Content uploaded by Fabian Menalled
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Fabian Menalled on Aug 29, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
A Meta-Analysis of Field Bindweed
(Convolvulus arvensis) Management in Annual
and Perennial Systems
Stacy Davis
1
, Jane Mangold
2
, Fabian Menalled
3
, Noelle Orloff
4
, Zach Miller
5
and Erik Lehnhoff
6
1
Research Associate (ORCID: 0000-0002-0287-3871), Department of Land Resources and Environmental
Sciences, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT, USA,
2
Associate Professor, Department of Land Resources
and Environmental Sciences, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT, USA,
3
Professor, Montana State
University, Department of Land Resources and Environmental Sciences, Bozeman, MT, USA,
4
Associate
Extension Specialist, Schutter Diagnostic Lab, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT, USA,
5
Assistant
Professor and Superintendent, Western Agricultural Research Center, Montana State University, Corvallis, MT,
USA and
6
Assistant Professor, Department of Entomology, Plant Pathology, and Weed Science, New Mexico
State University, Las Cruces, NM, USA
Abstract
Field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis L.) is a persistent, perennial weed species that infests a
variety of temperate habitats around the globe. To evaluate the efficacy of general
management approaches and impacts on crop yield and to identify research gaps, we
conducted a series of meta-analyses using published studies focusing on C. arvensis
management in annual cropping and perennial systems. Our analysis of 48 articles (560 data
points) conducted in annual systems indicated that 95% of data points measured efficacy over
short time frames (within 2 yr of treatment). Furthermore, only 27% of data points reported
impacts of C. arvensis management on crop yield. In annual systems, herbicide control
dominated the literature (~80% of data points) and was an effective management technique
up to 2 yr posttreatment. Integrated management, with or without herbicides, and three
nonchemical techniques were similarly effective as herbicide at reducing C. arvensis up to 2 yr
posttreatment. In addition, integrated approaches, with or without herbicides, and two
nonchemical techniques had positive effects on crop yield. There were few differences among
herbicide mechanism of action groups on C. arvensis abundance in annual systems. There
were only nine articles (28 data points) concerning C. arvensis management in perennial
systems (e.g., pasture, rangeland, lawn), indicating more research effort has been directed
toward annual systems. In perennial systems, biocontrol, herbicide, and non-herbicide
integrated management techniques were equally effective at reducing C. arvensis, while
competition and grazing were not effective. Overall, our results demonstrate that while
chemical control of C. arvensis is generally effective and well studied, integrated and
nonchemical control practices can perform equally well. We also documented the need for
improved monitoring of the efficacy of management practices over longer time frames and
including effects on desired vegetation to develop sustainable weed management programs.
Introduction
Field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis L.) is a persistent, perennial species that was first
introduced to North America from Eurasia in the 1700s (Weaver and Riley 1982). While the
exact vector by which this species was introduced to North America is unknown, it is
possible that it was through a contaminant of crop seeds (Anderson 1999). Convolvulus
arvensis is among the top 10 most frequently listed noxious weeds in the United States and
Canada (Skinner et al. 2000) and is on 22 state noxious weed lists (USDA 2018). It can be
found in a variety of climates, ranging from temperate to Mediterranean, and across most
parts of the United States, Canada, and in parts of Africa, South America, Southeast Asia,
Australia, and the Pacific Islands (Weaver and Riley 1982). Convolvulus arvensis grows on a
variety of soils and occurs across a wide range of settings such as agricultural fields, pastures,
lawns, roadsides, and other disturbed areas, making this plant a widespread weed (Weaver
and Riley 1982).
The ability of C. arvensis to invade and persist in a variety of habitats can be explained by
its specific traits. Convolvulus arvensis is capable of vegetative reproduction through adven-
titious buds on its extensive root system, and its long-lived seeds (e.g., 20 or more years)
further complicate management (Timmons 1949; Weaver and Riley 1982). Convolvulus
Weed Science
cambridge.org/wsc
Weed Management
Cite this article: Davis S, Mangold J,
Menalled F, Orloff N, Miller Z, Lehnhoff E
(2018) A Meta-Analysis of Field Bindweed
(Convolvulus arvensis) Management in Annual
and Perennial Systems. Weed Sci 66:540–547.
doi: 10.1017/wsc.2018.25
Received: 31 January 2018
Accepted: 23 April 2018
Associate Editor:
J. Anita Dille, Kansas State University
Key words:
Integrated management; invasive plants;
literature review; noxious weeds; perennial
weeds
Author for correspondence:
Stacy Davis, Research Associate, Montana
State University, P.O. Box 173120, Bozeman,
MT 59717. (Email: stacy.davis1@montana.edu)
© Weed Science Society of America, 2018.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/wsc.2018.25
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Nova Southeastern University, on 29 Aug 2018 at 14:03:28, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
arvensis can store carbohydrate reserves in its roots, enhancing
survival and making management more challenging (Wiese and
Rea 1962). Additionally, certain management techniques, such as
mechanical disturbance, can exacerbate the problem by spreading
vegetative propagules (Hakansson 2003).
