Invasive Species Compendium

Detailed coverage of invasive species threatening livelihoods and the environment worldwide

Datasheet

Carduus nutans
(nodding thistle)

Toolbox

Datasheet

Carduus nutans (nodding thistle)

Summary

  • Last modified
  • 27 September 2018
  • Datasheet Type(s)
  • Invasive Species
  • Pest
  • Preferred Scientific Name
  • Carduus nutans
  • Preferred Common Name
  • nodding thistle
  • Taxonomic Tree
  • Domain: Eukaryota
  •   Kingdom: Plantae
  •     Phylum: Spermatophyta
  •       Subphylum: Angiospermae
  •         Class: Dicotyledonae
  • Summary of Invasiveness
  • It is considered a serious pasture weed in parts of New Zealand, Australia, USA, Canada and Argentina. It can also create some problems in arable crops and seed crops in all of these countries. The aggressive growth and rapid spread of C. nutans that...
  • There are no pictures available for this datasheet

    If you can supply pictures for this datasheet please contact:

    Compendia
    CAB International
    Wallingford
    Oxfordshire
    OX10 8DE
    UK
    compend@cabi.org
  • Distribution map More information

Don't need the entire report?

Generate a print friendly version containing only the sections you need.

Generate report

Pictures

Top of page
PictureTitleCaptionCopyright

Identity

Top of page

Preferred Scientific Name

  • Carduus nutans L.

Preferred Common Name

  • nodding thistle

Other Scientific Names

  • Carduus macrocephalus Desf.
  • Carduus thoermeri Weinm.

International Common Names

  • English: musk thistle
  • Spanish: cardo almizclero; cardo pendiente; cardo rojo
  • French: chardon nu; chardon penche

Local Common Names

  • Germany: Nickende Distel
  • Italy: cardo rosso
  • Netherlands: knikkende Distel
  • Sweden: nicktistel

EPPO code

  • CRUMA (Carduus macrocephalus)
  • CRUNU (Carduus nutans)
  • CRUTH (Carduus thoermeri)

Summary of Invasiveness

Top of page It is considered a serious pasture weed in parts of New Zealand, Australia, USA, Canada and Argentina. It can also create some problems in arable crops and seed crops in all of these countries. The aggressive growth and rapid spread of C. nutans that has occurred in pastoral systems show that this species is capable of being very invasive if allowed to invade. Pastures that are subjected to fertilizers and over-grazing are particularly vulnerable, especially in temperate climates with rainfall between 500-1000 mm. It has been declared noxious in most countries where introduced to help curb further spread.

Taxonomic Tree

Top of page
  • Domain: Eukaryota
  •     Kingdom: Plantae
  •         Phylum: Spermatophyta
  •             Subphylum: Angiospermae
  •                 Class: Dicotyledonae
  •                     Order: Asterales
  •                         Family: Asteraceae
  •                             Genus: Carduus
  •                                 Species: Carduus nutans

Notes on Taxonomy and Nomenclature

Top of page Carduus is the Latin name for 'thistle' and nutans is Latin for 'nodding', referring to the drooping attitude of the mature flower heads (Popay and Medd, 1990). There is considerable variation within this species, and confusion still exists as to what rank to assign to variant populations. Within Europe where the species originated, Franco (1976) described seven other large-flowered Carduus species alongside C. nutans. However, he felt these taxa needed further study due to considerable variation within the group that made differentiation between the species difficult. Of these species, McCarty (1985) considered three of them to be present within North America, namely C. nutans, C. thoermeri and C. macrocephalus, but suggested that the similarity between the taxa meant they should be assigned to subspp. of C. nutans. Desrochers et al. (1988a) conducted a biosystematic study of the complex, including morphological, flavonoid and isozyme analyses. They concluded that these taxa within North America can be best described as one species with two subspecies, namely C. nutans subsp. nutans and subsp. leiophyllus (Petrovic) Stoj. & Stef. Plants within Australia and New Zealand appear to also belong to these two taxa, with most being C. nutans subsp. nutans (Popay and Medd, 1990). Due to the general confusion within the literature as to exactly which sub-species of C. nutans was present within each trial reported, no attempt will be made to separate out the subspecies within the present review.

Description

Top of page Popay and Medd (1990) provided the following description of C. nutans. It is an annual, or usually biennial herb initially forming a prostrate rosette. Cotyledons are nearly sessile, rather oblong in shape, often squarish tipped. The first true leaves are more or less opposite; develop simultaneously up to 2.5 cm long with soft-prickly teeth and some multi-cellular hairs. Very young rosettes are open, consisting of relatively undissected leaves bearing soft spines on the margins and sometimes with a few simple hairs on the upper surface. Young leaves are relatively soft and upright, especially in long grass or among other thistle seedlings. After three to five true leaves have formed, they become harder, spinier and pressed to the ground, forming a flattened rosette. Older rosette leaves are pinnatifid and undulating. Lobes are palmate or triangular, with prominently spined margins. Mature leaves often have a faint metallic sheen, and a whitish marginal zone, especially about the bases of the leaves. The rosettes have stout, sometimes branched, taproots which penetrate to 40 cm or more, helping to make them more tolerant of drought than many other pasture species.

The reproductive phase begins when the apex of the rosette elongates ('bolts') after vernalization, with some rosette leaves being carried up on the stem while the remainder die. An erect branched stem up to 150 cm tall rapidly forms. Damage to the apex may result in the formation of several stems. The stems are woolly, spinous-winged, with peduncles naked for a variable distance below the head. Solitary terminal capitula form first on the main stems then successively on lower branches. The emerging buds are upright initially then drooping distinctively at right angles or more to the stem at maturity. Flower heads are woolly, up to 6 cm in diameter, surrounded by several whorls of spiny tipped, often purplish phyllaries. The outer ones reflex at maturity, and phyllaries of intermediate whorls are constricted in the middle, with bases broader than the blades. The corolla is bright crimson or crimson-purple in colour, rarely white. Achenes are 3.0-4.5 mm long, fawn, with fine transverse wrinkles. Pappus consists of numerous simple white hairs are up to 2 cm long.

Desrochers et al. (1988a) state that C. nutans subsp. nutans have phyllaries with arachnoid hairs and which have their lower portions equal or slightly narrower than their upper portions. The leaves are moderately to densely pubescent and the flower head is 1.5-3.5 cm in diameter. The achene is 3.2-3.8 mm long. In contrast, C. nutans subsp. leiophyllus have glabrous phyllaries with their lower portions definitely narrower than their upper portions. The leaves are glabrous to slightly pubescent and flower heads with diameters of 1.8-4.5 cm (sometimes to 7 cm). Achenes are 4.0-5.0 mm long.

