Leucanthemum vulgare
(oxeye daisy)

Pictures

Picture	Title	Caption	Copyright
Title Flowers Caption Leucanthemum vulgare (oxeye or moon daisy), flowers. Randolph County, Alabama, USA. Copyright ©David Stephens/Bugwood.org - CC BY-NC 3.0 US	Flowers	Leucanthemum vulgare (oxeye or moon daisy), flowers. Randolph County, Alabama, USA.	©David Stephens/Bugwood.org - CC BY-NC 3.0 US
Title Habit and flowers on a roadside verge Caption Leucanthemum vulgare (oxeye or moon daisy), habit and flowers on a roadside verge. Randolph County, Alabama, USA. Copyright ©David Stephens/Bugwood.org - CC BY-NC 3.0 US	Habit and flowers on a roadside verge	Leucanthemum vulgare (oxeye or moon daisy), habit and flowers on a roadside verge. Randolph County, Alabama, USA.	©David Stephens/Bugwood.org - CC BY-NC 3.0 US
Title Flowers in grassland Caption Leucanthemum vulgare (oxeye or moon daisy), flowers in grassland. Randolph County, Alabama, USA. Copyright ©David Stephens/Bugwood.org - CC BY-NC 3.0 US	Flowers in grassland	Leucanthemum vulgare (oxeye or moon daisy), flowers in grassland. Randolph County, Alabama, USA.	©David Stephens/Bugwood.org - CC BY-NC 3.0 US
Title Developing plants Caption Leucanthemum vulgare (oxeye or moon daisy); developing plants. USA. Copyright ©Montana Statewide Noxious Weed Awareness & Education Program Archive/Montana State University/Bugwood.org - CC BY 3.0 US	Developing plants	Leucanthemum vulgare (oxeye or moon daisy); developing plants. USA.	©Montana Statewide Noxious Weed Awareness & Education Program Archive/Montana State University/Bugwood.org - CC BY 3.0 US

Identity

Preferred Scientific Name

• Leucanthemum vulgare (Vaill.) Lam.

Preferred Common Name

• oxeye daisy

Other Scientific Names

• Chrysanthemum ircutianum Turcz.
• Chrysanthemum lanceolatum Vest
• Chrysanthemum leucanthemum (L.) E.H.L.Krause
• Chrysanthemum leucanthemum var. pinnatifidum Lecor & Lam.
• Chrysanthemum praecox (M.Bieb.) DC
• Chrysanthemum pratense Salisb.
• Chrysanthemum sylvestre Willd.
• Leucanthemum atratum var. heterophyllum (Willd.) Rouy
• Matricaria leucanthemum (L.) Scop.
• Pontia heterophylla (Willd.) Bubani
• Pontia vulgaris Bubani
• Pyrethrum leucanthemum (L.) Franch.
• Tanacetum leucanthemum (L.) Sch.Bip.

International Common Names

• English: dog daisy; marguerite daisy; moon daisy; white daisy; whiteweed; yellow daisy
• Spanish: margarita de los prados; margarita mayor; margariton
• French: grande marguerite; Leucanthème vulgaire

Local Common Names

• China: bin ju
• France: leucanthéme commun; marguerite blanche
• Germany: Frühblühende Margerite; Gewöhnliche Wucherblume; Magerwiesen-Margerite; Wiesen-Margerite; Wiesen-Wucherblume
• Italy: margherita comune
• Japan: furansugiku
• Netherlands: grote Margriet
• Russian Federation: nivjanik obyknovennyj; popovnik; prästkrage; romaška lugovaja
• South Africa: margriet
• Sweden: praestkrage

EPPO code

• CHYLE (Leucanthemum vulgare)

Summary of Invasiveness

L. vulgare is a perennial native to Europe and western Asia which has been introduced widely around the world. This species is reported as being invasive in the USA, Canada, India, New Zealand and Australia. In pastures and meadows it can form dense stands which can outcompete native flora and may reduce the diversity of natural vegetation or pasture quality. L. vulgare produces a large number of seed and can also regenerate from fragments of rhizome which makes control of this species difficult. L. vulgare may also serve as a host and reservoir for several species of polyphagous gall forming Meloidogyne nematodes. L. vulgare is federally regulated as a primary noxious weed in Canada.

