Invasive Species Compendium

Detailed coverage of invasive species threatening livelihoods and the environment worldwide


Cirsium vulgare
(spear thistle)



Cirsium vulgare (spear thistle)


  • Last modified
  • 08 November 2018
  • Datasheet Type(s)
  • Invasive Species
  • Pest
  • Host Plant
  • Preferred Scientific Name
  • Cirsium vulgare
  • Preferred Common Name
  • spear thistle
  • Taxonomic Tree
  • Domain: Eukaryota
  •   Kingdom: Plantae
  •     Phylum: Spermatophyta
  •       Subphylum: Angiospermae
  •         Class: Dicotyledonae
  • Summary of Invasiveness
  • C. vulgare is an invasive weed in many parts of the world, notably Australia, Canada and the USA, and has the potential to compete with many crops and natural species and displace them from their natural habitats. Since this species can tolerate adve...

Don't need the entire report?

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

Generate report


Top of page
Young seedling.
CaptionYoung seedling.
Copyright©Sheldon Navie
Young seedling.
SeedlingYoung seedling.©Sheldon Navie
Leaves showing the many sharp spines.
CaptionLeaves showing the many sharp spines.
Copyright©Sheldon Navie
Leaves showing the many sharp spines.
LeavesLeaves showing the many sharp spines.©Sheldon Navie
Close-up of spine of leaflet.
TitleLeaflet spine
CaptionClose-up of spine of leaflet.
Copyright©Sheldon Navie
Close-up of spine of leaflet.
Leaflet spineClose-up of spine of leaflet.©Sheldon Navie
Flower, showing the dense inflorescence.
CaptionFlower, showing the dense inflorescence.
Copyright©Sheldon Navie
Flower, showing the dense inflorescence.
FlowerFlower, showing the dense inflorescence.©Sheldon Navie
Close-up of flowers. Note that despite its pernicious habits, the thistle is a productive source of nectar for many insects such as this Apis sp. honey bee.
CaptionClose-up of flowers. Note that despite its pernicious habits, the thistle is a productive source of nectar for many insects such as this Apis sp. honey bee.
Copyright©Sheldon Navie
Close-up of flowers. Note that despite its pernicious habits, the thistle is a productive source of nectar for many insects such as this Apis sp. honey bee.
FlowersClose-up of flowers. Note that despite its pernicious habits, the thistle is a productive source of nectar for many insects such as this Apis sp. honey bee.©Sheldon Navie
Infestation of thistles.
CaptionInfestation of thistles.
Copyright©Sheldon Navie
Infestation of thistles.
InfestationInfestation of thistles.©Sheldon Navie
Growth form showing extensive branching and abundant flowers.
CaptionGrowth form showing extensive branching and abundant flowers.
Copyright©Sheldon Navie
Growth form showing extensive branching and abundant flowers.
HabitGrowth form showing extensive branching and abundant flowers.©Sheldon Navie
Mature thistle showing the abundant seed heads.
TitleMature plant
CaptionMature thistle showing the abundant seed heads.
Copyright©Sheldon Navie
Mature thistle showing the abundant seed heads.
Mature plantMature thistle showing the abundant seed heads.©Sheldon Navie
Close-up of seed head.
TitleSeed head
CaptionClose-up of seed head.
Copyright©Sheldon Navie
Close-up of seed head.
Seed headClose-up of seed head.©Sheldon Navie


Top of page

Preferred Scientific Name

  • Cirsium vulgare (Savi) Ten.

Preferred Common Name

  • spear thistle

Other Scientific Names

  • Ascalea lanceolata (L.) Hill
  • Carduus lanceolatus L.
  • Carduus vulgaris Savi
  • Cirsium lanceolatum (L.) Scop.
  • Cirsium vulgare (Savi) Airy-Shaw
  • Cnicus lanceolatus (L.) Willd.

International Common Names

  • English: bank thistle; bell thistle; bird thistle; blue thistle; bull thistle; bur thistle; burr thistle; button thistle; common burr thistle; Fuller's thistle; lance-leaved thistle; plum thistle; roadside thistle
  • Spanish: cardo lanceolado
  • French: chardon lancéolé; cirse a feuilles lanceolees
  • Russian: bodyak obiknovennii

Local Common Names

  • Argentina: cardo negro
  • Australia: black thistle; spear thistle
  • Chile: cardo negro
  • Denmark: horsetodsel
  • Finland: piikkiohdake
  • Germany: Gemeine Kratzdistel; Karmedik; Lanzettblaettrige Kratzdistel; Speerdistel
  • Italy: cardo asinino; cardo lanceolato
  • Japan: Amerikaoniazami; Amerika-oni-azami
  • Netherlands: shaapdissel; speerdistel
  • New Zealand: scotch thistle
  • South Africa: scotch thistle
  • Sweden: vaegtistel
  • Uruguay: cardo negro
  • USA/Hawaii: spear thistle

EPPO code

  • CIRVU (Cirsium vulgare)

Summary of Invasiveness

Top of page C. vulgare is an invasive weed in many parts of the world, notably Australia, Canada and the USA, and has the potential to compete with many crops and natural species and displace them from their natural habitats. Since this species can tolerate adverse environmental conditions and adapt to different habitats, it continues to spread and occupies new areas despite the control measures applied. High seed production, variation in seed dormancy, and vigorous growth habit make this species a serious invader. It competes with other species in pastures, rangelands and agricultural fields and causes both wool fault and physical injury to animals. It is difficult to eradicate entirely from an area due to its high seed production, variable life form and sequential germination pattern.

Taxonomic Tree

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

Notes on Taxonomy and Nomenclature

Top of page The name Cirsium vulgare is derived from the Greek kirsion (a kind of thistle with medicinal properties) or kirsos (a swollen vein), and from the Latin vulgaris meaning 'common' (Zimdahl, 1989; Parsons and Cuthbertson, 1992; Forcella and Randall, 1994). Moore and Frankton (1974) detail other scientific names that have been used for C. vulgare. The accepted common name is bull thistle, but it also known by a variety of other common names throughout its range (Parsons and Cuthbertson, 1992; Forcella and Randall, 1994; Beck, 1999).


Top of page C. vulgare is a biennial, or occasionally a monocarpic perennial (Grime et al., 1988). The seedling is hairy and produces numerous spines. It has a short hypocotyl and no epicotyl (Hyde-Wyatt and Morris, 1980). In the first year, a basal rosette is formed that may be up to 65 cm in diameter, the leaves of which are elliptical in shape, spiny and coarsely toothed. The plant has a branched taproot system, which may include several primary taproots (Holm et al., 1997). In the second year, the plant bolts and can grow to a height of between one and two metres (Forcella and Randall, 1994). The stem is winged and spiny, with alternate leaves. The cauline leaves are lanceolate, up to 30 cm long and are much more dissected and lobed than the rosette leaves. The upper surface of all the leaves is spiny, and the leaf lobes terminate in sharp stiff spines (Holm et al., 1997). The purple bisexual flowers (florets) are tubular, arranged into capitula (flowerheads) that may occur solitarily or in terminal clusters of two or three (Grime et al., 1988). The white-flowered plant is rare worldwide (Forcella and Randall, 1994), but it has been seen in Canada, especially in British Columbia (Moore and Frankton, 1974) and Ontario. The capitula, the largest of which contain over 200 florets each (Grime et al., 1988) are egg shaped and surrounded by numerous phyllaries. The receptacle is flat and has a diameter of 3-5 cm (Holm et al., 1997). The fruit is an achene (strictly a 'cypsela' - an indehiscent dry fruit developed from a one-loculed, inferior ovary, with persistent calyx attached), which may range in colour from white to yellow, grey, brown or black (Doucet and Cavers, 1997). The achene develops from a fertilized anatropous ovule in which the funiculus is attached basally near the adjoining micropyle (Radford, 1986). The mature achene consists of a pericarp, a testa, a single layer of endosperm and an embryo with an embryo axis and two cotyledons. The achenes are typically 4 mm long and 1.5 mm wide, with a weight of 3.5 mg (Forcella and Randall, 1994). An easily removed pappus is attached to the achene (Forcella and Randall, 1994) and is approximately five times as long as the achenes (Holm et al., 1997).


