Tanacetum vulgare (tansy)
- Summary of Invasiveness
- Taxonomic Tree
- Notes on Taxonomy and Nomenclature
- Distribution Table
- History of Introduction and Spread
- Risk of Introduction
- Habitat List
- Biology and Ecology
- Air Temperature
- Natural enemies
- Notes on Natural Enemies
- Means of Movement and Dispersal
- Plant Trade
- Impact Summary
- Economic Impact
- Environmental Impact
- Threatened Species
- Social Impact
- Risk and Impact Factors
- Similarities to Other Species/Conditions
- Prevention and Control
- Links to Websites
- Distribution Maps
Don't need the entire report?
Generate a print friendly version containing only the sections you need.Generate report
PicturesTop of page
IdentityTop of page
Preferred Scientific Name
- Tanacetum vulgare L.
Preferred Common Name
Other Scientific Names
- Chrysanthemum asiaticum Vorosch.
- Chrysanthemum tanacetum (Vis.) E.H.L.Krause
- Chrysanthemum vulgare var. boreale (Fisch. ex DC.) Makino ex Makino & Nemoto
- Dendranthema lavandulifolium var. tomentellum (Hand.-Mazz.) Y.Ling & C.Shih
- Pyrethrum vulgare (L.) Boiss.
- Tanacetum boreale Fisch. ex DC.
- Tanacetum crispum Steud.
- Tanacetum vulgare f. vulgare
- Tanacetum vulgare subsp. boreale (Fisch. ex DC.) A
- Tanacetum vulgare subsp. boreale (Fisch. ex DC.) Á.Löve & D.Löve
- Tanacetum vulgare subsp. boreale (Fisch. ex DC.) Kuvaev
- Tanacetum vulgare subsp. vulgare
- Tanacetum vulgare var. boreale (Fisch. ex DC.) Trautv. & C.A.Mey.
- Tanacetum vulgare var. crispum DC.
- Tanacetum vulgare var. vulgare
International Common Names
- English: common tansy; English fern; golden buttons; hindheal; parsley fern; scented fern
- Spanish: tanaceto; tanarida
- French: tanaisie; tanaisie commune
- Portuguese: erva-de-San-Marcos
Local Common Names
- France: tanacée
- Germany: Rainfarn; Wurmkraut
- Italy: tanaceto
- Netherlands: boerenwormkruid
- Sweden: renfana
- UK: bitter buttons
- CHYVU (Tanacetum vulgare)
Summary of InvasivenessTop of page
T. vulgare is an aromatic perennial herb native to much of Europe and parts of Asia. It has been introduced into Argentina, Australia, Canada, Chile, Guadeloupe, Martinique, New Zealand, Peru and the USA. In many parts of its exotic range, T. vulgare is neither an ecological nor an economical problem. In the northern temperate zone of North America (in particular in Canada), T. vulgare has become a noxious dominant weed in pastures, hay fields, riparian habitats and wastelands. Here, the perennial competes with both biennial and perennial herbs, as well as with grasses. It can displace native habitats and reduce the diversity of plants and insects. Due to its toxicity to livestock, particularly cattle, positive selection can be observed when T. vulgare grows under the conditions of grazing.
Taxonomic TreeTop of page
- Domain: Eukaryota
- Kingdom: Plantae
- Phylum: Spermatophyta
- Subphylum: Angiospermae
- Class: Dicotyledonae
- Order: Asterales
- Family: Asteraceae
- Genus: Tanacetum
- Species: Tanacetum vulgare
Notes on Taxonomy and NomenclatureTop of page
T. vulgare is part of the subtribe Tanacetinae within the tribe Anthemideae in the family Asteraceae. The Tanacetinae comprise Tanacetum and a number of genera apparently closely related to it and possibly having their sister groups within the genus. Resolution of the Tanacetum phylogeny requires extensive studies on the Asian taxa. There is no synapomorphy for the Tanacetinae. The subtribe is a provisional unit; it is paraphyletic and represents an unresolved and poorly understood complex within the Anthemideae (Bremer, 1995). A currently widespread hypothesis states that Tanacetum is closely related to Ophistopappus (sister group) and related to Tanacetopsis and others. Depending on taxonomic opinion, the genus Tanacetum comprises about 50 to 150 herbaceous plants and subshrubs, both annual and perennial (Mitich, 1992; Bremer and Humphries, 1993). Due to ongoing taxonomic revisions within the Asteraceae (e.g., Arriagada. 2003), the Tanacetinae may be subject to changes in the future.
In Corsica (France), Sardinia and Sicily (Italy), plants occur with finely dissected leaves that are sometimes regarded as separate species or varieties. The real status of these plants is unknown (Heywood, 1976). Hegi (1923) distinguishes forma typicum Beck (= forma latisectum Pospichal), forma tenuisectum Beck and forma crispum DC. for the European flora. According to Iwatsuki (1995), the plants in Japan are smaller than those in Central Europe. Lee (1996) states the same for Korea.
T. vulgare was first named in 1758 by Carl Linnaeus, and renamed Chrysanthemum vulgare in 1800 by Bernhardi. Today, both names are widespread, although there is extensive evidence of considerable differences between Tanacetum and Chrysanthemum. The common name 'tansy' is derived from the Greek 'athanasia' meaning immortality (Haughton, 1978; Quattrocchi, 2000). The English common names 'parsley fern' and 'scented fern' refer to the strong scent of the herb and its fern-like appearance. The name 'hindheal' indicates the use as a medicinal herb for various complaints. In the USA, T. vulgare is often named 'English fern' due to its introduction from the UK in the early sixteenth century. 'Tansy' is quite often confused with 'tansy ragwort' (Senecio jacobaea), even though there are significant differences between the two Asteraceae.