Taxonomic Tree

• Domain: Eukaryota
•     Kingdom: Plantae
•         Phylum: Spermatophyta
•             Subphylum: Angiospermae
•                 Class: Dicotyledonae
•                     Order: Asterales
•                         Family: Asteraceae
•                             Genus: Leucanthemum
•                                 Species: Leucanthemum vulgare

Notes on Taxonomy and Nomenclature

L. vulgare was originally named Chrysanthemum leucanthemum by Linnaeus in 1773 and this name continued to be used almost universally until the 1990s when it was found necessary to split the genus Chrysanthemum. As a result the name Leucanthemum vulgare became the approved name, though the authorization of the name varies between ‘(Vaill.) Lam.’ and more simply ‘Lam.’ The latter is used by ITIS (2015) and by Missouri Botanical Garden (2015) while The Plant List (2015) uses ‘(Vaill.) Lam.’ The combination, however, has been accepted by most authorities, although the old C. leucanthemum is still used by many, especially in the horticultural trade. The story is well described in Botanical Accuracy (2014).

L. vulgare is part of a species complex (L. vulgare aggregate) and very similar in morphology as L. ircutianum. However, L. vulgare is diploid (2n = 18) and L. ircutianum is tetraploid (2n = 36). In some European countries the name L. vulgare is mistakenly used for the tetraploid L. ircutianum and the diploid L. vulgare is called L. praecox.

Description

L. vulgare is a glabrous to sparsely pubescent shallow rooted perennial. Roots arise from a short creeping rootstock with many adventitious roots. Underground stems contain water soluble red pigments in the xylem and pith tissues and root tips may be red. Either short rhizomes or stout root-crowns may give rise to stems. Seedlings bear cotyledons that open above the soil surface; Stems are erect, simple or slightly branching, usually 1-2 per plant, but may form thick clusters. The stems are decumbent at their base, usually 30-90 cm in height reaching a maximum height of 2 m. Leaves are sparsely pubescent and three-nerved. Basal leaves are stalked, spatulate to obovate and irregularly dentate) to regularly crenulate 10-25 cm long and 3-7 cm wide. Stem leaves are smaller, alternate, mostly sessile, obovate to narrowly lanceolate becoming ligulate apically with coarse teeth and the base usually deeply lobed or fringed with slender segments. Flower heads are erect, usually solitary on long terminal peduncles and are 2.5-7.5 cm in diameter with 1-15 inflorescences per plant. The flower heads are mainly heterogamous with female ray florets and hermaphrodite disk florets. White ray florets, 15-30 per head are 0.5-2.4 cm long, ligulate, the apex rounded or with three small teeth; the 400-500 yellow disk florets are 4 mm long and tubular forming a dense, slightly domed centre. The numerous involucral bracts are green, edged with brown, and surround the base of each head. Fruits from both disk and ray florets are gray-silvery obovoid to cylindrical achenes with 5-10 equal raised ribs, 2-3 mm long and 0.8-1 mm wide. The pappus is absent or reduced to a crown. When crushed, all parts of the plant have a disagreeable sour odour (Clements et al., 2004).

Plant Type

Distribution

L. vulgare is native to Europe and eastwards into central Asia. L. vulgare has been introduced to many other temperate areas including further east in Asia and particularly in North America. It now occurs sporadically in subtropical regions including Australia, South America and South Africa and in more tropical countries in East Africa but mainly at high elevations. In the USA, USDA-ARS (2015) indicates extensive but incomplete distribution across continental USA. The USDA-NRCS (2015) however indicates every state to be invaded including Alaska and, further afield, Hawaii. The distribution table shows mainly where it is native or has naturalized. It is however, widely cultivated and may be present in a number of further territories.

