Access to this full-text is provided by MDPI.
Content available from Plants
This content is subject to copyright.
Citation: Yu, P.; Marble, S.C.;
Minogue, P. Response of Tahitian
Bridal Veil (Gibasis pellucida) and
Small-Leaf Spiderwort (Tradescantia
fluminensis) to Postemergence
Herbicides under Greenhouse
Conditions. Plants 2024,13, 1513.
https://doi.org/10.3390/
plants13111513
Academic Editor: Zhiqiang Pan
Received: 18 April 2024
Revised: 14 May 2024
Accepted: 27 May 2024
Published: 30 May 2024
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
plants
Brief Report
Response of Tahitian Bridal Veil (Gibasis pellucida) and
Small-Leaf Spiderwort (Tradescantia fluminensis) to
Postemergence Herbicides under Greenhouse Conditions
Ping Yu 1, Stephen Christopher Marble 2,* and Patrick Minogue 3
1Department of Horticulture, University of Georgia, Griffin, GA 30223, USA; pingyu@uga.edu
2Department of Environmental Horticulture, Mid-Florida Research and Education Center,
University of Florida, Apopka, FL 32703, USA
3School of Forest, Fisheries, and Geomatics Sciences, North Florida Research and Education Center,
University of Florida, Quincy, FL 32351, USA; pminogue@ufl.edu
*Correspondence: marblesc@ufl.edu
Abstract: Tahitian bridal veil (Gibasis pellucida) and small-leaf spiderwort (Tradescantia fluminensis) are
both invasive species in natural areas throughout Florida. However, very little is known regarding
herbicide control. To provide land managers with herbicidal control options for both species, poste-
mergence herbicides were evaluated for efficacy in a greenhouse to identify herbicide options that
control both species under similar settings. Four herbicides, including triclopyr acid, triclopyr amine
+ 2,4-D amine, triclopyr amine, and glufosinate were applied at standard label rates and compared
to a non-treated control group for efficacy. Visual control ratings were taken at 2, 4, and 8 weeks
after treatment (WAT), and shoot dry weights (WAT 8) and regrowth dry weights (WAT 12) were
determined. Triclopyr (acid and amine) generally provided the most consistent control of both species
as evidenced by the visual control ratings and shoot dry weight data which showed reductions of
76% to 89% in shoot biomass at trial conclusion. Triclopyr + 2,4-D reduced shoot dry weights by 52%
to 54% and was the least effective when considering the control of both species.
Keywords: weed control; invasive plant; herbicide efficacy
1. Introduction
Numerous invasive plant species are introduced in Florida and spread rapidly due
to Florida’s geography, climate, and diversity in the horticultural and agricultural indus-
tries. Around 1500 non-native species have been documented in Florida, costing approxi-
mately USD 45 million annually to manage them in natural areas [
1
,
2
]. Two invasive plant
species including small-leaf spiderwort (Tradescantia fluminensis) and Tahitian bridal veil
(
Gibasis pellucida
) are prevalent in Florida and have garnered attention from land managers
in recent years [3,4].
G. pellucida is originally found from Mexico south to South America and was intro-
duced as an ornamental plant due to its unique growth habit and profuse flowering [
5
].
However, it escaped cultivation and has now been vouchered in 12 counties in Florida [
2
].
G. pellucida has also been a concern in other southern U.S. states such as Texas where
it is being monitored as an invasive plant of concern [
6
]. G. pellucida is not a regulated
(i.e., noxious) species nor classified as a category 1 or 2 invasive species by the Florida
Invasive Species Council (FISC) but is a concern among land managers as it is likely to
spread further into new areas and is difficult to manage [
7
]. Additionally, G. pellucida has
been estimated to have potentially higher spreading rates compared with a similar invasive
plant, T. fluminensis [8].