Convolvulus arvensis has direct and indirect economic
impacts across agricultural systems. The plant has a twining
growth habit, forming dense tangled mats that can interfere with
harvest procedures in annual cropping systems (Weaver and
Riley 1982). It competes for soil moisture and nutrients,
resulting in reduced crop yield (Weaver and Riley 1982). Boldt
et al. (1998) estimated that C. arvensis infestations resulted in
crop losses of more than $377 million per year in 10 selected
states in the United States. Impacts of C. arvensis in rangelands
and perennial forage systems are not as well documented, but
perennial weeds such as C. arvensis can have effects on perennial
systems, including decreased forage production and native plant
diversity, toxicity to livestock, and changes to ecological function
(DiTomaso 2000). Convolvulus arvensis has been noted as a
problematic weed in turfgrass (Guntli et al. 1998; Timmons
1950) and is a concern in perennial pastures, as it contains
alkaloids that are toxic in high doses and can cause digestive
disturbances to pigs and horses (Burrows and Tyrl 2013; Todd
et al. 1995). While C. arvensis is not as competitive in perennial
pastures and forages compared with annual cropping systems,
controlling this species is particularly critical if perennial systems
are going to be rotated into annual crop production where
C. arvensis can result in significant yield and economic losses
(Boldt et al. 1998).
Although stand-alone tactics, such as repeated use of culti-
vation (Bell 1990) and herbicides (Westra et al. 1992; Wiese and
Rea 1959), along with integrated management techniques (Wiese
and Rea 1959) have been suggested as viable approaches to
managing C. arvensis, it continues to invade and persist in tem-
perate regions of the world. Reviewing previous literature and
systematically summarizing results from past studies may
improve management strategies for C. arvensis, and meta-analysis
is a useful statistical tool to achieve this goal (Koricheva and
Gurevitch 2014). Meta-analyses are frequently used in agronomy
to identify promising management practices for maximizing crop
production or quality, or for reducing pest pressure (Philibert
et al. 2012). For example, through a meta-analysis of 100 articles,
Davis et al. (2018) found that while herbicides may control the
problematic weed Canada thistle [Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop.],
integrated multitactic techniques were more effective than her-
bicides alone for long-term control in both annual cropping
systems and perennial systems.
We conducted a series of meta-analyses to systematically
review and summarize results from previously published studies
involving C. arvensis management in annual cropping (row crop
and fallow fields) and perennial (pasture, rangeland, and natural
areas) systems. We analyzed annual cropping system studies
separately from perennial systems, but due to the limited
number of studies in perennial systems, some objectives
could only be assessed in annual systems. Our objectives were to
(1) assess the effectiveness of weed management techniques for
controlling C. arvensis, (2) compare short- and long-term
efficacy of different herbicide mechanism of action (MOA)
groups for controlling C. arvensis in annual cropping systems,
(3) compare effects of management techniques for C. arvensis on
crop yield, and (4) identify research gaps in the management of
C. arvensis.
Materials and Methods
We performed a literature search and series of meta-analyses on
C. arvensis management following procedures described in Davis
et al. (2018). Briefly, we first conducted a literature search of the
Web of Science
®
(1864–2015) and Agricola
®
(1927–2015) data-
bases in September 2015 using the key words “Convolvulus
arvensis,”“field bindweed,”“creeping jenny,”and “perennial
morning glory.”This resulted in 1,290 records after duplicates
from the two databases were removed (Figure 1). Following
guidelines by Koricheva et al. (2013), all references underwent a
filtering and inclusion process identical to Davis et al. (2018) in
which 1,290 abstracts and titles were screened for relevancy, and
the subsequent 482 full texts were examined to determine whether
studies met our preestablished inclusion criteria (Figure 1). We
included field studies that were replicated and examined the
relative efficacy of stand-alone or integrated weed management
techniques taking place in annual cropping or perennial systems.
We recorded means, measures of variation, and sample sizes for
both control and treatment plots from text, tables, or figures of
the selected literature following Gurevitch and Hedges (2001).