Top of page C. vulgare has an Eurasian origin (Moore and Frankton, 1974) where it is particularly common on fallows, pastures and neglected or undeveloped areas. It is found in more than 50 countries (Holm et al., 1997) and is naturalized and widespread on every continent except Antarctica (Forcella and Randall, 1994). It is particularly common in North America in the wheat-growing areas and around the Great Lakes region. C. vulgare is an important and widespread weed of pastures and neglected areas in Australia (Parsons and Cuthbertson, 1992), New Zealand and South Africa.

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


AfghanistanPresentNativeHolm et al., 1979; USDA-ARS, 2016
ArmeniaPresentNativeUSDA-ARS, 2016
AzerbaijanPresentNativeUSDA-ARS, 2016
ChinaPresentNativeMoore and Frankton, 1974
-XinjiangPresentNativeUSDA-ARS, 2016
Georgia (Republic of)PresentNativeUSDA-ARS, 2016
IranPresentNativeMoore and Frankton, 1974; Holm et al., 1979; USDA-ARS, 2016
IraqPresentNativeHolm et al., 1979; USDA-ARS, 2016
IsraelPresentIntroducedUSDA-ARS, 2016
JapanPresentIntroducedJordan, 1983; Nishida, 2002
KazakhstanPresentNativeUSDA-ARS, 2016
KyrgyzstanPresentNativeUSDA-ARS, 2016
LebanonPresentNativeUSDA-ARS, 2016
PakistanPresentNativeUSDA-ARS, 2016
SyriaPresentNativeUSDA-ARS, 2016
TajikistanPresentNativeUSDA-ARS, 2016
TurkeyPresentNativeHolm et al., 1979; USDA-ARS, 2016
TurkmenistanPresentNativeUSDA-ARS, 2016
YemenPresentIntroducedUSDA-ARS, 2016


AlgeriaPresentNativeUSDA-ARS, 2016
EritreaPresentIntroducedUSDA-ARS, 2016
EthiopiaPresentIntroduced Invasive USDA-ARS, 2016; Witt and Luke, 2017
KenyaPresentIntroduced Invasive Agnew, 1974; Holm et al., 1979; USDA-ARS, 2016; Witt and Luke, 2017
MoroccoPresentNativeUSDA-ARS, 2016
RéunionPresentIntroducedUSDA-ARS, 2016
RwandaPresentIntroducedWitt and Luke, 2017Naturalized
South AfricaPresentIntroduced Invasive Holm et al., 1979; Zimmermann, 1991
-Canary IslandsPresentIntroducedUSDA-ARS, 2016
TunisiaPresentNativeHolm et al., 1979; USDA-ARS, 2016

North America

CanadaPresentIntroducedbefore 1821 Invasive Holm et al., 1979; Darbyshire, 2003; USDA-ARS, 2016
-AlbertaPresentIntroducedDarbyshire, 2003
-British ColumbiaWidespreadIntroducedDarbyshire, 2003
-ManitobaPresentIntroduced Invasive Darbyshire, 2003
-New BrunswickPresentIntroduced Invasive Darbyshire, 2003
-Newfoundland and LabradorPresentIntroduced Invasive Darbyshire, 2003
-Nova ScotiaPresentIntroduced Invasive Darbyshire, 2003
-OntarioWidespreadIntroduced Invasive Darbyshire, 2003
-Prince Edward IslandPresentIntroducedDarbyshire, 2003
-QuebecWidespreadIntroducedDarbyshire, 2003
-SaskatchewanPresentIntroducedDarbyshire, 2003
Saint Pierre and MiquelonPresentIntroducedDarbyshire, 2003
USAPresentIntroduced1824 Invasive Holm et al., 1979; USDA-ARS, 2016
-AlaskaPresentIntroducedHulten, 1968; Darbyshire, 2003
-ArizonaPresentIntroducedMitich, 1998
-ArkansasPresentIntroducedMissouri Botanical Garden, 2003
-CaliforniaPresentIntroducedMitich, 1998; Randall, 2000
-ColoradoPresentIntroducedWeber and Wittmann, 1996; Mitich, 1998
-FloridaPresentIntroducedWunderlin, 1998
-HawaiiPresentIntroducedHolm et al., 1979; USDA-ARS, 2016
-IdahoPresentIntroducedMitich, 1998
-IllinoisPresentIntroducedMohlenbrock, 1986
-IowaPresentIntroducedForcella and Randall, 1994
-KansasPresentIntroducedBare, 1979
-MarylandPresentIntroducedBarrows, 1984; Malan and Donahue, 1986; Tipping, 1992
-MichiganPresentIntroduced Invasive Crow et al., 1991; Forcella and Randall, 1994
-MinnesotaPresentIntroduced Invasive Forcella and Randall, 1994
-MissouriPresentIntroducedMissouri Botanical Garden, 2003
-MontanaPresentIntroducedMitich, 1998
-NebraskaPresentIntroducedWeaver, 1968; McCarty et al., 1984
-NevadaPresentIntroducedMitich, 1998
-New JerseyPresentIntroducedGrossmueller and Lederhouse, 1987
-New MexicoPresentIntroducedMartin and Hutchins, 1981
-North CarolinaPresentIntroducedRadford et al., 1968; McDonald et al., 1994
-OregonPresentIntroducedMitich, 1998
-South CarolinaPresentIntroducedRadford et al., 1968
-TennesseePresentIntroducedWofford, 1989
-TexasPresentIntroduced1987O'Kennon and Nesom, 1988; Mitich, 1998
-UtahPresentIntroducedMitich, 1998
-VirginiaPresentIntroducedBarrows, 1984; Wofford, 1989
-WashingtonPresentIntroducedMitich, 1998
-West VirginiaPresentIntroducedStrausbaugh and Core, 1977
-WisconsinPresentIntroducedBennett, 2001
-WyomingPresentIntroducedMitich, 1998

Central America and Caribbean

Costa RicaPresentIntroducedForcella and Randall, 1994
GuatemalaPresentIntroducedHolm et al., 1979

South America

ArgentinaPresentIntroducedHolm et al., 1979; Nobile and Lujan, 1989; USDA-ARS, 2016
BoliviaPresentIntroducedMissouri Botanical Garden, 2003
ChilePresentIntroducedHolm et al., 1979; Finot et al., 1996; USDA-ARS, 2016
EcuadorPresentIntroducedForcella and Randall, 1994; USDA-ARS, 2016
ParaguayPresentIntroducedUSDA-ARS, 2016
PeruPresentIntroducedForcella and Randall, 1994; USDA-ARS, 2016
UruguayPresentIntroducedHolm et al., 1979; USDA-ARS, 2016


