ArticlePDF Available

A Meta-Analysis of Field Bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) Management in Annual and Perennial Systems

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

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.
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 66:540547.
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
®
(18642015) and Agricola
®
(19272015) 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 mixherbicide 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 cowplotpackages (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, 12 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, nis 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) 12 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 3AC). 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) 12 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 44:115124
Adams DC, Gurevitch J, Rosenberg MS (1997) Resampling tests for meta-
analysis of ecological data. Ecology 78:12771283
Anderson WP (1999) Field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis). Pages 123135
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 7477 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 11:291381
Burrows G, Tyrl R (2013) Convolvulaceae Juss. Pages 365375 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 32:472476
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 12:20772091
DiTomaso JM (2000) Invasive weeds in rangelands: species, impacts, and
management. Weed Sci 48:255265
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 90:669688
Ghosheh HZ, Hurle K (2011) Variations in morphology, phenology, and
herbicide sensitivity of field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) populations
from Jordan. Jordan J Agr Sci 7:634643
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 33:860861
Gurevitch J, Hedges LV (2001) Meta-analysis. Pages 347369 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 140:539572
Hakansson S (2003) Weeds with diverse life forms in various types of crops.
Pages 1655 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 80:11501156
Kettenring KM, Adams CR (2011) Lessons learned from invasive plant control
experiments: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Appl Ecol 48:970979
Koricheva J, Gurevitch J (2014) Uses and misuses of meta-analysis in plant
ecology. J Ecol 102:828844
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 61:6367
McErlich AF, Boydston RA (2014) Current state of weed management in
organic and conventional cropping systems. Pages 1132 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 148:7282
Phillips McDougall (2016) The Cost of New Agrochemical Product Discovery,
Development and Registration in 1995, 2000, 20058 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 48:640644
Timmons FL (1949) Duration of viability of bindweed seed under field
conditions and experimental results in the control of bindweed seedlings.
Agron J 41:130133
Timmons FL (1950) Competitive relationships of four different lawn grasses with
field bindweed and dandelion under frequent close clipping. Ecology 31:15
Todd FG, Stermitz FR, Schultheiss PC, Knight AP, Traubdargatz JL (1995)
Tropane alkaloids and toxicity of Convolvulus arvensis. Phytochemistry
39:301303
[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 62:672678
Weaver SE, Riley WR (1982) The biology of Canadian weeds. 53. Convolvulus
arvensis L. Can J Plant Sci 62:461472
Westra P, Chapman P, Stahlman PW, Miller SD, Fay PK (1992) Field
bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) control with various herbicide combina-
tions. Weed Technol 6:949955
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 51:672675
Wiese AF, Rea HE (1962) Factors affecting the toxicity of phenoxy herbicides
to field bindweed. Weeds 10:5861
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
57:15
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
... Herbicide application is the most common management option for the control of hedge bindweed, although mechanical and biological methods can also be used [14]. Mechanical control with repeated soil cultivation is aimed at the depletion of the root and rhizome reserve, with success here mainly relying on the correct timing of the tillage operations and the feasibility in the cropping system [15,16]. ...
... A meta-analysis of the control of field bindweed within annual cropping systems reported that herbicide use dominates in the literature, and that this represents an effective management strategy up to 2 years post treatment [14]. The most common herbicides used for the control of field bindweed are N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine (glyphosate), 3,6-dichloro-2-methoxybenzoic acid (dicamba), (2,4 dichlorophenoxy)acetic acid (2,4-D), 4-amino-3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridinecarboxylic acid (picloram), 3,7-dichloro-8-quinolinecarboxylic acid (quinclorac), 6-amino-5-chloro-2-cyclopropylpyrimidine-4carboxylic acid (aminocyclopyrachlor), and 2-(4-isopropyl-4-methyl-5-oxo-4,5-dihydro-1H-imidazol-2-yl)nicotinic acid (imazapyr) [14,19,20]. ...