Means were quantitative response measurements for above-
ground density, cover, biomass, frequency, survival, or percent
control of C. arvensis. We extracted additional information on
type of system (annual vs. perennial), study duration, and details
of the treatment applied (e.g., herbicide type and rate, herbicide
MOA group). Data points using herbicides were included only if
the applied herbicide was approved for use in the United States
and if it was applied within label recommended rates (Greenbook
2017; Shaner 2014). Herbicide MOA groups were as follows:
2 (acetolactate synthase or acetohydroxy acid synthase inhibitors),
3 (inhibitors of microtubule assembly), 4 (synthetic auxins), 5 +
6 + 7 (inhibitors of photosynthesis at photosystem II site A or B),
9 (inhibitor of 5-enolypyruvyl-shikimate-3-phosphate synthase),
14 (inhibitors of protoporphyrinogen oxidase), 15 (inhibitors of
synthesis of very-long-chain fatty acids), and 27 (inhibitors of
4-hydroxyhenyl-pyruvatedioxygenase) (Shaner 2014). We inclu-
ded a “mix”herbicide MOA group, which we defined as an her-
bicide application including two or more herbicides from
different MOA groups. We also extracted data on crop yield,
when available, to examine how C. arvensis management tech-
niques impacted annual crop yields.
Following Davis et al. (2018), we used the log response ratio
(lnR) as our effect size measurement, where
lnR =ln XE=XC
[1]
and X
E
and X
C
are means of experimental (treated) and control
(nontreated) groups, respectively (Hedges et al. 1999). For exam-
ple, a 50% reduction in C. arvensis relative to a control group is
equivalent to an effect size of −0.7. We selected the response ratio
for our analyses, because it can be estimated without knowledge of
sample sizes or variances (Adams et al. 1997), as only 6% of data
points from annual cropping systems and 4% of data points from
perennial systems reported measures of variation. The response
ratio cannot be calculated when data points have response mea-
surements equal to zero, because one cannot take a logarithm of a
zero value (Koricheva et al. 2013). Furthermore, transformation of
data points by adding a small number to the numerator and
denominator of the ratio usually results in abnormally large effect
size estimates and is not recommended (Koricheva et al. 2013).
Therefore, 30 data points from annual cropping systems (5% of
Weed Science 541
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/wsc.2018.25
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Nova Southeastern University, on 29 Aug 2018 at 14:03:28, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
data) and 7 data points from perennial systems (20% of data) were
excluded from the analyses.
We used a nonparametric bootstrapping approach similar to
Adams et al. (1997), weighting each response ratio using sample
sizes with the function F
N,
where
FN=nE´nC
ðÞ
=nE+nC
ðÞ [2]
and n
E
and n
C
represent the number of replicates for the experi-
mental (treated) and control (nontreated) groups, respectively. We
used bootstrapping methods to calculate 95% confidence intervals
around the pooled effect size mean, with 1,000 iterations for each
management technique or herbicide MOA group (Adams et al.
1997). Individual management techniques or herbicide MOA
groups were considered effective at reducing C. arvensis if the
mean response ratio was negative and the 95% confidence interval
did not overlap zero (Adams et al. 1997; Gurevitch et al. 1992).
Mean response ratios from different management techniques or
herbicide MOA groups were considered different from one
another if their 95% confidence intervals did not overlap (de
Graaff et al. 2006; Ferreira et al. 2015). Management techniques or
herbicide MOA groups that only had one data point were included
in figures to note knowledge gaps and were not compared statis-
tically with other management techniques or herbicide MOA
groups, because confidence intervals could not be calculated. All
summaries and analyses were conducted in R statistical software v.
3.3.2, including the ‘plyr,’‘ggplot2,’and ‘cowplot’packages (R
Core Team 2016).
We conducted separate meta-analyses corresponding to each
objective. First, we evaluated efficacy of management techniques
for C. arvensis control separately for annual cropping and
perennial systems (Table 1). In addition to stand-alone practices,
we included the categories of herbicide integrated (i.e., any
combination of two or more management techniques with at least
one method using herbicides) and non-herbicide integrated (i.e.,
combination of two or more management techniques, none
including herbicides). In annual cropping systems, we only used
response measurements that considered a single year of treatment
to accurately compare short- and long-term effectiveness of
C. arvensis management. While land managers may conduct
management strategies every year for multiple years in a row, we
wanted to make valid comparisons between management tech-
niques in different time periods as is commonly evaluated in the
literature. If responses to a single year of treatment were mea-
sured over multiple dates, we extracted data from three defined
time periods (<1 yr, 1–2 yr, and >2 yr after treatment) when
possible and conducted separate analyses to compare manage-
ment across different study durations. Next, we examined efficacy
of different herbicide MOA groups in annual cropping systems
using the same time periods as we used for general management
techniques. Finally, for annual cropping systems, we compared
the effect of management techniques on crop yield. For this
analysis, a positive response ratio indicated an increase in yield,
while 95% confidence intervals overlapping zero indicated we
could not detect an effect of the management technique on yield
(Gurevitch et al. 1992).
