Musk thistle [Carduus nutans L.][CRUNU][CDFA: A] Photographs Map of Distribution Biocontrol

Giant plumeless thistle or Plumeless thistle [C. acanthoides L.][CRUAC][CDFA: A] Photographs Map of Distribution

Italian thistle [C. pycnocephalus L.][CRUPY][CDFA: C][CalEPPC: B] Photographs

Slenderflowered thistle [C. tenuiflorus Curtis][CRUTE][CDFA: C]. Photographs


[Back to Index]

[
SYNONYMS] [GENERAL DESCRIPTION] [SEEDLINGS] [MATURE PLANT] [ROOTS and UNDERGROUND STRUCTURES] [FLOWERS] [FRUITS and SEEDS] [POSTSENESCENCE CHARACTERISTICS] [HABITAT] [DISTRIBUTION] [PROPAGATION/PHENOLOGY] [ADDITIONAL ECOLOGICAL ASPECTS] [MANAGEMENT FAVORING/DISCOURAGING SURVIVAL] [SIMILAR SPECIES] [CONTROL METHODS]



SYNONYMS:

GENERAL DESCRIPTION:Erect thistles with prickly winged stems and leaves. Plants exist as basal rosettes until flowering shoots develop at maturity. Refer to the table Carduus thistles for a quick comparison of distinguishing characteristics. Also see Comparison of spiny-leaved thistles. The thistle head weevil (Rhinocyllus conicus), an introduced biocontrol agent, attacks Carduus species and several other thistles, including some native thistles (Cirsium spp.). Control of Carduus thistle infestations by the weevil varies by species and regionally from excellent to poor. The weevil is established in California and much of the northwestern and north central U.S. The fungus musk thistle rust (Puccinia carduorum) has recently been found in California and may soon be state approved as a biocontrol agent to help control musk thistle.

SEEDLINGS:musk thistle: Cotyledons nearly sessile, oblong, with tips often squared, 7.5-15 mm long, 2.5-6 mm wide. Cotyledon veins are white and broad. First 2 true leaves appear opposite. Subsequent leaves are alternate and form a basal rosette. Leaves are pale green, waxy, oval to elliptic, shallowly lobed, and irregularly prickly toothed. Hairs are sometimes scattered on the upper surface and the main veins of the lower surface. Seedling descriptions are unavailable for plumeless, Italian, and slenderflowered thistles, but given the similarity of mature plants, seedlings of these species probably closely resemble those of musk thistle.

back to top of page

MATURE PLANT:Stems branched near the top. Basal leaves elliptic to lanceolate, pinnately lobed, and with prickly-toothed margins. Stem leaves alternate, reduced, with bases that extend down the stem forming spiny wings (decurrent).

ROOTS and UNDERGROUND STRUCTURES:Taproots long, thick, fleshy, occasionally branched, capable of penetrating the soil to depths of 40 cm or more.

FLOWERS:Heads consist of deeply lobed, purple to pink, (rarely white) disk flowers. Phyllaries spine-tipped,overlapping in several rows. Receptacles flat, densely covered with cream-colored bristles interspersed among the disk flowers. Insects pollinated.

back to top of page

FRUITS and SEEDS:Achenes elliptic, curved, slightly compressed, sometimes slightly 4 to 5 sided in cross section, smooth, glossy, golden to brown. Pappus bristles numerous, cream-colored, fine, minutely barbed (with magnification), united at the base to form a ring and deciduous as a unit.

POSTSENESCENCE CHARACTERISTICS:Foliage is killed by hard frost, but plants remain intact for an extended period after death. The persistent spiny character of the foliage helps to distinguishes plants.

HABITAT:Thistles typically colonize disturbed open sites, roadsides, pastures, annual grasslands, and waste areas.