In contrast to G. pellucida, which could be considered a newly emerging invasive plant
of concern, T. fluminensis has been a troublesome invasive plant in Florida for years and is
Plants 2024,13, 1513. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants13111513 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/plants
Plants 2024,13, 1513 2 of 8
currently classified as a category I invasive plant by the FISC [
7
], indicating that the species
has been documented to alter native plant communities, change ecological functions, or
hybridize with native plants. T. fluminensis has been vouchered in over 20 counties in
Florida, primarily confined to central and north Florida [
2
]. Differences and similarities
between the two species have been detailed previously [
5
,
9
,
10
]. In brief, both plants are
spreading herbaceous groundcovers which root extensively along their nodes, have a high
propensity for spreading via stem fragmentation, and form dense vegetative mats on the
forest floor which alter the germination and growth of many understory species [4,6].
T. fluminensis has been the subject of numerous herbicide evaluations as it is a prob-
lematic species in Florida and other countries such as New Zealand and Brazil. Overall,
triclopyr (multiple formulations) has been the most consistently effective option across
many of the different studies [
4
,
11
–
14
], yet triclopyr can damage many native broadleaf
plant species [
15
], leading researchers to search for other viable non-chemical alternatives.
Artificial shading (reducing ambient light by 80–90%) has been shown to reduce T. flumi-
nensis cover by over 60% and was less injurious to native tree seedlings compared with
the use of herbicides but was not feasible in large-scale infestations [
15
]. Glyphosate is
another potential option but has provided variable control depending upon timing, rate,
and environmental conditions [
11
,
14
]. Other broadleaf active herbicides such as 2,4-D
have generally been ineffective on mature populations in the field [
14
,
16
,
17
]. While less
research has focused on managing G. pellucida, a recent report by Yu et al. evaluated G.
pellucida control with nine different active ingredients including 2,4-D, 2,4-D + triclopyr
amine, aminopyralid, fluroxypyr, glufosinate, glyphosate, metsulfuron-methyl, and tri-
clopyr (applied as either acid or amine formulations) in a greenhouse setting [
10
]. Following
eight weeks of evaluation, the data showed the most efficacious treatments consisted of all
triclopyr treatments along with fluroxypyr, glufosinate, and glyphosate providing similar
control. The results were similar to the previous greenhouse study, reporting T. fluminensis
control depending upon herbicide types and rates except for glyphosate, which provided
approximately 40% to 60% control [14].
Due to the growth habits of G. pellucida and T. fluminensis, it can be difficult to distin-
guish those two species in the field [
3
,
5
,
9
,
10
,
15
,
16
] (Figures 1and 2). As such, it would be
important for land managers to be able to properly differentiate the two species and have
established herbicidal control options to control both species. As no previous research has
simultaneously evaluated the control of these two species, the objective of this research was
to identify herbicide options that provide control for both T. fluminensis and G. pellucida
under similar settings and to determine if trends in herbicidal control differed between the
two species. As T. fluminensis has been shown to recover following herbicide treatment
under both field and greenhouse settings [
10
,
14
] and the regrowth potential of G. pellucida
has not been assessed [
10
], an additional novel component of this study was to assess the
regrowth potential following an initial biomass assessment. The overall goal was to identify
promising herbicide options that can then be evaluated in longer-term experiments on large
established populations under field conditions that control both species.
Plants 2024,13, 1513 3 of 8
Figure 1. Tradescantia fluminensis flower (left) and example of spreading growth habit (right).
Figure 2. Gibasis pellucida in flower (left) and example of spreading growth habit (right).
2. Results
For G. pellucida, triclopyr acid provided the highest visual control at the early evalu-
ation dates 2 and 4 weeks after treatment (WAT) with over 90% control (Figure 3A). The
lowest control was observed in plants treated with triclopyr amine + 2,4-D amine, reaching
only 39% control by WAT 8. By WAT 8, 90% to 98% control was achieved with triclopyr
amine and acid, respectively, while glufosinate provided a similar level of control (78%).
Plants 2024,13, 1513 4 of 8
Figure 3. Mean visual ratings of Tahitian bridal veil (Gibasis pellucida) (A) and small-leaf spiderwort
(Tradescantia fluminensis) (B) control following treatment with selected herbicides (triclopyr acid,
triclopyr amine + 2,4-D amine, triclopyr amine, and glufosinate) at 2, 4, and 8 weeks after treatment
(WAT). Means and standard error bars are shown and are pooled over two experimental runs.