Plant Type

Top of page Annual
Biennial
Broadleaved
Herbaceous
Seed propagated

Distribution Table

Top of page

The distribution in this summary table is based on all the information available. When several references are cited, they may give conflicting information on the status. Further details may be available for individual references in the Distribution Table Details section which can be selected by going to Generate Report.

Continent/Country/RegionDistributionLast ReportedOriginFirst ReportedInvasiveReferenceNotes

Asia

ArmeniaPresentNativeUSDA-ARS, 2003
AzerbaijanPresentNativeUSDA-ARS, 2003
ChinaRestricted distribution Invasive Ichizen et al., 1993
-Nei MengguPresentLiu et al., 2003
-XinjiangPresentNativeFlora of China Editorial Committee, 2003; USDA-ARS, 2003
Georgia (Republic of)PresentNativeMissouri Botanical Garden, 2003; USDA-ARS, 2003
IranPresentNative Not invasive Holm et al., 1979
KazakhstanPresentNativeUSDA-ARS, 2003
KyrgyzstanPresentNativeMissouri Botanical Garden, 2003; USDA-ARS, 2003
TurkeyWidespreadNative Invasive Holm et al., 1979

Africa

TunisiaPresentNative Not invasive Medd and Smith, 1978

North America

CanadaPresentPresent based on regional distribution.
-AlbertaRestricted distributionIntroduced Invasive Desrochers et al., 1988b
-British ColumbiaRestricted distributionIntroduced Invasive Desrochers et al., 1988b
-ManitobaWidespreadIntroduced Invasive Desrochers et al., 1988b
-New BrunswickWidespreadIntroduced1871 Invasive Desrochers et al., 1988b
-Newfoundland and LabradorRestricted distributionIntroduced Invasive Desrochers et al., 1988b
-OntarioWidespreadIntroduced1920 Invasive Desrochers et al., 1988b
-QuebecPresentIntroducedRoyal Botanical Gardens Canada, 2003
-SaskatchewanWidespreadIntroduced Invasive Desrochers et al., 1988b
USAPresentPresent based on regional distribution.
-AlabamaRestricted distributionIntroduced Invasive Dunn, 1976
-ArizonaPresent, few occurrencesIntroduced Invasive Dunn, 1976
-ArkansasWidespreadIntroduced Invasive Dunn, 1976
-CaliforniaWidespreadIntroduced Invasive Dunn, 1976
-ColoradoPresentIntroduced Invasive USDA-NRCS, 2002
-ConnecticutPresentIntroduced Invasive USDA-NRCS, 2002
-DelawarePresent, few occurrencesIntroduced Invasive Dunn, 1976
-GeorgiaPresentIntroduced Invasive USDA-NRCS, 2002
-IdahoWidespreadIntroduced Invasive Dunn, 1976
-IllinoisWidespreadIntroduced Invasive Dunn, 1976
-IndianaPresentIntroduced Invasive USDA-NRCS, 2002
-IowaWidespreadIntroduced Invasive Dunn, 1976
-KansasWidespreadIntroduced Invasive Dunn, 1976
-KentuckyWidespreadIntroduced Invasive Dunn, 1976
-LouisianaWidespreadIntroduced Invasive Dunn, 1976
-MarylandWidespreadIntroduced Invasive Dunn, 1976
-MassachusettsPresent, few occurrencesIntroduced Invasive Dunn, 1976
-MichiganPresentIntroduced Invasive USDA-NRCS, 2002
-MinnesotaWidespreadIntroduced Invasive Dunn, 1976
-MississippiPresent, few occurrencesIntroduced Invasive Dunn, 1976
-MissouriWidespreadIntroduced Invasive Dunn, 1976
-MontanaWidespreadIntroduced Invasive Dunn, 1976
-NebraskaWidespreadIntroduced Invasive Dunn, 1976
-NevadaRestricted distributionIntroduced Invasive Dunn, 1976
-New HampshirePresentIntroduced Invasive USDA-NRCS, 2002
-New JerseyRestricted distributionIntroduced1853 Invasive Dunn, 1976
-New MexicoPresent, few occurrencesIntroduced1853 Invasive Dunn, 1976
-New YorkPresent, few occurrencesIntroduced1853 Invasive Dunn, 1976
-North CarolinaPresent, few occurrencesIntroduced Invasive Dunn, 1976
-North DakotaWidespreadIntroduced Invasive Dunn, 1976
-OhioRestricted distributionIntroduced Invasive Dunn, 1976
-OklahomaWidespreadIntroduced Invasive Dunn, 1976
-OregonRestricted distributionIntroduced Invasive Dunn, 1976
-PennsylvaniaRestricted distributionIntroduced Invasive Dunn, 1976
-Rhode IslandPresentIntroduced Invasive USDA-NRCS, 2002
-South CarolinaRestricted distributionIntroduced Invasive Dunn, 1976
-South DakotaWidespreadIntroduced Invasive Dunn, 1976
-TennesseeWidespreadIntroduced Invasive Dunn, 1976
-TexasPresent, few occurrencesIntroduced Invasive Dunn, 1976
-UtahWidespreadIntroduced Invasive Dunn, 1976
-VirginiaWidespreadIntroduced Invasive Dunn, 1976
-WashingtonRestricted distributionIntroduced Invasive Dunn, 1976
-West VirginiaWidespreadIntroduced Invasive Dunn, 1976
-WisconsinWidespreadIntroduced Invasive Dunn, 1976
-WyomingWidespreadIntroduced Invasive Dunn, 1976

South America

ArgentinaPresentIntroduced1920s Invasive Holm et al., 1979
UruguayRestricted distributionIntroduced Invasive Holm et al., 1979