DISTRIBUTION:At publication time, populations of musk and giant plumeless thistle are limited to specific regions. Italian and slenderflowered thistle are widely distributed.

back to top of page

PROPAGATION/PHENOLOGY:Reproduces by seed. Seeds fall near the parent plant or disperse by wind, water, birds, small mammals, and human activities.

back to top of page


ADDITIONAL ECOLOGICAL ASPECTS:Musk thistle seeds appear to possess allelopathic qualities. They can inhibit germination and radicle growth in other pasture species, but stimulate or have no affect on other seeds of their own species. This suggests that the allelopathic potential of musk thistle seeds may be an evolved mechanism to encourage its own establishment. Emerged musk thistle plants can also weaken other pasture species by an allelopathic interaction at the early bolting stage, when the larger rosette leaves are decomposing and releasing soluble inhibitors, and at the stage when bolting plants are dying and releasing insoluble inhibitors. No specific chemicals have been identified. Although musk thistle is sometimes associated with fertile soils, it is more likely to increase in situations of declining fertility. Furthermore, it has the potential to induce long-term decline of soil nitrogen input. This appears to be related to its allelopathic activity. Decomposing rosette leaves have a strong potential to inhibit white clover (Trifolium repens) nitrogen fixation. Thus, dense musk thistle stands create conditions that favor their proliferation and are unsuitable for white clover establishment, persistence, and ultimately nitrogen fixation.

MANAGEMENT FAVORING/DISCOURAGING SURVIVAL:Thistles compete poorly with healthy established grasses and other vegetation. Disturbances such as fire, overgrazing, or trampling create prime sites for thistle colonization.

SIMILAR SPECIES:Canada thistle [Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop.][CIRAR], bull thistle [Cirsium vulgare (Savi) Ten][CIRVU], and Scotch thistle [Onopordum acanthium L. ssp. acanthium] may be confused with Carduus thistles.

back to top of page

CONTROL METHODS:

Prevention: Good range and pasture management techniques, including grazing, cutting and forage production, can reduce weed establishment and impact. This includes using certified seed, clean hay, bedding, and equipment, avoiding overgrazing and poor fertilization, keeping vehicles and grazing animals out of infested areas.

Mechanical: Mowing can help reduce seed production but mowing alone will not eliminate an infestation. Early mowing is ineffective for control of musk thistle. The optimum mowing timing is 2 to 4 days after initial flowering. Mowing 3 ft tall musk thistle plants to a 6 in stubble will prevent seed production, but thistles quickly recover from remaining buds near the base. Tillage can also be used to control musk thistle. However, this technique is not always practical in non-crop areas.

Cultural: Prescribed burning will remove dense stands of mature thistles and create a good environment for subterranean clover to germinate and grow. However, burning may not completely control plants still in the basal rosette stage. Thistle establishment is less likely if desirable vegetation remains dense throughout the year. Many thistle problems occur when range or pastures are overgrazed in summer and early fall, or when conditions, such as drought stress or poor fertility leave bare soil. Targeted grazing of thistle with goats and other farm livestock provides a useful technique to control thistle. Cattle and sheep prefer the vegetative tissues of musk thistle. In contrast, goats virtually ignored the leaves of musk thistle, but relish the flowers. Even in the presence of palatable subclover and grass pasture, goats seemed to prefer musk thistle flower heads. Thus, goats will drastically reduced average seed production per plant. Seeds ingested by goats and other ruminants are nearly all digested and are not spread within the feces. The use of goats and other livestock can represent an important management technique and can be effective in a long-term integrated approach for the control of musk thistle. Musk thistle germination is greatest on bare ground. Control of musk thistle is maximized when range or pasture cover is dense during the weed seedling emergence period. It has been reported that allelochemicals released by some pasture and range species could be partially responsible for inhibition of seedling emergence and growth. Grasses inhibit seedling emergence and subsequent growth and survival of rosettes to a significantly greater level than legumes. Once seeds have germinated, dense grass and legume cover provides shading of developing rosettes and suppresses the growth of musk thistle. Perennial grasses are more effective than annual grasses or legumes.

Biological: Three insects have become established for the control of musk thistle; thistle head weevil (Rhinocyllus conicus), thistle crown weevil (Trichosirocalus horridus), and thistle crown fly (Cheilosia corydon). Rhinocyllus conicus was the first species released in the United States for control of musk thistle. It has one generation per year. It lays its eggs on bud bracts and the larvae infest the seed head or stem. The larvae feed on the seeds and are more destructive than other insect stages. The thistle head weevil infests a number of host genera in the thistle tribe, including species of Carduus, Cirsium, Onopordum, and Silybum. It has proven to be a very effective control agent on musk thistle. Trichosirocalus horridus also has one generation per year. Its larvae feed on the growing tip of the thistle rosette and the adults may also slightly defoliate plants. Like Rhinocyllus conicus, it can attack other thistle species, including plumeless thistle, Italian thistle, Canada thistle, bull thistle, and Scotch thistle. Suppression of musk thistle is only slight thus far, and requires other biocontrol agents to be present. Cheilosia corydon is a fly that also produces one generation per year. Its larvae damage the leaves, stems, and crown of musk thistle, Italian thistle, and plumeless thistle. This organism can lower total seed production and can kill the plant when it infests roots. It was only released in 1990, so little information is available on its effectiveness.