The results for T. fluminensis in general followed the same trend as the results observed
in G. pellucida with the visual control ratings showing the highest control of plants treated
with triclopyr acid (94% control) or triclopyr amine (78% control), followed by glufosinate
(51% control), and the lowest control of plants treated with triclopyr amine + 2,4-D amine
(28% control) (Figure 3B).
Shoot dry weight data showed a similar trend as visual control ratings in G. pellucida
where triclopyr acid and amine along with glufosinate resulted in the lowest shoot dry
weights Figure 4A). The results from this study are similar to Yu’s [
10
] where triclopyr
(both acid and amine formulations) and glufosinate all provided a high level of G. pellucida
control, outperforming other herbicides evaluated, including 2,4-D amine, aminopyralid,
and metsulfuron-methyl. At four weeks following the initial shoot harvest, triclopyr acid
and amine also resulted in the minimum regrowth (0 and 0.4 g, respectively), providing
approximately 100% control of shoot regrowth in relation to the non-treated control group
(Figure 4B).
At this time, glufosinate provided a 76% reduction in regrowth, while triclopyr amine
+ 2,4-D amine resulted in the highest amount of shoot regrowth but still resulted in a
68% decrease in relation to the non-treated control group. Overall, the data suggest that
triclopyr (acid and amine) could provide persistent control of G. pellucida, significantly
reducing any regrowth potential that may arise following initial treatment. Glufosinate
provided a high level of visual control early in the experiment and was in general similar to
triclopyr in biomass reduction. However, glufosinate caused rapid symptom development,
especially when compared with triclopyr, which may have resulted in higher ratings during
Plants 2024,13, 1513 5 of 8
early evaluation periods. Additionally, as glufosinate is not fully translocated [
18
], further
testing is warranted to determine if glufosinate performs similarly to triclopyr under field
conditions using more mature populations as significant regrowth may occur.
Figure 4. Mean Tahitian bridal veil (Gibasis pellucida) shoot dry weight (A) and regrowth (B) (presented
in grams) following treatment with selected herbicides including triclopyr acid, triclopyr amine
+ 2,4-D amine, triclopyr amine, and glufosinate. Mean shoot dry weight and regrowth for small-leaf
spiderwort (Tradescantia fluminensis) are shown in graphs (C,D). Mean shoot dry weight for both
species (A,C) was collected at 8 weeks after treatment, while shoot regrowth (B,D) was collected at
4 weeks following the initial harvest (12 weeks after the initial treatment).
For T. fluminensis, shoot dry weight data confirmed the visual control estimates with
triclopyr acid and amine resulting in the lowest shoot dry weights (4.3 g and 6.7 g, re-
spectively), equivalent to an 85% and a 76% reduction in shoot dry weight relative to the
non-treated plants (shoot dry weight of 28.1 g) (Figure 4C). Treatment with either triclopyr
formulation resulted in no regrowth (Figure 4D). Glufosinate resulted in a 79% reduction
in regrowth (0.7 g) compared with the non-treated control (3.5 g) and was similar to both
formulations of triclopyr. Triclopyr amine + 2,4-D amine-treated plants showed the greatest
regrowth which was still approximately 70% less than the non-treated control.
3. Discussion
When comparing herbicides for G. pellucida and T. fluminensis control, the same efficacy
trend was generally observed with triclopyr acid providing the best control followed by
triclopyr amine and glufosinate, which performed similarly, and the lowest level of control
was achieved with triclopyr amine + 2,4-D amine. Overall, the control of G. pellucida tended
to be higher than T. fluminensis, based on both the visual control estimates and shoot weight
measures. This suggests that the current triclopyr amine recommendation for T. fluminensis
control would be expected to provide similar or greater control of G. pellucida if both species
co-inhabited the same area and needed to be managed. The use of triclopyr amine would
often be preferred over the use of the triclopyr ester formulation because of volatility
concerns and potential damage to non-target plants. While 80 to 90% control was achieved
with triclopyr in greenhouse experiments at rates as low as 1.7 kg ae triclopyr ha
−1
[
14
],
Plants 2024,13, 1513 6 of 8
less than 60% control was observed in the present study using a triclopyr amine + 2,4-D
amine combination with triclopyr applied at 1 kg ae ha
−1
indicating that a higher dose is
needed for consistent control. Data presented here along with previous reports suggest that
close to 100% control of either species could be achieved using triclopyr acid or amine at a
rate equivalent to 3.4 kg ae ha
−1
. It should also be noted that while glufosinate was found
to be an effective option in this study and in previous work for both species [
10
,
14
], longer-
term studies of regrowth potential are needed under field conditions. While glufosinate
provided reductions similar to that of triclopyr amine or acid, glufosinate-treated plants
demonstrated significant regrowth. This suggests that a control with a contact action
herbicide such as glufosinate may provide less control under field conditions and possibly
not be as effective as previously reported in greenhouse studies [10].