Europe

AustriaWidespreadNative Invasive Holm et al., 1979
BelgiumPresentNative Not invasive Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh, 2003
Czech RepublicPresentNative Not invasive Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh, 2003
EstoniaPresentNativeUSDA-ARS, 2003
FinlandPresentNative Not invasive Medd and Smith, 1978
FrancePresentNative Not invasive Holm et al., 1979
GermanyWidespreadNative Invasive Holm et al., 1979
HungaryWidespreadNative Invasive Holm et al., 1979
ItalyPresent, few occurrencesNative Not invasive Holm et al., 1979
LatviaPresentNativeUSDA-ARS, 2003
LithuaniaPresentNativeUSDA-ARS, 2003
MoldovaPresentNative Not invasive Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh, 2003
NetherlandsPresentNative Not invasive Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh, 2003
NorwayPresentNative Not invasive Medd and Smith, 1978
PolandWidespreadNative Invasive Holm et al., 1979
Russian FederationWidespreadNative Invasive Holm et al., 1979
-Central RussiaPresentNativeUSDA-ARS, 2003
-Northern RussiaPresentNativeUSDA-ARS, 2003
-Southern RussiaPresentNative Not invasive Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh, 2003
SerbiaPresentNative Not invasive Holm et al., 1979
SlovakiaPresentNative Not invasive Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh, 2003
SpainPresentNativeRoyal Botanic Garden Edinburgh, 2003
SwedenPresentNative Not invasive Medd and Smith, 1978
SwitzerlandPresentNative Not invasive Medd and Smith, 1978
UKWidespreadNative Not invasive Perring, 2002
UkrainePresentNative Not invasive Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh, 2003

Oceania

AustraliaPresentPresent based on regional distribution.
-New South WalesWidespreadIntroduced1950 Invasive Medd, 1987
-QueenslandRestricted distributionIntroduced Invasive Doing et al., 1969
-South AustraliaEradicatedIntroduced Invasive Medd, 1987
-TasmaniaRestricted distributionIntroduced Invasive Medd, 1987
-VictoriaPresent, few occurrencesIntroduced Invasive Medd, 1987
-Western AustraliaEradicatedIntroduced Invasive Medd, 1987
New ZealandWidespreadIntroduced1889 Invasive Webb et al., 1988

History of Introduction and Spread

Top of page C. nutans is thought to have first arrived in the USA in 1853 within ship's ballast dumped at Camden, New Jersey (Dunn, 1976). Other sightings of the weed were made in eastern North America (from New Brunswick, Canada to New York and Pennsylvania, USA) between 1853 to 1882. From these scattered infestations, the weed has spread through USA and Canada, probably in farm seed and hay (Desrochers et al., 1988b). It is recorded as reaching Otago, New Zealand in 1889 (Popay and Medd, 1990) and has since spread to other parts of the country, probably also in pasture seed and hay. It was first introduced from New Zealand to Australia in 1950 as a contaminant within pea (Pisum sativum) seed (Medd, 1987), though has probably been introduced many times in different lots of seeds imported into Australia, both from New Zealand and the United Kingdom (Doing et al., 1969). C. nutans was reported by Doing et al. (1969) as being well established in Argentina in the 1920s.

Risk of Introduction

Top of page Due to tightening regulations concerning the movement of weed seeds with crop seeds, this pathway is now less likely than in the past. However, uncertified seed is still transported within countries and occasionally between countries. Movement with hay is the other main pathway for long-distance dispersal within countries.

Habitat

Top of page C. nutans occurs naturally in a wide range of climates in Europe, Asia Minor and North Africa (Popay and Medd, 1990). Within its native range in Britain, it is considered to be a weed of rough, often overgrazed or recently established pastures, on roadsides and disturbed places, mainly on chalk, limestone or limestone-enriched soils, and also sandy or shingly ground (Perring, 2002). In Italy, it is usually found in loamy-sand soil of marginal productivity that has been disturbed by man or animals (Boldt, 1978). It has since spread to improved grasslands in parts of Canada, USA, Australia and New Zealand, where it does best if soil fertility is good, winters are cool but autumn and spring are warm and moist (Popay and Medd, 1990). Doing et al. (1969) have found C. nutans thrives if soils are deep, well drained and lack compacted horizons, have high nitrogen and especially phosphate levels, and high exchangeable calcium. Dry summers assist the species by causing poor pasture cover in autumn when rains arrive, allowing seedlings to establish while competition is minimal (Popay and Medd, 1990). C. nutans is typically found in pastures grazed by sheep rather than cattle because of the tighter grazing of pastures by sheep reducing competition with emerging thistle seedlings (Harrington, 1996). Although often most troublesome in grasslands, C. nutans is also a weed in habitats where soil is disturbed, such as cultivated fields (Letendre et al., 1976), roadsides and field nurseries (Monks et al., 1991). In Europe, occurrence is generally in deciduous hardwood and not in coniferous climax zones.

Habitat List

Top of page
CategoryHabitatPresenceStatus
Terrestrial-managed
Cultivated / agricultural land Present, no further details Harmful (pest or invasive)
Managed forests, plantations and orchards Present, no further details
Managed grasslands (grazing systems) Present, no further details Harmful (pest or invasive)
Rail / roadsides Present, no further details Harmful (pest or invasive)
Urban / peri-urban areas Present, no further details
Terrestrial-natural/semi-natural
Natural grasslands Present, no further details Harmful (pest or invasive)
Riverbanks Present, no further details

Hosts/Species Affected

Top of page Although C. nutans is sometimes found in crops, it is primarily a weed of grasslands. The species involved depend on the composition of the pastures found in each of the countries that the weed is a problem. For example, it is associated with phalaris (Phalaris aquatica)/ white clover (Trifolium repens) pastures in Australia (Medd, 1979) and perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne)/ white clover pastures in New Zealand (Panetta and Wardle, 1992). In Argentina, C. nutans is considered a weed in alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) and cereal crops (Doing et al., 1969).

Host Plants and Other Plants Affected

Top of page

Biology and Ecology

Top of page Genetics

The chromosome number for C. nutans is 2n=16 (Moore and Mulligan, 1956). This species hybridizes readily with C. acanthoides, which has 2n=22. The chromosome numbers of the hybrids have been shown by Moore and Mulligan (1956) to be continuous between 16 and 22, with F1 hybrids having a number intermediate between the two parents. The morphological traits of the various intermediate hybrids and backcrosses have been studied by Warwick et al. (1992).

Physiology and Phenology

The seeds of C. nutans show innate dormancy during the first few months after being released into the soil, but this usually disappears within 4 months (Popay et al., 1987). Seeds normally germinate soon after innate dormancy is over, usually during autumn, while pasture grasses offer little competition following damage by summer dryness (Popay and Thompson, 1979). Germination is greatest at temperatures of 15-30°C and when soil is moist (Popay and Medd, 1990). Germination is inhibited by far-red light and is stimulated by white or red light, potassium nitrate or pricking the seed coat (Medd and Lovett, 1978a). Thus a pasture cover 6-7 cm high can reduce C. nutans germination by 90% (Phung and Popay, 1981), and also cause high mortality of seedlings that do germinate. Only 8.3% (1-19%) survival was observed in autumn-germinated C. nutans in New Zealand pastures.