In perennial systems, we conducted one meta-analysis examin-
ing general management techniques because there were insufficient
data (28 data points total) to split the analysis into time periods or
herbicide MOA groups or to examine how management impacted
desired plant communities. We did not compare additional specifics
Records identified through Web of
Science search (n = 1,155)
Screening
Included Eligibility Identification
Records identified through Agricola
search (n = 368)
Records after duplicates removed
(n = 1,290)
Abstracts and titles
screened
(n = 1,290)
Records excluded (not in
English, no treatments
applied to C. arvensis)
(n = 808)
Full-text articles assessed
for eligibility
(n = 482)
Full-text articles excluded
(did not meet study
inclusion criteria)
(n = 426)
Articles included in synthesis
(48 annual cropping articles: 560 data points)
(9 perennial articles: 28 data points)
Figure 1. Flow diagram depicting criteria applied during literature screening portion of the meta-analysis of Convolvulus arvensis management. In each box, “n”is the number
of articles described in that step.
542 Davis et al.: Convolvulus arvensis management
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/wsc.2018.25
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Nova Southeastern University, on 29 Aug 2018 at 14:03:28, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
of individual management techniques (e.g., timing, types of bio-
control agents, herbicide rates), because this level of detail was
outside the scope of our questions of interest, and there was
insufficient replication of specific practices within management
techniques to adequately compare them.
Results and Discussion
Convolvulus arvensis Management in Annual Cropping
Systems
From a total of 1,290 records, we extracted data from 48 articles
published between 1947 and 2015 (Supplementary Appendix S1),
resulting in 560 total data points (Figure 1). The majority of these
studies were conducted in North America (28 articles), while the
remaining took place in South Asia (12 articles), Europe (7 arti-
cles), and Australia (1 article). Studies took place across a variety
of cropping systems (e.g., wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), corn (Zea
mays L.), bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.)) and in fallow fields
(Supplementary Table S1).
Six management techniques were effective at reducing
C. arvensis <1 yr posttreatment: competition, herbicide, herbicide
integrated, mulch, non-herbicide integrated, and soil disturbance
(Figure 2A). Bioherbicide, fertilizer, and grazing had no effect on
C. arvensis <1 yr posttreatment (Figure 2A). Only two manage-
ment techniques were examined 1 to 2 yr posttreatment: herbicide
4
9
8
2
238
38
3
11
12
herbicide
mulch
herbicide
integrated
competition
soil disturbance
non−herbicide
integrated
fertilizer
bioherbicide
grazing
181
28
herbicide
integrated
herbicide
26
herbicide
−1 0
Effect size
A
B
C
Figure 2. Mean effect size (lnR) and 95% confidence intervals for Convolvulus arvensis abundance measured (A) <1 yr, (B) 1–2 yr, or (C) >2 yr after treatment in annual cropping
systems as a function of management techniques. For each management technique, the number next to the confidence interval represents the number of data points used to
calculate the mean.
Table 1. Descriptions of Convolvulus arvensis management techniques used in articles included in meta-analyses with the number of data points associated with
each type of system indicated.
Management technique Description Annual cropping Perennial
Biocontrol Biological control using insects or pathogens 0 8
Bioherbicide Plant extract used as herbicide 40
Competition Any method attempting to increase competitive ability, including manipulating row spacing or
revegetation
94
Fertilizer Soil amendments, including fertilizer or manure 8 0
Grazing Using animals to graze target species 2 2
Herbicide Applying herbicides 445 9
Herbicide integrated Any combination of two or more management techniques with at least one method using herbicides 66 0
Mulch Use of either plastic or organic mulches 3 0
Non-herbicide integrated Combination of two or more management techniques, none including herbicides 11 4
Soil disturbance Mechanical control methods including tillage, cultivation, hoeing, or harrowing 12 0
Solarization Heating the soil by using dark or translucent plastics 0 1
Weed Science 543
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/wsc.2018.25
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Nova Southeastern University, on 29 Aug 2018 at 14:03:28, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
and herbicide integrated, and both were equally effective
(Figure 2B). Herbicide was the only management technique
investigated >2 yr posttreatment (n=26), and a single application
was not effective at reducing C. arvensis, suggesting the reappli-
cation of herbicides is necessary for effective long-term manage-
ment (Figure 2C).