Chemical: Few herbicides provide effective preemergence control of musk thistle in rangelands and pastures. Chlorsulfuron has both pre- and postemergence activity. Preemergence application with chlorosulfuron (0.75 - 1.5 oz ai/A) in the fall are not very effective for control of seedlings or mature plants. However, treatment with chlorsulfuron (0.37 - 0.75 oz ai/A) in early bloom stage reduced seed production by over 99%. Several postemergence herbicides will control musk thistle. Typically, spring treatments give better control than fall herbicide applications, as many new seedlings which emerge after a fall treatment will escape injury. Dicamba, 2,4-D, clopyralid, MCPA, glyphosate and combinations of these compounds provide excellent control with a spring application, and somewhat less control with a fall treatment. The table below lists the herbicides, rates, and timing that provide effective control of musk thistle. Picloram (0.25 lb ae/A) also gives excellent control of both musk thistle seedlings and mature plants following a spring or fall treatment. However, this compound is not registered for use in California.


Table 1. Herbicide recommendations for musk thistle control.

Herbicide Rate Timing Remarks
2,4-D 1 - 2 lb ae/A March to early April in rosette stage Newly planted legumes may be killed
dicamba 0.5 - 1 lb ae/A March to early April in rosette stage May kill all legumes
dicamba + 2,4-D 0.75 + 0.25 lb ae/A March to early April in rosette stage May kill all legumes
MCPA 1 - 1.5 lb ae/A Spring applications in rosette stage Safer on legumes that most growth regulator herbicides
clopyralid 1.5 - 4 oz ae/A Can apply up to the bud stage Will kill annual legumes and damage perennial legumes
glyphosate 1 - 2 lb ae/A Apply in spring or up to rosette stage Non-selective. Do not use with perennial grasses
chlorsulfuron 0.75 - 2.25 oz ai/A Late season applications for reduced seed production Will injure some grasses as well as broadleaf species


Combinations of 2,4-D with either clopyralid or glyphosate can also be effective. Rope wick applications of glyphosate and 2,4-D shows good activity on musk thistle up to 2 ft tall. However, only bolted plants are controlled with this treatment. Those plants that have not yet elongated above the forage canopy will not be contacted by the wick. It is important to recognize that there are grazing and cutting restrictions for many of these postemergence herbicides. This restriction period is provided on the herbicide label. In New Zealand, MCPA resistant musk thistle developed in dairy and sheep pastures following continuous use of the herbicide. This population was found to be cross resistant to 2,4-D, MCPA, and MCPB, but not resistant to dicamba, clopyralid or picloram. Even without the use of 2,4-D, MCPA or MCPB it is unlikely that the proportion of resistant individuals will decrease over time, as these plants are no less competitive than the susceptible individuals within the population. In addition to musk thistle, a population of Italian thistle is also suspected of having developed resistance to the phenoxy herbicides in New Zealand.

Integrated Weed Management: Using an integrated approach, the application of sublethal applications of phenoxy herbicides such as MCPA, 2,4-D amine and 2,4-DB amine in conjunction with heavy stocking rates of grazing livestock (sheep) has been a long accepted control method in Australia. Integrating late herbicide application (bolting or bud stages) and infestation with the musk thistle seed head weevils can provide excellent control and reduced herbicide use and costs.