C. nutans are normally biennial, flowering in the second summer following an autumn germination (Popay and Medd, 1990). C. nutans has an absolute low temperature vernalization requirement for floral initiation, though older, bigger plants need shorter periods of vernalization than younger ones (Medd and Lovett, 1978b). Thus plants can act as winter annuals if growing conditions allow rapid growth over winter, and the time of year that seedlings establish is also important. Interference with its normal development, such as grazing or spraying, can cause the species to act as a short-lived perennial (Doing et al., 1969), making control difficult when plants of different ages are present.

Reproductive Biology

The compound capitulum of C. nutans consists of tubular florets, with each floret bearing male and female organs, and fertilization is mostly through out-crossing (Popay and Medd, 1990). The style transports previously discharged sticky pollen grains from the anther cylinder as it elongates. Stylar branches later bifurcate, exposing the inner receptive surfaces to pollen. Florets progressively mature inwardly from the periphery of the capitula. These asynchronous development events result in autogamous, geitonogamous and xenogamous pollination, generally effected by a wide range of short and long-tongued insects feeding on nectar secreted into the corolla tube by a ridge surrounding the base of the style. The sticky nature of the pollen prevents wind-dispersal.

Propagation is completely by seeds, which are produced principally over an 11-week period each summer. An average of 63 seed-bearing inflorescences were produced per plant in New Zealand, resulting in 6200 viable seeds per plant (Jessep, 1990). Popay et al. (1984) estimated under pasture conditions that seed production would average 8622 per m² (65% viability) from 3.8 flowering stems per m² carrying 29 flower heads per m². If seeds remain ungerminated on the soil surface, they seldom survive longer than 1-2 years, whereas James et al. (1998) have estimated seeds buried 20 cm deep will last 80 years or longer. They found that after 16 years of burial, seeds 5 cm deep still exhibited 20% viability and those at 20 cm had 32% viability.

Environmental Requirements

Medd and Smith (1978) attempted to predict the climatic limits for the spread of C. nutans within Australia, and noted how it is adapted to a wide range of climates in Europe, including Mediterranean, temperate and maritime climates. Frosts during summer flowering are assumed to limit its growth in cooler climates, and a vernalization requirement prevents it from flowering in areas with warm winters (Medd and Lovett, 1978b). Doing et al. (1969) states that C. nutans spread markedly in Australia during a sequence of wet years, whereas in more humid New Zealand climates, spread was hastened by a series of dry summers. Dryness is required to allow pastures to open up sufficiently for seedlings to establish successfully, but some moisture is required during the summer of flowering to maximize seed production (Popay and Medd, 1990). In Europe, it grows from sea level at the Baltic Sea to 2000 m altitude, but rarely over 1000 m in the Alps (Doing et al., 1969).

Associations

Doing et al. (1969) list species often associated with C. nutans in Europe and Australia where it is considered a pioneer species in disturbed environments with weakly differentiated soil profiles enriched in nitrogen. It is considered a characteristic species of the alliance Onopordion acanthii, occurring with high constancy in stands belonging to this vegetation unit, but rarely in large numbers. Some species listed both in Europe and Australia which frequently dominate in association with C. nutans include Conyza canadensis, Diplotaxis tenuifolia, Echium vulgare, Oenothera biennis, Reseda lutea and Senecio jacobaea. Popay and Medd (1990) consider C. nutans to be associated in Australia with annual communities maintained under grazing, dominated by Bromus spp., Hordeum leporinum, Malva neglecta, Medicago arabica, Modiola caroliniana and Trifolium subterraneum. In New Zealand, they list common associates as Hordeum murinum, H. leporinum, Lolium perenne, Trifolium repens, T. subterraneum and annual species of Trifolium and Medicago.

Latitude/Altitude Ranges

Top of page
Latitude North (°N)Latitude South (°S)Altitude Lower (m)Altitude Upper (m)
0 0 0 2000

Air Temperature

Top of page
Parameter Lower limit Upper limit
Mean annual temperature (ºC) 7 23

Rainfall

Top of page
ParameterLower limitUpper limitDescription
Dry season duration06number of consecutive months with <40 mm rainfall
Mean annual rainfall2501500mm; lower/upper limits

Rainfall Regime

Top of page Winter

Soil Tolerances

Top of page

Soil drainage

  • free

Soil reaction

  • acid
  • alkaline
  • neutral

Soil texture

  • light
  • medium

Special soil tolerances

  • shallow

Natural enemies

Top of page
Natural enemyTypeLife stagesSpecificityReferencesBiological control inBiological control on
Ceutorhynchus trimaculatus Herbivore
Cheilosia grossa Herbivore Growing point/Inflorescence/Roots/Stems
Psylloides chalcomera Herbivore Inflorescence/Leaves
Puccinia carduorum Pathogen Leaves
Rhinocyllus conicus Herbivore Fruits/pods/Seeds Texas
Trichosirocalus horridus Herbivore New Zealand
Trichosirocalus mortadelo Herbivore Inflorescence
Urophora solstitialis Herbivore Inflorescence New South Wales; Australia