Herbicide, which was the most frequently evaluated manage-
ment technique (included in almost 80% of annual cropping
system data points), performed similarly to other effective man-
agement practices. Five nonchemical and integrated management
techniques were as effective as herbicide within the first year of
treatment (Figure 2A), and herbicide integrated was as effective as
herbicide 1 to 2 yr posttreatment (Figure 2B). Our results are
similar to a meta-analysis on C. arvense management in which
herbicide was the most studied management technique, yet
integrated management, with or without herbicides, was as
effective as or more effective than sole use of herbicides (Davis
et al. 2018). The economics associated with different management
strategies may influence which strategy is the best choice for
managers, especially if two appear to be equally effective. An
evaluation of the best set of management practices to control
C. arvensis should include not only the potential economic
advantages of herbicides but also the environmental, social, and
biological consequences (e.g., herbicide resistance and non-target
effects) of such decisions (Liebman et al. 2001). Although con-
ventional agriculture relies heavily on synthetic herbicides to
manage weeds, this can potentially lead to overuse and the
selection of herbicide-resistant biotypes (McErlich and Boydston
2014; Menalled et al. 2016). While the occurrence of herbicide
resistance across C. arvensis populations is relatively rare, one
case of resistance to paraquat has been reported (Ghosheh and
Hurle 2011). In addition, DeGennaro and Weller (1984) reported
differential sensitivity of C. arvensis wild biotypes to glyphosate,
suggesting that the selection of resistant biotypes could occur.
Overall, there were few differences among herbicide MOA
groups in terms of efficacy on C. arvensis in annual systems. Nine
of the 12 herbicide MOA groups examined within 1 yr post-
application reduced C. arvensis, and most were similarly effective
(Figure 3A). Herbicide MOA Group 7 was the only ineffective
herbicide MOA group, but data were limited for this group
(n=2). While herbicide MOA Groups 8 and 27 had negative
effect sizes, they only had one data point each, so comparisons to
other herbicide MOA groups cannot be made. Six herbicide MOA
groups were examined 1 to 2 yr postapplication, and half were
effective at reducing C. arvensis (herbicide MOA Groups 4 and 9
and a mix of groups; Figure 3B). Herbicide MOA Group 2 had no
effect on C. arvensis abundance, and herbicide MOA Groups 14
and 27 had one data point each, so comparisons to other herbi-
cide MOA groups were not made. Only herbicide MOA Groups 4
and 9 were examined for efficacy >2 yr postapplication, and
neither was effective for this time period (Figure 3C).
Our results showed that some herbicide MOA groups have
been studied more than others for C. arvensis management.
Herbicide MOA Groups 4 and 9 were the most studied groups
across all time periods (61% and 12%, respectively) and were the
only groups assessed for long-term efficacy (Figure 3A–C). These
two groups include systemic herbicides that translocate to the
root system, potentially providing long-term control for weeds
Figure 3. Mean effect size (lnR) and 95% confidence intervals for field bindweed Convolvulus arvensis abundance measured (A) <1 yr, (B) 1–2 yr, or (C) >2 yr after treatment in
annual cropping systems as a function of herbicide mechanism of action groups. For each group, the number next to the confidence interval represents the number of data
points used to calculate the mean. Groups are as follows: 2, acetolactate synthase or acetohydroxy acid synthase inhibitors; 3, inhibitors of microtubule assembly; 4, synthetic
auxins; 5, inhibitors of photosynthesis at photosystem II site A; 6, inhibitors of photosynthesis at photosystem II site B; 7, inhibitors of photosynthesis at photosystem II site A
(different binding behavior from Group 5); 8, inhibitors of lipid synthesis (not acetyl-CoA carboxylase inhibition); 9, inhibitor of 5-enolypyruvyl-shikimate-3-phosphate synthase;
14, inhibitors of protoporphyrinogen oxidase; 15, inhibitors of synthesis of very-long-chain fatty acids; 27, inhibitors of 4-hydroxyhenyl-pyruvatedioxygenase; and mix, includes
two or more herbicides from different groups.
544 Davis et al.: Convolvulus arvensis management
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/wsc.2018.25
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Nova Southeastern University, on 29 Aug 2018 at 14:03:28, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
that can resprout from underground structures (Lindenmayer
et al. 2013). Common MOA Group 4 herbicides used in studies
included 2,4-D (24%), dicamba (13%), and a mix of two or more
Group 4 herbicides (44%). Other MOA Group 4 herbicides
making up 19% of data points included dichlorprop, fluroxypyr,
MCPA, MCPB, mecoprop, picloram, quinclorac, and triclopyr.
MOA Group 9 herbicides (glyphosate) were used in 12% of data
points across all time periods.