... A meta-analysis of the control of field bindweed within annual cropping systems reported that herbicide use dominates in the literature, and that this represents an effective management strategy up to 2 years post treatment [14]. The most common herbicides used for the control of field bindweed are N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine (glyphosate), 3,6-dichloro-2-methoxybenzoic acid (dicamba), (2,4 dichlorophenoxy)acetic acid (2,4-D), 4-amino-3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridinecarboxylic acid (picloram), 3,7-dichloro-8-quinolinecarboxylic acid (quinclorac), 6-amino-5-chloro-2-cyclopropylpyrimidine-4carboxylic acid (aminocyclopyrachlor), and 2-(4-isopropyl-4-methyl-5-oxo-4,5-dihydro-1H-imidazol-2-yl)nicotinic acid (imazapyr) [14,19,20]. Herbicides are, in most cases, effective for the short-term suppression of field bindweed shoot biomass; however, long-term control and eradication is generally not achieved [21]. ...
Article
Full-text available
Hedge bindweed (Calystegia sepium L.) is a widespread troublesome perennial weed species that has strong rhizome regenerative capacity. Four pot trials with randomised, complete block designs were conducted in 2015 to evaluate long-term control of hedge bindweed using individual, tank mixture, and sequential applications of selected herbicides. Two different formulations of N-(phosphonomethyl) glycine (glyphosate; isopropylamine, trimesium salts) were applied at 2000 g active ingredient (a.i.) ha−1. Additionally, two synthetic auxins were applied as 3,6-dichloro-2-methoxybenzoic acid (dicamba) at 500 g a.i. ha−1 and the dimethylamine salt of (2,4 dichlorophenoxy)acetic acid (2,4-D) at 1000 g a.i. ha−1. Tank mixtures and sequential applications (12/24 h separation) of these different herbicides were also included. Long-term control of hedge bindweed, Calystegia sepium L., growth was evaluated 8 months after treatments, as comparisons of shoot and rhizome growth (biomass) between untreated and treated plants. There were no differences between the two formulations of glyphosate alone, with shoot and rhizome biomass reductions of 83% and 42%, respectively. Dicamba alone inhibited shoot and rhizome biomass by 86% and 67%, respectively. By itself, 2,4-D provided the greatest reductions in shoot and rhizome biomasses, 93% and 79%, respectively. Antagonism was seen in the tank mixtures of glyphosate and dicamba or 2,4-D. Tank mixtures were generally comparable to treatments of glyphosate alone, and were less effective compared to dicamba or 2,4-D alone. The greatest reduction of bindweed rhizome biomass was for sequential glyphosate trimesium salt followed by 2,4-D 12 h later, thus showing significantly greater efficacy over glyphosate isopropylamine salt (94% vs. 84%; p ≤ 0.05). These data for reductions of the growth of the rhizome biomass show that the sequential application of glyphosate followed by 2,4-D significantly improves long-term control of hedge bindweed.
... Herbicide resistance in weeds is inevitable in systems lacking diversity and integrated weed management (IWM) is essential; experience elsewhere suggests effective IWM is possible but needs continuing R, D and E effort and farm management skill (e.g., Preston, 2019). Currently the most important weed threat to wheat production is infestation by bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) but again the solution is integrated management, in particular herbicides and crop competition (Davis et al., 2018). The control of insects (largely aphids) also needs continuing R and D effort: the current reliance on insecticide contrasts with effective IPM 30 years ago (Meisner et al., 1992;Traxler and Byerlee, 1992). ...