References
Ahmed, M., and D.A. Wardle. 1991. Increasing temperatures may enhance emergence and seedling growth of nodding thistle, summer grass and spiny emex. Proc. NZ Weed Pest Control Conf. 44:288-291.
Anonymous. Controlling the musk thistle. 1989. Agric. Aviat. 16(9):11-12.
Beck, K.G., and J.R. Sebastian. 1988. Musk thistle control with spring and fall applied herbicides in Colorado rangeland. Res. Prog. Rep. West. Soc. Weed Sci. p. 70-71.
Beck, K.G., R.G. Wilson and M.A. Henson. 1990. The effects of selected herbicides on musk thistle (Carduus nutans) viable achene production. Weed Technol. 4(3):482-486.
Boldt, P.E. 1979. Habitat of Carduus nutans L. in Italy and two phytophagous insects. In T.E. Freeman, ed. Proc. International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds 4:98-100.
Boldt, P.E. 1978. Foreign exploration for the biological control of Carduus spp. In K.E. Frick, ed. Biological control of thistles in the genus Carduus in the United States: a progress report. USDA., p. 11-17.
Bourdôt, G.W., and I.C. Harvey. 1994. A review of recent research on the microbial control of Californian thistle and other pasture weeds using the fungus Sclerotinia sclerotiorum as a biological herbicide. Proc. NZ Grassland Assoc. 56:43-48.
Bourdôt, G.W., and I.C. Harvey. 1996. The potential of the fungus Sclerotinia sclerotiorum as a biological herbicide for controlling thistles in pasture. In T.L. Woodburn, D.T. Briese, and S. Corey, eds. Thistle management workshop, Canberra, Australia, 12-13 June 1996. Plant Prot. Q. 11(S2):259-262.
Bourdôt, G.W., K.C. Harrington and A.I. Popay. 1989. The appearance of phenoxy-herbicide resistance in New Zealand pasture weeds. Proc. Brighton Crop Prot. Conf. Weeds 1:309-316.
Briese, D.T. 1989. Natural enemies of carduine thistles in New South Wales. J. Aust. Entomological Soc. 28(2):125-134.
Bruckart, W.L., and W.M. Dowler. 1985. Evaluation of exotic rust fungi in the United States for classical biological control of weeds. Weed Sci. 34(S1):11-14.
Bruckart, W.L., and D.J. Politis. 1983. Exotic plant pathogens for biocontrol of musk thistle in the United States. 10th International Congress of Plant Proctection 1983 : plant protection for human welfare: proceedings of a conference held in Brighton, England, 20-25 November 1983. British Crop Protection Council, p. 776.
Bultsma, P.M., T.D. Whitson, and F. Lamming. 1992. Comparison of several herbicides applied at different growth stages for control of Canada. Res. Prog. Rep. West. Soc. Weed Sci. p. I/9.
Buntin, G.D., R.D. Hudson, and T.R. Murphy. 1993. Establishment of Rhinocyllus conicus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) in Georgia for control of musk thistle. J. Entomol. Sci. 28(2):213-217.
Cartwright, B., and L.T. Kok. 1985. Growth responses of musk and plumeless thistles (Carduus nutans and Carduus acanthoides) to damage by Trichosirocalus horridus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Weed Sci. 33(1):57-62.
Davidson, S. 1990. Goats help eliminate thistles. Rural Res. CSIRO Q. (147):16-19.
Dellow, J.J. 1996. Herbicide techniques for thistle management. In T.L. Woodburn, D.T. Briese, and S. Corey, eds. Thistle management workshop, Canberra, Australia, 12-13 June 1996. Plant Prot. Q. 11(S2):276-277.
DeQuattro, J. 1997. Two Italian imports tackle musk thistle. Agric. res. 45(3):10-11.
Desrochers, A.M., J.F. Bain,, and S.I. Warwick. 1988. The biology of Canadian weeds. 89. Carduus nutans L. and Carduus acanthoides L. Can. J. Plant Sci. Rev. Can. Phytotechnie. 68(4):1053-1068.
Dunn, P.H., and G. Campobasso. 1993. Field test of the weevil Hadroplonthus trimaculatus and the fleabeetle Psylliodes chalcomera against musk thistle (Carduus nutans). Weed Sci. 41(4):656-663.
Edmonds, D.K., and A.I. Popay. 1983. Effect of pasture competition on the survival and flowering of nodding thistle [Carduus nutans]. Proc. NZ Weed Pest Control Conf. 36:89-92.