AlbaniaPresentNativeUSDA-ARS, 2016
AustriaPresentNativeHolm et al., 1979; USDA-ARS, 2016
BelarusPresentNativeUSDA-ARS, 2016
BelgiumPresentNativeHolm et al., 1979
Bosnia-HercegovinaPresentNativeUSDA-ARS, 2016
BulgariaPresentNativeUSDA-ARS, 2016
CroatiaPresentNativeUSDA-ARS, 2016
CyprusPresentNativeUSDA-ARS, 2016
Czech RepublicWidespreadNativeKinkorova, 1991; USDA-ARS, 2016
DenmarkPresentNativePetersen, 1982; USDA-ARS, 2016
EstoniaPresentNativeUSDA-ARS, 2016
FinlandPresentNativeHolm et al., 1979; USDA-ARS, 2016
FrancePresentNativeUSDA-ARS, 2016
GermanyPresentNativeHolm et al., 1979; USDA-ARS, 2016
GreecePresentNativeHolm et al., 1979; USDA-ARS, 2016
HungaryPresentNative Invasive Holm et al., 1979; USDA-ARS, 2016
IrelandPresentNativeUSDA-ARS, 2016
ItalyPresentNative Invasive Holm et al., 1979; USDA-ARS, 2016
LatviaPresentNativeUSDA-ARS, 2016
LithuaniaPresentNativeUSDA-ARS, 2016
MacedoniaPresentNativeUSDA-ARS, 2016
MoldovaPresentNativeUSDA-ARS, 2016
MontenegroPresentNativeUSDA-ARS, 2016
NetherlandsPresentNativeKlinkhamer & de Jong, 1993; USDA-ARS, 2016
NorwayPresentNativeHolm et al., 1979; USDA-ARS, 2016
PolandPresentNative Invasive Holm et al., 1979; USDA-ARS, 2016
PortugalPresentNativeUSDA-ARS, 2016
-AzoresPresentIntroducedUSDA-ARS, 2016
-MadeiraPresentIntroducedUSDA-ARS, 2016
RomaniaPresentNativeUSDA-ARS, 2016
Russian FederationPresentNativeHolm et al., 1979
-Central RussiaPresentNativeUSDA-ARS, 2016
-Eastern SiberiaPresentNativeUSDA-ARS, 2016
-Southern RussiaPresentNativeUSDA-ARS, 2016
-Western SiberiaPresentNativeUSDA-ARS, 2016
SerbiaPresentNativeUSDA-ARS, 2016
SlovakiaWidespreadNativeKinkorova, 1991; USDA-ARS, 2016
SloveniaPresentNativeUSDA-ARS, 2016
SpainPresentNativeHolm et al., 1979; USDA-ARS, 2016
SwedenPresentNativeHolm et al., 1979; USDA-ARS, 2016
SwitzerlandPresentNativeHolm et al., 1979; Salveter, 1998; USDA-ARS, 2016
UKPresentNativeHolm et al., 1979; USDA-ARS, 2016
UkrainePresentNativeVolna, 1988; USDA-ARS, 2016


AustraliaPresentIntroduced Invasive Holm et al., 1979; USDA-ARS, 2016
-Australian Northern TerritoryPresentIntroducedHolm et al., 1997
-New South WalesPresentIntroducedHolm et al., 1997
-QueenslandPresentIntroducedHolm et al., 1997
-South AustraliaPresentIntroduced1841Holm et al., 1997
-TasmaniaPresentIntroduced1830sHolm et al., 1997
-VictoriaPresentIntroducedHolm et al., 1997
-Western AustraliaPresentIntroducedHolm et al., 1997
New CaledoniaPresentIntroducedUSDA-ARS, 2016
New ZealandPresentIntroduced Invasive Holm et al., 1979; Kelly and Popay, 1985; USDA-ARS, 2016

History of Introduction and Spread

Top of page C. vulgare was probably introduced to North America in colonial times (Moore and Frankton, 1974). It was reportedly collected in 1821 at Montreal, where it was common (Rousseau, 1968). In the USA, it was introduced to scattered locations in the late 1800s through the major shipping centre at Portland, Oregon. It moved east to Montana and after three decades migrated south to Idaho, then finally moved east and west (Forcella and Harvey, 1988). C. vulgare was introduced to southwestern USA after 1824 (Mitich, 1998). It is still spreading in the USA and it was first reported as recently as 1987 in Texas (Forcella and Randall, 1994). C. vulgare is known to have occurred in Tasmania as early as the 1830s, from where it was introduced to South Australia prior to 1841. Due to its invasive potential, C. vulgare was considered an important weed in southern Australian states in the 1850s (Parsons and Cuthbertson, 1992). C. vulgare also occurs in New Zealand and temperate South America, particularly Argentina and Chile, where it has spread rapidly since 1960 (Mitich, 1998).

Risk of Introduction

Top of page It is possible that C. vulgare spreads to new areas as a result of accidental transportation of contaminated agricultural produce such as crop seeds or fodder, or deliberate introduction of cypselas as ornamental plants (Mitich, 1998).


Top of page C. vulgare occurs in a wide variety of habitats including pastures, rangelands, arable fields, ditches, riverbanks, wastelands, roadsides, field and woodland margins (Forcella and Randall, 1994; Holm et al., 1997). It is most common in pastures and on road verges, productive spoil heaps, building rubble and cinder tips. Mainly at seedling stage, it is associated with rock outcrops, arable fields, banks of rivers and streams, hedgerows and paths (Grime et al., 1988). C. vulgare is found in temperate zones in both the northern and southern hemispheres (Forcella and Randall, 1994; Holm et al., 1997) as well as in warm-temperate subtropical zones with warm dry summers and mild humid winters (Klinkhamer and Jong, 1993). It requires disturbed sites for the maintenance of populations (Klinkhamer and Jong, 1988).

Habitat List

Top of page
Terrestrial – ManagedCultivated / agricultural land Present, no further details Harmful (pest or invasive)
Managed forests, plantations and orchards Present, no further details Harmful (pest or invasive)
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-naturalNatural grasslands Present, no further details Harmful (pest or invasive)
Riverbanks Present, no further details Harmful (pest or invasive)
Coastal areas Present, no further details Harmful (pest or invasive)

Hosts/Species Affected

Top of page C. vulgare has been found in agricultural fields where it competes with sown species (Amor and Ridge, 1987; Auld and Medd, 1987; Isaev et al., 1988; Nobile and Lujan, 1989). It is a serious weed of cereals in Italy, orchards in Spain, alfalfa (Medicago sativa) in Argentina, and wheat (Triticum aestivum) in Uruguay. It is a principle weed of wheat (Triticum aestivum), maize (Zea mays), barley (Hordeum vulgare), oats (Avena sativa), sorghum (Sorghum spp.) and rice (Oryza sativa) in Australia. It is a common weed of wheat, barley, oats and other cereals in Austria, orchards in Switzerland and South Africa, pastures in Switzerland, South Africa and Uruguay, vineyards in Spain and South Africa, citrus orchards in South Africa (Holm et al., 1997) and Japan (Jordan, 1983) and several winter season crops in Uruguay. C. vulgare, with undetermined rank, is a weed of cereals in Finland, Greece, South Africa, Tasmania and Turkey, citrus orchards in the United States, cotton (Gossypium herbaceum) in Greece, linseed (Linum usitatissimum) in Argentina, maize in Guatemala, orchards in Turkey, pastures in Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Chile, England, Norway, Sweden, Hawaii and New Caledonia, potatoes (Solanum tuberosum) in Argentina, rape (Brassica napus) in England, vegetables in Tasmania, wheat in Argentina and Guatemala, and vineyards in the former Soviet Union (Holm et al., 1997). Holm et al. (1997) notes C. vulgare as a troublesome weed in 20 crops.