DescriptionTop of page
T. vulgare is an aromatic perennial hemicryptophyte, patch-forming herb (30-)40-120(-160) cm high. The deep green leaves are 15-25 cm long, pinnatipartite to pinnatisect, glabrous to sparsely hairy and glandular-punctate. The lower cauline leaves are more than 5 cm long, petiolate, oblong to oblong-ovate and the segments pinnatisect to pinnatilobed. They are linear-lanceolate to oblong-elliptical. The upper cauline leaves are similar but sessile. The (5-)10-70(-l00) capitula, each showing an involucre of 5-8 mm in diameter, are arranged in dense, compound corymbs. In the outer ring, the florets are tubular, mostly female and zygomorphic, bright yellow. They are 3-toothed, rarely shortly ligulate, or actinomorphic (some flowers are 5-toothed and hermaphroditic). The inner florets are tubular and 5-toothed. The achenes are 1.2-1.8 mm long, 5-ribbed, possessing scattered epicarpic, sessile, transparent, non-mucilaginous glands; the pappus is a short unevenly toothed membranous cup, 0.2-0.4 mm wide (Clapham et al., 1952; Heywood, 1976).
In Corsica (France), Sardinia and Sicily (Italy), plants occur with finely dissected leaves; these are regarded by some as separate species or varieties.
DistributionTop of page
T. vulgare is native to Eastern and Central Europe, as far as temperate Asia and was introduced by humans throughout America, Australia and New Zealand.
Except for the Mediterranean Islands and Greenland, T. vulgare occurs in every European country. Whether it is truly native to Western Europe is a subject of debate. While some botanists assume it was introduced prior to the Middle Ages (i.e. archeophyte) (Kopecky, 1978; Ellenberg et al., 1992; Lohmeyer and Sukopp, 1992), others believe that it grew naturally in wide parts of Europe (Sebald, 1996).
The distribution in Asia is localised in the boreal zone, encompassing Russia, the Northern Provinces of China (Heilongjiang and Xinjiang), Mongolia, Japan and Korea. T. vulgare is not listed in the diverse floras of the Near East (Rechinger and Aellen, 1964; Abu-Irmaileh, 1979; Davis, 1988; Wood 1997), the Middle East/India (Kitamura 1960; Koba et al., 1994; Hajra et al., 1995) or tropical Southeast Asia (Merrill, 1912; Martin, 1971; Kress et al., 2003).
In Canada, the USA, Australia and New Zealand, the plant escaped from garden cultivation and now grows wild in the natural and secondary vegetation. Only a few records of naturalization exist for parts of South America, where the plant is cultivated for medicinal and ornamental uses. There are no records for Central America (Standley, 1928; Seymour, 1980) the Caribbean Islands (Alain and Leon, 1957; Liogier, 1997) or the tropical parts of South America (Gentry 1993; Jørgensen and Leon-Yanez 1999; Mori, 2002).
Distribution TableTop 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/Region||Distribution||Last Reported||Origin||First Reported||Invasive||Reference||Notes|
|Armenia||Present||Native||Not invasive||Czerepanov, 1995|
|Azerbaijan||Present||Native||Not invasive||Czerepanov, 1995|
|China||Present||Present based on regional distribution.|
|-Heilongjiang||Present||Native||Not invasive||Shi et al., 1983|
|-Xinjiang||Present||Native||Not invasive||Shi et al., 1983|
|Georgia (Republic of)||Present||Native||Not invasive||Czerepanov, 1995|
|Japan||Present||Present based on regional distribution.|
|-Hokkaido||Present||Native||Not invasive||Ohwi, 1965; Iwatsuki et al., 1995|
|Korea, DPR||Present||Native||Not invasive||Ohwi, 1965|
|Korea, Republic of||Present||Native||Not invasive||Ohwi, 1965|
|Mongolia||Widespread||Native||Not invasive||Grubov, 2001|
|Bermuda||Absent, formerly present||Introduced||Not invasive||Britton, 1918|
|Canada||Present||Present based on regional distribution.|
|-Alberta||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Crompton et al., 1988|
|-British Columbia||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||Crompton et al., 1988|
|-Manitoba||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Crompton et al., 1988|
|-New Brunswick||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||Crompton et al., 1988|
|-Newfoundland and Labrador||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||Crompton et al., 1988|
|-Nova Scotia||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||Crompton et al., 1988|
|-Ontario||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||Crompton et al., 1988|
|-Prince Edward Island||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||Crompton et al., 1988|
|-Quebec||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||Crompton et al., 1988|
|-Saskatchewan||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Crompton et al., 1988|
|-Alaska||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||Hulten, 1968; USDA-NRCS, 2016|
|-Arizona||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||USDA-NRCS, 2016|
|-Arkansas||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||USDA-NRCS, 2016|
|-California||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||USDA-NRCS, 2016|
|-Colorado||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||USDA-NRCS, 2016|
|-Connecticut||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||USDA-NRCS, 2016|
|-Hawaii||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||USDA-NRCS, 2016|
|-Idaho||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||USDA-NRCS, 2016|
|-Illinois||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||USDA-NRCS, 2016|
|-Indiana||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||USDA-NRCS, 2016|
|-Iowa||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||USDA-NRCS, 2016|
|-Kansas||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||USDA-NRCS, 2016|
|-Kentucky||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||USDA-NRCS, 2016|
|-Louisiana||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||USDA-NRCS, 2016|
|-Maine||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||USDA-NRCS, 2016|
|-Maryland||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||USDA-NRCS, 2016|
|-Massachusetts||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||USDA-NRCS, 2016|
|-Michigan||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||USDA-NRCS, 2016|
|-Minnesota||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||USDA-NRCS, 2016|
|-Missouri||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||USDA-NRCS, 2016|
|-Montana||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||USDA-NRCS, 2016|
|-Nebraska||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||USDA-NRCS, 2016|
|-Nevada||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||USDA-NRCS, 2016|
|-New Hampshire||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||USDA-NRCS, 2016|
|-New Jersey||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||USDA-NRCS, 2016|
