DOCSLIB.ORG

Weed Focus Ragwort

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Weed Focus Ragwort BASISFE PAOTIUNTRES Weed focus Ragwort Graham Paul offers some practical advice on that most awkward of weeds – Ragwort and offers the opportunity of picking up some BASIS points Rosette stage found in year 1 Common Ragwort (Senecio jacobaeae) JANUARY 2012 GI 43 BASIS PONTS Ragwort belongs to the daisy Horses will avoid ragwort in introduced by Mr John Greenway family and along with the pastures MP for Ryedale. SELF ASSESSMENT Groundsels is classified in the When a horse has been poisoned 2. A direct result of Mr Greenway’s genus Senecio. by ragwort, the symptoms include; bill was the publication of ‘The Use the questions below to Common Ragwort (Senecio yellow mucus membranes, Code of Practice for the Control check your understanding jacobaea), as the name implies, depression, and lack of of Ragwort’ by the Department of this topic. Readers can is the most frequently occurring coordination. Sheep and goats have for Environment, Food and Rural claim BASIS points if the species and is normally a biennial, a much greater tolerance to ragwort Affairs (DEFRA). This code defines questions are answered having a rosette stage in the first and will eat small quantities of the the situations in which there is a correctly! year that overwinters and in the plant with relish. Although they likelihood of ragwort spreading second year grows a hairless, leafy do suffer damage to the liver from to neighbouring land where it Circle the correct answer(s) flowering stem that is divided at the consuming ragwort, it is at a much will present an identifiable risk of top. reduced rate than horses, cattle ingestions by vulnerable animals, 1) Which other species Yellow flowers 15 to 20mm and pigs. There are reports that the and provides guidance on the most belongs to the same genus across, are borne in dense, flat- alkaloids kill parasitic worms in the appropriate control measures. The as Ragwort (Senecio)? topped clusters from June until sheep’s stomach, so in small doses Ragwort Control Act 2003 gives a) Ground-ivy November when the plant dies. they can be beneficial. this Code ‘evidential’ status in b) Ground-elder However, in some instances, when Ragwort poses little risk to the any proceedings taken under the c) Groundsel the plant becomes damaged by health of humans since the bitter Weeds Control Act 1959. Failure d) Ground-pine grazing or cutting, changes in its taste precludes its use as a food. to follow this Code is not an offence physiology occur and it becomes a However, alkaloids can be absorbed but non-compliance may be used Insects feeding on the nectar flowering, may be all that is needed liable. It is not uncommon to see a 2) Which of the grazing short-lived perennial, surviving for in small quantities through the skin as evidence in any legal action. to keep pastures free of the potential ragwort plant totally devastated by animals mentioned have several years. when the plant is handled causing Equally, owners/occupiers should hazard to livestock. Alternatively, the caterpillars and one next to it a much greater tolerance Most wild flower references list an allergic reaction in sensitive be able to establish a defence if they the whole plant can be levered out untouched. to the alkaloid toxins in six species of ragwort found in individuals. Among the alkaloids can demonstrate that they have of the soil using a special tool. Hand Ragwort plants? the UK. The other five are; Hoary found in ragwort is a group known adopted control measures that pulling and levering out the plants Chemical control a) Cattle Ragwort (S. erucifolius), Oxford as the sesquiterpine lactones that comply with this Code’s guidance. are best carried out in moist soils. ‘Barrier H’– is an herbicide based b) Sheep Ragwort (S. squalidus) – introduced can cause the condition ‘compositae Gloves must be worn when pulling on a natural product (citronella c) Horses from southern Italy and naturalised dermatitis’. These are different from and handling ragwort, which can oil) that can be used at all stages d) Pigs in Britain, Marsh Ragwort (S. the pyrrolizidine alkaloids that are “The high visibility marking of be disposed of by drying the plant of growth and is marketed in a aquaticus), Silver Ragwort (S. responsible for the toxic effects to the moth and caterpillars is a material, away from access by ready-to-use spot treatment pack. 3) Apart from Common cineraria) – introduced from the the liver that result from eating the livestock, and then burning. It produces a rapid, severe scorch Ragwort which other Mediterranean and naturalised on foliage. warning for predators to leave Cutting down the plants to on ragwort and certain other weeds injurious weeds are cited coastal cliffs in southern England them alone. Survival is also prevent the seed-heads from and will also temporarily scorch the in the Weed Control Act of and Fen Ragwort (S. paludosus) a Five Injurious Weeds maturing should be regarded as grass but this soon recovers. 