Growth Stages

Top of page Pre-emergence, Seedling stage, Vegetative growing stage

Biology and Ecology

Top of page Genetics

The chromosome number for C. vulgare is 2n=68 (Moore and Frankton, 1962; Grime et al., 1988). This number is not shared by other Cirsium species, as they have half or lower numbers of chromosomes than 68 (Moore and Frankton, 1974). Natural hybrids have been described between C. vulgare and other Cirsium species, including: C. x bipontinum, C. x breunium, C. x csepeliense, C. dissectum x C. vulgare, C. x gerhardtii (= C. x grandiflorum), C. x narbonese, C. x reyi, C. x sabaudum and C. x subspinuligerum (Klinkhamer and Jong, 1993).

Physiology and Phenology

C. vulgare achenes germinate throughout the year, with a small peak in autumn and large peak in spring (Klinkhamer and Jong, 1993). Some achenes germinate as soon as they reach the soil in late summer or early autumn if adequate germination conditions are met. In the first year, a basal rosette is formed that becomes vernalized after experiencing a winter season. If the rosette has attained a large enough size in spring it then bolts and flowers (Wesselingh et al., 1994). Vernalization is usually required for flower initiation (Groves and Kaye, 1989; Downs, 1998). Wesselingh et al. (1994) found that genotypes that flowered without cold in their first year were annuals, originating mainly from the south of Europe, while genotypes that flowered after experiencing winter cold in their second year were biennials, originating from the northern European populations. Under nutrient-rich conditions, C. vulgare behaved as a biennial (Jong et al., 1987) whereas some individuals require 4-5 years to flower and set achenes (Forcella and Randall, 1994). Achenes of C. vulgare have a wide range of germination responses depending on the geographic location of the population from which the achenes have been collected. In Australia, fresh seeds had 10-20% germination whereas those stored for three and six months had 50% and 80% germination, respectively (Forcella and Wood, 1986a). Fresh seeds collected from German and British populations had 26-42% germination (Tothill and Berry, 1981), 60-90% from the Netherlands (Klinkhamer and Jong, 1993) and 90-100% from Canada (Doucet and Cavers, 1997). Germination of C. vulgare seed can be affected by moisture, light availability, gap size and temperature (Cavers et al., 1998). Germination can be delayed by prolonged attachment to the pappus (Manku, 1998), leaf litter cover (Downs and Cavers, 2002), wetting and drying in the soil (Downs and Cavers, 2000) and overwintering at chilling temperatures in darkness (Doucet and Cavers, 1997). Under laboratory conditions, achene coat microorganisms from an undisturbed site promoted germination of C. vulgare. Mortality of seedlings was higher in undisturbed sites than in disturbed sites (van Leeuwen, 1981). The seeds germinate over a wide range of temperatures from as low as 5°C (Doucet and Cavers, 1997) to as high as 30°C (Lincoln, 1981). Fresh seeds have a higher optimum temperature for germination than stored seeds (23.5°C vs. 20.0°C) (Michaux, 1989b). C. vulgare is less sensitive to low water potential than other thistle species (Groves and Kaye, 1989). Seed require light to germinate (Klinkhamer and Jong, 1993; van Staden et al., 1995) and seeds that are induced into secondary dormancy by storing them under moist conditions in the darkness will not germinate in the absence of light (Klinkhamer and Jong, 1993; Doucet and Cavers, 1997). Seeds that do not germinate upon dispersal enter the seed bank and germinate at a later time (Forcella and Randall, 1994). Some authors support the formation of a persistent seed bank (Clark and Wilson, 1994; Doucet and Cavers, 1996, 1997) although others do not (van Breeman and van Leeuwen, 1983; Klinkhamer et al., 1988). In different years, the seed bank of C. vulgare was estimated at 1480-26371 seed per m² (Forcella and Wood, 1986a). About 20% of the seed bank can be lost through rodent consumption (Mitich, 1998). Various secondary metabolites including flavonoids (McGowan and Wallace, 1972; Wagner, 1977), phenolic acids (McGowan and Wallace, 1972) and alkaloids (Hultin and Torssell, 1965) have been extracted from this species.

Reproductive Biology

C. vulgare flowers from late July to October and sets seed from August to October in the northern hemisphere (Grime et al., 1988). In the southern hemisphere, C. vulgare flowers and sets seed from late January (Groves and Kaye, 1989) to late May (Forcella and Wood, 1986b). Ovule fertilization occurs by self- or cross-pollination that can be accomplished by wind and insects. The flowers are pollinated by a variety of insects which feed on the nectar present at the base of the corolla. Bees (Apis spp. and Bombus spp.) are the most important pollinators, but butterflies and hoverflies have also been observed to serve as pollinators (Forcella and Randall, 1994). In the UK, a dawn-to-dusk study showed that C. vulgare flowers were visited by shorter-tongued bumblebees and honey bees (Fussell and Corbet, 1991). Self-pollination results in the production of fewer, heavier achenes than does cross-pollination (van Leeuwen, 1981). C. vulgare reproduces only by seed (Parsons and Cuthbertson, 1992). Depending on size and duration of flowering, a single C. vulgare plant can produce from one to over 400 capitula (Forcella and Randall, 1994), each capitulum containing 100-700 achenes (Manku, 1998). Overall, a plant can produce from 1600 (Jong et al., 1987) to 8400 achenes (Forcella and Wood, 1986a), a healthy plant may produce 5000 achenes, while an exceptional individual can produce up to 50000 achenes (Holm et al., 1997). Achenes from the centre of the capitulum are heavier, longer and wider than those from the periphery (Manku, 1998). The central achenes are flat, whereas the peripheral ones are curved (Manku, 1998). Achenes are dispersed by water, wind, animals and machinery. The most important means of dispersal is hay contaminated with see (Parsons and Cuthbertson, 1992). After dispersal and before germination, achenes reside briefly on or just below the soil surface, remaining viable for one year or longer, and some achenes may persist for five years (Mitich, 1998). C. vulgare achenes buried at 0-2, 5 or 20 cm, when collected and germinated three years later, had 1.4, 30.9 and 50.5% viability, respectively (Anon., 1986).

Environmental Requirements

C. vulgare is generally a species of open areas with large amounts of light but can also occur in shaded areas on south-facing slopes (Grime et al., 1988; Klinkhamer and Jong, 1993). It grows in mesic habitats but can survive in dry sites on north-facing slopes (Klinkhamer and Jong, 1993). It grows in soils with different textures (light, medium and heavy) and with wide pH ranges, from very acid (pH3) to alkaline (pH8), but it is most common on soils of pH>5 (Grime et al., 1988). It is less common in sand and on soils with more than 30% humus content and is almost absent from pure clay (Klinkhamer and Jong, 1993). C. vulgare performs optimally at high nutrient concentrations (Austin et al., 1985) and prefers heavy soils of reasonable fertility and grows well under irrigation (Parsons and Cuthbertson, 1992). It proliferates and thrives in heavily grazed pastures subject to nitrogen fertilization (Doing et al., 1969; Michael, 1970). However, soil potassium and phosphorus levels do not seem to influence its distribution (Klinkhamer and Jong, 1993). C. vulgare is not a wetland species but sometimes can be found on exposed mud at the margin of open water (Grime et al., 1988). It generally grows at altitudes up to 400 m, but suitable habitats are more common at lower altitudes (Grime et al., 1988). However, infestations have been found as high as 2800 m in Utah, USA (Dewey, 1991) and 3100 m in Ecuador (Missouri Botanical Garden, 2003).


C. vulgare is often associated with perennial communities (e.g., grasslands) as well as species of disturbed habitats. In New Zealand, the fauna associated with C. vulgare were collected from rosettes, flowers and seed heads. This fauna is characterized as non-specific, non-damaging and impoverished with respect to Diptera and Coleoptera when compared with European and Asiatic faunas collected from C. vulgare (Michaux, 1989a). Symbiotic associations between C. vulgare and vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi have been found (Berch et al., 1988; Harris and Clapperton, 1997; Wilson and Hartnett, 1998). American goldfinches (Carduelis tristis) feed on the achenes and use the pappi to build nests (Mariani et al., 1993) and the plant also provides good cover for nesting birds (Wilson, 1981).