|-New Mexico||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||USDA-NRCS, 2016|
|-New York||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||USDA-NRCS, 2016|
|-North Carolina||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||USDA-NRCS, 2016|
|-North Dakota||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||USDA-NRCS, 2016|
|-Ohio||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||USDA-NRCS, 2016|
|-Oklahoma||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||USDA-NRCS, 2016|
|-Oregon||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||USDA-NRCS, 2016|
|-Pennsylvania||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||USDA-NRCS, 2016|
|-Rhode Island||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||USDA-NRCS, 2016|
|-South Dakota||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||USDA-NRCS, 2016|
|-Tennessee||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||USDA-NRCS, 2016|
|-Utah||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||USDA-NRCS, 2016|
|-Vermont||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||USDA-NRCS, 2016|
|-Virginia||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||USDA-NRCS, 2016|
|-Washington||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||USDA-NRCS, 2016|
|-West Virginia||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||USDA-NRCS, 2016|
|-Wisconsin||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||USDA-NRCS, 2016|
|-Wyoming||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||USDA-NRCS, 2016|
Central America and Caribbean
|Guadeloupe||Absent, formerly present||Introduced||Not invasive||Fournet, 1978; Howard and Bornstein, 1989|
|Martinique||Absent, formerly present||Introduced||Not invasive||Fournet, 1978; Howard and Bornstein, 1989|
|Argentina||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||Zuloaga and Morrone, 1999|
|Chile||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||Pizarro, 1966|
|Peru||Present||Introduced||Not invasive||Dillon, 1981|
|Albania||Widespread||Native||Not invasive||Heywood, 1976|
|Andorra||Widespread||Native||Not invasive||Heywood, 1976|
|Austria||Widespread||Native||Not invasive||Heywood, 1976|
|Belarus||Widespread||Native||Not invasive||Heywood, 1976|
|Belgium||Widespread||Native||Not invasive||Heywood, 1976|
|Bosnia-Hercegovina||Widespread||Native||Not invasive||Heywood, 1976|
|Bulgaria||Present||Native||Not invasive||Heywood, 1976|
|Croatia||Widespread||Native||Not invasive||Heywood, 1976|
|Cyprus||Widespread||Native||Not invasive||Heywood, 1976|
|Czech Republic||Widespread||Native||Not invasive||Heywood, 1976|
|Denmark||Widespread||Native||Not invasive||Heywood, 1976|
|Estonia||Widespread||Native||Not invasive||Heywood, 1976|
|Faroe Islands||Widespread||Native||Not invasive||Heywood, 1976|
|Finland||Widespread||Native||Not invasive||Heywood, 1976|
|France||Widespread||Native||Not invasive||Heywood, 1976|
|-Corsica||Widespread||Native||Not invasive||Heywood, 1976|
|Germany||Widespread||Native||Not invasive||Heywood, 1976|
|Gibraltar||Widespread||Native||Not invasive||Heywood, 1976|
|Greece||Widespread||Native||Not invasive||Heywood, 1976|
|Hungary||Widespread||Native||Not invasive||Heywood, 1976|
|Iceland||Widespread||Native||Not invasive||Heywood, 1976|
|Ireland||Widespread||Native||Not invasive||Heywood, 1976|
|Italy||Widespread||Native||Not invasive||Heywood, 1976|
|Latvia||Widespread||Native||Not invasive||Heywood, 1976|
|Liechtenstein||Widespread||Native||Not invasive||Heywood, 1976|
|Lithuania||Widespread||Native||Not invasive||Heywood, 1976|
|Luxembourg||Widespread||Native||Not invasive||Heywood, 1976|
|Macedonia||Widespread||Native||Not invasive||Heywood, 1976|
|Malta||Widespread||Native||Not invasive||Heywood, 1976|
|Moldova||Widespread||Native||Not invasive||Heywood, 1976|
|Monaco||Widespread||Native||Not invasive||Heywood, 1976|
|Netherlands||Widespread||Native||Not invasive||Heywood, 1976|
|Norway||Widespread||Native||Not invasive||Heywood, 1976|
|Poland||Widespread||Native||Not invasive||Heywood, 1976|
|Portugal||Widespread||Native||Not invasive||Heywood, 1976|
|-Madeira||Widespread||Native||Not invasive||Heywood, 1976|
|Romania||Widespread||Native||Not invasive||Heywood, 1976|
|Russian Federation||Widespread||Native||Not invasive||Czerepanov, 1995|
|-Central Russia||Widespread||Native||Not invasive||Czerepanov, 1995|
|-Eastern Siberia||Widespread||Native||Not invasive||Czerepanov, 1995|
|-Northern Russia||Widespread||Native||Not invasive||Czerepanov, 1995|
|-Russian Far East||Widespread||Introduced||Not invasive||Czerepanov, 1995|
|-Southern Russia||Widespread||Native||Not invasive||Czerepanov, 1995|
|-Western Siberia||Widespread||Native||Not invasive||Czerepanov, 1995|
|San Marino||Widespread||Native||Not invasive||Heywood, 1976|
|Serbia||Widespread||Native||Not invasive||Heywood, 1976|
|Slovakia||Widespread||Native||Not invasive||Heywood, 1976|
|Slovenia||Widespread||Native||Not invasive||Heywood, 1976|
|Spain||Widespread||Native||Not invasive||Heywood, 1976|
|Sweden||Widespread||Native||Not invasive||Heywood, 1976|
|Switzerland||Widespread||Native||Not invasive||Heywood, 1976|
|UK||Widespread||Native||Not invasive||Heywood, 1976|
|-Channel Islands||Widespread||Native||Not invasive||Heywood, 1976|
|Ukraine||Widespread||Native||Not invasive||Heywood, 1976|
|Yugoslavia (former)||Widespread||Native||Not invasive||Heywood, 1976|
|Australia||Present||Present based on regional distribution.|
|-New South Wales||Present, few occurrences||Introduced||Not invasive||Harden, 1990|
|-Queensland||Present, few occurrences||Introduced||Not invasive||Harden, 1990|
|-South Australia||Present, few occurrences||Introduced||Not invasive||Harden, 1990|
|-Tasmania||Present, few occurrences||Introduced||Not invasive||Walsh and Entwisle, 1999|
|-Victoria||Present, few occurrences||Introduced||Not invasive||Harden, 1990|
|New Zealand||Present||Introduced||1883||Not invasive||Webb et al., 1988|
History of Introduction and SpreadTop of page
As mentioned above, it is not clear in which parts of Europe Tanacetum is truly indigenous. By the fifteenth century, T. vulgare was commonly used as a medicinal herb in France and England. Consequently, it had been introduced into the English colonies even before the seventeenth century, like so many other plant species. By 1785, T. vulgare was listed as a naturalized plant throughout the north eastern USA (Mitich, 1992), where it spread along roadsides, fences and hedgerows (Sievers, 1930). In 1912, T. vulgare was known as far west as Iowa and Kansas (Mitich,1992). Robbins et al. (1951) report the first occurrence in California. Today, T. vulgare can be found in almost all states and provinces of the USA and Canada, except Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Texas, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands (USDA-NRCS, 2004).