In our selected literature, 27% of data points reported on how
various management techniques for C. arvensis impacted crop
yield, specifically corn, flax (Linum usitatissimum L.), lentils (Lens
culinaris Medik.), mustard (Brassica cretica L.), potatoes (Sola-
num tuberosum L.), sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench], and
wheat (Figure 4). Convolvulus arvensis management via herbicide
(n=119) or soil disturbance (n=5) did not have a positive effect
on crop yield relative to untreated controls, suggesting that
competition with C. arvensis was not limiting crop production.
Other environmental or biological variables (soil nutrient and
moisture status, crop injury, pathogen or pest pressure, etc.) may
have been more limiting in the studied conditions. All other
management techniques (i.e., competition, fertilizer, and inte-
grated management with or without herbicides) improved crop
yield. While fertilizer increased crop yield, it was not an effective
technique for C. arvensis management (Figure 2A). Integrated
multitactic techniques, with or without herbicide use, resulted in
improved crop yield but were studied less frequently (n=2 and 8,
respectively) than herbicide alone (n=119).
Convolvulus arvensis Management in Perennial Systems
There were relatively few studies on managing C. arvensis in
perennial systems compared with annual cropping systems. We
extracted data from nine articles published between 1947 and
2010 (Supplementary Appendix S2), resulting in 28 total data
points (Figure 1). The majority of these studies took place in
North America (6 articles), and the remaining took place in
Europe. Studies were conducted in forage fields, pastures, and
lawn/turf (Supplementary Table S2).
Six different management techniques were studied in perennial
systems: biocontrol, competition, grazing, herbicide, non-herbicide
integrated, and solarization. Half of these techniques (biocontrol,
herbicide, and non-herbicide integrated management) were
equally effective at reducing C. arvensis (Figure 5). Non-herbicide
integrated management strategies used in perennial systems
included combining competition (i.e., grass seeding) and water
manipulation (Timmons 1950), as well as competition (i.e., grass
seeding) and biocontrol (i.e., the fungus Sclerotinia minor)
(Abu-Dieyeh and Watson 2007). Competition and grazing had no
effect on C. arvensis in perennial systems (Figure 5). Only one
data point existed for the impact of solarization on C. arvensis,
so comparisons with other management techniques could not
be made.
Overall, low sample sizes among individual management
techniques (n<10) limited our inference within perennial sys-
tems and did not allow us to examine the effectiveness of man-
agement techniques in different time periods or across herbicide
MOA groups. Also, due to the lack of reported studies, we were
unable to analyze how C. arvensis management techniques
impacted abundance of desired plants or any other ecosystem
service provided by perennial systems.
Research Gaps
Despite the importance of long-term control and impacts to crop
yield in the management of C. arvensis, we found relatively few
studies that investigated these factors. Our meta-analyses in
annual cropping systems showed that most management tech-
niques were examined <1 yr after treatment, highlighting the
importance of following studies beyond a growing season to
develop sustainable weed management programs. Similarly, in a
review of invasive plant control research papers, Kettenring and
Adams (2011) found that the time frames of most studies were
short; 51% evaluated control after one growing season or less.
Furthermore, our results showed that certain management tech-
niques that are effective within a year of being applied may not be
effective after 2 yr. We also found that almost 75% of data points
from our analysis did not describe how a particular management
practice impacted crop yield, emphasizing the need for holistic
studies that measure the effects of weed management on desired
species.
8
8
119
2
8
5
soil
disturbance
herbicide
non−herbicide
integrated
herbicide
integrated
competition
fertilizer
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75
Effect size
Figure 4. Mean effect size (lnR) and 95% confidence intervals for crop yield in annual
cropping systems as a function of Convolvulus arvensis management techniques. For
each management technique, the number next to the confidence interval represents
the number of data points used to calculate the mean.
8
4
2
9
4
1
solarization
non−herbicide
integrated
herbicide
biocontrol
grazing
competition
−3 −2 −1 0 1 2
Effect size
Figure 5. Mean effect size (lnR) and 95% confidence intervals for Convolvulus arvensis
abundance in perennial systems as a function of management techniques. For each
management technique, the number next to the confidence interval represents the
number of data points used to calculate the mean.
Weed Science 545
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/wsc.2018.25
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Nova Southeastern University, on 29 Aug 2018 at 14:03:28, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
Our results showed that herbicide was the most frequently
studied management technique in both annual cropping and
perennial systems, but there were other less studied management
techniques that were equally effective as herbicides (i.e., integrated
practices and certain nonchemical practices). In addition to being
understudied, we found that many management techniques
included in our meta-analyses only took place in one country
(e.g., bioherbicide [United States], fertilizer [India], grazing
[United States], mulch [Greece]), suggesting the need to evaluate
techniques in a broader diversity of environments. When weed
management practices are combined, techniques may interact to
alter the effects on efficacy, crop performance, or environmental
services in either positive or negative ways, and these interactions
may be contingent on the environment and cropping system.