Distribution Table

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.

History of Introduction and Spread

L. vulgare is believed to have been introduced into North America in the mid-1700s. It is noted by Fernald (1903) that by 1785 this species was already well established around the Boston area.

It is recorded as being first naturalized in New Zealand in 1867 (New Zealand Plant Conservation Network, 2015), and Parsons and Cuthbertson (1992) record its arrival in Australia in the early twentieth century.

Habitat

L. vulgare is a plant of disturbed areas such as roadsides, waste areas and overgrazed or infertile grassland. It can benefit from high moisture and high levels of nutrients but under these conditions it suffers competition from taller plants. As a result it is more likely to be dominant under less fertile conditions. It has been noted that native soils have a strong suppressive potential towards L. vulgare, whereas this is not the case in soils from across the introduced range (Maron et al., 2014).

Habitat List

Hosts/Species Affected

A range of crops may be invaded by L. vulgare including barley (Hordeum vulgare), flax (Linum usitatissimum), oats (Avena sativa), oilseed rape (Brassica napus), sunflower (Helianthus annuus), wheat (Triticum species) and Lucerne (Medicago sativa), but it is most commonly a problem in pastures. In natural grassland it may become dominant to the detriment of the natural vegetation, but no individual species have been reportedly threatened.

Host Plants and Other Plants Affected

Biology and Ecology

Genetics

The diploid (2n = 18) L. vulgare is part of a species complex (L. vulgare aggregate). It is closely related with the tetraploid L .ircutianum (2n = 36). The two species differ slightly in morphology with most parts, including pollen, being larger in the tetraploid. There are also small differences in flowering time and habitat preference. Both species are widely distributed across Europe. According to Mulligan (1958) the diploid is most common across North America. Both the diploid L. vulgare and the tetraploid L. ircutianum occur in Canada with L. ircutianum mainly found in the east of the country (Clements et al., 2004).

Reproductive Biology

Andersson (2008) reports that L. vulgare is self-incompatible and it has been shown that the white ray florets play a significant role in attracting pollinating insects. However, Clements et al. (2004) indicate that, although it is chiefly insect pollinated, self pollination can later result from stigmas bending to make contact with the anthers. Insects involved in pollination include bumble bees and a range of other small insects but not honey bees. Seed production can approach 300 seeds per inflorescence and 10,000 per m² (Parsons and Cuthbertson, 1992).

Seeds are viable as soon as they are shed and show little or no dormancy. When first shed they require light for germination but after stratification they are less dependent on light. Pêgo et al. (2012) found temperatures of 25°C to be optimal for germination, while high temperatures of 30°C were damaging.

Vegetative reproduction can also occur from rhizome fragments after cultivation.

Physiology and Phenology

Germination may occur in the autumn after shedding or in the following spring. A rosette is formed initially and this may produce some flowering shoots in the first year but mostly they occur in subsequent years. Flowering is triggered by a combination of low temperature vernalization and long days. Plants flower from around May to July. Seeds may mature within ten days of flowering. After seed shedding in autumn the shoots die down leaving the rosette to overwinter.

As the plant matures, it develops a spreading rootstock and short rhizomes from which further shoots can occur. In the absence of competition a single plant can spread to produce 75 flowering shoots and nearly 400 inflorescences in two years. Several inflorescences develop per stem, but a single flower head is more usual under more competitive conditions.

Longevity

In the absence of dormancy the longevity of the seeds may be quite short in particular when conditions are suitable for germination. However, in a study by Toole and Brown (1946) seeds buried deeply in the soil in 1902 retained up to 40% viability over a period of 10 years. This decreased significantly over 20 years but after 39 years 1% viability was still recorded. Established plants of L. vulgare vary in their ability to persist. Böcher and Larsen (1967) found that diploid plants tended not to survive much beyond two years, whereas the tetraploids were more genuinely perennial.