Article
Full-text available
Continued global wheat yield increase (about 1.3% p.a. for 2000–2019) remains an essential condition for greater world food security. Relevant to this challenge is the rise in average farm yield (FY) of irrigated spring wheat in the Yaqui Valley of northwest Mexico from 2 to 7 t/ha between 1960 and 2019. Since the early 1950s the region has been the prime target of wheat research by the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre (CIMMYT) and its predecessors, research still having significant impact on wheat in the developing world, a grouping that today delivers more than half the world’s wheat. FY increase was investigated in detail by dividing the interval into three 20-year periods, correcting FY for the strong influence of inter-annual variation in January to March minimum temperature (Tmin J-M, warming lowering yield around 7%/°C) and measuring the remaining linear increase in FY (Fischer et al., 2022). Total yield increase, corrected for Tmin J-M and CO2 rise, relative to average yield in each period, was 4.17%, 0.47%, and 1.59% p.a. for 1960–79, 1980–99, and 2000–19, respectively. The breeding component, estimated by the increase in the Varietal Yield Index in farmers’ fields, rose at 0.97%, 0.49%, and 0.71% p.a., respectively. The remaining yield change (3.16, −0.02% and 0.87% p.a., respectively) comprised the net effect of improved crop management (agronomic progress) plus that of off-farm changes, together here called agronomy+ . Major changes in agronomy included: a large increase in fertiliser N use, benefitting early on from a large positive variety × N interaction; in the second period a switch to planting on raised beds and a decline in rotational diversity; and in the final period, consolidation of operational crop units and probably more skilful and timely management. Off-farm developments saw strong government financial support in the first period, but in the second period breakdown of the traditional small holder land system and withdrawal of government support. The last period saw better prices and improved access to technical advice. Breeding progress is expected to continue in the Yaqui Valley but at a slowly diminishing rate (currently 0.66% p.a.), while progress from new agronomy appears limited. Although FY gaps are small, some gap closing remains possible, and 1.2% p.a. FY progress is estimated for the next 20 years in the absence of new technologies. World wheat food security without area increase will increasingly depend on developing countries where yield gaps are generally wider and gap closing prospects better. Biophysical sustainability of the Yaqui Valley wheat system is moderately good but N management and diversity can be improved.
... In our study, short-duration grazing treatments did not elicit a response in cover of weeds. Although not a primary objective of this study, livestock grazing can be implemented in a manner that does not affect ( Davis et al. 2018 ) or even reduces ( De Bruijn and Bork 2006 ) the abundance of weeds. However, the short nature of this 2-yr study limits our ability to attest to long-term trends in the cover of weeds with respect to short-duration grazing treatments. ...
Article
Full-text available
Mesic meadows provide valuable water and forage resources for wildlife and livestock in the arid western United States. Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus), a species of conservation concern, rely on these habitats because they support forb species of high importance to broods during late brood rearing. Because mesic meadows comprise a small fraction of the landscape, identifying grazing strategies compatible with maintenance and production of mesic resources is vital to balancing livestock production with suitable conditions for sage-grouse. We evaluated relationships between short-duration grazing treatments and habitat components important to sage-grouse in mesic meadows. In 2019 and 2020, we implemented short-duration (16 d) grazing treatments that varied by season (Early: early June; Late: early August) and intensity (control: 0%, moderate: 30−40%, high: 70−80% relative use). We evaluated cover and biomass percentages of high importance forbs (HIF), soil moisture, and noxious weed cover before and after grazing and again after pasture regrowth (Early: ≈13 wk, Late: ≈6 wk). Short-duration treatments did not reduce HIF cover or biomass. Early-season (P = 0.018) and high-intensity (P = 0.04) grazing increased HIF cover during the pregrazing sample period from 2019 to 2020, suggesting positive effects of these treatments on HIF cover during the pregrazing sample period. Postgrazing HIF cover and biomass percentages remained similar across treatments. Percentages of HIF biomass after regrowth were greater (P = 0.04) in early-season than late-season treatments in 2020. Seasonal declines in soil moisture from pregrazing to regrowth sample periods were greater (P < 0.001) in early-season treatments than late-season treatments but not associated with grazing intensity (P = 0.60). Cover of noxious weeds remained unchanged under short-duration treatments. Our study emphasizes the potential of early-season, high-intensity grazing to increase HIF cover and biomass for brood-rearing sage-grouse in mesic meadows over short time intervals.