Freese, G. 1994. The insect complexes associated with the stems of seven thistle species. Entomologia Generalis 19(3):191-207.
French, C.M., and J.T. Johnson. 1988. Musk thistle and its control. Coop. Ext. Serv. Univ. Ga. Leafl. 400.
Furrer, J.D., F.W. Roeth, A.R. Martin, and M.K. McCarty. 1987. Musk thistle: its appearance, spread and control. EC Coop. Ext. Serv. Univ. Nebr. 87-160, rev.
Goeden, R.D., D.W. Ricker, and B.A. Hawkins. 1985. Ethological and genetic differences among three biotypes of Rhinocyllus conicus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) introduced into North America for the biological control of asteraceous thistles. Proc. International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds 6:181-189.
Groves, R.H., R.C.H. Shepherd, and R.G. Richardson. 1995. The biology of Australian weeds - volume 1. (Source unknown.)
Groves, R.H., and P.E. Kaye. 1989. Germination and phenology of seven introduced thistle species in southern Australia. Aust. J. Bot. 37(4):351-359.
Hamrick, J.L., and J.M. Lee. 1987. Effect of soil surface topography and litter cover on the germination, survival, and growth of musk thistle (Carduus nutans). Am. J. Bot. 74(3):451-457.
Harrington, K.C. 1995. Herbicide management and thistle control - how to avoid resistance. In T.L. Woodburn, D.T. Briese, and S. Corey, eds. Thistle management workshop, Canberra, Australia, 12-13 June 1996. Plant Prot. Q. 11(S2):273-275.
Harrington, K.C. 1990. Spraying history and fitness of nodding thistle, Carduus nutans, populations resistant to MCPA and 2,4-D. Proc. Aust. Weeds Conf. 9:201-204.
Harrington, K.C. 1989. Distribution and cross-tolerance of MCPA-tolerant nodding thistle. Proc. NZ Weed Pest Control Conf. 42:39-42.
Harrington, K.C., A.I. Popay, A.G. Robertson, and H.G. McPherson. 1988. Resistance of nodding thistle to MCPA in Hawkes Bay. Proc. NZ Weed Pest Control Conf. 41:219-222.
Hathcock, B.R., and R. Evans. 1987. Methods of and benefits from musk thistle (Carduus nutans L.) control in a fescue-clover pasture. Tenn. Farm Home (142):9-11.
Hilbert, B., and H.L. Brooks. 1993. Biological control of musk thistle in Kansas. L. Kans. State Univ. Coop. Ext. Serv. (873) 6 p.
Hurrell, G.A., G.W. Bourdôt, and J.H.B. Butler. 1983. Timing of herbicide applications for nodding thistle control in Canterbury. Proc. NZ Weed Pest Control Conf. 36:93-95.
Jackman, J.A., P. Boldt, J.W. Stewart, and T.W. Fuchs. 1992. Biological control of musk thistle in Texas. Leafl. L. Tex. Agric. Ext. Serv. AM Univ. Syst. (5067) 3 p.
James, T.K., and J. Mortimer. 1983. Control of ragwort and nodding thistle in lucerne with hexazinone. Proc. NZ Weed Pest Control Conf. 36:17-20.
James, T.K., A. Rahman, P. Sanders, A. Cliffe, and A.J. Popay. 1995. Response of different nodding thistle (Carduus nutans) populations to herbicides. Proc. NZ Plant Prot. Conf. 48:252-255.
Jessep, C.T. 1990. Aspects of the biology of nodding thistle (Carduus nutans L.) in Canterbury, New Zealand. NZ J. Agric. Res. 33(1):173-183.
Jessep, C.T. 1990. Biological control programmes against nodding thistle (Carduus nutans L.) and Californian thistle (Cirsium arvense (L.)) in New Zealand. FRI Bull. For. Res. Inst. NZ For. Serv. (155):25.
Jessep, C.T. 1989. Carduus nutans L., nodding thistle (Asteraceae).
Tech. Commun. Commonw. Inst. Biol. Control. (10):339-342.
Jessep, C.T. 1989. Introduction of the crown weevil (Trichosirocalus horridus) as an additional biocontrol agent against nodding thistle. Proc. NZ Weed Pest Control Conf. 42:52-54.
Holst, P.J., and C.J. Allan. 1996. Targeted grazing of thistles using sheep and goats. In T.L. Woodburn, D.T. Briese, and S. Corey, eds. Thistle management workshop, Canberra, Australia, 12-13 June 1996. Plant Prot. Q. 11(S2):271-273.