Nutrition

In a grassland situation, L. vulgare benefited from the addition of slurry but not from potassium and phosphorus (Korevaar, 2013). On its own, it benefited from nitrogen fertilization but in a mixed sward, competing species benefited to a greater extent (Palmborg et al., 2004). Hence L. vulgare is more likely to thrive in relatively infertile soils.

Associations

L. vulgare is associated with arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi some of which provide protection against the pathogen Rhizoctonia solani [Thanatephorus cucumeris] (Lewandowski et al., 2013).

Environmental Requirements

L. vulgare is moderately salt and drought tolerant, as suggested by the slightly fleshy leaves (Guan et al., 2010). It is also moderately tolerant of frost (USDA hardiness zones: 3-9), and shading. An 85% reduction in light was seen to reduce rosette biomass by 70% and seedling biomass by 92% (Clements et al., 2004). In the UK, it is found to prefer neutral to basic soils over acid soils (Howarth and Williams, 1968). Seed production was seen to increase under raised levels of carbon dioxide (Rüegg et al., 1999).

Climate

Latitude/Altitude Ranges

Rainfall

Soil Tolerances

Soil drainage

• free

Soil reaction

• acid
• alkaline
• neutral

Soil texture

• heavy
• light
• medium

Special soil tolerances

• infertile
• saline
• shallow

Natural enemies

Notes on Natural Enemies

A wide range of natural enemies including insects, fungi, viruses and bacteria have all been recorded from L. vulgare and can be found in full detail in Clements et al. (2004).

A number of these, Dichrorampha aeratana, D. consortana, D. baixerasana, Cyphocleonus trisulcatus, Tephritis neesii and Apion stolidum [Diplapion stolidum] are currently being studied for their potential as biological control agents (McClay et al., 2013).

Means of Movement and Dispersal

Natural Dispersal

Natural dispersal is limited but may occur by strong winds, or water movement.

Vector Transmission

The main biotic transmission is via the gut of grazing animals. It is not palatable to cattle but seeds can survive passage through the gut of cattle (Bos species) and of horses (Equus ferus caballus). The plant is however palatable to sheep (Ovis aries) and goats (Capra aegagrus), but seeds do not apparently survive passage through sheep (Clements et al., 2004),

Accidental Introduction

Accidental introduction will occur locally and over long distance as a result of contamination of hay or of pasture seed mixes. Along roadsides, seeds are no doubted carried by traffic and by the winds created by traffic.

Intentional Introduction

Intentional introduction may occur for planting as an ornamental, though this is discouraged in favour of the larger flowered and less persistent Shasta daisy (L. x superbum). L. vulgare may also be introduced for medicinal purposes.

Pathway Causes

Pathway Vectors

Impact Summary

Economic Impact

Holm et al. (1997) list a range of crops in which L. vulgare can be a serious or principal weed. These include barley (Hordeum vulgare), flax (Linum usitatissimum), oats (Avena sativa), oilseed rape (Brassica napus), sunflower (Helianthus annuus), wheat (Triticum species) in Canada, and lucerne (Medicago sativa), in Hungary. Much more widely, L. vulgare is a problem in overgrazed pastures.

In Montana, USA, the greatest impact of L. vulgare is on forage production of infested pastures and meadows. Cattle (Bos species) avoid this species and therefore any pasture infested with dense stands will decrease forage available for grazing (Krueger and Sheley, 2003).

Environmental Impact

Impact on Biodiversity

Khuroo et al. (2010) report damaging effects of L. vulgare on the biodiversity in Kashmir, India.

L. vulgare has become an aggressive invader of pastures, meadows and roadsides throughout the USA. In western pastures and meadows, it can form dense stands which outcompete other native vegetation (Krueger and Sheley, 2003). In Canada it can form dense populations that may decrease species diversity (Olson and Wallander, 1999; Clements et al., 2004).