In the late sixteenth century, T. vulgare was introduced into South America by the Spanish conquerors. Today, it is commonly grown in parts of Peru and Argentina (Dillon, 1981; Zuloaga and Morrone, 1999).
As in North America, T. vulgare was brought to Australia and New Zealand as an ornamental and medicinal herb. According to Webb et al. (1988), the plant was introduced into New Zealand for the first time in 1883, by which time it had already naturalized in Australia.
Risk of IntroductionTop of page
T. vulgare is still sold as an ornamental plant in the USA and many parts of the world, so that further spread is likely. Its broad ecological amplitude may support further spread.
HabitatTop of page
In Europe and North America, T. vulgare commonly grows along roadsides, on grassy areas, rough ground, meadows, urban areas, riverside gravel banks and wastelands. Grubov (2001) states that, in Mongolia, T. vulgare occurs in larch forests and their fringes, dwarf birch and willow thickets, birch and pine groves, forest meadows in forest belts, meadow plots and soddy rock fields in alpine belts. This may indicate a difference in habitat choice between eastern and western populations of T. vulgare. In Scandinavia, T. vulgare occurs from the coast all the way up to the birch zone and 70°N (Korsmo, 1930). As an ornamental plant, this species can be found as far north as Gamvik, Norway, 71°03'N (Jalas, 1991). In the northern hemispheric temperate zone T. vulgare can be found up to an altitude of 1500 m whereas in South America, it is grown up to 3580 m (Dillon, 1981).
Habitat ListTop of page
|Terrestrial – Managed||Managed forests, plantations and orchards||Present, no further details|
|Managed grasslands (grazing systems)||Present, no further details||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Disturbed areas||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||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Terrestrial ‑ Natural / Semi-natural||Riverbanks||Present, no further details||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Wetlands||Present, no further details|
Biology and EcologyTop of page
T. vulgare has a chromosome number of 2n=18 (Tischler, 1950) which is stable (Heywood and Humphries, 1977), even though cytomictic disturbances occur (Virrankoski and Sorsa, 1968) and a wide variation in the content of nuclear DNA has been reported (Keskitalo et al., 1998).
Physiology and Phenology
At least 50 different chemotypes exist (Berberich, 1961) which probably differ also in physiological features. Fresh T. vulgare contains 0.12-0.18% volatile oil of highly variable chemical composition. Some races contain the ketone beta-thujone as the major constituent (to 95%) of the poisonous essential oil; others are devoid of it. Artemisia ketone, borneol, camphor, 18-cineole, cis-chrysanthenyl acetate, isopinocamphone, isothujone, piperitone, gamma-terpinene, umbellulone and some unidentified terpenes have also been reported as major ingredients of the essential oil. Citric acid, tartaric acid, gallic acid, gum, mucilage, resin and tannins are also reported (Duke, 1987). Appendino et al. (1982) report a hydroperoxysesquiterpene lactone, crispolide. Amines were sought but undetected in the flowers. Dry seeds contain 28.9% protein and 26.5% fat (Duke, 1987).
T. vulgare usually germinates in the spring, developing a single rosette in the first vegetation period. The plant starts flowering and fruiting in late summer of the second year. In Central Europe, the flowering period usually takes place in August and September (Korsmo, 1930). According to White (2002), a small percentage of plants flowering in July produce viable seed, with a germination rate of 10-20% by mid-August. Overwintering seeds germinate at a rate of 70-90%. If the plant is cut off from a water supply, the biomass reduces up to 62% and flowering ceases (Cornelius and Haug, 1991).
T. vulgare reproduces sexually as well as vegetatively. According to Korsmo (1930), an individual plant produces 12,500 achenes (10 million per kg). Due to the elasticity of the dry stems, the fruits are catapulted by wind or animals (Düll and Kutzelnigg, 1988). The seeds need open soil for germination. Once established, the plant spreads by rhizomes (blastautochore) and can outcompete other herbs. Under optimum growing conditions, polycormones build up dense stands that can persist for many years. Seed banks in the soil persist for only a limited time (Oberdorfer, 2001).
The flowers are visited by numerous, mostly unspecialised insects, including Diptera, Hymenoptera, Coleoptera and Lepidoptera. In Central Europe, some Colletes spp. (Hymenoptera, Colletidae) are somewhat specialised visitors of flowers of T. vulgare (Westrich, 1990).
In the Northern Hemisphere, T. vulgare mainly grows under planar to colline conditions and does not normally occur above 1500 m (in Austria, some cultivated forms are found above 1700 m). In Cuzco, Peru, however, cultivated plants grow up to 3580 m (Dillon, 1981).
T. vulgare is photophillic (Ellenberg et al., 1992) and prefers sandy, moderately moist, neutral to slightly basic, loamy soils (Oberdorfer, 2001). The plant is sensitive to salt (Ellenberg et al., 1992).