Kelly, D., and K. McCallum. 1990. Demography, seed biology and biological control of Carduus nutans in New Zealand. Biology and control of invasive plants, 72-79.
Kelly, D., K. McCallum, C.J. Schmidt, and P.M. Scanlan. 1990. Seed production in nodding and slender winged thistles by nodding thistle receptacle weevil. Proc. NZ Weed Pest Control Conf. 43:212-215.
Kelly, D., and R. Wood. 1991. Why nodding thistle receptacle weevil destroys so little nodding thistle seed in Canterbury. Proc. NZ Weed Pest Control Conf. 44:280-283.
Kok, L.T. 1992. Biological control of musk and plumeless thistles. Publication collection, Virginia Coop. Ext. Ser. (444-019) 8 p.
Kok, L.T. 1990. Biological control of weeds in Virginia from 1969-86. Proc. International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds 8:623-629.
Kok, L.T., T.J. McAvoy, and W.T. Mays. 1985. Impact of tall fescue grass and carduus thistle weevils on the growth and development of musk thistle (Carduus nutans). Weed Sci. 34(6):966-971.
Kok, L.T., and R.L. Pienkowski. 1985. Biological control of musk thistle by Rhinocyllus conicus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) in Virginia from 1969 to 1980. Proc. International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds 6:433-438.
Landau, D., J.F. Grant, and P.L. Lambdin. 1996. Dicymolomia julianalis (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) on selected hosts in eastern and middle Tennessee. Environ. Entomol. 25(1):25-28.
Lee, J.M., and J.L. Hamrick. 1983. Demography of two natural populations of musk thistle (Carduus nutans). J. Ecol. 71(3):923-936.
Littlefield, J.L. 1991. Parasitism of Rhinocyllus concicus Froelich (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) in Wyoming. Can. Entomol. 123(5):929-932.
Martin, P., D.K. Fullerton, and T.K. James. 1990. Weed trials using a rotary weed wiper. Proc NZ Weed Pest Control Conf. 43:262-265.
McCallum, K., and D. Kelly. 1990. Pre- and post-dispersal predation of nodding thistle seeds by birds and rodents. Proc NZ Weed Pest Control Conf. 43:216-219.
Melichar, M.W., and M.P. Stafford. 1989. Control of Canada thistle and musk thistle on roadside rights-of-way with clopyralid and 2,4-D. Proc. Annu. Meet. Northeast Weed Sci. Soc. 43:72-73.
Meyer, R.E., C.L. Simpkins, W.G. McCully, and S.G. Evans. 1994. Chemical control of musk thistle (Carduus nutans L.) along Texas highways. Proc. S. Weed Sci. Soc. 47:144-149.
Monks, D.W., M.A. Halcomb, and E.L. Ashburn. 1991. Survey and control of musk thistle (Carduus nutans) in Tennessee field nurseries. Weed Technol. 5(1)218-220.
Moore, W.B., C.J. Doyle, and A. Rahman. 1989. Economics of controlling Carduus nutans on grazed pasture in New Zealand. Crop Prot. 8(1):16-24.
Nicholson, K.S., A. Rahman, and D.A. Wardle. 1990. Interactions between establishing nodding thistle and pasture seedlings. Proc NZ Weed Pest Control Conf. 43:225-228.
Nilson, E.B., and W.H. Fick. 1989. Musk thistle: identification and control. L. Coop. Ext. Serv. Kans. State. Univ. (231) 6 p.
Politis, D.J., A.K. Watson,, and W.L. Bruckart. 1984. Susceptibility of musk thistle and related composites to Puccinia carduorum. Phytopathology 74(6):687-691.
Popay, I., and D. Kelly. 1985. Seasonality of emergence, and survival, of nodding thistle. Proc. NZ Weed Pest Control Conf. 39:187-191.
Popay, A.I., and R.W. Medd. 1990. The biology of Australian weeds 21. Carduus nutans L. ssp nutans. Plant Prot. Q. 5(1):3-13.
Powell, S.D., J.F. Grant, and P.L. Lambdin. 1996. Incidence of above-ground arthropod species on musk thistle in Tennessee. J. Agric. Entomol. 13(1):17-28.
Rahman, A., T.K. James, P. Sanders, and A.J. Popay. 1994. Control of phenoxy herbicide resistant nodding thistle (Carduus nutans) in pasture. Proc. NZ Plant Prot. Conf. 47:68-74.
Rees, N.E. 1991. Biological control of thistles. In James, L.F., ed. Noxious range weeds. Westview Press. p. 264-273.