1959? More than one may rare perennial growing to 2.0m tall Common Ragwort is one of helped by lack of competition for an emergency treatment to halt the Selective herbicides containing apply in the fens in East Anglia. five injurious weeds cited in the their main source of food” spread of the weed and must be MCPA (e.g. ‘Agritox 50’) will give a) Marsh Dock Rumex palustris Ragwort provides a source of Weed Control Act of 1959. The followed up by some other form of moderate control of the rosette b) Spear Thistle Cirsium vulgare food and nectar for around 200 term injurious weed describes an control. stage of the weed. Products c) Curled Dock Rumex crispus invertebrate species in the UK; of invasive species that is injurious 3. The Natural Environment d) Giant Hogweed Heracleum LEFT, BELOW LEFT and One factor that encourages the containing 2,4-D (e.g. ‘Depitox’) will these some 30 are totally dependent to; crops, natural habitats, and Rural Communities Act 2006 BELOW: proliferation of ragwort in pastures give a moderate level of control at mantegazzianum on the plant as their only food ecosystems, humans and livestock delegates the functions available Cinnabar moth: caterpillars and adult is over-grazing, which results in dose rates applying 1.65kg of the source, which makes ragwort an such as horses and other grazing to the Secretary of State under thinning of the grass sward, leaving active ingredient per hectare (3.3L/ 4) Which Government essential part of our native flora. animals. Indeed, Common Ragwort the Weed Control Act to Natural room for this weed to establish. ha of a 500g/L amine formulation) Agency has specific Ragwort contains many different is the only one of the listed species England, a DEFRA agency. Good turf management practices In some situations a repeat powers, delegated by act of alkaloids that are poisonous to that is toxic; the others are included This delegation of functions coupled with a sensible rotation of application may be required for parliament, to investigate animals. It is a particular problem in the legislation because of their enables Natural England to grazing will help to crowd ragwort complete control with 2,4-D. complaints under the Weed to grazing animals such as horses, damaging effect on crops. They are; investigate complaints where out. Mixtures containing the active Control Act 1959? cattle and pigs, whose tolerance to Spear Thistle (Cirsium vulgare), there is a risk that injurious weeds ingredients MCPA + mecoprop-P a) Environment Agency these alkaloids is particularly low, Creeping or Field Thistle (Cirsium might spread to neighbouring land. Biological Control + dicamba, such as ‘Relay Turf’ b) Home Office causing irreversible cirrhosis of the arvense), Curled Dock (Rumex Natural England gives priority to The Cinnabar moth Tyria or ‘Longbow’ will give reasonably c) Natural England liver when an appreciable quantity crispus) and Broad-Leaved Dock investigating complaints where jacobaeae is an interesting species effective control. d) Forestry Commission of fresh ragwort is consumed. (Rumex obtusifolius) there is a risk of weeds spreading that can give some degree of control Glyphosate formulations Fortunately the plant has a very Under the terms of the Weed to land used for grazing horses of ragwort. Both the adult and can be used as spot treatments 5) Which species of moth bitter taste so the fresh foliage is Control Act of 1959, a land occupier or livestock, land used for forage caterpillar feed on ragwort plants applied with a knapsack sprayer provides a biological control rarely eaten by horses and cattle but can be required by the Secretary of production and other agricultural and are not affected by the toxic but these will also kill the grass for ragwort? it becomes much more palatable State for Environment, Food and activities. alkaloids they absorb through their in the immediate vicinity of the a) Orange swift (Hepialus once the plant dies. Rural Affairs to take steps to prevent digestive tracts. They assimilate target plant. It is possible to use sylvina) Hay and silage contaminated the spread of one or more of the Control Measures the toxins into their bodies as a a weed-wiper applicator to apply b) Cinnabar moth (Tyria with ragwort plants can be fatal to five species. However, the growth The Code of Practice for the defence mechanism against birds the glyphosate without damaging jacobaeae) livestock as the toxic alkaloids in of the plant is not made illegal by Control of Ragwort outlines various and other predators, who would the grass. c) Scarlet Tiger (Callimorpha ragwort are not broken down by the act and there is no statutory suggested methods that can be find them unpalatable.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Guidance Note on the Methods That Can Be Used to Control Harmful Weeds
    Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Guidance note on the methods that can be used to control harmful weeds March 2007 Contents Guidance note on the methods that can be used to control harmful weeds ............... 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 2 Control methods - general guidance .......................................................................... 2 Use of herbicides ....................................................................................................... 2 Non-selective herbicide treatment .............................................................................. 3 Selective herbicide treatment ..................................................................................... 3 Ragwort control .......................................................................................................... 3 Ragwort control methods ........................................................................................... 4 Cutting .................................................................................................................... 4 Pulling (and digging) ............................................................................................... 5 Herbicides ............................................................................................................... 5 Spear thistle control ...............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Rumex Crispus L.; Curly Dock R
    A WEED REPORT from the book Weed Control in Natural Areas in the Western United States This WEED REPORT does not constitute a formal recommendation. When using herbicides always read the label, and when in doubt consult your farm advisor or county agent. This WEED REPORT is an excerpt from the book Weed Control in Natural Areas in the Western United States and is available wholesale through the UC Weed Research & Information Center (wric.ucdavis.edu) or retail through the Western Society of Weed Science (wsweedscience.org) or the California Invasive Species Council (cal-ipc.org). Rumex crispus L.; curly dock R. crispus R. obtusifolius Rumex obtusifolius L.; broadleaf dock Curly and broadleaf dock Family: Polygonaceae Range: Curly dock is found throughout the U.S., including every western state. Broadleaf dock is found in most of the western states, except Nevada, Wyoming and North Dakota. Habitat: Ditches, roadsides, wetlands, meadows, riparian areas, alfalfa and pasture fields (especially with poor drainage), orchards and other disturbed moist areas. Plants prefer wet to moist soils but tolerate periods of dryness, and can grow in most climates and soil types. Origin: R. crispus, Eurasia; R. obtusifolia, western Europe. Impact: Both species can be very competitive and outcompete more desirable vegetation for water, nutrients and light. Under certain conditions, they can accumulate soluble oxalates making them toxic to livestock. California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC) Inventory: R. crispus, Limited Invasiveness Both species are erect perennials from 1.5 to 3 ft tall, occasionally to 5 ft tall. Curly dock leaves are lanceolate and up to 20 inches long, whereas broadleaf dock has lanceolate-ovate leaves that are up to 30 inches long.
    [Show full text]
  • Redalyc.A NEW ANTHRAQUINONE ISOLATED from RUMEX OBTUSIFOLIUS
    Revista Boliviana de Química ISSN: 0250-5460 [email protected] Universidad Mayor de San Andrés Bolivia Ibáñez-Calero, Sandra L.; Jullian, Valérie; Sauvain, Michel A NEW ANTHRAQUINONE ISOLATED FROM RUMEX OBTUSIFOLIUS Revista Boliviana de Química, vol. 26, núm. 2, julio-diciembre, 2009, pp. 49-56 Universidad Mayor de San Andrés La Paz, Bolivia Available in: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=426339672002 How to cite Complete issue Scientific Information System More information about this article Network of Scientific Journals from Latin America, the Caribbean, Spain and Portugal Journal's homepage in redalyc.org Non-profit academic project, developed under the open access initiative REVISTA BOLIVIANA DE QUÍMICA VOLUMEN 26, No.2 – 2009 Received: 10/09/09 Approved: 21/10/09 Published: 2/12/09 A NEW ANTHRAQUINONE ISOLATED FROM RUMEX OBTUSIFOLIUS Sandra L. Ibáñez-Calero1, Valérie Jullian2, Michel Sauvain3 1Instituto de Investigaciones Químicas (IIQ), Carrera de Ciencias Químicas, Universidad Mayor de San Andrés, (UMSA), La Paz- Bolivia. 2Université de Toulouse ; UPS ; UMR 152 (Laboratoire de pharmacochimie des substances naturelles et pharmacophores redox), F-31062 Toulouse cedex 9, France. 3IRD, UMR 152 (LPSNPR), F-31062 Toulouse cedex 9, France. Keywords: Rumex obtusifolius, Ferriprotoporphyrine Biocrystallization Inhibition Test, NMR, Malaria, Anthraquinone, structure-activity relationship ABSTRACT In this research we studied Rumex obtusifolius (Polygonaceae) along with other plants used in traditional medicine in relation to the chemical reaction FBIT (Ferriprotoporphyrine Biocrystallization Inhibition Test) which may provide information on a possible action mechanism for presumed antimalarial plants. According to folk medicine Rumex obtusifolius has a pronounced detoxifying effect on the liver and is used against jaundice and fever.