... As discussed above, herbicide-sprayed rows showed a higher percentage of NGW, such as S. asper or C. arvensis, whose management could be problematic (Davis et al., 2018). In contrast, mowing emerged as the most effective control method to limit the presence of these species in vineyard inter-rows, but its effectiveness decreased in vineyard rows, where these NGW species with a more competitive strategy seem to be favoured by irrigation application (Guerra et al., 2021). ...
Article
Full-text available
Agricultural expansion and intensification is a major driver of biodiversity loss. Conventional weed management (e.g. tillage, herbicide) has encouraged the promotion of a few more competitive species over a wide range of arable plants that are now in decline. A reduction in plant diversity would negatively affect the provision of key ecosystem services in agroecosystems. In vineyards, the use of plant covers has emerged as the principal alternative to conventional weed management, providing multiple ecosystem services such as enhance biodiversity, but usually with a decrease in yields in Mediterranean vineyards. This long-term study assessed how weed management (herbicide, mowing, tillage) influenced plant community composition, taxonomic diversity and vineyard yield. Plant surveys and grape yield measurements were carried out from 2015 to 2018 in an experiment established in 2008. Effects on plant community composition were analysed, focusing on two groups: noxious grapevine weeds and terophytic grassland species. In addition, three fundamental components of taxonomic diversity were measured: β-diversity, evenness and species richness. Linear mixed models and generalised linear mixed model were used to examine the response of different variables to weed management. Position (row, inter-row) as well as the indirect effect of adjacent management on the subplots were also included as fixed factors. Furthermore, the percentage of bare soil, related to disturbance degree associated with management , was explored as a potential predictor of taxonomic diversity and vineyard yield. Results indicated that plant community composition was affected by weed management and to a lesser extent by position. Noxious grapevine weeds were more abundant in herbicide-sprayed rows, while terophytic grasslands species showed a higher presence in mown subplots. Weed management had a strong effect on bare soil, which proved to be a good predictor of the variables studied. Indeed, the highest species richness were associated with the lowest percentages of bare soil (mown subplots), while the lowest values were found at high percentages of bare soil (tilled subplots). Herbicide showed intermediate values, with a response dependent on adjacent management. On the other hand, vineyard yields were higher with increased bare soil, although with the consequent loss of species richness. Conversely, mowing in spontaneous plant covers caused a decrease in yield, but still production was within the maximum limit established by the Regulatory Council, while increasing the species richness and a significant presence of therophytic grasslands species. These findings could foster the development of more sustainable management in Mediterranean vineyards.
... Of these 11 measures, 3.5% measured native plant abundance (n = 6), and 2.9% quantified native plant diversity (n = 5; Clewley et al. 2012). A further meta-analysis investigating the management of the invasive field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) showed that only 27% (n = 560) reported the short-term effects of IAS control on crop yields (Davis et al. 2018). ...
Article
Full-text available
Effective long-term management is needed to address the impacts of invasive alien species (IAS) that cannot be eradicated. We describe the fundamental characteristics of long-term management policies for IAS, diagnose a major shortcoming, and outline how to produce effective IAS management. Key international and transnational management policies conflate addressing IAS impacts with controlling IAS populations. This serious purpose-implementation gap can preclude the development of broader portfolios of interventions to tackle IAS impacts. We posit that IAS management strategies should directly address impacts via impact-based interventions, and we propose six criteria to inform the choice of these interventions. We review examples of interventions focused on tackling IAS impacts, including IAS control, which reveal the range of interventions available and their varying effectiveness in counteracting IAS impacts. As the impacts caused by IAS increase globally, stakeholders need to have access to a broader and more effective set of tools to respond.
... Of these 11 measures, 3.5% measured native plant abundance (n = 6), and 2.9% quantified native plant diversity (n = 5; Clewley et al. 2012). A further meta-analysis investigating the management of the invasive field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) showed that only 27% (n = 560) reported the short-term effects of IAS control on crop yields (Davis et al. 2018). ...