Researching nonchemical management practices will provide land
managers with broader options for long-term management of
C. arvensis. However, switching to more nonchemical management
practices will require a major shift in research priorities across the
public and private sectors (Young et al. 2017). For example, $2.52
billion was spent in 2014 by leading crop-protection companies to
conduct research and development on chemical control, but less
than 10% of that amount ($180 million) was spent to assess the
potential efficacy of biological control products (Phillips McDou-
gall 2016). The shift to more nonchemical management practices
also suggests the need for an interdisciplinary approach to address
economic, ecological, and crop yield considerations of different
management options compared with traditional weed management
approaches (Ward et al. 2014).
We found that some herbicide MOA groups have been widely
studied for C. arvensis management in annual cropping systems
(e.g., MOA Groups 4, 9, and 14, and mixes), but there are other
herbicide MOA groups that show promise yet have been resear-
ched less frequently. For example, investigating the potential of
herbicide MOA Groups 14 and 27 may be beneficial to weed
management, as these groups had negative effect sizes 1 to 2 yr
postapplication but only had a sample size of one data point.
Herbicide labels within these MOA groups claim to provide some
control of perennial weed species similar to C. arvensis.
Given that C. arvensis is on the noxious weed lists of many
states, we were surprised by the paucity of studies that tested
management techniques in perennial systems. We recommend
careful examination of the impacts of C. arvensis in such systems,
and if significant, further research in this area. Additionally, few
studies (<10% of data points) in our meta-analyses included
estimates of variability; reporting such measures of variation can
expand upon possible meta-analytical approaches used in the
future.
Supplementary material. To view supplementary material for this article,
please visit https://doi.org/10.1017/wsc.2018.25
Acknowledgments. The authors would like to thank the Montana Noxious
Weed Trust Fund and the Montana Wheat and Barley Committee for funding
this research. We thank Sean McKenzie for his assistance with statistical
analysis. No conflicts of interest have been declared.
References
Abu-Dieyeh MH, Watson AK (2007) Grass overseeding and a fungus combine
to control Taraxacum officinale. J Appl Ecol 44:115–124
Adams DC, Gurevitch J, Rosenberg MS (1997) Resampling tests for meta-
analysis of ecological data. Ecology 78:1277–1283
Anderson WP (1999) Field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis). Pages 123–135
in Anderson WP, ed. Perennial Weeds: Characterestics and Identification
of Selected Herbaceous Species. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press
Bell CE (1990) Non chemical control of field bindweed. Pages 74–77 in
Proceedings of the California Weed Conference. San Jose, CA: California
Weed Science Society
Boldt PE, Rosenthal SS, Srinivasan R (1998) Distribution of field bindweed
and hedge bindweed in the USA. J Prod Agric 11:291–381
Burrows G, Tyrl R (2013) Convolvulaceae Juss. Pages 365–375 in Burrows G,
Tyrl R, eds. Toxic Plants of North America. 2nd ed. Ames, IA: Wiley
Davis S, Mangold J, Menalled F, Orloff N, Miller Z, Lehnhoff E (2018) A meta-
analysis of Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) management. Weed Sci,
doi:10.1017/wsc.2018.6
DeGennaro FP, Weller SC (1984) Differential sensitivity of field bindweed
(Convolvulus arvensis) biotypes to glyphosate. Weed Sci 32:472–476
de Graaff M-A, van Groenigen K-J, Six J, Hungate B, van Kessel C (2006)
Interactions between plant growth and soil nutrient cycling under elevated
CO
2
: a meta-analysis. Global Change Biol 12:2077–2091
DiTomaso JM (2000) Invasive weeds in rangelands: species, impacts, and
management. Weed Sci 48:255–265
Ferreira V, Castagneyrol B, Koricheva J, Gulis V, Chauvet E, Graca MA (2015)
A meta-analysis of the effects of nutrient enrichment on litter decomposi-
tion in streams. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 90:669–688
Ghosheh HZ, Hurle K (2011) Variations in morphology, phenology, and
herbicide sensitivity of field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) populations
from Jordan. Jordan J Agr Sci 7:634–643
Greenbook (2017) Plant Protection Label Data. https://www.greenbook.net.
Accessed: December 6, 2016
Guntli D, Pfirter HA, Moenne-Loccoz Y, Defago G (1998) Stagonospora
convolvuli LA39 for biocontrol of field bindweed infesting cotoneaster in a
cemetery. HortScience 33:860–861
Gurevitch J, Hedges LV (2001) Meta-analysis. Pages 347–369 in Scheiner SM,
Gurevitch J, eds. Design and Analysis of Ecological Experiments. New York:
Oxford University Press
Gurevitch J, Morrow LL, Wallace A, Walsh JS (1992) A meta-analysis of
competition in field experiments. Am Nat 140:539–572
Hakansson S (2003) Weeds with diverse life forms in various types of crops.
