp.,” Proceedings of the XI International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds, Vol. 27, Canberra, 2003, pp. 155-161.
[8] L. F. Huenneke and J. K. Thomson, “Potential Interference between a Threatened Endemic Thistle and an Invasive Nonnative Plant,” Conservation Biology, Vol. 9, No. 2, 1995, pp. 416-425. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.1995.9020416.x
[9] M. K. Solecki, “The Viability of Cut-Leaved Teasel (Dipsacus laciniatus L.) Seed Harvested from Flowering Stems: Management Implications,” Natural Areas Journal, Vol. 9, 1989, pp. 102-105.
[10] B. Glass, “Vegetation Management Guideline: Cut-Leaved Teasel (Dipsacus laciniatus L.) and Common Teasel (Dipsacus sylvestris Huds.),’” Natural Areas Journal, Vol. 11, 1991, pp. 213-214. doi:10.1890/04-0840
[11] M. A. De Gruchy, R. J. Reader and D. W. Larson. “Biomass, Productivity, and Dominance of Alien Plants: A Multihabitat Study in a National Park,” Ecology, Vol. 86, No. 5, 2005, pp. 1259-1266.
[12] D. J. Bentivegna and R. J. Smeda, “Chemical Management of Cutleaved Teasel (Dipsacus laciniatus) in Missouri,” Weed Technology, Vol. 22, No. 3, 2008, pp. 502-506. doi:10.1614/WT-08-043.1
[13] P. Caylor, “Herbicides Help Illinois DOT Control Roadside Weeds,” American City & County, Vol. 113, No. 3, 1998, pp. 17-18.
[14] M. P. Dudley, J. A. D. Parrish, S. L. Post, D. G. Helm, and R. N. Wiedenmann, “The Effects of Fertilization and Time of Cutting on Regeneration and Seed Production of Dipsacus laciniatus (Dipsacacae),” Natural Areas Journal, Vol. 29, No. 2, 2009, pp. 140-145. doi:10.3375/043.029.0206
[15] R. Hobbs and L. F. Huenneke, “Disturbance, Diversity, and Invasion: Implications for Conservation,” Conservation Biology, Vol. 6, No. 3, 1992, pp. 324-337. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.1992.06030324.x

Copyright © 2024 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.