Notes on Natural Enemies

Top of page In the quest for suitable biological control agents for C. nutans, large numbers of natural enemies for this species have been identified (e.g. Desrochers et al., 1988b; Talosi et al., 1989; Gassmann and Kok, 2002), and the principal species are listed. All come from Europe, though some have already been introduced to other parts of the world as part of biological control programmes. Rhinocyllus conicus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) lays eggs on flower bracts of C. nutans from where larvae burrow into the receptacle and reduce seed production due to their feeding behaviour within the receptacle (Hodgson and Rees, 1976). Trichosirocalus horridus (syn. Ceuthorhynchidius horridus) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) lays its eggs on the underside of rosette leaves, from where the larvae feed on the leaf petiole and move down to the root/stem junction, often causing considerable damage to the rosette (Woodburn, 1997). Urophora solstitialis (Diptera: Tephritidae) complements the damage caused by R. conicus to seed production of C. nutans both in Europe and in other countries to which it has been introduced (Woodburn and Briese, 1996). Feeding of the larvae within the capitulum results in the formation of galls around the larvae, which reduces assimilates reaching the seeds. Cheilosia corydon (= C. grossa) (Diptera: Syrphidae) larvae feed inside the foliage and stems of C. nutans, which disrupts flower and seed production. Some attempts have been made to introduce this to USA from Italy (Quattro and Quattro, 1997). Puccinia carduorum (Uridenales: Pucciniaceae) is an autoecious rust fungus native to the Mediterranean area but is also reported from Bulgaria and Romania. The disease appears first as tiny yellow specks and in several days, rust pustules containing thousands of spores become visible. It was introduced accidentally to USA, where it is spreading and appears to only build up damaging levels on C. nutans and some other Carduus species (Bruckart et al., 1996). Ceutorhynchus trimaculatus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) larvae feed on leaf buds, growing tips and in the crown of the rosette, and the adults also feed on C. nutans foliage. It was found to be one of the more damaging insects on C. nutans growing in southern Europe (Sheppard et al., 1995) but is not host-specific enough to be considered worth releasing in USA (Kok et al., 1982). Psylliodes chalcomera (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) is a flea beetle whose larvae feed on leaf buds and young rosette leaves, and adults also feed heavily on C. nutans (Gassmann and Kok, 2002). Trials have suggested this species is fairly host specific, with no damage occurring to Cirsium species in the USA, so some releases in USA were made in the late 1990s.

Means of Movement and Dispersal

Top of page Natural Dispersal (Non-Biotic)

C. nutans is generally considered to be dispersed by wind because of the pappus attached to ripe seed although it appears that seeds seldom travel far by this mechanism. Smith and Kok (1984) found that most seeds travelled no further than 50 m from the point of release and less than 1% were blown further than 100 m as they were detached from the pappus soon after leaving the mother plant.

Vector Transmission (Biotic)

As many animals prefer not to graze thistles, seeds are usually not dispersed in the guts of livestock. Goats do eat the seed heads however, but Holst and Allan (1996) showed that only 0.2% of C. nutans seed survive passage through a goat, and only 0.01% of these seeds germinated. Dispersal by animals is much more likely to occur from seed heads still containing seeds becoming attached to the fleeces of passing sheep. Pemberton and Irving (1990) consider the structure of C. nutans achenes make them very suited for dispersal by ants.

Agricultural Practices

Most long-distance dispersal of C. nutans, within but especially between countries, is likely to have occurred due to contamination of pasture and crop seed, though this is now greatly reduced due to tightening regulations on seed quality (Popay and Medd, 1990). Some movement is also likely with seed contamination in hay, in lime for increasing soil pH, and on agricultural machinery.

Accidental Introduction

Most if not all movements of C. nutans to new countries have been accidental, mainly in crop seed, but also possibly in ship ballast and hay (Desrochers et al., 1988b; Popay and Medd, 1990).

Pathway Vectors

Top of page
VectorNotesLong DistanceLocalReferences
Plants or parts of plantsCrop seed Yes
Soil, sand and gravelShip ballast (1800s) Yes

Plant Trade

Top of page
Plant parts liable to carry the pest in trade/transportPest stagesBorne internallyBorne externallyVisibility of pest or symptoms
Flowers/Inflorescences/Cones/Calyx seeds
Fruits (inc. pods) seeds
Growing medium accompanying plants seeds
True seeds (inc. grain) seeds
Plant parts not known to carry the pest in trade/transport
Bark
Bulbs/Tubers/Corms/Rhizomes
Leaves
Roots
Seedlings/Micropropagated plants
Stems (above ground)/Shoots/Trunks/Branches
Wood

Impact Summary

Top of page
CategoryImpact
Animal/plant collections None
Animal/plant products Negative
Biodiversity (generally) None
Crop production Negative
Environment (generally) None
Fisheries / aquaculture None
Forestry production None
Human health None
Livestock production Negative
Native fauna None
Native flora None
Rare/protected species None
Tourism None
Trade/international relations Negative
Transport/travel None

Impact

Top of page The main economic impact of C. nutans is in pastures where it reduces animal production by preventing animals from eating plants growing in the vicinity of the plant and by suppressing the growth of desirable vegetation (Desrochers et al., 1988b). In addition to competition with pasture plants, there is some evidence that the weed may have an allelopathic effect (Wardle et al., 1991). Dense, mature stands of C. nutans become obstructive to livestock and dried fragments and spines may cause physical injury or adhere to wool, lowering its value (Popay and Medd, 1990). A simulation model studying the effects of C. nutans on pasture losses and animal production suggested it was economically beneficial to apply herbicides in spring whenever ground cover exceeded 2.5% (Moore et al., 1989). Apart from effects on animal production, many millions of dollars are spent annually on controlling C. nutans, primarily because of its status as a noxious plant (Vere and Medd, 1979). It is considered a serious pasture weed in parts of New Zealand, Australia, USA, Canada and Argentina. It can also create some problems in arable crops and seed crops in all of these countries.

Impact: Biodiversity

Top of page It is generally only a problem in improved pastures subjected to fertilizers and heavy grazing pressure, rather than in natural plant communities. Care is required in North America not to introduce biological control agents that might impact on native thistle species (Gassmann and Kok, 2002).

Threatened Species

Top of page
Threatened SpeciesConservation StatusWhere ThreatenedMechanismReferencesNotes
Astragalus schmolliae (Schmoll's milkvetch)CR (IUCN red list: Critically endangered) CR (IUCN red list: Critically endangered); NatureServe NatureServe; USA ESA candidate species USA ESA candidate speciesColoradoEcosystem change / habitat alterationUS Fish and Wildlife Service, 2015a
Centrocercus minimus (Gunnison sage-grouse)USA ESA listing as threatened species USA ESA listing as threatened speciesColorado; UtahEcosystem change / habitat alterationUS Fish and Wildlife Service, 2013
Cirsium vinaceum (Sacramento Mountains thistle)NatureServe NatureServe; USA ESA listing as threatened species USA ESA listing as threatened speciesNew MexicoCompetition (unspecified); Ecosystem change / habitat alterationUS Fish and Wildlife Service, 2010
Cirsium wrightii (Wright's marsh thistle)NatureServe NatureServe; USA ESA candidate species USA ESA candidate speciesArizona; New MexicoCompetition (unspecified); Ecosystem change / habitat alterationUS Fish and Wildlife Service, 2015b

Social Impact

Top of page Heavy infestations probably reduce the value of pastoral properties.