Article
Effective long-term management is needed to address the impacts of invasive alien species (IAS) that cannot be eradicated. We describe the fundamental characteristics of long-term management policies for IAS, diagnose a major shortcoming, and outline how to produce effective IAS management. Key international and transnational management policies conflate addressing IAS impacts with controlling IAS populations. This serious purpose-implementation gap can preclude the development of broader portfolios of interventions to tackle IAS impacts. We posit that IAS management strategies should directly address impacts via impact-based interventions, and we propose six criteria to inform the choice of these interventions. We review examples of interventions focused on tackling IAS impacts, including IAS control, which reveal the range of interventions available and their varying effectiveness in counteracting IAS impacts. As the impacts caused by IAS increase globally, stakeholders need to have access to a broader and more effective set of tools to respond.
... Although PRE-applied herbicides are mostly used to control bindweed seedlings, some products, like trifluralin, can suppress perennial vine emergence (Sosnoskie and Hanson 2016). Results from meta-analyses suggest that integrated practices, with or without herbicides, can be effective for managing field bindweed, although only a few studies have been conducted and few describe bindweed population dynamics over an extended time (Davis et al. 2018;Orloff et al. 2018). ...
Article
Full-text available
Field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis): “all tied up” - Lynn M. Sosnoskie, Bradley D. Hanson, Lawrence E. Steckel
Technical Report
Full-text available
This report is a narrative review of the effects reported in the scientific literature (peer-reviewed and indexed scientific publications showing quantitative evidence) about the relationships between a selection of nature restoration practices and food production. The reported effects are extracted from systematic reviews, meta-analyses and individual papers. As a narrative review, this is not a representative sample of all the available studies conducted on the topic. Although we cannot extract a quantitative estimate without a proper meta-analysis, our review suggests that nature restoration measures have a remarkably positive impact on food productivity in the long-term, while most of the short-term impacts are context- and species-dependant. Thus, we consider that the restoration of degraded and overexploited ecosystems is an insurance policy to ensure the long-term sustainability and resilience of our food systems.
Article
Field studies were conducted to determine hazelnut tolerance to quinclorac and clopyralid and control efficacy of Canada thistle and field bindweed at three commercial orchards in western Oregon. Hazelnut cultivars evaluated included ‘Jefferson’, ‘Wepster’, and ‘McDonald’. Clopyralid at 278, 547, and 1,090 g ae ha ⁻¹ , and quinclorac at 420, 840, and 1,680 g ai ha ⁻¹ were applied once a year as basal-directed applications to trees that were one-, two, and five-years-old. Treatments were imposed in the early spring of 2019 and reapplied in 2020. In both years, treatments covered hazelnut suckers. Hazelnut injury from clopyralid and quinclorac was consistently between 0% and 13% and not different from nontreated control plants (p>0.05) between 14 d and 455 d after initial treatment. Similarly, there was no treatment effect on plant canopy index, leaf chlorophyll content, trunk cross-sectional area, internode length, or yield among treatments, even at the highest rates of clopyralid and quinclorac. In separate efficacy studies, clopyralid (278 g ae ha ⁻¹ ) resulted in 68% Canada thistle control and did not differ when clopyralid was mixed with carfentrazone (278 + 35 g ai ha ⁻¹ ) or glufosinate (278 + 1,148 g ai ha ⁻¹ ). Clopyralid-containing herbicide treatments suppressed field bindweed growth but did not kill plants even when mixed with carfentrazone or glufosinate. Quinclorac (420 g ha ⁻¹ ) alone provided 80% control of field bindweed and 93 and 98% control when combined with rimsulfuron (35 g ai ha ⁻¹ ) or carfentrazone (35 g ha ⁻¹ ), respectively. Still, all herbicide treatments resulted in similar field bindweed biomass. Results indicate that clopyralid and quinclorac are effective tools to help manage Canada thistle and field bindweed and that hazelnut can tolerate clopyralid and quinclorac at rates equivalent to 4-fold commercial use rates not affecting plant growth and yield.