    [Show full text]
  • Please Don't Mow the Japanese Knotweed!
    A peer-reviewed open-access journal NeoBiota 60: 19–23 (2020) Please don't mow the Japanese knotweed! 19 doi: 10.3897/neobiota.60.56935 LETTER TO THE EDITOR NeoBiota http://neobiota.pensoft.net Advancing research on alien species and biological invasions Please don’t mow the Japanese knotweed! Daniel Jones1,2, Mike S. Fowler1, Sophie Hocking1, Daniel Eastwood1 1 Department of Biosciences, Swansea University, Singleton Park, Swansea, SA2 8PP, UK 2 Advanced Invasi- ves Ltd., Institute of Life Science 2, Swansea University, Singleton Park, SA2 8PP, UK Corresponding author: Daniel Jones ([email protected]) Academic editor: Ingolf Kühn | Received 27 July 2020 | Accepted 27 July 2020 | Published 12 August 2020 Citation: Jones D, Fowler MS, Hocking S, Eastwood D (2020) Please don’t mow the Japanese knotweed!. NeoBiota 60: 19–23. https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.60.56935 We welcome Martin et al.’s (2020) significant contributions toward advancing under- standing of Reynoutria japonica var. japonica (Japanese knotweed) clonal growth strate- gies and resource allocation in response to environmental heterogeneity; understand- ing knotweed ecophysiology is essential to inform and enhance large-scale invasive knotweed management. However, we strongly disagree that mowing should be recom- mended for the landscape management of invasive knotweeds on the grounds of lim- ited efficacy, practicality and environmental and economic sustainability. To achieve the successful control and long-term management of invasive rhizome-forming plants, we should do more with less, as the evidence guides us (Jones et al. 2018). Invasive Knotweed Management As Martin et al. (2020) state, Japanese knotweed is very difficult to control (Child 1999; Skibo 2007; Delbart et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Himalayan Knotweed
    www.nonnativespecies.org Produced by Michael Collings and Nicola Morris Himalayan Knotweed Species Description Scientific name: Persicaria wallichii AKA: Cultivated Knotweed Native to: China, India, Afghanistan, Nepal and Pakistan Habitat: Abundant throughout both dry and moist areas including rocky outcrops, meadows, riparian woodlands and marshes. Himalayan Knotweed is a lesser known relative of the notorious Fallopia japonica Japanese Knotweed ( ) yet is forecast to cause many of the same economic, environmental and social problems once it becomes better established. Popularised as an attractive ornamental, this species was first recorded in the UK countryside in 1917, but has since spread from the confines of the garden via underground rhizomes (subterranean rootlike structures) and the illegal dumping of green waste throughout the British countryside. Similar in appearance to its Japanese counterpart, P. wallichii is comparatively shorter, growing to a height of approximately 1.8m. Furthermore, in contrast to Japanese Knotweed which possesses distinctly triangularly shaped leaves, the leaves of Himalayan Knotweed are much longer, growing to 20cm in length and finish in a distinct point. Its current range is largely restricted to Scotland, Wales and the England-Wales border region. Commonly found along road verges, streamsides and grasslands, plants can grow rapidly from root fragments which rapidly develop into dense mats. This plant has no natural predators in the UK and its spread is of significant concern to areas inhabited by numerous threatened species of flora and fauna alike. Leaves grow to 20cm long Key ID Features Creamy-white or pinkish flowers growing in clusters Distinctive red petiole Clearly defined midrib Elongated leaves ending in a definite point Identification throughout the Year Similar to Japanese Knotweed, P.