While much more research has been devoted to the herbicidal management of T. flumi-
nensis under field conditions [
4
,
14
,
16
], there are no previous evaluations of the herbicide
efficacy for the control of G. pellucida under field conditions. Research by Yu identified
efficacious options for G. pellucida under greenhouse conditions. This current work is
the first to report that, at least for the herbicides tested here, herbicides that have been
effective for controlling T. fluminensis would be expected to provide similar or greater levels
of control for G. pellucida [
10
]. As higher levels of efficacy are generally observed under
greenhouse conditions, all findings warrant further investigation on mature populations
under field conditions in order to develop effective management plans [19].
4. Materials and Methods
Studies were conducted in a greenhouse (60% reduction of ambient light) located at
University of Florida, Mid-Florida Research and Education Center in Apopka, FL, USA in
2022. In March, terminal stem cuttings (15 to 20 cm in length) of G. pellucida were collected
from a local park (Big Tree Park, Altamonte Springs, FL, USA, 28.7214
◦
N, 82.3005
◦
W),
while T. fluminensis cuttings were collected from a state park (Payne’s Prairie Preserve,
Gainesville, FL, USA, 29.6097
◦
N, 82.3005
◦
W). On the collection day, terminal cuttings of
both species were inserted into separate sets of nursery pots (diameter at top 16.4 cm and
bottom 12.5 cm, depth 17.5 cm, and volume 2.84 L) filled with a standard soil-less substrate
(Southeast Soils Inc., Okahumpka, FL, USA, pine bark:Florida peat:sand = 9:1:1, v/v/v) with
4 stems per pot. Two weeks after sticking, 11 g of control release fertilizer (17N-2.2P-9.1K,
Osmocote
®
Blend 17-5-11, 8 to 9 months, (ICL Specialty Fertilizers, Dublin, OH, USA)) was
top-dressed to each pot.
On 3 May, approximately 6 weeks after sticking cuttings (mostly cloudy skies, 26
◦
C,
76% relative humidity, and calm winds), each pot contained four individual fully rooted
plants that were approximately 40 to 50 cm in length. At this time, all plants were removed
from the greenhouse and placed onto a gravel area outdoors where selected herbicides
(Table 1) were applied using a CO
2
backpack sprayer calibrated to deliver 234 L ha
−1
using a TeeJet 8004 flat fan nozzle (TeeJet Technologies, Wheaton, IL, USA) at 241 kpa. All
herbicide treatments were selected based on previous efficacy studies conducted separately
on G. pellucida and T. fluminensis and included options that would be labeled for application
in and around riparian habitats [
10
,
14
]. Here, the herbicide options found to be the most
effective on G. pellucida [
10
] were evaluated again to monitor longer-term regrowth and
2,4-D amine + triclopyr amine and triclopyr acid were also included to determine their
efficacy on T. fluminensis, as they had not been tested in previous work. A non-ionic
surfactant (AirCover, Winfield Solutions, St. Paul, MN, USA) was added at 0.5% (v/v) to
triclopyr acid and triclopyr amine treatments based on manufacturer’s recommendations.
At 24 h after herbicide treatment, all plants were moved back inside the greenhouse where
they remained for the duration of the experiment. Plants were watered daily with 1.3 cm
overhead irrigation (Xcel-Wobbler; Senninger Irrigation, Clermont, FL, USA) via two
irrigation cycles throughout the experiment. The study was repeated following the same
methodology and timeline with treatment applications made on 10 May 2022 (clear skies,
26 ◦C, 46% relative humidity, and calm winds).