Latitude/Altitude Ranges

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

Air Temperature

Top of page
Parameter Lower limit Upper limit
Absolute minimum temperature (ºC) -24
Mean annual temperature (ºC) 2 15
Mean maximum temperature of hottest month (ºC) 14 29
Mean minimum temperature of coldest month (ºC) -12 2


Top of page
ParameterLower limitUpper limitDescription
Dry season duration12number of consecutive months with <40 mm rainfall
Mean annual rainfall5002000mm; lower/upper limits

Natural enemies

Top of page
Natural enemyTypeLife stagesSpecificityReferencesBiological control inBiological control on
Ceutorhyncus trimaculatus Herbivore Growing point
Puccinia calcitrapae Pathogen
Puccinia cnici Pathogen
Rhinocyllus conicus Herbivore Inflorescence/Seeds South Africa
Terellia serratulae Herbivore Inflorescence/Seeds
Trichosirocalus horridus Herbivore Inflorescence/Seeds
Urophora stylata Herbivore Inflorescence British Columbia; South Africa

Notes on Natural Enemies

Top of page Briese (1989) listed 22 species as natural enemies of C. vulgare collected in the tablelands of New South Wales, Australia. They include 18 insects (six Lepidoptera, nine Hemiptera, one Coleoptera, one Diptera, one Thysanoptera), one mite (Acarina), two molluscs and one fungus. There was little or no damage from Hemiptera or Thysanoptera. Bruzzese (1996) also listed nine insects, two mites and one fungus as natural enemies of C. vulgare that were collected from plants in Victoria, Australia. Klinkhamer and Jong (1993) listed over 124 insect species found on C. vulgare in the UK belonging to the families Coleoptera, Diptera, Hemiptera, Lepidoptera, Hymenoptera, Neuroptera, Psocoptera and Thysanoptera. They also reported two pathogenic fungi, Puccinia cnici and Erysiphe cichoracearum also mentioned by Briese (1989) and Bruzzese (1996). In Virginia and Maryland, USA, adult Chinese mantids (Tenodera aridifolia sinensis) were seen feeding on C. vulgare (Barrows, 1984). Goeden and Ricker (1986) reported that 30 phytophagous insect species compose the insect fauna of C. vulgare in southern California, USA. In 1995, Leucopis glyphinivora (Diptera: Chamaemyiidae) was recorded for the first time from the UK (Smith and McLean, 1998). In Scotland, Terellia serratulae was collected from flower heads of C. vulgare (Rotheray, 1986). Thrips nigropilosus (Terebrantia: Thysanoptera) was also recorded on C. vulgare (Walker and Michaux, 1989). A phytophagous ladybird, Epilachna pustulosa (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae), has been found feeding on C. vulgare, which can be a suitable host for this beetle (Fujiyama and Katakura, 2002). Foliage of C. vulgare is eaten by rabbits while achenes on the mother plants are consumed by mice, voles and birds (Forcella and Randall, 1994).

Means of Movement and Dispersal

Top of page Natural Dispersal (Non-Biotic)

The only significant method of dispersal is by achenes, each of which is equipped with a pappus. Since the pappus often becomes detached before the achene leaves the head, it is not well dispersed by wind. Nevertheless, air currents may carry occasional achenes with pappus firmly attached several kilometres (Parsons and Cuthbertson, 1992; Mitich, 1998). However, half of the achenes produced are dispersed to within 1 m of the parent plant, and only 11% are dispersed outside of the local population no matter what method of dispersal operates (Klinkhamer et al., 1988).

Vector Transmission (Biotic)

Achenes can be moved long distances by attachment to vehicles and farm machinery (Parsons and Cuthbertson, 1992). Achenes can also be carried on the fur and feathers of animals and in the manure of animals carried on hooves (Hyde-Wyatt and Morris, 1980; Holm et al., 1997). The presence of elaiosomes (fleshy appendages) on C. vulgare achenes facilitates their dispersal by ants (Pemberton and Irving, 1990).

Agricultural Practices

Seeding plants contaminate hay, which can be carried to new areas and serves as an important means of dispersal (Parsons and Cuthbertson, 1992).

Accidental Introduction

C. vulgare achenes can contaminate crop seeds, and flowering plants may contaminate hay, which serve as accidental pathways for the introduction of this weed to new locations (Hyde-Wyatt and Morris, 1980; Parsons and Cuthbertson, 1992; Forcella and Randall, 1994).

Intentional Introduction

C. vulgare was probably introduced deliberately as an ornamental plant or for other purposes (Mitich, 1998).

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
Seedlings/Micropropagated plants
Stems (above ground)/Shoots/Trunks/Branches

Impact Summary

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


Top of page C. vulgare is a pest in wheat fields, pastures, protected areas and parks (Forcella and Randall, 1994). It is a weed of rangelands in 20 countries and is more frequent in grazed than in non-grazed pastures (Holm et al., 1997). It can be a dominant species in areas that have recently been clear-cut, thereby reducing survival of replanted tree seedlings (McDonald and Tappeiner, 1986). It reduces seedling growth of trees in ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) plantations in California, USA (Randall and Rejmánek, 1993). It also decreases fruit yield in orange groves in California, USA (Jordan, 1981). C. vulgare, with its prickly stem and leaves at maturity, causes problems in agricultural areas and down-grades hay quality (Parsons, 1973; Hyde-Wyatt and Morris, 1980). It interferes with livestock grazing in pastures, inhibiting livestock movement, reduces wool quality, causes injury to animals (Auld et al., 1979; Forcella and Wood, 1986a) and has little nutritional value for livestock (Holm et al., 1997). An estimated US$15 million a year was lost in the wool industry to thistle in Australia (Davidson, 1990). The market price of wool, hay and grain can be reduced if contaminated with thistle achenes (Wheatley, 1981). In New Zealand, a negative correlation was found between the live-weight gain in sheep and the density of C. vulgare (Hartley, 1983). C. vulgare also has indirect negative effects on other vegetation by serving as an alternative host for Cucumber mosaic virus in New Zealand (Fletcher, 1989), Tobacco etch virus which attacks bell peppers in southern Illinois, USA (Weinbaum and Milbrath, 1976) and Tomato spotted wilt virus in British Columbia, Canada (Bitterlich and MacDonald, 1993). Its spiny leaves and bracts are responsible for transmitting virus diseases including myxomatosis and scabby mouth between animals (Parsons and Cuthbertson, 1992).

Environmental Impact

Top of page C. vulgare quickly invades sunny areas that have been disturbed but is suppressed when invading a healthy system. Large C. vulgare plants can reduce available light for smaller plants and draw away below-ground resources (Parsons and Cuthbertson, 1992).

Impact: Biodiversity

Top of page C. vulgare is regarded as a serious pest in protected areas and parks in the USA, such as Glacier, Teton, Yellowstone and Yosemite National Parks (Forcella and Randall, 1994). C. vulgare is increasing in frequency and abundance in many natural areas and it is a 'type species' in Great Lakes National Park, USA (Bennett, 2001). It also occurs in Waterton Lakes National Park in Canada (Kuijt, 1982) and Kosciusko National Park in Australia (Thompson and Gray, 1981). This species competes with and decreases desirable forage, and can form dense monoculture stands. Where C. vulgare is present in dense stands it eliminates cereals and desirable grasses. C. vulgare can inhibit the growth of other plants in the natural environment and may displace native plants partially or completely and threaten biodiversity (Holm et al., 1997). It is an efficient alien colonizer in the mountain grasslands of central Argentina that causes a decrease in biodiversity and a loss of palatable species (Petryna et al., 2002). In southern Tasmania, Australia, it is prolific immediately after fire and has the potential to take over gaps rapidly, infesting the area and excluding some previously existing species from the site (Ashton, 1981).