Article
Full-text available
Integrated weed management (IWM) is one of the most commonly referred to approaches for sustainable and effective weed control in agriculture, yet it is not widely practiced, likely because current IWM systems fail to meet performance expectations of growers. The effectiveness and value of IWM systems should increase with increasing application specificity and true integration made possible with contemporary advances in technology, information systems and decision support. IWM systems can be classified based on their degree of application specificity and level of integration of tactics. In the application specificity pathway, a tactic is applied at a range of scales, from subfield to plant specific. In the integration pathway, multiple weed control tactics are combined in a synergistic manner. We hypothesise that the full value of IWM can and will be realised only when current and emerging technological innovations, information systems and decision tools are synergistically combined for use in real time. The True IWM system we envision requires automation and robotic technologies, coupled with information and decision support systems that are available or emerging but not yet enabled, in a proven integrated platform. Examples of low-level, traditional and precision IWM systems are discussed, and research needs for a True IWM system are presented. We conclude that the immediate call should be for a long-term investment in R&D and education (both theoretical and empirical) to develop and implement True IWM systems, an effort best accomplished in a public–private partnership where all essential entities are fully engaged and adequately resourced, including growers from all countries who will utilise IWM.
Article
Full-text available
Modern weed science is at a crossroads. Born out of advances in chemistry, it has focused on minimizing weed competition with genetically uniform crops and heavy reliance on herbicides. Paradoxically, the success obtained with such an approach and the reluctance to conduct integrated and multidisciplinary research has resulted in unintended, but predictable, consequences, including the selection of herbicide resistant biotypes. Advances in eco-evolutionary biology, a relatively recent discipline that seeks to understand how local population dynamics arise from phenotypic variation resulting from natural selection, habitat distribution, and propagule dispersal across the landscape are transforming our understanding of the processes that regulate agroecosystems. Within this framework, complementary tactics to develop alternative weed management programs include the following: (1) weed scientists must recognize that evolution occurs within crop fields at ecologically-relevant time scales and is rooted in the inherent variation that exists in all populations; (2) weed management should recognize that the probability of a resistant mutant is directly related to the population size; (3) farmers need to acknowledge that herbicide resistance transcends any one farm and should coordinate local practices with regional actions; (4) incentives should be developed and implemented to help the adoption of eco-evolutionary management programs; and (5) risk analysis can help incorporate an eco-evolutionary perspective into integrated weed management programs.
Article
Full-text available
Field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis L.) infests roadsides, hedges, and parks, and is difficult to control with herbicides. In this work, the potential of the mycoherbicide Stagonospora convolvuli Dearness and House strain LA39 for use as a biological control of field bindweed was tested in a cemetery, where a groundcover of cotoneaster was extensively infested by the weed. Application of S. convolvuli resulted in extensive necrosis of field bindweed leaves within 20 days, and necrosis became more extensive in the 20 following days. Bindweed density decreased continuously to about half of that in the uninoculated control plots within 40 days after application. No effect on emergence of field bindweed was observed in the year following the application of S. convolvuli. In conclusion, S. convolvuli may be useful as a mycoherbicide for the control of field bindweed in amenity areas but it would need to be applied every year.
Book
Concerns over environmental and human health impacts of conventional weed management practices, herbicide resistance in weeds, and rising costs of crop production and protection have led agricultural producers and scientists in many countries to seek strategies that take greater advantage of ecological processes and thereby allow a reduction in herbicide use. This book provides principles and practices for ecologically based weed management in a wide range of temperate and tropical farming systems. After examining weed life histories and processes determining the assembly of weed communities, the authors describe how tillage and cultivation practices, manipulations of soil conditions, competitive cultivars, crop diversification, grazing livestock, arthropod and microbial biocontrol agents, and other factors can be used to reduce weed germination, growth, competitive ability, reproduction and dispersal. Special attention is given to the evolutionary challenges that weeds pose and the roles that farmers can play in the development of new weed-management strategies.