    [Show full text]
  • Rumex Crispus L
    Ecological Studies of Rumex crispus L. Propagation, Competition and Demography Alexandra Pye Faculty of Natural Resources and Agricultural Sciences Department of Crop Production Ecology Uppsala Doctoral Thesis Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Uppsala 2008 Acta Universitatis agriculturae Sueciae 2008:101 Front cover: Fruits, young rosette, and taproot of Rumex crispus L. (Photo: Alexandra Pye) ISSN 1652-6880 ISBN 978-91-86195-34-2 © 2008 Alexandra Pye, Uppsala Tryck: SLU Service/Repro, Uppsala 2008 Ecological Studies of Rumex crispus L. Propagation, Competition and Demography Abstract The perennial weed species Rumex crispus L., or curled dock, is a major problem in agriculture in Sweden as well as in many other parts of the world. Its ability to establish quickly from seed, its persistent taproot system, high capacity of regrowth after cutting, and massive production of seed that remain viable in the seed bank for decades all contribute to the success of the weed. It is particularly problematic on dairy farms and in organic agriculture and difficult to control effectively, especially without the use of chemical herbicides. R. crispus and other weedy dock species have been well studied since the early 1900’s. However, the constant changes in agricultural practices and policies, affecting both the abundance and performance of the weed and the conditions for its control, call for a continuous renewal of the knowledge of the species. This thesis work was based upon a set of experimental studies dealing with several different processes in the life cycle of R. crispus. I have investigated time and pattern of seedling emergence, the effects of competition on the performance of juvenile plants, vegetative regeneration from underground parts, and population dynamics in an agricultural field.
    [Show full text]
  • Notes on Two Alien Taxa of Rumex L. (Polygonaceae) Naturalized in the Hawaiian Islands1
    39 Notes on Two Alien Taxa of Rumex L. (Polygonaceae) Naturalized in the Hawaiian Islands1 SERGEI L. MOSYAKIN (M.G. Kholodny Institute of Botany, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, 2 Tereshchenkivska Str., Kiev, 252601, Ukraine) & WARREN L. WAGNER2 (Department of Botany, MRC-166, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 20560, USA) During his stay at the National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC (US), in October 1995, the senior author studied specimens of alien taxa of the genus Rumex L. (Polygonaceae) collected in the Hawaiian Islands. As a result of these studies, 2 taxa new for the archipelago were discovered in the US collections, and among the BISH specimens sent on loan, one of which (Rumex conglomeratus Murray) was briefly reported in last year’s HBS Records (Wagner et al., 1997). Here we report an additional subspecies of R. crispus naturalized in the archipelago, give descriptions of both species, and provide a revised key to all of the species of Rumex in the Hawaiian Islands. Abbreviations in the key follow Wagner et al. (1990). Rumex conglomeratus Murray, Prodr. Stirp. Goetting: 52. 1770. Vernacular names: clustered dock, clustered green dock. Erect perennial herbs, normally glabrous (or occasionally lower surface of leaves indistinctly papillose along veins); stems 3–8(-12) dm long, branched in the upper 2/3 (sometimes branched with several stems from the base). Basal and lower cauline leaves oblong-lanceolate, obovate-lanceolate, or lanceolate, normally (5-)10–30 long, 2.0–6.0 cm wide; base broadly cuneate, rounded or truncate (rarely subcordate); apex subacute (occasionally obtuse); margin entire to weakly undulate.