Risk and Impact Factors

Top of page Invasiveness
  • Invasive in its native range
  • Proved invasive outside its native range
  • Highly adaptable to different environments
  • Tolerates, or benefits from, cultivation, browsing pressure, mutilation, fire etc
  • Highly mobile locally
  • Has high reproductive potential
  • Has propagules that can remain viable for more than one year
Impact outcomes
  • Ecosystem change/ habitat alteration
  • Negatively impacts agriculture
  • Negatively impacts animal health
  • Negatively impacts tourism
  • Reduced amenity values
  • Threat to/ loss of endangered species
  • Threat to/ loss of native species
Impact mechanisms
  • Competition - monopolizing resources
  • Competition
  • Produces spines, thorns or burrs
Likelihood of entry/control
  • Highly likely to be transported internationally accidentally

Uses

Top of page Although C. nutans is generally considered to have no uses, high quality honey is made from its flowers (Popay and Medd, 1990). Aktay et al. (2000) report that it is used in Turkish folk remedies.

Similarities to Other Species/Conditions

Top of page Given that Desrochers et al (1988a) consider most of the large headed Carduus thistles outside of the native range of these species are probably subspecies of C. nutans, the main weedy species likely to be confused with C. nutans is Carduus acanthoides L. This species, known as plumeless thistle, is sufficiently similar to C. nutans that hybrids of the two species commonly form where they grow together in Canada (Moore and Mulligan, 1956), USA (Dunn, 1976) and New Zealand (Webb et al., 1988). Moore and Mulligan (1956) describe C. nutans as having flower heads mostly 2.5-4.0 cm diameter, nodding and tending to be solitary, compared with 1.5-2.5 cm diameter heads in C. acanthoides which are erect and tend to be clustered. Stems in C. nutans are without spiny wings below the head but are spiny-winged up to the head in C. acanthoides. Hybrids have an intermediate morphology.

Prevention and Control

Top of page Cultural Control

As C. nutans is a biennial found mainly in pastures, a key to controlling it in such systems is to utilize its dormancy when covered by green vegetation, preventing it from germinating (Phung and Popay, 1981). Techniques to utilize this include sowing pastures in dry areas with drought-tolerant cultivars and avoiding overgrazing of pastures during dry times of the year by reducing stock numbers and growing supplementary crops (Harrington, 1996). Although sheep and cattle avoid grazing C. nutans plants, goats will graze them especially as seed-heads are forming (Holst and Allan, 1996). C. nutans is still spreading to new areas and increasing its density in presently infested areas. Declaring the species noxious and thus applying regulatory pressures to reduce its incidence is a common strategy for controlling the species (Skinner et al., 2000). Prohibiting the presence of any C. nutans seed within certified pasture and crop seed is a common strategy to reduce further spread of the species (Popay and Medd, 1990).

Mechanical Control

Hand grubbing is commonly practised for infestations of low density or as a follow-up operation after herbicide treatment of denser or larger infestations (Popay and Medd, 1990). Grubbing hoes must cut the plants 5-10 cm below ground level to prevent resprouting from dormant axillary buds. Mowing the plant during flowering can greatly reduce seed production, though a single mowing is seldom sufficient due to the wide differences in the maturity of plants in a natural population (McCarty and Hatting, 1975).

Chemical Control

Good control of C. nutans can be obtained using herbicides such as 2,4-D, MCPA, clopyralid, dicamba and picloram, though the favoured option in clover-based pastures is to use the less effective MCPB while seedlings are young and thus susceptible to this herbicide (Popay and Medd, 1990). MCPA or 2,4-D will successfully control larger rosettes without damaging the clover substantially, but application must occur before rosettes become too large, and plants need to be actively growing (Popay et al., 1989). Repeated application of phenoxy herbicides to C. nutans populations over several decades has led to resistant ecotypes developing in some parts of New Zealand (Harrington, 1990).

Biological Control

Of the organisms listed in the Natural Enemies section, some have been introduced widely throughout the world to control C. nutans whereas others have been only tentatively released thus far and several have been deemed unsuitable for use.

Rhinocyllus conicus has been released in Canada, USA, New Zealand and Australia since the 1970s and is well established in all of these countries (Popay and Medd, 1990). Although R. conicus has been recorded as being successful against C. nutans in parts of the USA, it has generally been less successful in New Zealand where it has been estimated that 69% reduction in seed production is required to reduce C. nutans populations, more than is usually achieved by the weevil (Shea and Kelly, 1998).

Trichosirocalus mortadelo is probably restricted to C. nutans, and was introduced from Germany to Canada and from there to New Zealand and then Australia, and from Italy to the USA. However, it remains a possibility that the original introductions for C. nutans also included T. horridus and examination of voucher specimens is required to clarify the issue (Julien and Griffiths, 1998). Cartwright and Kok (1985) found the response of C. nutans in the USA was dependent on plant size and growing conditions, though infested plants consistently produced more stems and larger crowns than uninfested individuals due to the destruction of apical dominance. However, small and medium infested plants were shorter and produced fewer seeds and heads than uninfested plants. In Australia, Woodburn (1997) found T. horridus killed some plants and reduced rosette growth of survivors by 50%. The reproductive potential of the attacked plants, measured as seeds per plant, was reduced by 67%.

The third insect to be used quite extensively as a biocontrol agent is Urophora solstitialis (Julien and Griffiths, 1998). It has been used in Australia and New Zealand to destroy seeds produced late in the season which are not controlled by R. conicus. However, there have been some problems with competition between the two agents (Woodburn and Briese, 1996). There have been limited releases of Cheilosia corydon (=C. grossa), Psylliodes chalcomera and Puccinia carduorum in USA, but the impact of these species cannot yet be ascertained (Gassmann and Kok, 2002).

Research has been underway for a number of years in New Zealand to develop a mycoherbicide for C. nutans and several other thistle species using the fungus Sclerotinia sclerotiorum (Lib.) de Bary (Bourdot and Harvey, 1996), but a commercial product has still not been released from this work. Although there has been limited success to date in controlling C. nutans with biological control agents, it is generally agreed that they are an important component in any integrated weed control programme for this weed rather than as a sole control method (Woodburn and Briese, 1996).

Integrated Control

As discussed by several authors, the most effective strategy for controlling C. nutans is to use a combination of regulatory, cultural, physical, biological and chemical techniques (e.g. Harrington, 1996; Huwer et al., 2002).

References

Top of page

Aktay G, Deliorman D, Ergun E, Ergun F, Yesilada E, Cevik C, 2000. Hepatoprotective effects of Turkish folk remedies on experimental liver injury. Journal of Ethnopharmacology, 73:121-129.

