A Comparison of Non-Chemical Alternatives for Reducing Creeping Thistle (Cirsium arvense) Abundance in a Conservation Grassland

IF 2.6 3区 农林科学 Q1 AGRONOMY
Mateo D. M. Ruiz, Matthew Twiggs, David J. Ramsden
{"title":"A Comparison of Non-Chemical Alternatives for Reducing Creeping Thistle (Cirsium arvense) Abundance in a Conservation Grassland","authors":"Mateo D. M. Ruiz,&nbsp;Matthew Twiggs,&nbsp;David J. Ramsden","doi":"10.1111/gfs.70063","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>Semi-natural grasslands harbour important biodiversity, yet managing them for nature conservation can involve toxic agrochemicals. This study compares treatment efficacy of two non-chemical methods of reducing creeping thistle (<i>Cirsium arvense</i>) abundance to the efficacy of a narrow spectrum herbicide containing triclopyr and clopyralid. We used six replicates of six 100 m<sup>2</sup> plots (<i>n</i> = 36) over 3 years to compare mechanical topping (cutting), manual pulling and no management to spot-spraying with Grazon Pro. Two complete thistle counts were carried out per year to quantify change in abundance. We also tested for temporal trends across 4 years, evaluated edge effects, and characterised spatial distribution. Leaving creeping thistles unmanaged yielded similar counts within years and a marked increase across years (effect size = 0.26; <i>p</i>-value = 0.001). The efficacy of topping compared poorly to spraying (effect size = −0.33; <i>p</i>-value &lt; 0.001), and no temporal trend was apparent. Conversely, manual pulling was marginally more effective than spraying (effect size = 0.15; <i>p</i>-value = 0.08), with a consistently negative temporal trend (effect size = −0.34; <i>p</i>-value &lt; 0.001). No temporal trend was detected in sprayed plots. Edge effects were negative in topped plots and positive in sprayed and pulled plots. Spatial distribution was random where thistles were left unmanaged (aggregation index <i>R</i> = 0.95), uniform in sprayed plots (<i>R</i> = 1.27), and clumped where thistles were pulled or topped (<i>R</i> = 0.69 and 0.89, respectively). These findings signify that manual pulling of creeping thistle is slightly more effective at reducing abundance than spraying, and is the only method that we tested to produce a consistent abundance reduction over time. We recommend that manual pulling replace spot spraying with herbicides on conservation grasslands to avoid the negative impacts of herbicide on biodiversity.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":12767,"journal":{"name":"Grass and Forage Science","volume":"81 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Grass and Forage Science","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gfs.70063","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AGRONOMY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Semi-natural grasslands harbour important biodiversity, yet managing them for nature conservation can involve toxic agrochemicals. This study compares treatment efficacy of two non-chemical methods of reducing creeping thistle (Cirsium arvense) abundance to the efficacy of a narrow spectrum herbicide containing triclopyr and clopyralid. We used six replicates of six 100 m2 plots (n = 36) over 3 years to compare mechanical topping (cutting), manual pulling and no management to spot-spraying with Grazon Pro. Two complete thistle counts were carried out per year to quantify change in abundance. We also tested for temporal trends across 4 years, evaluated edge effects, and characterised spatial distribution. Leaving creeping thistles unmanaged yielded similar counts within years and a marked increase across years (effect size = 0.26; p-value = 0.001). The efficacy of topping compared poorly to spraying (effect size = −0.33; p-value < 0.001), and no temporal trend was apparent. Conversely, manual pulling was marginally more effective than spraying (effect size = 0.15; p-value = 0.08), with a consistently negative temporal trend (effect size = −0.34; p-value < 0.001). No temporal trend was detected in sprayed plots. Edge effects were negative in topped plots and positive in sprayed and pulled plots. Spatial distribution was random where thistles were left unmanaged (aggregation index R = 0.95), uniform in sprayed plots (R = 1.27), and clumped where thistles were pulled or topped (R = 0.69 and 0.89, respectively). These findings signify that manual pulling of creeping thistle is slightly more effective at reducing abundance than spraying, and is the only method that we tested to produce a consistent abundance reduction over time. We recommend that manual pulling replace spot spraying with herbicides on conservation grasslands to avoid the negative impacts of herbicide on biodiversity.

非化学替代措施减少草地匍匐蓟(Cirsium arvense)丰度比较
半自然草原蕴藏着重要的生物多样性,但为了保护自然而管理它们可能涉及有毒的农用化学品。本研究比较了两种非化学方法降低匍匐蓟(Cirsium arvense)丰度的效果与含三氯吡啶和氯吡酯的窄谱除草剂的效果。在3年的时间里,我们对6个100平方米的地块(n = 36)进行了6个重复,比较了使用Grazon Pro进行机械打顶(切割)、人工拔除和无管理的情况。每年进行两次完整的蓟计数,以量化丰度的变化。我们还测试了4年的时间趋势,评估了边缘效应,并描述了空间分布。对匍匐蓟置之不理,在几年内产生了相似的计数,并且在几年内显著增加(效应值= 0.26;p值= 0.001)。打顶的效果与喷洒相比差(效应值= - 0.33;p值<; 0.001),且无明显的时间趋势。相反,人工拔除的效果略高于喷雾(效应值= 0.15;p值= 0.08),且持续呈负时间趋势(效应值= - 0.34;p值<; 0.001)。喷施样地无时间变化趋势。施顶小区的边缘效应为负,喷施和拔除小区的边缘效应为正。空间分布呈随机分布(R = 0.95),喷施样地呈均匀分布(R = 1.27),拔除或覆盖样地呈块状分布(R分别为0.69和0.89)。这些发现表明,人工拔除匍匐蓟在减少丰度方面比喷洒更有效,并且是我们测试过的唯一一种随时间持续减少丰度的方法。为了避免除草剂对生物多样性的负面影响,建议在保护草原上以人工拔除代替现场喷洒除草剂。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Grass and Forage Science
Grass and Forage Science 农林科学-农艺学
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
8.30%
发文量
37
审稿时长
12 months
期刊介绍: Grass and Forage Science is a major English language journal that publishes the results of research and development in all aspects of grass and forage production, management and utilization; reviews of the state of knowledge on relevant topics; and book reviews. Authors are also invited to submit papers on non-agricultural aspects of grassland management such as recreational and amenity use and the environmental implications of all grassland systems. The Journal considers papers from all climatic zones.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书