    [Show full text]
  • Japanese Knotweed (PDF)
    Japanese Knotweed It is listed by the World Conservation Union as one of the world's worst invasive species.[15] The invasive root system and strong growth can damage concrete foundations, buildings, flood fences, roads, paving, retaining walls and architectural sites. It can also reduce the capacity of channels in flood to carry water.[16] It is a frequent colonizer of temperate riparian ecosystems, roadsides and waste places. It forms thick, dense colonies that completely crowd out any other herbaceous species and is now considered one of the worst invasive exotics in parts of the eastern United States. The success of the species has been partially attributed to its tolerance of a very wide range of soil types, pH and salinity. Its rhizomes can survive temperatures of −35 °C (−31 °F) and can extend 7 metres (23 ft) horizontally and 3 metres (9.8 ft) deep, making removal by excavation extremely difficult. The plant is also resilient to cutting, vigorously resprouting from the roots. Identification Identification of Japanese knotweed is not always easy. Many other plants are suspected of being knotweed, due often to the similar appearance of leaves and stems. Dogwood, lilac, Houttuynia (Houttuynia cordata), ornamental Bistorts such as Red Bistort (Persicaria amplexicaulis), lesser knotweed (Persicaria campanulata), Himalayan Balsam (Impatiens glandulifera), Broadleaved Dock (Rumex obtusifolius), Bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis), bamboo, Himalayan Honeysuckle (Leycesteria formosa), and Russian Vine (Fallopia baldschuanica) have been suspected of being Fallopia japonica.[17 Japanese knotweed has a large underground network of roots (rhizomes). To eradicate the plant the roots need to be killed. All above-ground portions of the plant need to be controlled repeatedly for several years in order to weaken and kill the entire patch.
    [Show full text]
  • Weed Risk Assessment for Rumex Confertus Willd. (Polygonaceae)
    Weed Risk Assessment for Rumex United States confertus Willd. (Polygonaceae) – Department of Russian dock Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service August 16, 2016 Version 1 Left: Rumex confertus in Poland (Barbara Tokarska-Guzik, University of Silesia, Bugwood.org). Right: Rumex confertus in Latvia (AfroBrazilian, Creative Commons). Agency Contact: Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory Center for Plant Health Science and Technology Plant Protection and Quarantine Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service United States Department of Agriculture 1730 Varsity Drive, Suite 300 Raleigh, NC 27606 Weed Risk Assessment for Rumex confertus Introduction Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) regulates noxious weeds under the authority of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. § 7701-7786, 2000) and the Federal Seed Act (7 U.S.C. § 1581-1610, 1939). A noxious weed is defined as “any plant or plant product that can directly or indirectly injure or cause damage to crops (including nursery stock or plant products), livestock, poultry, or other interests of agriculture, irrigation, navigation, the natural resources of the United States, the public health, or the environment” (7 U.S.C. § 7701-7786, 2000). We use the PPQ weed risk assessment (WRA) process (PPQ, 2015) to evaluate the risk potential of plants, including those newly detected in the United States, those proposed for import, and those emerging as weeds elsewhere in the world. The PPQ WRA process includes three analytical components that together describe the risk profile of a plant species (risk potential, uncertainty, and geographic potential; PPQ, 2015). At the core of the process is the predictive risk model that evaluates the baseline invasive/weed potential of a plant species using information related to its ability to establish, spread, and cause harm in natural, anthropogenic, and production systems (Koop et al., 2012).
    [Show full text]
  • Control of Docks (Rumex Spp.) in Organic Fodder Production – a True Bottleneck in Organic Farmed Branded Dairy and Meat Products
    Control of docks (Rumex spp.) in organic fodder production – a true bottleneck in organic farmed branded dairy and meat products Project description PART 1: The KMB project Summary Control of dock species are a true bottleneck in the development of grassland based organic production in Norway. Rumex obtusifolius, Rumex crispus and Rumex longifolius are among the most important perennial weeds in grassland areas throughout the world. These docks are undesirable in grasslands because they decrease yields and reduce forage feeding value. Numerous farmers feel powerlessness regarding how to manage the Rumex problem. Some farmers continue conventionally farming instead of organic, although they generally are motivated for transferring to organic production, due to the dock problem. The main goal of the project is a high quality and stable production of regional branded dairy and meat products based on fodder from grassland with non-chemical control of docks. This is to be achieved through knowledge on important factors that influence severity of dock infestation, studies on weak growth stages of docks, evaluation of biological control of docks and a synthesis of various measures to control these weeds. The return of the efforts of the project is increased organic production of meat and dairy products. 1. Objectives Main objective High quality and stable production of regional branded dairy and meat products based on fodder from grassland with non-chemical control of dock Sub objective 1 Reduce infestation of Rumex spp through knowledge on relationship between severity of dock infestation and grassland management, soil physical and chemical factors and site specific genetic variation. Sub objective 2 Improve dock control measures through a description of a life table of Rumex longifolius and evaluation of weak growth stages with emphasize on germination and early growth of seedlings.