Boldt PE, 1978. Habitat of Carduus nutans L. in Italy and two phytophagous insects. Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds, Gainesville, 1976., 98-100

Bourdot GW, Harvey IC, 1996. The potential of the fungus Sclerotinia sclerotiorum as a biological herbicide for controlling thistles in pasture. Plant Protection Quarterly, 11:259-262.

Bruckart WL, Politis DJ, Defago G, Rosenthal SS, Supkoff DM, 1996. Susceptibility of Carduus, Cirsium and Cynara species artificially inoculated with Puccinia carduorum from musk thistle. Biological Control, 6(2):215-221; 23 ref.

Cartwright B, Kok LT, 1985. Growth responses of musk and plumeless thistles (Carduus nutans and C. acanthoides) to damage by Trichosirocalus horridus (Coleoptera:Curculionidae). Weed Science, 33(1):57-62

Desrochers AM, Bain JF, Warwick SI, 1988. A biosystematic study of the Carduus nutans complex in Canada. Canadian Journal of Botany, 66(8):1621-1631

Desrochers AM, Bain JF, Warwick SI, 1988. The biology of Canadian weeds. 89. Carduus nutans L. and Carduus acanthoides L. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 68(4):1053-1068

Doing H, Biddiscombe EF, Knedlhans S, 1969. Ecology and distribution of the Carduus nutans group (nodding thistles) in Australia. Vegetatio, 17:313-351.

Dunn PH, 1976. Distribution of Carduus nutans, C. acanthoides, C. pycnocephalus and C. crispus in the United States. Weed Science, 24(5):518-524

Flora of China Editorial Committee, 2003. Flora of China Web. Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA: Harvard University Herbaria. http://flora.huh.harvard.edu/china/.

Franco J do A, 1976. Carduus L. Tutin TG, Heywood VH, Burges NA, Moore DM, Valentine DH, Waters SM, Webb DA, eds. Flora Europaea, Vol. 4. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 220-232.

Gassmann A, Kok LT, 2002. Musk thistle (nodding thistle). In: Van Driesche R, Blossey B, Hoddle M, Lyon S, eds. Biological control of invasive plants in the Eastern United States. USDA Forest Service.

Harrington KC, 1990. Spraying history and fitness of nodding thistle, Carduus nutans, populations resistant to MCPA and 2,4-D. Proceedings of the 9th Australian Weeds Conference, 201-204

Harrington KC, 1996. Herbicide management and thistle control - how to avoid resistance. Plant Protection Quarterly, 11(SUP2):273-275; 15 ref.

Hodgson JM, Rees NE, 1976. Dispersal of Rhinocyllus conicus for biocontrol of musk thistle. Weed Science, 24(1):59-62

Holm L, Pancho JV, Herberger JP, Plucknett DL, 1979. A Geographical Atlas of World Weeds. Toronto, Canada: John Wiley and Sons Inc.

Holst PJ, Allan CJ, 1996. Targeted grazing of thistles using sheep and goats. Plant Protection Quarterly, 11(SUP2):271-273; 9 ref.

Huwer RK, Neave MJ, Dowling PM, Lonsdale WM, Sheppard AW, Briese DT, Michalk DL, 2002. Integrated weed management (IWM) in perennial pasture using pasture and grazing management, herbicide strategies and biological control. 13th Australian Weeds Conference: weeds "threats now and forever?", Sheraton Perth Hotel, Perth, Western Australia, 8-13 September 2002: papers and proceedings, 727-730; 13 ref.

Ichizen N, Ogasawara M, Kuramochi H, Konnai M, Sunohara W, Takematsu T, 1993. Screening of weeds for vegetation recovery in a pasture in the semi-arid region of the loess plateau in China. Weed Research (Tokyo), 38(3):182-189; 5 ref.

James TK, Rahman A, Wardle DA, Bonner KI, 1998. Survival of nodding thistle (Carduus nutans) seed buried at different depths in four soils. Proceedings of the Fifty First New Zealand Plant Protection Conference, Quality Hotel, Hamilton, New Zealand, 11-13 August, 1998, 33-37; 11 ref.

Jessep CT, 1990. Aspects of the biology of nodding thistle (Carduus nutans L.) in Canterbury, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research, 33(1):173-183

Julien MH, Griffiths MW, 1998. Biological control of weeds: a world catalogue of agents and their target weeds. Biological control of weeds: a world catalogue of agents and their target weeds., Ed. 4:x + 223 pp.

Kok LT, McAvoy TJ, Johnson GR, Dunn PH, 1982. Further tests on Ceutorhynchus trimaculatus F. as a candidate for the biological control of Carduus thistles. Crop Protection, 1(1):67-74

Letendre M, Ritchot C, Guibord MO, Leduc C, 1976. A test for the control of the nodding thistle, Carduus nutans L., with the aid of the weevil Rhinocyllus conicus Froel. Phytoprotection, 57(1):47-54

Liu ZhiMin, Li XueHua, Li RongPing, Luo YongMing, Wang HongMei, Jiang DeMing, Nan YinHao, 2003. A comparative study on diaspore shape of 70 species found in the sandy land of Horqin. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 12(5):55-61.

McCarty MK, 1985. A nursery study of large-flowered taxa of Carduus. Weed Science, 33(5):664-668

McCarty MK, Hatting JL, 1975. Effects of herbicides or mowing on musk thistle seed production. Weed Research, 15(6):363-67

Medd RW, 1979. Control of Carduus nutans in permanent pasture. Proceedings of the 7th Asian-Pacific Weed Science Society Conference, Sydney, Australia, 1979., 177-179

Medd RW, 1987. Impact of legislative actions on the invasion of Carduus nutans. In: LeMerle D, Leys AR, eds. Proceedings of 8th Australian Weeds Conference, Sydney, Australia: Weed Society of Australia, 290-293.

Medd RW, Lovett JV, 1978. Biological studies of Carduus nutans (L.) ssp. nutans II. Vernalization and phenological development. Weed Research, 18(6):369-372

Medd RW, Lovett JV, 1978. Biological studies of Carduus nutans (L.) ssp. nutans. I. Germination and light requirement of seedlings. Weed Research, 18:363-367.

Medd RW, Smith RCG, 1978. Prediction of the potential distribution of Carduus nutans (nodding thistle) in Australia. Journal of Applied Ecology, 15(2):603-612

Missouri Botanical Garden, 2003. VAScular Tropicos database. St. Louis, USA: Missouri Botanical Garden. http://mobot.mobot.org/W3T/Search/vast.html.