Threatened Species

Top of page
Threatened SpeciesConservation StatusWhere ThreatenedMechanismReferencesNotes
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 pitcheri (Pitcher's thistle)NatureServe NatureServe; USA ESA listing as threatened species USA ESA listing as threatened speciesIllinois; Indiana; Michigan; WisconsinHybridizationUS Fish and Wildlife Service, 2010a
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, 2010b
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, 2015
Speyeria callippe callippe (callippe silverspot butterfly)USA ESA listing as endangered species USA ESA listing as endangered speciesCaliforniaEcosystem change / habitat alterationUS Fish and Wildlife Service, 2009

Social Impact

Top of page C. vulgare with its prickly stem, leaves and flower heads can be harmful to man in cases of contact with mature plants or rosettes and contact dermatitis is a human health risk associated with this species (Dawe et al., 1996). Dense infestations may prevent access to areas they border (Forcella and Wood, 1986a) and large plants along roadsides can reduce visibility which may result in hazardous circumstances. A single C. vulgare is imposing enough, but an entire colony can ruin a pasture or destroy a park or campsite.

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
  • Damaged ecosystem services
  • Ecosystem change/ habitat alteration
  • Negatively impacts agriculture
  • Negatively impacts human health
  • Negatively impacts animal health
  • Negatively impacts tourism
  • Reduced amenity values
  • Reduced native biodiversity
Impact mechanisms
  • Competition - monopolizing resources
  • Competition
  • Pest and disease transmission
  • Hybridization
  • Produces spines, thorns or burrs
Likelihood of entry/control
  • Highly likely to be transported internationally accidentally
  • Highly likely to be transported internationally deliberately
  • Difficult/costly to control


Top of page Native North Americans used the newly bolted C. vulgare stems raw or cooked as food. The young leaves may be used for salads. The fleshy roots of C. vulgare have been sold commercially as bait for rabbit poisoning in Australia (Peterson, 1977; Mabberley, 1989). C. vulgare is a food source for bees (Barrow and Pickard, 1984). In Australia, it has value to the honey industry because it produces a good supply of nectar as well as pollen which is important for maintaining hives in some eucalypt areas. In ancient times, in Europe, it was used medicinally for treating haemorrhoids (Parsons and Cuthbertson, 1992).

Similarities to Other Species/Conditions

Top of page C. vulgare is distinguished from other Cirsium species and the genus Onopordum by its winged stem and spiny upper leaf surface (Holm et al., 1997). In Canada, the two native thistles, wavy-leaved thistle (Cirsium undulatum) and Flodman's thistle (Cirsium flodmanii), are mistaken for C. vulgare, although they are clearly different from C. vulgare in having densely woolly and wingless stems (Frankton and Mulligan, 1987). C. vulgare is distinguished from Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) by the large flowers and heavy taproot (Mitich, 1998).

Prevention and Control

Top 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.

Cultural Control

The ability of thistles to invade pastures can be changed by grazing management (Sindel, 1991), primarily by changing the competitiveness of the desirable pasture species (Sindel, 1996). Sheep, goats and horses, but not cattle, have a significant effect on thistles in the early stages of infestation when they eat young plants (Wheatley, 1981; Olson and Lacey, 1994). In one study, J. Leigh (in Davidson, 1990) showed that goats, which have a reputation for eating everything, tend to avoid thistle foliage but ate all capitula of C. vulgare available to them and thus completely prevented seed dispersal from mature plants. Sheep grazing can reduce competition from neighbouring plants and increase seedling survival, growth, flowering and achene production in C. vulgare (Forcella and Wood, 1986a; Silvertown and Smith, 1989). The percentage of seedlings that survived through to the rosette stage was 1% under grazed conditions and 0.2% in ungrazed pastures (Forcella and Wood, 1986a). Bullock et al. (1994) found no effects of grazing on achene number per capitula, post-dispersal achene survival or between-year survivals in the seed bank. In New Zealand, frequent grazing and sowing of prairie grass cv. Matua, increased the establishment of C. vulgare (Pineiro and Harris, 1987). Establishing and maintaining dense, vigorous and competitive pasture can effectively prevent C. vulgare establishment as shown in swards of pasture species and legumes (Wardle et al., 1992). Stocking pastures is an essential step in thistle control. In Australia, conservation of ryegrass (Lolium rigidum) in pastures infested with C. vulgare has been recommended (Forcella and Wood, 1986a). An increase in ryegrass sowing density caused a decrease in C. vulgare biomass and increased time to flowering (Seefeldt and Armstrong, 2000). However, sowing C. vulgare achenes 12 months after the establishment of ryegrass did not affect emergence and survival of C. vulgare (Armstrong et al., 2002).

Mechanical Control

In pastures previously given weed control treatments, cultivation and cropping was a successful control method. Small areas can be eradicated by excavating the rosettes. Mowing and slashing can only be effective if done either immediately prior to flowering or when plants are just starting to flower (Sindel, 1991) otherwise flowering is merely delayed (Harris and Wilkinson, 1984). Cutting can reduce the number of thistles primarily by reducing achene input (Randall, 1990). The plants must be cut off below the soil surface and no leaves can remain attached or it will grow back. When mowing is carried out too early it may only delay flowering, however, if plants are cut too late in the flowering process viable seed may still develop in the capitula following cutting. As there can be a wide variation in the maturity of plants, a single mowing is unlikely to provide satisfactory control (Sindel, 1991) and repeated mowing throughout the entire growing season has proved successful (Wheatley, 1981). In addition, reduced vegetative matter from mowing will allow autumn use of herbicides to be more effective. Hand-pulling, hoeing and tillage can be successful if these operations are performed before the reproductive growth stages to prevent cypsela production (Beck, 1999). Besides encouraging competing vegetation where possible, every effort should be made to prevent established plants from going to seed. It is worth mentioning that this kind of control is very labour-intensive.

Chemical Control

Most herbicides give temporary control of thistles. Effective herbicides include dicamba (Wheatley, 1981), MCPA, 2,4-D and 2,4-D ester, (Harris and Wilkinson, 1984; Anon., 1986), or mixtures of 2,4-D + diuron, 2,4-D + triclopyr, or glyphosate + clopyralid (Leys et al., 1990; Parsons and Cuthbertson, 1992). Also, picloram, metsulfuron, chlorsulfuron (Beck, 1999), bentazon (Fellows, 1973), imazapyr (van Cantford et al., 1985), or mixtures of MCPA + terbutryne (Patterson, 1973) are used to control C. vulgare. In alfalfa fields, non-selective control can be achieved effectively by glyphosate or dicamba, with or without MCPA, in situations where legume damage is acceptable. In a strawberry plantation, 3,6-dichloropicolinic acid in gel formulation was effective at killing C. vulgare in autumn (Lawson and Wiseman, 1982). Cyanazine can be used selectively to remove C. vulgare in peas (Pisum sativum), onions (Allium cepa) and potatoes (Solanum tuberosum) (Parsons and Cuthbertson, 1992). Application rates can vary, depending on stand density and environmental conditions. Herbicides should be applied to rosettes in autumn or in the spring before the plants bolt (Beck, 1991).