Risk and Impact Factors

• Proved invasive outside its native range
• Has a broad native range
• Abundant in its native range
• Tolerates, or benefits from, cultivation, browsing pressure, mutilation, fire etc
• Pioneering in disturbed areas
• Long lived
• Has high reproductive potential
• Has propagules that can remain viable for more than one year
• Reproduces asexually
• Has high genetic variability

• Host damage
• Negatively impacts agriculture
• Reduced native biodiversity

• Competition - monopolizing resources
• Competition - shading
• Rapid growth

• Difficult/costly to control

Uses

Economic Value

Noori et al. (2014) suggest that L. vulgare could be germinated and grown in soils contaminated with crude oil and could be used to augment plant establishment as part of phytoremediation practices. Powdered inflorescences of L. vulgare added to grain at 2% are effective repellents for grain and rice weevils (Sitophilus granarius and S. oryzae)

Social Benefit

L. vulgare is widely grown in Poland as a favoured and successful component of wild flower mixtures for establishment in gardens (Luczaj, 2006) and on a larger scale in South Korea and Finland (Nissinen, 2004; Lee et al., 2007). It is also grown as an ornamental plant in gardens but the slightly more showy and less persistent hybrid Shasta daisy is usually more popular.

L. vulgare has been used widely in traditional medicine for treating internal disorders and as a lotion for skin conditions. Internally it has antispasmodic diuretic and tonic properties and may still be prescribed for asthma, whooping cough and nervous excitability, while topically it may be used for ulcers and sores (Clements et al., 2004). Kováts and Gölöncsér (2010) report quite strong antibacterial properties from L. vulgare however Ramya et al. (2010) reported none.

The young leaves may also be eaten as a salad.

Environmental Services

L. vulgare was among the most promising species for establishing in field borders and attracting multiple beneficial insects (Carrié, 2012). Specifically, it provides hunting sites for spiders and is attractive to adult syrphid flies whose larvae feed on aphids (Clements et al., 2004).

Uses List

Animal feed, fodder, forage

• pesticide, pest repellent

Environmental

• Amenity
• Landscape improvement
• Wildlife habitat

General

• Ornamental
• Sociocultural value

Medicinal, pharmaceutical

• Source of medicine/pharmaceutical
• Traditional/folklore

Ornamental

• Cut flower

Similarities to Other Species/Conditions

There are superficial similarities to a number of other Asteraceae with conspicuous white flowers but the majority have very different foliage. A likely confusion may occur with the cultivated Shasta daisy, L. x superbum, a hybrid of which L. vulgare is a possible parent along with L. maximum and L. lacustre. The Shasta daisy is taller and has larger flowers than L. vulgare and there is a brown membranous margin toward the apex of each floral bract, while the floral bracts of L. vulgare are brown along the entire length of their margins.

Prevention and Control

Prevention

SPS Measures

L. vulgare is a provincially regulated as a weed in Alberta and federally regulated as a primary noxious weed by the Seeds Act (Canadian Council on Invasive Species, 2016). It is also a prohibited weed in Victoria, Australia (Weeds of Queensland, 2015).

Control

Cultural Control and Sanitary Measures

In Canada, Booth and Skelton (2009) found that feeding by goats (Capra aegagrus) could provide control equivalent to that provided by the use of herbicides over a five year period. Given the susceptibility of L. vulgare to shading, the use of fertilizers can be a very effective means of suppression, often at least equal to that from herbicides, via the increased growth of competing vegetation (Clements et al., 2004). It also has the advantage of enhancing any forage species and avoiding the damage that may be done to them by most herbicides.

Physical/Mechanical Control

Seedlings and established plants are readily destroyed by cultivation, but this may not be feasible without damaging associated pasture plants and it may also result in the stimulation of new germination and rapid re-establishment of L. vulgare. In Montana, regular mowing of grassland infested with L. vulgare has also been suggested to be effective to reduce seed production (Mangold et al., 2009). However, in Alberta it has been found that mowing can increase the density of L. vulgare and in an experimental one-year study a positive correlation between the number of mowings per year and the number of L. vulgare plants in the following year has been found (Clements et al., 2004).