Rizza, A., and G. Campobasso. 1982. Musk thistle (Carduus "nutans"). Annu. Rep. Rome, Italy p. 32-52.
Rizza, A., G. Campobasso, P.H. Dunn, and M. Stazi. 1988. Cheilosia corydon (Diptera: Syrphidae), a candidate for the biological control of musk thistle in North America. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 81(2):225-232.
Roche, C. 1992. Slenderflower thistle (Carduus tenuiflorus Curt.), Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus L.), plumeless thistle (Carduus acanthoides L.).
Pacific Northwest Coop. Ext. Pub. PNW431.
Ross, M.A., and D.J. Childs. 1993. Musk thistle control in permanent grass pastures. Weed Sci. (West Lafayette, Ind.: Cooperative Extension Service, Purdue University) (19).
Sanders, P. 1990. Influence of grazing and phenoxy herbicides on nodding thistle. Proc. NZ Weed Pest Control Conf., 43:220-224.
Sheppard, A.W., J.P. Aeschlimann, J.L. Sagliocco, and J. Vitou. 1995. Below-ground herbivory in Carduus nutans (Asteraceae) and the potential for biological control. Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 5(3):261-270.
Sheppard, A.W., J.M. Cullen, and J.P. Aeschlimann. 1994. Predispersal seed predation on Carduus nutans (Asteraceae) in southern Europe. Acta Oecologica 15(5):529-541.
Sheppard, A.W., J.M. Cullen, J.P. Aeschlimann, J.L. Sagliocco, and J. Vitou. 1990. The importance of insect herbivores relative to other limiting factors on weed population dynamics: a case study of Carduus nutans. Proc. International Symp. Biological Control of Weeds 7:211-219.
Shorthouse, J.D., and R.G. Lalonde. 1984. Structural damage by Rhinocyllus conicus (Coleoptera:Curculionidae) within the flowerheads of nodding thistle. Can. Entomol. 116(10):1335-1343.
Sindel, B.M. 1991. A review of the ecology and control of thistles in Australia. Weed Res. 31(4):189-201.
Smith, L.M. II, and L.T. Kok. 1984. Dispersal of musk thistle (Carduus nutans) seeds. Weed Sci. 32(1):120-125.
Story, J.M. 1992. Biological control of weeds: selective, economical and safe. Western Wildlands 18(2):18-23.
Sullivan, P.R., A.J. Maguire, J.R. Hosking, and R.H. Holtkamp. 1995. Better planning for better weed management. In L. Tanner and P. Nolan, eds. Biological control of weeds in New South Wales. Proc. 8th biennial noxious weeds conference, Goulburn, NSW, Australia, 19-21 September 1995. 1:67-71.
Sutherland, O.R.W., and R.L. Hill. 1989. History and protocols for biological control of weeds in New Zealand. FRI Bull. 155:18-24.
Syrett, P. 1990. Is biological control of weeds working in New Zealand? Evaluation of introduced biological control agents. Bull. Entomol. Soc. NZ (10):91-99.
Talosi, B., R. Sekulic, T. Keresi, B. Manojlovic, J. Igrc, M. Maceljski, V. Zlof, and B. Zastita. 1989. Investigations on the entomofauna of Carduus (Asteraceae) plants in Yugoslavia. 40(4):393-408.
Townsend, L.H., J.C. Parr, J.D. Green, and B.C. Pass. 1991. Status of Rhinocyllus conicus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae): a biological control agent of Carduus nutans (Compositae) established in Kentucky. Trans. Ky. Acad. Sci. 52(3/4):116-118.
Unruh, T.R., and R.D. Goeden. 1987. Electrophoresis helps to identify which race of the introduced weevil, Rhinocyllus conicus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), has transferred to two native southern California thistles. Environ. Entomol. 16(4):979-983.
Waipara, N.W, I.C. Harvey, and G.W. Bourdôt. 1993. Pathogenicity of Sclerotinia sclerotiorum on common thistle species and other pasture weeds. Proc. NZ Plant Prot. Conf. 46:261-264.
Wardle, D.A., M. Ahmed, and K.S. Nicholson. 1991. Allelopathic influence of nodding thistle (Carduus nutans L.) seeds on germination and radicle growth of pasture plants. NZ J. Agric. Res. 34(2):185-191.