Air TemperatureTop of page
|Parameter||Lower limit||Upper limit|
|Mean maximum temperature of hottest month (ºC)||10||25|
|Mean minimum temperature of coldest month (ºC)||0||-30|
RainfallTop of page
|Parameter||Lower limit||Upper limit||Description|
|Dry season duration||0||6||number of consecutive months with <40 mm rainfall|
|Mean annual rainfall||300||3200||mm; lower/upper limits|
Natural enemiesTop of page
|Natural enemy||Type||Life stages||Specificity||References||Biological control in||Biological control on|
|Cassida stigmatica||Herbivore||Leaves||not specific|
|Chrysolina eurina||Herbivore||Leaves/Roots||to genus|
|Gillmeria tetradactyla||Herbivore||Growing point/Roots||to species|
|Isophrictis striatella||Herbivore||Inflorescence/Stems||to species|
|Longitarsus noricus||Herbivore||Leaves/Roots||not specific|
|Microplontus millefolii||Herbivore||Stems||to genus|
|Phytoecia nigricornis julii||Herbivore||Stems||to genus|
|Rhopalomyia tanaceticola||Herbivore||Inflorescence/Leaves/Stems||to genus|
Notes on Natural EnemiesTop of page
The phytophagous arthropod complex of Central Europe is thought to consist of 143 species, of which 13% are believed to be monophagous (restricted to the genus Tanacetum) and 45% oligophagous (restricted to the family Asteraceae). Larval development has been recorded for 135 species (Schmitz, 1998). The phytophagous fauna of T. vulgare in Alberta, Canada, includes only one monophagous species, Aceria calathinus, which is an introduced gall mite from Europe (White, 1997). The species mentioned as 'monophagous' are reported to live exclusively on T. vulgare. However, some of these species may also occur on other Tanacetum species. For instance, the second Tanacetum species indigenous to Central Europe, T. corymbosum, is rare, and data on its natural enemies are insufficient.
Potential biocontrol agents have been selected on their potential host specificity, damage to the target plant and availability in their native European area. A number of potentially monophagous herbivore species considered for biological control of T. vulgare are the flower and seed-feeding moths Coleophora bornicensis and C. tanaceti (Coleophoridae), the flower gall midge Contarinia tanaceti (Cecidomyiidae), the flower feeding mite Aceria tuberculata (Eriophyiidae), the sap sucking bug Megalocoleus chrysotricus (Miridae) and the root and stem boring weevil Meliboeus graminoides (Buprestidae). A dozen of root-boring moths in the genus Dichrorampha have been recorded on T. vulgare of which Dicrorampha ambrosiana appears to be also potentially host specific.
Brandenburger (1985) reports of 23 fungal species on Tanacetum. One of the most appropriate candidates for biological control of T. vulgare is Puccinia tanaceti (Gäumann, 1959; Newcombe, 2003). This pathogen was recently recorded for the first time from the USA (Idaho: Newcombe, 2003).
Means of Movement and DispersalTop of page
Wind and flowing water disperse the fruits of T. vulgare. Rhizomes may also be transported by water and as such T. vulgare is often found along rivers (Oberdorfer, 2001).
Animals can be responsible for catapulting the fruit which assists dispersal and cattle may carry seeds on their legs.
T. vulgare is grown as an ornamental plant in gardens from which it may escape. The attractive flowers may also be transported as cut flowers.
Plant TradeTop of page
|Plant parts liable to carry the pest in trade/transport||Pest stages||Borne internally||Borne externally||Visibility of pest or symptoms|
|Fruits (inc. pods)|
|Plant parts not known to carry the pest in trade/transport|
|Growing medium accompanying plants|
|Stems (above ground)/Shoots/Trunks/Branches|
|True seeds (inc. grain)|
Impact SummaryTop of page
|Fisheries / aquaculture||None|
Economic ImpactTop of page
T. vulgare has almost no impact as a weed of field or plantation crops. It occasionally has negative effects on meadows due to avoidance by cattle. The north-central region of Canada is heavily infested by T. vulgare. A 1993 survey estimated that 26,384 ha, in 58 municipal districts were infested and that the total estimated annual cost to municipalities and private landowners for controlling tansy was CAN$ 256,617 (= CAN$ 9.70/ha; White, 1997).
Environmental ImpactTop of page
The spreading of T. vulgare in areas where the plant is introduced affects the diversity of herbaceous plants and, consequently, the entomofauna. In North America (especially Quebec, Manitoba, British Columbia, Alberta), T. vulgare may compete with the native flora in pastures, hay fields, riparian habitats, roadsides and waste areas (McClay, 1989; White, 2002). Thus, plant diversity may be reduced in places were T. vulgare becomes dominant.
By outcompeting native plants with a rich entomofauna, T. vulgare may reduce the phytophagous insect diversity on a local level. On the other hand, the flowers may serve as an important nectar source for pollinating insects however the corresponding investigations are so far not available.
Threatened SpeciesTop of page
Social ImpactTop of page
The possibility of T. vulgare causing health problems cannot be ruled out, e.g. poisoning, contact dermatitis, allergic reactions, including anaphylactic shock, and others.
Risk and Impact FactorsTop of page Invasiveness
- Proved invasive outside its native range
- Highly adaptable to different environments
- Tolerates, or benefits from, cultivation, browsing pressure, mutilation, fire etc
- Has high reproductive potential
- Negatively impacts agriculture
- Negatively impacts animal health
- Negatively impacts tourism
- Reduced amenity values
- Reduced native biodiversity
- Competition - monopolizing resources
- Highly likely to be transported internationally deliberately
UsesTop of page
The attractive flowers of T. vulgare are grown in gardens and often cut for ornamental purposes (cut flowers).
In Central Europe, T. vulgare plays an important role as a reserve for aphidophagous insect fauna in agricultural landscapes (Aphidiidae, Coccinellidae, Syrphidae, etc.; e.g. Klausnitzer, 1968). The oil of T. vulgare may be rubbed on the skin and used as an insect-repellent (against flies and mosquitoes); in Russia, powdered T. vulgare is used as an insecticide. An extract of T. vulgare in distilled water supposedly deters the feeding of some Lepidoptera larvae, and T. vulgare grown under fruit trees is believed to repel insects such as flies and ants (Duke, 1987).
Although T. vulgare is quite poisonous, it found its way into omelettes, puddings, salads, pot-herbs, cheeses, dressings and especially herbal teas (Ranson, 1949; Mabey, 1996). Fresh young leaves are used to spice omelettes, fish or meat pies. Teas made of T. vulgare are bitter beverages brewed from fresh or dried leaves and tops. The tea is said to have a calming effect.
Leaf tips are still used today in the preparation of cosmetics and ointments. The essential oil is used in perfumery.