Biological Control

Based on literature surveys eight European species have been prioritized as potential biological control agents based on records of their restricted host range. These include the root-mining tortricid moths Dichrorampha aeratana and D. baixerasana, the shoot-mining Dichrorampha consortana, the root-feeding weevils Cyphocleonus trisulcatus and Diplapion stolidum, the root-galling fly Oxyna nebulosa, the flowerhead-attacking tephritid fly Tephritis neesii and the flowerhead-attacking weevil Microplontus campestris (McClay et al., 2013). From 2010 onwards, host-specificity tests have been conducted to investigate the host range of these potential biological control agents. Tests with D. stolidum and C. trisulcatus revealed that these species are not specific enough to be considered further. In addition, tests with M. campestris revealed that this species has no evident impact on seed output. Host-specificity tests with D. aeratana and O. nebulosa are ongoing. and to date, none of these potential agents have been introduced to North America.

Chemical Control

L. vulgare is not readily controlled by herbicides that are safe to use in mixed pasture or wild vegetation. 2,4-D, mecoprop and MCPA are only effective in relatively high doses and may require a mixture with metsulfuron, picloram, dicamba, tribenuron, bentazon, clopyralid or thifensulfuron. The latter three are among the more selective in legumes. Glyphosate is effective but non-selective. Martin et al. (1990) however report the successful use of a weed wiper to apply glyphosate, metsulfuron, picloram and 2,4-D, 2,4-D and clopyralid. Where associated leguminous or other herbs are damaged, the reduced competition leads to all the more rapid recovery of L. vulgare. More detail can be found in Clements et al. (2004).

References

Andersson S, 2008. Pollinator and nonpollinator selection on ray morphology in Leucanthemum vulgare (oxeye daisy, Asteraceae). American Journal of Botany, 95(9):1072-1078.

Baker HG, 1991. The continuing evolution of weeds. Economic Botany, 45(4):445-449.

Beckmann M; Bruelheide H; Erfmeier A, 2014. Local performance of six clonal alien species differs between native and invasive regions in Germany and New Zealand. Austral Ecology, 39(4):378-387.

Birdsall JL; McCaughey W; Runyon JB, 2012. Roads impact the distribution of noxious weeds more than restoration treatments in a lodgepole pine forest in Montana, U.S.A. Restoration Ecology, 20(4):517-523.

Booth AL; Skelton NW, 2009. The use of domestic goats and vinegar as municipal weed control alternatives. Environmental Practice, 11(1):3-16.

Botanical Accuracy, 2014. Is oxeye daisy a Leucanthemum or a Chrysanthemum?. http://www.botanicalaccuracy.com/2013/08/is-ox-eye-daisy-leucanthemum-or.html

Böcher TW; Larsen K, 1967. Cytotaxonomical studies in the Chrysanthemum leucanthemum complex. Watsonia, 4(1):11-16.

Canadian Council Invasive Species on, 2016. Canada's top 10 most important invasive horticultural plants., Canada. http://canadainvasives.ca/initiatives/national-horticulture-outreach-network/canadas-top-10-most-important-invasive-horticultural-plants/

Carrié RJG; George DR; Wäckers FL, 2012. Flowering forbs for field margins: selecting species that optimize ecosystem services. IOBC/WPRS Bulletin [Proceedings of the IOBC/WPRS Working Group "Landscape management for functional biodiversity", Lleida, Spain, 7-10 May 2012.], 75:57-60. http://www.iobc-wprs.org/pub/bulletins/bulletin_2012_75_table_of_contents_abstracts.pdf

Centre for Invasive Species and Ecosystem Health, 2015. Oxeye daisy Leucanthemum vulgare Lam., USA: Center for Invasive Species and Ecosystem Health and USDA APHIS PPQ. http://www.invasive.org/browse/subinfo.cfm?sub=5937

Clements DR; Cole DE; Darbyshire S; King J; McClay A, 2004. The biology of Canadian weeds. 128. Leucanthemum vulgare Lam. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 84(1):343-363.