    [Show full text]
  • Guidance Note on the Methods That Can Be Used to Control
    Guidance note on the methods that PB7190 can be used to control harmful 2002 weeds Crown Copyright - This document is subject to Crown copyright protection & has been reproduced under licence from the controller of HMSO. The user may not supply copies to third parties nor publish / sell this material to others with out written consent of the Controller. The ADLib Version - This document has been reproduced in full & the technical content is the same as the original. Presentation may vary from the original. Contents • Introduction 2 • Control methods 3 • Use of herbicides 4 • Non-selective herbicide treatment 5 • Selective herbicide treatment 6 • Ragwort control 7 • Ragwort control methods 11 • Spear thistle control methods 12 • Creeping or field thistle control methods 13 • Broad-leaved dock and curled dock control methods 14 DEFRA Primary responsibility for weeds control rests with the occupier of the land on which the weeds are growing. However, under the Weeds Act 1959 Defra can take action where there is a risk of injurious weeds spreading from neighbouring land. 1 Introduction This note provides guidance on the methods which can be used to control the five injurious (harmful) weeds specified in the Weeds Act 1959. The five weeds covered by the Weeds Act are: • Spear thistle (Cirsium vulgare) • Creeping or field thistle (Cirsium arvense) • Curled dock (Rumex crispus) • Broad leaved dock (Rumex obtusifolius) • Common ragwort (Senecio jacobaea) Further guidance on the identification of these weeds is available in a colour leaflet (PB4192) published by DEFRA This is available from DEFRA Publications. Primary responsibility for weeds control rests with the occupier of the land on which the weeds are growing.
    [Show full text]
  • Floron Risk Assessment of Four Asian Knotweeds in Europe
    Risk assessment of four Asian knotweeds in Europe R. Beringen, R.S.E.W. Leuven, B. Odé, M. Verhofstad & J.L.C.H. van Valkenburg FLORON report 2018.049.e1 Publication details Publication status: Final Report number: FL2018.049.e1 Date of publication: November 2019 Title: Risk assessment of four Asian knotweeds in Europe Citation method: R. Beringen, R.S.E.W. Leuven, B. Odé, M. Verhofstad & J.L.C.H. van Valkenburg (2019). Risk assessment of four Asian knotweeds in Europe FLORON report: 2018.049.e1 Cover photograph: Overgrowth of Bohemian knotweed (Reynoutria × bohemica) near Oosterbeek (Photo: Ruud Beringen). Project number: FL2018.049 Project leader: Baudewijn Odé Implementation: FLORON and Radboud University Nijmegen Project team: Ruud Beringen, Rob Leuven, Baudewijn Odé, Michiel Verhofstad and Johan van Valkenburg Commissioned by: Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality Netherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority (NVWA) J. Leferink Postbus 43006 3540 AA Utrecht Publication approval: B. Odé (FLORON project leader) Initials: © 2019 FLORON, Nijmegen. FLORON studies and protects wild plants. FLORON is a brand name of the RAVON Foundation. FLORON report no. 2018.049.e1 Contents Summary 7 Samenvatting 9 1 Introduction 11 1.1 Background 11 1.2 Research request 12 1.3 Document structure 12 2 Materials and method 13 2.1 Literature review 13 2.2 Taxonomy and nomenclature of the species being assessed 13 2.3 Delineation of species being assessed 13 2.4 Distribution in the Netherlands 14 2.5 Distribution in Europe 14 2.6 Risk assessment and classification using Harmonia+ 15 2.7 Comparison with other risk assessments 17 3 Reynoutria japonica – Japanese knotweed 18 3.1 Species description 18 3.1.1 Taxonomy 18 3.1.2 Nomenclature 18 3.1.3 Range 19 3.1.4 Characteristics 19 3.1.5 Reproduction and dispersal 20 3.1.6 Habitat and ecology 22 3.2.
    [Show full text]