Medicinally, leaves and flowers of T. vulgare have stimulating and tonic properties. An oil obtained from the flowers is used primarily as an anthelmintic. The unguent made from the leaves is said to be a folk remedy for tumours in the tendons; it has shown some effect in the National Institutes of Health (NIH) cancer programme in the USA. T. vulgare may be used to treat stomach and duodenal ulcers, ague (leaves put into the shoes), amenorrhoea, bruises, burns, cholecystosis, cold, dropsy, epilepsy, fever, freckles, gout, hepatosis, hysteria, kidney problems, nerves, rheumatism, sores, spasms, sprains, swellings, tuberculosis; it is considered to be abortifacient, antibiotic, anthelmintic, antioxidant, antiseptic, ascaricide, bactericide, cordial, diaphoretic, emmenagogue, narcotic, nervine, pediculicide, poison, pulicide, sedative, stimulant, stomachic, sudorific, tonic, vermifuge and vulnerary. Hot fomentations are recommended for bruises, freckles, inflammation, leucorrhea, palpitations, sciatica, stomach ache, sunburn, swellings, toothache and tumours. Homeopathic doctors prescribe tinctures for abortion, amenorrhoea, chorea, dysmenorrhoea, epilepsy, eyes, hydrophobia, labial abscess, paralysis, strabismus and worms (Duke, 1987).
Mordujovich-Buschiazzo et al. (1996) report a rather strong anti-inflammatory effect that leads to significant reduction of oedema in rats. But they indicate the high toxicity, the LD50-ratio (for rats) is approximately 285 mg/kg body weight. Oil from T. vulgare is much more toxic and should be used only with extreme caution. Ten drops of the oil are supposed to be lethal (Duke, 1987). Symptoms of poisoning include rapid and feeble pulse, severe gastritis, violent spasms and convulsions (Duke, 1987). Keindorf and Keindorf (1978) report hyperoestrogenism in cattle. Holetz et al. (2002) stated activity against Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria, but no significant antifungal activity against yeasts.
Similarities to Other Species/ConditionsTop of page
Similarities to common species are not known. T. vulgare may be confused with some of the Asian species, but their distribution is so localised that it is most unlikely to encounter them in the field.
Prevention and ControlTop of page
Due to the variable regulations around (de)registration of pesticides, your national list of registered pesticides or relevant authority should be consulted to determine which products are legally allowed for use in your country when considering chemical control. Pesticides should always be used in a lawful manner, consistent with the product's label.
While extensive grazing may promote seedling establishment on bare ground, heavy grazing results in a reduction in population of T. vulgare (White, 1997).
T. vulgare is sensitive to cutting and root-extraction (Korsmo, 1930; Briemle and Ellenberg, 1994).
In comparative experiments on the efficacy of different herbicides/combinations (using metsulfuron, tribenuron, clopyralid, glyphosate, dicamba, 2,4-D, picloram), metsulfuron was found to be the most effective (Lass et al., 1987, 1988; Miller and Callihan, 1992).
Despite a biological control programme, no agent has been released for the control of T. vulgare (Winston et al., 2014). Host-specificity tests have indicated that the host range of the shoot-boring beetle Phytoecia nigricornis is not restricted to the target plant. Another potential candidate, the root-feeding beetle Longitarsus noricus, was found to be oligophagous on several genera in the tribe Anthemideae. The leaf-feeding beetle Cassida stigmatica and the flower, stem and leaf galling midge Rhopalomyia tanaceticola also seems to lack specificity on a few critical plant species in different genera. In addition, the efficacy of the flower-feeding moth Isophrictis striatella is questionable. None of the above species are therefore further considered for the biological control of T. vulgare. The following European herbivore species are currently being studied as candidate biocontrol agents: the shoot and root mining Plume moth Platyptilia ochrodactyla [Gillmeria tetradactyla], the stem mining weevil Microplontus millefolii and the leaf feeding chrysomelid beetle Chrysolina eurina (Gassmann et al., 2016).
ReferencesTop of page
Abu-Irmaileh BE, 1979. Weeds of Jordan. Amman University of Jordan.
Alain H, Leon H, 1957. Flora de Cuba. Vol. 5: Rubiales, Valerianales, Cucurbitales, Campanulales, Asterales. La Habana, Cuba: Asociacion de Estudiantes de Ciencias Biologicas Publicaciones.
Appendino G, Gariboldi P, Nano GM, 1982. Crispolide, an unusual hydroperoxysesquiterpene lactone from Tancaetum vulgare. Phytochemistry, 21(5):1099-1102.
Arnold TH, de Wet BC, 1993. Plants of southern Africa: names and distribution. Memoirs of the Botanical Survey of South Africa, No. 62. Pretoria, Republic of South Africa: Botanical Research Institute.
Arriagada JE, 2003. Revision of the genus Clibadium (Asteraceae, Heliantheae). Brittonia, 55(3):245-301.
Beentje HJ, 2002. Flora of tropical East Africa - Compositae Part 2, Flora of tropical East Africa, prepared at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew with assistance from the East African Herbarium. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Balkema.
Berberich H, 1961. Über die Inhaltsstoffe von Taraxacum officinale Web. und Chrysanthemum vulgare Bernh. Thesis. München, Germany: Naturwissenschaftliche Fakultät, University of München.
Bremer K, 1994. Asteraceae: Cladistics and Classification. Portland, USA: Timber Press.
Bremer K, Humphries CJ, 1993. Generic monograph of the Asteraceae - Anthemideae. Bulletin of the Natural History Museum. Botany series, London 23:71-177.
Briemle G, Ellenberg H, 1994. On the cutting tolerance of grassland plants. Possibilities of the practical application of indicator values. (Zur Mahdverträglichkeit von Grünlandpflanzen. Möglichkeiten der praktischen Anwendung von Zeigerwerten.). Natur und Landschaft, 69(4):139-147.
Britton NL, 1918. Flora of Bermuda. New York, USA: Charles Scribner's Sons. 585 pp.
Clapham AR, Tutin TG, Warburg EF, eds, 1952. Flora of the British Isles. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Cornelius R, Haug D, 1991. Zur Plastizität des reproduktiven Aufwandes bei Conyza canadensis und Tanacetum vulgare. In: Schmid B, Stöcklin J, ed. Populationsbiologie der Pflanzen. Basel, Switzerland: Birkhäuser, 87-95.
Crompton CW, McNeill J, Stahevitch AE, Wojtas WA, 1988. Preliminary inventory of Canadian weeds. Ottawa, Canada: Research Branch, Agriculture Canada.