Article
Biotypes of field bindweed ( Convolvulus arvensis L. ♯ ³ CONAR) identified in Indiana varied widely in susceptibility to glyphosate [ N -(phosphonomethyl)glycine] but not to 2,4-D [(2,4-dichlorophenoxy)acetic acid] or bentazon [3-isopropyl-1 H -2,1,3-benzothiadiazin-4(3 H )-one 2,2-dioxide] in field tests. Significant differences in injury to two of the biotypes occurred with glyphosate applied at 1.12 to 4.48 kg ai/ha in greenhouse tests. Differences of greater than 70% in injury rating, root and shoot dry weight, and shoot regrowth dry weight occurred between the two biotypes at 2.24 kg/ha glyphosate. The susceptibility of the tolerant biotype at 2.24 kg/ha glyphosate was decreased by 40% as it increased in age, while the susceptible biotype sustained complete foliar necrosis when treated at all plant ages tested. Susceptibility differences between the two biotypes could not be correlated to differences in leaf stomatal or epidermal cell number. These studies suggested that the variable control of field bindweed observed in the field may be due to the occurrence of biotypes within a given population of this weed which differ in their susceptibility to glyphosate.
Article
Dicamba, 2,4-D, picloram, and commercially available premixes of glyphosate plus 2,4-D or glyphosate plus dicamba were evaluated alone and in combination for field bindweed control in a winter wheat-fallow system in Colorado, Wyoming, Kansas, and Montana. Approximately one year after application, herbicide mixtures containing picloram at 0.14 or 0.28 kg ai ha ⁻¹ provided the best control. In five of seven locations, the control provided by picloram in herbicide mixtures was greater than the control provided by glyphosate plus 2,4-D, 2,4-D, or dicamba when these products were mixed with picloram. Glyphosate plus 2,4-D or glyphosate plus dicamba premixes, or 2,4-D added to dicamba were less effective for long-term control of field bindweed than mixtures containing 0.14 kg ai ha ⁻¹ or more of picloram. Under drought conditions in Kansas in 1988, picloram did not control field bindweed as well as in Colorado, Wyoming, or Montana where rainfall was normal.
Article
Although stand-alone and integrated management techniques have been cited as viable approaches to managing Canada thistle [ Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop.], it continues to impact annual cropping and perennial systems worldwide. We conducted meta-analyses assessing effectiveness of management techniques and herbicide mechanism of action groups for controlling C. arvense using 55 studies conducted in annual cropping systems and 45 studies in perennial systems. Herbicide was the most studied technique in both types of systems and was effective at reducing C. arvense . However, integrated multitactic techniques, with or without herbicides, were more effective than sole reliance on herbicides for long-term control in both annual cropping and perennial systems. A variety of management techniques such as biocontrol, crop diversification, mowing, and soil disturbance provided control similar to that of herbicide. Our results suggest that many management techniques aimed at reducing C. arvense can also improve crop yield or abundance of desired plants. This study highlights the need to devote more research to nonchemical and integrated management approaches for C. arvense control.
Article
Five presumed biotypes were identified among field bindweed ( Convolvulus arvensis L. ♯ ³ CONAR) clones collected from a field population near Lafayette, IN. Consistent variations in leaf morphology, floral characteristics, and accumulation of shoot and root biomass were found between biotypes when grown in a controlled environment. The biotypes also differed in their flowering capacity. The earliest flowering biotype formed flowers 23 days before the latest and produced 19 times more flowers per plant, which indicated further differences in seed production potential between biotypes. Pollination studies helped to differentiate biotypes within the population and showed that the presumed biotypes were self-incompatible. Vegetative reproduction potential of the biotypes varied from 1.8 to 74.5% in the number of root buds that developed into shoots. The variability in growth and reproduction observed between these field bindweed biotypes may explain the survival and adaptability of a population of this weed as environmental conditions and control practices change.