Pages 16–55 in Hakansson S, ed. Weeds and Weed Management on Arable
Land: An Ecological Approach. Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing
Hedges LV, Gurevitch J, Curtis PS (1999) The meta-analysis of response ratios
in experimental ecology. Ecology 80:1150–1156
Kettenring KM, Adams CR (2011) Lessons learned from invasive plant control
experiments: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Appl Ecol 48:970–979
Koricheva J, Gurevitch J (2014) Uses and misuses of meta-analysis in plant
ecology. J Ecol 102:828–844
Koricheva J, Gurevitch J, Mengersen K (2013) Handbook of Meta-analysis in
Ecology and Evolution. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 498 p
Liebman M, Mohler CL, Staver CP (2001) Ecological Management of
Agricultural Weeds. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 546 p
Lindenmayer RB, Nissen S, Westra P, Shaner DL, Brunk G (2013)
Aminocyclopyrachlor absorption, translocation and metabolism in field
bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis). Weed Sci 61:63–67
McErlich AF, Boydston RA (2014) Current state of weed management in
organic and conventional cropping systems. Pages 11–32 in Young SL,
Pierce FJ, eds. Automation: The Future of Weed Control in Cropping
Systems. New York: Springer
Menalled F, Peterson R, Smith R, Curran W, Páez D, Maxwell B (2016) The
eco-evolutionary imperative: revisiting weed management in the midst of
an herbicide resistance crisis. Sustainability-Basel 8:1297
Philibert A, Loyce C, Makowski D (2012) Assessment of the quality of meta-
analysis in agronomy. Agr Ecosyst Environ 148:72–82
Phillips McDougall (2016) The Cost of New Agrochemical Product Discovery,
Development and Registration in 1995, 2000, 2005–8 and 2010 to 2014.
Pathhead, UK. 41 p
R Core Team (2016) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical
Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing
Shaner DL, ed. (2014) Herbicide Handbook. 10th ed. Champaign, IL: Weed
Science Society of America. 513 p
546 Davis et al.: Convolvulus arvensis management
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/wsc.2018.25
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Nova Southeastern University, on 29 Aug 2018 at 14:03:28, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
Skinner K, Smith L, Rice P (2000) Using noxious weed lists to prioritize targets
for developing weed management strategies. Weed Sci 48:640–644
Timmons FL (1949) Duration of viability of bindweed seed under field
conditions and experimental results in the control of bindweed seedlings.
Agron J 41:130–133
Timmons FL (1950) Competitive relationships of four different lawn grasses with
field bindweed and dandelion under frequent close clipping. Ecology 31:1–5
Todd FG, Stermitz FR, Schultheiss PC, Knight AP, Traubdargatz JL (1995)
Tropane alkaloids and toxicity of Convolvulus arvensis. Phytochemistry
39:301–303
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture (2018) The PLANTS Database. https://
plants.usda.gov/core/profile?symbol=COAR4. Accessed: April 5, 2018
Ward SM, Cousens RD, Bagavathiannan MV, Barney JN, Beckie HJ, Busi R,
Davis AS, Dukes JS, Forcella F, Freckleton RP, Gallandt ER, Hall LM,
Jasieniuk M, Lawton-Rauh A, Lehnhoff EA, Liebman M, Maxwell BD,
Mesgaran MB, Murray JV, Neve P, Nuñez MA, Pauchard A, Queen-
borough SA, Webber BL (2014) Agricultural weed research: a critique and
two proposals. Weed Sci 62:672–678
Weaver SE, Riley WR (1982) The biology of Canadian weeds. 53. Convolvulus
arvensis L. Can J Plant Sci 62:461–472
Westra P, Chapman P, Stahlman PW, Miller SD, Fay PK (1992) Field
bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) control with various herbicide combina-
tions. Weed Technol 6:949–955
Wiese AF, Rea HE (1959) Bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis L.) control and
seedling emergence as affected by tillage, 2,4-D, and competitive crops.
Agron J 51:672–675
Wiese AF, Rea HE (1962) Factors affecting the toxicity of phenoxy herbicides
to field bindweed. Weeds 10:58–61
Young SL, Pitla SK, Van Evert FK, Schueller JK, Pierce FJ (2017) Moving
integrated weed management from low level to a truly integrated and highly
specific weed management system using advanced technologies. Weed Res
57:1–5
Weed Science 547
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/wsc.2018.25
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Nova Southeastern University, on 29 Aug 2018 at 14:03:28, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