Czerepanov SK, 1995. Vascular Plants of Russia and Adjacent States (The Former USSR). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Davis PH, 1988. Flora of Turkey and the east Aegean islands. Edinburgh, UK: University Press.
Dillon MO, 1981. Flora of Peru, Family Compositae, Part 2, Tribe Anthemideae. In: Macbride JF, et al., eds. Flora of Peru, Fieldiana: Botany, NS 7:1-21.
Duke JA, 1987. CRC Handbook of Medicinal Herbs. Boca Raton, Florida, USA: CRC Press.
Düll R, Kutzelnigg H, 1988. Botanisch-ökologisches Exkursionstaschenbuch. Heidelberg, Wiesbaden, Germany: Quelle and Meyer.
Ellenberg H, Weber HE, Düll R, Wirth V, Werner W, Paulissen D, 1992. Zeigerwerte von Pflanzen in Mitteleuropa. Scripta Geobot., 18:1-258.
Fournet J, 1978. Flore illustrée des phanérogames de Guadeloupe et de Martinique. Paris, France: Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique.
Freise J, Schroeder D, 1997. Field surveys for phytophagous insects associated with Tanacetum vulgare in northern Europe. Annual Report - International Institute of Biological Control, No. 1996/7:8 + 15 pp.; 12 ref.
Gassmann A, Ribeiro S, Dolgovskaya Yu M, Volkovitch M, Reznik S, Jovic J, Toševski I, 2016. Annual report 2015. Delémont, Switzerland: CABI Europe - Switzerland, 15 pp.
Gentry AH, 1993. A Field Guide to the Families and Genera of Woody Plants of Northwest South America (Colombia, Ecuador, Peru) with supplementary notes on herbaceous taxa. Washington, DC, USA: Conservation International.
Grime JP, 1977. Evidence for the existence of three primary strategies in plants and its relevance to ecological and evolutionary theory. American Naturalist, 111:1169-1194.
Grubov VI, 2001. Key to the vascular plants of Mongolia (with an atlas), Enfield, New Hampshire, USA: Science Publishers.
Gäumann E, 1959. Die Rostpilze Mitteleuropas: mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Schweiz. Bern, Switzerland: Buechler.
Hajra PK, Rao RR, Singh DK, Uniyal BP, 1995. Flora of India. Vol. 12: Anthemideae-Heliantheae. Calcutta, India: Botanical Survey of India.
Harden GJ, 1990. Flora of New South Wales. Kensington, New South Wales, Australia: New South Wales University Press.
Haughton CS, 1978. Green Immigrants: the Plants that Transformed America. New York, USA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc.
Hegi G, 1923. Illustrierte Flora von Mittel-Europa. Mit besonderer Berücksichtigung von Deutschland, Österreich und Schweiz. München, Germany: Hanser.
Hepper FN, 1963. Flora of West tropical Africa: the British West African territories, Liberia, the French and Portuguese territories South of latitude 18 degree N. to Lake Chad, and Fernando Po. London, UK: Crown Agents for Overseas Governments and Administrations.
Heywood VH, 1976. Plantaginaceae to Compositae (and Rubiaceae). In: Tutin TG, Heywood VH, Burges NA, Moore DM, Valentine DH, Walters SM, Webb DA, eds. Flora Europaea, Vol. 4. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 169-171.
Heywood VH, Humphries CJ, 1977. Anthemideae - systematic review. In: Heywood VH, Harborne JB, Turner BL, eds. The Biology and Chemistry of the Compositae Vol. II. Oxford, UK: Academic Press, 851-897.
Holetz FB, Pessini GL, Sanches NR, Cortez DAG, Nakamura CV, Dias Filho BP, 2002. Screening of some plants used in the Brazilian folk medicine for the treatment of infectious diseases. Memo^acute~rias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz, 97(7):1027-1031; 24 ref.
Howard RA, Bornstein AJ, 1989. Flora of the Lesser Antilles, Leeward and Windward Islands. Harvard University, USA: Arnold Arboretum, 5.
Hulten E, 1968. Flora of Alaska and neighboring territories. Stanford, California, USA: Stanford University Press.
Humbert H, 1960. Flore du Madagascar et des Comores. Fam. 189. Composées Vol. 1. Paris, France: Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Laboratoire de Phanérogamie.
Iwatsuki KE, Yamazaki K, Boufford DE, Ohba H, 1995. Flora of Japan. Vol. IIIb, Angiospermae, Dicotyledoneae, Sympetalae. Tokyo, Japan: Kodansha Ltd.
Jørgensen PM, Leon-Yanez S, 1999. Catalogue of the Vascular Plants of Ecuador. St. Louis, Missouri, USA: Missouri Botanical Garden Press.
Kitamura S, 1960. Flora of Afghanistan. Kyoto University Scientific Expedition to the Karakoram and Hindukush. Kyoto University.
Klausnitzer B, 1967. Beobachtungen an Depressaria emeritella Stt, Lep. Gelechiidae. Entomologische Nachrichten, 11:137-138.
Klausnitzer B, 1968. Zum Parasiten- und Episitenkreis einiger Blattlausarten an Tanacetum vulgare L. Hercynia (NF), 5:437-443.
Koba H, Akiyama S, Endo Y, Ohba H, eds, 1994. Name list of the flowering plants and gymnosperms of Nepal. Tokyo, Japan: The University Museum, The University of Tokyo.
Korsmo E, 1930. UnkrSuter im Ackerbau der Neuzeit. Berlin, Germany: Verlag Julius Springer.
Kress WJ, Defilipps RA, Farr E, Kyi DYY, 2003. A checklist of the trees, shrubs, herbs, and climbers of Myanmar. Contributions from the United States National Herbarium, 45:1-590.
Lass L, Callihan RH, Miller T, Thill DC, 1987. Common tansy control in pasture. Research Progress Report, Western Society of Weed Science, 22-23.
Lass L, Callihan RH, Miller T, Thill DC, 1988. Common tansy control in pasture. Research Progress Report, Western Society of Weed Science, 28-29.
Lee YN, 1996. Flora of Korea. Seoul, Korea: Kyohak.