Monks DW, Halcomb MA, Ashburn EL, 1991. Survey and control of musk thistle (Carduus nutans) in Tennessee field nurseries. Weed Technology, 5(1):218-220

Moore RK, Mulligan GA, 1956. Natural hybridisation between Carduus acanthoides and Carduus nutans in Ontario. Canadian Journal of Botany, 34:71-85.

Moore WB, Doyle CJ, Rahman A, 1989. Economics of controlling Carduus nutans on grazed pasture in New Zealand. Crop Protection, 8(1):16-24

Panetta FD, Wardle DA, 1992. Gap size and regeneration in a New Zealand dairy pasture. Australian Journal of Ecology, 17(2):169-175

Pemberton RW, Irving DW, 1990. Elaiosomes on weed seeds and the potential for myrmecochory in naturalized plants. Weed Science, 38(6):615-619

Perring FH, 2002. Carduus nutans - musk thistle. Prestin CD, Pearman DA, Dines TD, eds. New atlas of the British and Irish flora. New York, USA: Oxford University Press.

Phung HT and Popay AI, 1981. Effect of pasture cover on the germination of certain weed seeds. Proceedings New Zealand Weed and Pest Control Conference, 34:111-113.

Popay AI, Lyttle LA, Edmonds DK, Phung HT, 1984. Incidence of the nodding thistle receptacle weevil on nodding and slender winged thistles. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh New Zealand Weed and Pest Control Conference. Russley Hotel, Christchurch, August 14th to 16th, 1984 [edited by Hartley, M.J.; Popay, A.J.; Popay, A.I.]. Hastings, New Zealand; New Zealand Weed and Pest Control Society, 28-32

Popay AI, Medd RW, 1990. The biology of Australian weeds. 21. Carduus nutans L. ssp. nutans. Plant Protection Quarterly, 5(1):3-13

Popay AI, Thompson A, 1979. Some aspects of the biology of Carduus nutans in New Zealand pastures. Proceedings of the 7th Asian-Pacific Weed Science Society Conference, Sydney, Australia, 1979., 343-346

Popay AI, Thompson A, Bell DD, 1987. Germination and emergence of nodding thistle, Carduus nutans L. Proceedings Australian Weeds Conference, 8:175-178.

Quattro Jde, 1997. Two Italian imports tackle musk thistle. Biological controls zero in on a thorny problem. Agricultural Research (Washington), 45(3):10-11.

Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh, 2003. Flora Europaea, Database of European Plants (ESFEDS). Edinburgh, UK: Royal Botanic Garden. http://rbg-web2.rbge.org.uk/FE/fe.html.

Royal Botanical Gardens Canada, 2003. Invasive Plants List. Canadian Botanical Conservation Network, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. http://www.rbg.ca/cbcn/en/invasives/i_list.html.

Shea K, Kelly D, 1998. Estimating biocontrol agent impact with matrix models: Carduus nutans in New Zealand. Ecological Applications, 8(3):824-832; 47 ref.

Sheppard AW, Aeschlimann JP, Sagliocco JL, Vitou J, 1995. Below-ground herbivory in Carduus nutans (Asteraceae) and the potential for biological control. Biocontrol Science and Technology, 5(3):261-270; 35 ref.

Skinner K, Smith L, Rice P, 2000. Using noxious weed lists to prioritize targets for developing weed management strategies. Weed Science, 48(5):640-644; 29 ref.

Smith LM, Kok LT, 1984. Dispersal of musk thistle (Carduus nutans) seeds. Weed Science, 32:120-125.

Talosi B, Sekulic R, Keresi T, Manojlovic B, Igrc J, Maceljski M, Zlof V, 1989. Investigations on the entomofauna of Carduus (Asteraceae) plants in Yugoslavia. Zastita Bilja, 40(4):393-408

US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2010. In: Sacramento Mountains thistle (Cirsium vinaceum). 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. US Fish and Wildlife Service, 50 pp.. http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc3285.pdf

US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2013. In: Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Status for Gunnison Sage-Grouse; Proposed Rule. 78(8) US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2486-2538. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-01-11/pdf/2012-31667.pdf

US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2015. In: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service species assessment and listing priority assignment form: Astragalus schmolliae. US Fish and Wildlife Service, 29 pp.. http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/candidate/assessments/2015/r6/Q07C_P01.pdf

US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2015. In: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service species assessment and listing priority assignment form: Cirsium wrightii. US Fish and Wildlife Service, 37 pp.. http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/candidate/assessments/2015/r2/Q3N3_P01.pdf

USDA-ARS, 2003. Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN). Online Database. Beltsville, Maryland, USA: National Germplasm Resources Laboratory. https://npgsweb.ars-grin.gov/gringlobal/taxon/taxonomysearch.aspx

USDA-NRCS, 2002. The PLANTS Database, Version 3.5. National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, USA. http://plants.usda.gov.

Vere DT, Medd RW, 1979. Estimating the economic loss caused by Carduus nutans in New South Wales. Proceedings of the 7th Asian-Pacific Weed Science Society Conference, Sydney, Australia, 7:421-423.

Wardle DA, Ahmed M, Nicholson KS, 1991. Allelopathic influence of nodding thistle (Carduus nutans L.) seeds on germination and radicle growth of pasture plants. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research, 34(2):185-191

Warwick SI, Thompson BK, Black LD, 1992. Hybridization of Carduus nutans and Carduus acanthoides (Compositae): morphological variation in F hybrids and backcrosses. Canadian Journal of Botany, 70(11):2303-2309

Webb CJ, Sykes WR, Garnock-Jones PJ, 1988. Flora of New Zealand Volume IV. Naturalised Pteridophytes, Gymnosperms and Dicotyledons. Christchurch, New Zealand: DSIR Botany Division, 1365 pp. http://floraseries.landcareresearch.co.nz/pages/Book.aspx?fileName=Flora%204.xml

Woodburn TL, 1997. Establishment in Australia of Trichosirocalus horridus a biological control agent for Carduus nutans, and preliminary assessment of its impact on plant growth and reproductive potential. Biocontrol Science and Technology, 7(4):645-656; 23 ref.

Woodburn TL, Briese DT, 1996. The contribution of biological control to the management of thistles. Plant Protection Quarterly, 11(SUP2):250-253; 21 ref.

Distribution Maps

Top of page
You can pan and zoom the map
Save map