Biological Control

Biological control programmes against C. vulgare have been initiated in North America as a result of its invasiveness and associated economic losses. These include the release of a gall forming fruit fly, Urophora stylata (Tephritidae), and a thistle head weevil, Rhinocyllus conicus (Curculionidae) (Forcella and Randall, 1994). In Canada, U. stylata was released in 1973 and led to a 65% reduction in achene formation in some areas after three years (Parsons and Cuthbertson, 1992). This fruit fly is effective in controlling C. vulgare in central and western Europe, but results in North America show that fly dispersal is slow and the agent only survives in dense stands of C. vulgare (Harris and Wilkinson, 1984). R. conicus has a wide host range and can be a potential threat to native thistle species in North America (Turner et al., 1987). Its potential as a biocontrol agent has been investigated in Australia (Parsons and Cuthbertson, 1992). Two rosette-feeding weevils, Ceutorhynchus trimaculatus and Trichosirocalus horridus, were released in 1974 to control other carduine thistles in North America and have now spread to C. vulgare (Kok et al., 1979; McAvoy et al., 1987). None of these insects have provided adequate control of C. vulgare (Forcella and Randall, 1994). In Czechoslovakia, Terellia serratulae and U. stylata were recommended as biocontrol agents for C. vulgare. U. stylata produces galls in the flower heads of C. vulgare causing a reduction in the number of cypselas. T. serratulae does not produce galls but larvae of this species feeding on cypselas decrease seed production of the host plant. Larvae of both species can develop in the same flower head (Kinkorova, 1991). In South Africa, U. stylata from Germany and France and R. conicus from France were released on infestations of C. vulgare on several occasions from 1983 onwards. Initially, both herbivores became established and the results were modest (Zimmermann, 1990; 1991). However, the latest survey (Hodson et al., 2003) indicates that the contribution of R. conicus has been slight due to unidentified constraints, at least in the two localized areas that the weevils currently occupy. The fungus Sclerotinia sclerotiorum has been shown to have potential as a biological herbicide for controlling C. vulgare in pastures (Bourdôt and Harvey, 1996).

Integrated Control

Control methods that have been used to date are either not very effective and just temporarily remove C. vulgare from the site, or can be costly and detrimental to crops (Wheatley, 1981). The methods that are currently applied create many practical problems (Minehan, 1996), however, a combination of these methods may help prevent this species from further invasion. Pulling out the plants by hand, grazing young plants with goats or using herbicide on young plants to prevent seed set, seeding disturbed areas with competitive native perennials (Parsons and Cuthbertson, 1992) and soil solarization (Nasr-Esfahani, 1993) could all play a part of integrated management and control. Also, disturbance of soil and vegetation can advance germination (Klinkhamer and Jong, 1988) which may help synchronize the germination of C. vulgare and improve the effectiveness of chemical control.


Top of page

Agnew ADQ, 1974. Upland Kenya wild flowers. London, UK: Oxford University Press

Amor RL, Ridge PE, 1987. Chemical fallow systems for wheat production in the Victorian Wimmera. Plant Protection Quarterly, 2(2):74-78

Anon., 1986. Spear thistle and variegated thistle. Journal of Agriculture, Tasmania, 49:187-191.

Armstrong ML, Harrington KC, Seefeldt SS, 2002. Weed establishment in the second year after high pasture sowing rates. New Zealand Plant Protection Volume 55, 2002. Proceedings of a conference, Centra Hotel, Rotorua, New Zealand, 13-15 August 2002, 116-120; 8 ref

Ashton DH, 1981. Fire in tall open-forests (wet sclerophyll forests). In: Gill AM, Groves RH, Noble IR, eds. Fire and the Australian biota. Canberra, Australia: The Australian Academy of Science, 339-366

Auld BA, Medd RW, 1987. Weeds - An Illustrated Botanical Guide to the Weeds of Australia. Melbourne, Australia: Inkata press

Auld BA, Menz KM, Medd RW, 1978. Bioeconomic model of weeds in pastures. Agro-Ecosystems, 5(1):69-84

Austin MP, Groves RH, Fresco LMF, Kaye PE, 1985. Relative growth of six thistle species along a nutrient gradient with multispecies competition. Journal of Ecology, 73(2):667-684

Bare JE, 1979. Wildflowers and weeds of Kansas. Lawrence, Kansas, USA: The Regents Press of Kansas

Barrow DA, Pickard RS, 1984. Size-related selection of food plants by bumblebees. Ecological Entomology, 9:369-373

Barrows EM, 1984. Perch sites and food of adult Chinese mantids (Dictyoptera: Mantidae). Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington, 86(4):898-901

Beck KG, 1991. Biennial thistle control with herbicides. In: James LF, Evans JO, Ralphs MH, Child RD, eds. Noxious range weeds. Boulder, Colorado, USA: Westview Press, 254-259

Beck KG, 1999. Biennial thistles. In: Sheley RL, Petroff JK, eds. Biology and Management of Noxious Rangeland Weeds. Corvallis, Oregon, USA: Oregon State University Press, 145-161

Bennett JP, 2001. Type characters of non-native plant species in Great Lakes National Parks (USA). Plant invasions: species ecology and ecosystem management, 199-206; 13 ref

Berch SM, Gamiet S, Deom E, 1988. Mycorrhizal status of some plants of southwestern British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Botany, 66(10):1924-1928

Bitterlich I, MacDonald LS, 1993. The prevalence of tomato spotted wilt virus in weeds and crops in southwestern British Columbia. Canadian Plant Disease Survey, 73(2):137-142

Bourdôt GW, Harvey IC, 1996. The potential of the fungus Sclerotinia sclerotiorum as a biological herbicide for controlling thistles in pasture. Plant Protection Quarterly, 11(SUP2):259-262; 26 ref

Briese DT, 1989. Natural enemies of carduine thistles in New South Wales. Journal of the Australian Entomological Society, 28(2):125-134

Bruzzese E, 1996. Ecology of Cirsium vulgare and Silybum marianum in relation to biological control. Plant Protection Quarterly, 11(SUP2):245-249; 29 ref

Bullock JM, Hill BC, Silvertown J, 1994. Demography of Cirsium vulgare in a grazing experiment. Journal of Ecology, 82:101-111

Cavers PB, Qaderi MM, Downs MP, Doucet C, Manku R, Meier L, 1998. The thistles: a spectrum of seed banks. Aspects of Applied Biology, No. 51:135-141; 11 ref

Clark DL, Wilson MV, 1994. Heat-treatment effects on seed bank species of an old-growth douglas-fir forest. Northwest Science, 68:1-5

Crow TR, Mroz GD, Gale MR, 1991. Regrowth and nutrient accumulations following whole-tree harvesting of a maple-oak forest. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 21:1305-1315

Darbyshire SJ, 2003. Inventory of Canadian agricultural weeds. Ottawa, Canada: Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada

Davidson S, 1990. Goats help eliminate thistles. Rural Research, No. 147:16-19; 3 ref

Dawe RS, Green CM, MacLead TM, Ferguson J, 1996. Daisy, dandelion and thistle contact allergy in the photosensitivity dermatitis and actinic reticuloid syndrome. Contact Dermatitis, 35:109-110

Dewey SA, 1991. Weed thistles of the western United States. In: James LF, Evans JO, Ralphs MH, Child RD, eds. Noxious Range Weeds. Boulder, Colorado, USA: Westview Press, 247-253

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

Doucet C, Cavers PB, 1996. A persistent seed bank of the bull thistle Cirsium vulgare. Canadian Journal of Botany, 74(9):1386-1391; 22 ref

Doucet C, Cavers PB, 1997. Induced dormancy and colour polymorphism in seeds of the bull thistle Cirsium vulgare (Savi) Ten. Seed Science Research, 7(4):399-407; 35 ref