Wardle, D.A., K.S. Nicholson, and M. Ahmed. 1991. Residual allelopathic effects of pasture grasses and legumes on nodding thistle seedling emergence and growth. Proc. NZ Weed Pest Control Conf. 44:284-287.
Wardle, D.A., K.S. Nicholson, M. Ahmed, and A. Rahman. 1995. Influence of pasture forage species on seedling emergence, growth and development of Carduus nutans. J. Applied Ecology 32(1):225-233.
Wardle, D.A., K.S. Nicholson, M. Ahmed, and A. Rahman. 1994. Interference effects of the invasive plant Carduus nutans L. against the nitrogen fixation ability of Trifolium repens L. Plant and Soil 163(2):287-297.
Wardle, D.A., K.S. Nicholson, and A. Rahman. 1994. Influence of herbicide applications on the decomposition, microbial biomass, and microbial activity of pasture shoot and root litter. NZ J. Agric. Res. 37(1):29-39.
Wardle, D.A., K.S. Nicholson, and A. Rahman. 1993. Influence of plant age on the allelopathic potential of nodding thistle (Carduus nutans L.) against pasture grasses and legumes. Weed Res. Oxford 33(1):69-78.
Wardle, D.A., and A. Rahman. 1992. Influence of pasture grass and legume swards on seedling emergence and growth of Carduus nutans L. and Cirsium vulgare L. Weed Res. 32(2):119-128.
Warwick, S.I., J.F. Bain, R. Wheatcroft, and B.K. Thompson. 1989. Hybridization and introgression in Carduus nutans and C. acanthoides reexamined. Syst. Bot. 14(4):476-494.
Warwick, S.I., and B.K. Thompson. 1989. The mating system in sympatric populations of Carduus nutans, C. acanthoides and their hybrid swarms. Heredity 63(pt.3):329-337.
Warwick, S.I., B.K. Thompson, and L.D. Black. 1992. Hybridization of Carduus nutans and Carduus acanthoides (Compositae): morphological variation in F1 hybrids and backcrosses. Can. J. Bot. 70(11):2302-2309.
Warwick, S.I., B.K. Thompson, and L.D. Black. 1990. Comparative growth response in Carduus nutans, C. acanthoides, and their F1 hybrids. Can. J. Bot. 68(8):1675-1679.
Wilson, R.C., and L.A. Andres. 1986. Larval and pupal parasites of Rhinocyllus conicus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) in Carduus nutans in northern California. Pan-Pac. Entomol. 62(4):329-332.
Woodburn, T.L. 1996. Reduction of seed set in nodding thistle (Carduus nutans) by the seed-fly, Urophora solstitialis, in Australia. In Fruit fly pests: a world assessment of their biology and management. St. Lucie Press. p. 165-169.
Woodburn, T.L. 1993. Host specificity testing, release and establishment of Urophora solstitialis (L.) (Diptera: Tephritidae), a potential biological control agent for Carduus nutans L., in Australia. Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 3(4):419-426.
Woodburn, T.L., and D.T. Briese. 1996. The contribution of biological control to the management of thistles. In T.L. Woodburn, D.T. Briese, and S. Corey, eds. Thistle management workshop, Canberra, Australia, 12-13 June 1996. Plant Prot. Q. 11(S2):250-253.
Woodburn, T.L., and V.C. Moran. 1996. Interspecific competition between Rhinocyllus conicus and Urophora solstitialis, two biocontrol agents released in Australia against Carduus nutans. In J.H. Hoffmann, ed. Proc. International Symp. Biological Control of Weeds 9:409-415.
Woodburn, T.L., and A.W. Sheppard. 1996. The demography of Carduus nutans as a native and an alien weed. In T.L. Woodburn, D.T. Briese, and S. Corey, eds. Thistle management workshop, Canberra, Australia, 12-13 June 1996. Plant Prot. Q. 11(S2):236-238.
Youssef, N.N., and E.W. Evans. 1994. Exploitation of Canada thistle by the weevil Rhinocyllus conicus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) in northern Utah. Environ. Entomol. 23(4):1013-1019.
Zwolfer, H., and P. Harris. 1984. Biology and host specificity of Rhinocyllus conicus (Froel.) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), a successful agent for biocontrol of the thistle, Carduus nutans L. Z. Angew Entomol J. Appl. Entomol. 97(1):36-62.

back to top of page