Plants 2024,13, 1513 7 of 8
Table 1. Selected herbicides evaluated for postemergence control of Gibasis pellucida and Tradescantia
fluminensis in greenhouse experiments in Florida.
Herbicide Trade Name Rate (kg ha−1)aManufacturer
Triclopyr acid bTrycera 3.4 Helena Agri-Enterprises, LLC, Collierville, TN, USA
Triclopyr amine + 2,4-D amine
Aquasweep 1.0 + 2.6 Nufarm Americas Inc. Alsip, IL, USA
Triclopyr amine bGarlon 3A 3.4 Corteva Agriscience, Indianapolis, IN, USA
Glufosinate Finale 1.1 BASF Corp., Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
a
Rates are given in kg acid equivalent ha
−1
with the exception of glufosinate which is presented in kg active
ingredient ha
−1
.
b
Herbicides were applied with the addition of a non-ionic surfactant (AirCover, Winfield
Solutions, St. Paul, MN, USA) at 0.5% (v/v) based on manufacturer recommendations.
At 2 weeks after herbicide treatment (WAT 2), plants were visually evaluated using a
control rating scale 0 to 100, with 0 indicating no control (no damage) and 100 representing
complete control (100% damage). Subsequent visual ratings were taken at WAT 4 and
WAT 8. At the conclusion of the experiment at WAT 8, plant shoots were clipped at the soil
line and shoot dry weight was determined after placing shoots in a forced-air oven at 60
◦
C
for 7 days until a constant weight was reached. The pots were retained in the greenhouse to
obtain the regrowth data. At four weeks following the first shoot harvest (WAT 12), the shoot
regrowth was harvested, and the shoot dry weights were measured with the same method.
The experiment was arranged in a randomized completed block design with 8 replications
for each herbicide treatment, being repeated in time. In all cases, a non-treated (water check)
control group of plants was maintained and used as a comparison.
Data from the two experimental runs were combined as there were no experimental
runs by treatment interactions. The significance of treatment effects was determined by anal-
ysis of variance (ANOVA) using R program software version 3.5.1. Multiple comparisons
were conducted using Tukey’s honestly significant difference (HSD) test at
5% probability
.
5. Conclusions
This study confirmed previous work and showed that triclopyr provides effective and
consistent control of both G. pellucida and T. fluminensis when applied at rates of at least
3.4 kg ha
−1
in the acid or amine formulation. While previous reports showed glufosinate
provided a high level of control based on visual injury ratings and shoot dry weight
reductions, longer-term regrowth data taken in this study showed recovery potential and
thus longer-term field studies are needed to confirm efficacy. Triclopyr + 2,4-D applied as a
tank mixture significantly decreased the above-ground biomass of both species but tended
to be less effective than the other options tested and would likely provide ineffective results
under field conditions due to the lower triclopyr rate utilized in the mixture.
It is also important to note that in this side-by-side comparison, G. pellucida produced
more biomass and had a higher propensity for regrowth in comparison with T. fluminensis
when both were tested under identical conditions. Thus, while the same herbicidal options
were effective for both species, land managers may need to inspect areas treated for
G. pellucida management more frequently to ensure recovery has not taken place.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, S.C.M. and P.M.; methodology, S.C.M. and P.M.; software,
P.Y.; validation, P.Y., S.C.M. and P.M.; formal analysis P.Y.; investigation, P.Y., S.C.M. and P.M.; re-
sources, S.C.M. and P.Y.; data curation, P.Y.; writing—original draft preparation, P.Y.;
writing—review
and editing, S.C.M. and P.M.; visualization, P.Y.; supervision, S.C.M.; project administration, S.C.M.;
funding acquisition, S.C.M. and P.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded in part by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission.
Data Availability Statement: Data are contained within the article.
Plants 2024,13, 1513 8 of 8
Acknowledgments: The authors wish to acknowledge Samantha Daniel, Annette Chandler, and
Yuvraj Khamare for technical assistance with this work.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design
of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or
in the decision to publish the results.