Leistner OA, 2000. Seed plants of southern Africa: families and genera. Pretoria, South Africa: National Botanical Institute.
Liogier HA, 1997. Descriptive flora of Puerto Rico and adjacent Islands: Spermatophyta-Dicotyledoneae Vol. 5: Acanthaceae to Compositae. Puerto Rico: Editorial de la Universidad de Puerto Rico.
Lohmeyer W, Sukopp H, 1992. Agriophyten in der Vegetation Mitteleuropas. Schriftenreihe für Vegetationskunde, 25:1-213.
Mabey R, 1996. Flora Botanica. The definitive guide to wild flowers, plants and trees. London, UK: Sinclair-Stevenson.
Martin MA, 1971. Introduction à l’ethnobotanique de Cambodge, Paris, France: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique.
Merrill ED, 1912. A Flora of Manila. Manila, Philippines: Manila Bureau of Printing.
Miller T, Callihan RH, 1992. Control of common tansy in pasture. Research Progress Report, Western Society of Weed Science, III:187.
Mordujovich-Buschiazzo P, Balsa EM, Buschiazzo HO, Mandrile E, Rosella M, Schinella G, 1996. Anti-inflammatory activity of Tanacetum vulgare. Fitoterapia, 67(4):319-322.
Mori SA, 2002. Guide to the vascular plants of central French Guiana. Part 2, Dicotyledons. Bronx, New York, USA: New York Botanical Garden.
Newcombe G, 2003. Puccinia tanaceti: specialist or generalist? Mycological Research, 107(7):797-802.
Oberdorfer E, 1994. Pflanzensoziologische Exkursionsflora. Eugen Ulmer, Stuttgart.
Ohwi J, 1965. Flora of Japan. Washington, DC., USA: Smithsonian Institution.
Pizarro CM, 1966. Sinopsis de la flora Chilena, 2nd edition. Chile: Ediciones de la Universidad de Chile.
Quattrocchi U, 2000. CRC world dictionary of plant names: common names, scientific names, eponyms, synonyms, and etymology. Volume III, M-Q. Boca Raton, Florida, USA: CRC Press.
Ranson F, 1949. British Herbs. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Books.
Rebele F, 2000. Competition and coexistence of rhizomatous perennial plants along a nutrient gradient. Plant Ecology, 147:77-94.
Rechinger KH, Aellen P, 1964. Flora of lowland Iraq. Weinheim, Germany: J Cramer.
Robbins WW, Bellue MK, Ball WS, 1951. Weeds of California. Sacramento, USA: California State Printing Office.
Roth L, 1987. Giftpflanzen-Pflanzengifte: Vorkommen, Wirkung, Therapie, Allergische und phototoxische Reaktionen. Landsberg, Germany: Ecomed.
Schmitz G, 1998. The phytophagous insect fauna of Tanacetum vulgare L., Asteraceae, in Central Europe. Beiträge zur Entomologie, 48(1):219-235.
Sebald O, 1996. Farn- und Blütenpflanzen Baden-Württembergs. Vol. 6, Stuttgart, Germany: Ulmer.
Seymour FC, 1980. A check list of the vascular plants of Nicaragua: based largely on collections in Nicaragua made by the author and companions 1968-1976. Plainfield, NJ, USA: Moldenke.
Shi C, Fu G, Chun W-Y, Chien S-S, 1983. Flora Reipublicae Popularis Sinicae. Vol. 76(1). Beijing, China: Science Press.
Sievers AF, 1930. The Herb Hunters Guide. Miscellaneous Publication No. 77. Washington DC, USA: US Department of Agriculture.
Standley PC, 1928. Flora of the Panama Canal Zone. Washington DC, USA: US Government. Printing Office.
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
USDA-ARS, 2016. Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN). National Plant Germplasm System. Online Database. Beltsville, Maryland, USA: National Germplasm Resources Laboratory. https://npgsweb.ars-grin.gov/gringlobal/taxon/taxonomysearch.aspx
USDA-NRCS, 2016. The PLANTS Database. Baton Rouge, USA: National Plant Data Center. http://plants.usda.gov/
Virrankoski V, Sorsa M, 1968. Chromosome analysis and the occurrence of cytomictic disturbances in Chrysanthemum vulgare L. in Finland. Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae, Ser. IV, 137:1-13.
Walsh NG, Entwisle TJ, 1999. Flora of Victoria, Vol. 4: Dicotyledons, Cornaceae to Asteraceae. Melbourne, Australia: Inkata Press.
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
Westrich P, 1990. Die Wildbienen Baden-Württembergs, Vol. 1. Stuttgart, Germany: Ulmer.
White DJ, 1997. Tanacetum vulgare L.: weed potential, biology, response to herbivory, and prospects for classical biological control in Alberta. MSc Thesis. Alberta, Canada: Department of Entomology, University of Alberta Edmonton.
White DJ, 2002. Tanacetum vulgare L., common tansy (Asteraceae). In: Mason PG, Huber JT, eds. Biological Control Programmes in Canada, 1981-2000, 425-426.
Winston RL, Schwarzländer M, Hinz HL, Day MD, Cock MJW, Julien MH, 2014. Biological control of weeds: a world catalogue of agents and their target weeds, Ed.5 [ed. by Winston, R. L.\Schwarzländer, M\Hinz, H. L.\Day, M. D.\Cock, M. J. W.\Julien, M. H.]. Morgantown, USA: USDA Forest Service, Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team, 838 pp. http://www.ibiocontrol.org/catalog/JulienCatalogueFHTET_2014_04.pdf
Wood JRI, 1997. A handbook of the Yemen flora. London, UK: Kew Royal Botanic Gardens.
Zuloaga FO, Morrone O, 1999. Catálogo de las plantas vasculares de la República Argentina. St. Louis, Missouri, USA: Missouri Botanical Garden.
ContributorsTop of page
13/12/2016 Updated by:
André Gassmann, CABI-CH, Switzerland
Distribution MapsTop of page
Unsupported Web Browser:
One or more of the features that are needed to show you the maps functionality are not available in the web browser that you are using.
Please consider upgrading your browser to the latest version or installing a new browser.
More information about modern web browsers can be found at http://browsehappy.com/