Euro+Med, 2014. Euro+Med PlantBase. http://www.emplantbase.org/home.html

Fernald ML, 1903. Chrysanthemum leucanthemum and the American white weed. Rhodora, 5:177-181.

Flora of China Editorial Committee, 2015. Flora of China. St. Louis, Missouri and Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA: Missouri Botanical Garden and Harvard University Herbaria. http://www.efloras.org/flora_page.aspx?flora_id=2

Flora of the Hawaiian Islands, 2015. Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History. Washington D.C., USA: Smithsonian Institution. http://botany.si.edu/pacificislandbiodiversity/hawaiianflora/result2.cfm?genus=Leucanthemum&species=vulgare&rank1=&epithet1=

Grierson AJC; Long DG, 2001. Flora of Bhutan including a record of plants from Sikkim and Darjeeling. Volume 2 Part 3. Edinburgh, UK: Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh and Royal Government of Bhutan.

Guan Z-Y; Chen S-M; Chen D-D; Yin D-M; Liu Z-L; Tang J; Yang l, 2010. Tolerance screening of 32 taxa from Chrysanthemum and its relative genera. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 43(19):4063-4071.

Holm L; Doll J; Holm E; Pancho J; Herberger J, 1997. World Weeds. Natural Histories and Distribution. New York, USA: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Howarth SE; Williams JT, 1968. Biological flora of the British Isles. No. 110 Chrysanthemum leucanthemum L. Journal of Ecology, 56:585-95.

Khuroo AA; Malik AH; Reshi ZA; Dar GH, 2010. From ornamental to detrimental: plant invasion of Leucanthemum vulgare Lam. (Ox-eye Daisy) in Kashmir valley, India. Current Science, 98(5):600-602

Korevaar H, 2013. Effects of fertilization on flower size in species-rich grasslands. In: The role of grasslands in a green future: threats and perspectives in less favoured areas. Proceedings of the 17th Symposium of the European Grassland Federation, Akureyri, Iceland, 23-26 June 2013 [ed. by Helgadóttir, Á.\Hopkins, A.]. Borgarnes, Iceland: Agricultural University of Iceland, 445-447.

Kováts N; Gölöncsér F; Âcs A; Refaey M, 2010. Quantification of the antibacterial properties of Artemisia absinthium, A. vulgaris, Chrysanthemum leucanthemum and Achillea millefolium using the Vibrio fischeri bacterial bioassay. Acta Botanica Hungarica, 52(1/2):137-144.

Krueger JM; Sheley RL, 2003. Oxeye Daisy (Chrysanthemum leucanthemum). Montguide MT200002 AG. Montana State University Extension Service, 3 pp. http://ipm.montana.edu/cropweeds/Extension/weed%20species%20-not%20every%20file%20is%20here-/oxeye%2520daisy.pdf

Lee B-C; Lee I-D; Lee H-S, 2007. Study on the early growth and anthesis characteristics of some turf type grasses and wildflower species for mixture combination of wildflower pasture. Journal of the Korean Society of Grassland Science, 27(3):173-182.

Lewandowski TJ; Dunfield KE; Antunes PM, 2013. Isolate identity determines plant tolerance to pathogen attack in assembled mycorrhizal communities. PLoS ONE, 8(4):e61329.

Luczaj LW, 2006. Using a seed mix to establish native hay meadow species in ornamental meadows. Polish Botanical Studies, 22:347-354.

Mangold J; Sheley R; Brown M, 2009. Oxeye daisy: Identification, biology and integrated management. Montana State University Extension, MontGuide MT200002AG. Montana, USA: Montana State University, 4 pp.

Maron JL; Klironomos J; Waller L; Callaway RM, 2014. Invasive plants escape from suppressive soil biota at regional scales. Journal of Ecology (Oxford), 102(1):19-27. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2745

Martin P; Fullerton DK; James TK, 1990. Weed trials using a rotary weed wiper. In: Proceedings of the Forty-Third New Zealand Weed and Pest Control conference. 262-265.