References
1. Hiatt, D.; Serbesoff-King, K.; Lieurance, D.; Gordon, D.R.; Flory, S.L. Allocation of invasive plant management expenditures for
conservation: Lessons from Florida, USA. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 2019,1, e51. [CrossRef]
2.
Wunderlin, R.P.; Hansen, B.F.; Franck, A.; Essig, F. Atlas of Florida Vascular Plants. 2023. Available online: http://florida.
plantatlas.usf.edu (accessed on 6 September 2022).
3. Hunt, D. A revision of Gibasis Rafin. American Commelinaceae XII. Kew Bull. 1986,41, 107–129. [CrossRef]
4.
Hurrell, G.; James, T.; Lusk, C.; Trolove, M. Herbicide selection for wandering Jew (Tradescantia fluminensis) control. N. Z. Plant
Prot. 2008,61, 368–373. [CrossRef]
5. Fantz, P.R.; Nelson, P. Nomenclature of Tahitian bridal veil. HortTechnology 1995,5, 144–146. [CrossRef]
6.
Rosen, D.J.; Faden, R.B. Gibasis pellucida (Commelinaceae), a new and potentially weedy genus and species for Texas. SIDA
Contrib. Bot. 2005,21, 1931–1934.
7.
Council, F.I.S. FISC List of Invasive Plant Species. 2019. Available online: https://floridainvasivespecies.org/plantlist.cfm
(accessed on 6 September 2022).
8.
Moriuchi, J.B. Comparison of Invasive and Noninvasive Commelinaceae in a Phylogentic Context. Ph.D. Thesis, Florida State
University, Tallahassee, FL, USA, 2006; 180p.
9.
Seitz, J.C.; Clark, M.W. Identification, Biology, and Control of Small-Leaf Spiderwort (Tradescantia fluminensis): A Widely Introduced
Invasive Plant; SL428/SS652; University of Florida, UF-IFAS Extension, Soil and Water Science Department: Gainesville, FL, USA,
2016; 7p.
10.
Yu, P.; Marble, S.C.; Minogue, P. Herbicide selection for controlling Tahitian bridal veil (Gibasis pellucida). Invasive Plant Sci. Manag.
2022,15, 194–198. [CrossRef]
11.
Brown, K.; Brown, D. Control to eradication of Tradescantia fluminensison Stephens Island (Takapourewa): The importance of
systematic and persistent effort. DOC Res. Dev. Ser. 2015,15, 1–11.
12.
Hurrell, G.; James, T.; Lamoureaux, S.; Lusk, C.; Trolove, M. Effects of rate of application of triclopyr on wandering jew
(Tradescantia fluminensis Vell). N. Z. Plant Prot. 2009,62, 363–367. [CrossRef]
13.
Lusk, C.; Hurrell, G.; Lamoureaux, S. Native plant and weed diversity in forest remnants affected by Tradescantia fluminensis
management. N. Z. Plant Prot. 2012,65, 74–80. [CrossRef]
14.
Marble, S.C.; Chandler, A. Efficacy of Postemergence Herbicides for Control of Small-Leaf Spiderwort (Tradescantia fluminensis) in
Florida. Nat. Areas J. 2021,41, 138–144. [CrossRef]
15.
Standish, R.J. Experimenting with methods to control Tradescantia fluminensis, an invasive weed of native forest remnants in New
Zealand. N. Z. J. Ecol. 2002,26, 161–170.
16.
Kelly, D.; Skipworth, J. Tradescantia fluminensis in a Manawatu (New Zealand) forest: I. Growth and effects on regeneration. N. Z.
J. Bot. 1984,22, 393–397. [CrossRef]
17. McCluggage, T. Herbicide Trials on Tradescantia fluminensis; Department of Conservation: Wellington, NZ, USA, 1998; p. 12.
18. Shaner, D. Herbicide Handbook, 10th ed.; Weed Science Society of America: Lawrence, KS, USA, 2014; Volume 13, p. 513.
19.
Riemens, M.M.; Dueck, T.; Kempenaar, C. Predicting sublethal effects of herbicides on terrestrial non-crop plant species in the
field from greenhouse data. Environ. Pollut. 2008,155, 141–149. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