McClay AS; Stutz S; Schaffner U; Mason PG; Gillespie DR, 2013. Leucanthemum vulgare Lam., oxeye daisy (Asteraceae). In: Biological control programmes in Canada 2001-2012 [ed. by Mason, P. \Gillespie, D. R.]. Wallingford, Oxfordshire, UK: CABI, 337-342.

Missouri Botanical Garden, 2015. Tropicos database. St. Louis, Missouri, USA: Missouri Botanical Garden. http://www.tropicos.org/

Mitich LW, 2000. Oxeye daisy (Chrysanthemum leucanthemum L.), the white-flowered gold flower. Weed Technology, 14(3):659-662.

Mulligan GA, 1958. Chromosome races in the Chrysanthemum leucanthemum complex. Rhodora, 60:122-5.

New Zealand Plant Conservation Network, 2015. Leucanthemum vulgare., New Zealand: New Zealand Plant Conservation Network. http://www.nzpcn.org.nz/flora_details.aspx?ID=3403

Nissinen O, 2004. Wild flower seed yields in northern Finland. In: Land use systems in grassland dominated regions. Proceedings of the 20th General Meeting of the European Grassland Federation, Luzern, Switzerland, 21-24 June 2004 [ed. by Lúscher, A.\Jeangros, B.\Kessler, W.\Huguenin, O.\Lobsiger, M.\Millar, N.\Suter, D.]. Zürich, Switzerland: vdf Hochschulverlag AG an der ETH Zurich, 249-251.

Noori AS; Maivan HZ; Alaie E, 2014. Leucanthemum vulgare Lam. germination, growth and mycorrhizal symbiosis under crude oil contamination. International Journal of Phytoremediation, 16(9):962-970.

Olson BE; Wallander RT, 1999. Oxeye daisy. Biology and management of noxious rangeland weeds [ed. by Sheley, R. L. \Petroff, J. K.]. Corvallis, Oregon, USA: State University Press, 282-289.

Palmborg C; Carlsson G; Huss-Danell K, 2004. Biomass production following N-fertilisation in experimental grassland communities differing in plant species richness and composition. In: Land use systems in grassland dominated regions. Proceedings of the 20th General Meeting of the European Grassland Federation, Luzern, Switzerland, 21-24 June 2004 [ed. by Lúscher, A.\Jeangros, B.\Kessler, W.\Huguenin, O.\Lobsiger, M.\Millar, N.\Suter, D.]. Zürich, Switzerland: vdf Hochschulverlag AG an der ETH Zurich, 183-185.

Parsons WT; Cuthbertson EG, 1992. Noxious Weeds of Australia. Melbourne, Australia: Inkata Press, 692 pp.

Pêgo RG; Grossi JAS; Barbosa JG, 2012. Soaking curve and effect of temperature on the germination of daisy seeds. Horticultura Brasileira, 30(2):312-316.

Ramya V; Dhayalan VD; Umamaheswari S, 2010. In vitro studies on antibacterial activity and separation of active compounds of selected flower extracts by HPTLC. Journal of Chemical and Pharmaceutical Research, 2(6):86-91.

Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh, 2015. Flora Europaea. Edinburgh, UK: Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh. http://rbg-web2.rbge.org.uk/FE/fe.html

Rüegg K; Lüscher A; Hartwig UA; Nösberger J, 1999. Elevated CO2 influences seed production of grassland species. Agrarforschung, 6(4):141-144.

Toole EH; Brown E, 1946. Final results of the Duval buried seed experiment. Journal of Agricultural Research, 72:201-210.

USDA-ARS, 2015. 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, 2015. The PLANTS Database. Baton Rouge, USA: National Plant Data Center. http://plants.usda.gov/

Weeds of Queensland, 2015. Ox-eye daisy: Leucanthemum vulgare. Biosecurity Queensland Edition., Australia: Queensland Government.

Links to Websites

Contributors

19/10/2016 Updated by:

Sonja Stutz, CABI, Switzerland

25/03/2015 Original text by:

Chris Parker, Consultant, Bristol, UK

Distribution Maps