Downs MP, 1998. Effects of leaf litter on seedling emergence of bull thistle, Cirsium vulgare (Savi) Ten. MSc thesis. University of Western Ontario, London, Canada

Downs MP, Cavers PB, 2000. Effects of wetting and drying on seed germination and seedling emergence of bull thistle, Cirsium vulgare (Savi) Ten. Canadian Journal of Botany, 78(12):1545-1551; 37 ref

Downs MP, Cavers PB, 2002. Physical and chemical factors associated with the reduction or delay of seed germination and seedling emergence of bull thistle, Cirsium vulgare (Savi) Ten. under leaf litter. Écoscience, 9:519-525

Fellows RW, 1973. Preliminary trials with bentazon on pasture. Proceedings of the 26th New Zealand Weed and Pest Control Conference, Auckland, New Zealand, 45-47

Finot SVL, Urbina PA, Minoletti OML, Wilckens ER, Figueroa RM, Riquelme CM, 1996. Achene and seedling morphology of Asteraceae weed species from south-central Chile. I. Agro-Ciencia, 12(1):15-29; 26 ref

Fletcher JD, 1989. Additional hosts of alfalfa mosaic virus, cucumber mosaic virus, and tobacco mosaic virus in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Crop and Horticultural Science, 17(4):361-362

Forcella F, Harvey SJ, 1988. Patterns of weed migration in northwestern U.S.A. Weed Science, 36(2):194-201

Forcella F, Randall JM, 1994. Biology of bull thistle, Cirsium vulgare (Savi) Tenore. Reviews of Weed Science, 6:29-50

Forcella F, Wood H, 1986. Demography and control of Cirsium vulgare (Savi) Ten. in relation to grazing. Weed Research (Oxford), 26(3):199-206

Forcella F, Wood H, 1986. Sequential flowering of thistles (Cynareae, Asteraceae) in southern Australia. Australian Journal of Botany, 34(4):455-461

Frankton C, Mulligan GA, 1987. Weeds of Canada. Publication, Agriculture Canada Toronto, Ontario, Canada; NC Press Limited, No. 948

Fujiyama N, Katakura H, 2002. Host plant suitability of a recently naturalized thistle Cirsium vulgare (Asteraceae) for a phytophagous ladybird beetle, Epilachna pustulosa (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae). Ecological Research, 17(3):275-282; 28 ref

Fussell M, Corbet SA, 1991. Forage for bumble bees and honey bees in farmland: a case study. Journal of Apicultural Research, 30(2):87-97; [Bb]

Goeden RD, Ricker DW, 1986. Phytophagous insect faunas of two introduced Cirsium thistles, C. ochrocentrum and C. vulgare, in southern California. Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 79(6):945-952

Grime JP, Hodgson JG, Hunt R, 1988. Comparative plant ecology. A functional approach to common British species. London, UK: Unwin Hyman Ltd., 679 pp

Grossmueller DW, Lederhouse RC, 1987. The role of nectar source distribution in habitat use and oviposition by the tiger swallowtail butterfly. Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society, 41(3):159-165

Groves RH, Kaye PE, 1989. Germination and phenology of seven introduced thistle species in southern Australia. Australian Journal of Botany, 37(4):351-359

Harris P, Clapperton MJ, 1997. An exploratory study on the influence of vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi on the success of weed biological control with insects. Biocontrol Science and Technology, 7(2):193-201; 46 ref

Harris P, Wilkinson ATS, 1984. Cirsium vulgare (Savi) Ten., bull thistle (Compositae). In: Kelleher JS, Hulme MA, eds. Biological control programmes against insects and weeds in Canada 1969-1980. Farnham Royal, Slough, UK: Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, 147-153

Hartley MJ, 1983. Effect of scotch thistles on sheep growth rates. Proceedings of the thirty-sixth New Zealand weed and pest control conference, 86-88; 2 ref

Hodson JL, Hoffmann JH, Zimmermann HG, 2003. Biological control of spear thistle, Cirsium vulgare (Asteraceae), in South Africa: a modest start for Rhinocyllus conicus (Coleoptera : Curculionidae). African Entomology, 11:15-20

Holm L, Doll J, Holm E, Pancho J, Herberger J, 1997. World weeds: natural histories and distribution. Wiley-Blackwell, 1129 pp

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

Hulten E, 1968. Flora of Alaska and neighboring territories. Stanford, California, USA: Stanford University Press

Hultin E, Torssell K, 1965. Alkaloid-screening of Swedish plants. Phytochemistry, 4:425-433

Hyde-Wyatt BH, Morris DI, 1980. The noxious and secondary weeds of Tasmania. Tasmania, Australia: Department of Agriculture

Isaev VV, Fedorov VG, Sotnikov VA, 1988. Economic evaluation of weed control. Zashchita Rastenii Moskva, 7:16-17

Jong TJ de, Klinkhamer GL, Nell HW, Troelstra SR, 1987. Growth and nutrient accumulation of the biennials Cirsium vulgare and Cynoglossum officinale under nutrient-rich conditions. Oikos, 48(1):62-72

Jordan LS, 1983. Weeds affect citrus growth, physiology, yield, fruit quality. Proceedings of the International Society of Citriculture, 1981. Volume 2. Fruit Tree Research Station Shimizu Japan, 481-483

Kelly D, Popay AI, 1985. Pasture production lost to unsprayed thistles at two sites. Proceedings, New Zealand Weed and Pest Control Conference Hastings, New Zealand; New Zealand Weed and Pest Control Society, 115-118

Kinkorova J, 1991. Life histories of Terellia serratulae and Urophora stylata (Diptera, Tephritidae) and their co-occurrence on Cirsium vulgare. Acta Entomologica Bohemoslovaca, 88:293-298

Klinkhamer PGL, Jong TJ de, 1988. The importance of small-scale disturbance for seedling establishment in Cirsium vulgare and Cynoglossum officinale. Journal of Ecology, UK, 76(2):383-392

Klinkhamer PGL, Jong TJ de, 1993. Biological flora of the British Isles, No. 176. Cirsium vugare (Savi) Ten. Journal of Ecology, 81:177-191

Klinkhamer PGL, Jong TJ de, Meijden E van der, 1988. Production, dispersal and predation of seeds in the biennial Cirsium vulgare. Journal of Ecology, UK, 76(2):403-414

Kok LT, Andres LA, Boldt PE, 1979. Host specificity studies on Ceutorhynchus trimaculatus (Col.: Curculionidae), a potential biological control agent of musk and plumeless thistle. Environmental Entomology, 8(6):1145-1149

Kuijt J, 1982. A flora of Waterton Lakes National Park. Edmonton, Canada: University of Alberta Press

Lawson HM, Wiseman JS, 1982. Evaluation of 3,6-dichloropicolinic acid in gel formulation for selective spot-treatment of perennial composite weeds. Annals of Applied Biology, 100(Supplement, Tests of Agrochemicals and Cultivars):78-79

Leys AR, Amor RL, Barnett AG, Plater B, 1990. Evaluation of herbicides for control of summer-growing weeds on fallows in south-eastern Australia. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 30(2):271-279

Lincoln WC Jr, 1981. Laboratory germination of Cirsium vulgare - bull or spear thistle. Newsletter of the Association of Official Seed Analysts, 55(3):67-68

Mabberley DJ, 1989. The Plant Book. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press

Malan SC, Donahue DJ, 1986. Abundance and distribution of Carduus and Cirsium species in selected counties of Maryland. Proceedings, 40th annual meeting of the Northeastern Weed Science Society, 120

Manku R, 1998. Achene variation in bull thistle, Cirsium vulgare (Savi) Ten. MSc thesis. University of Western Ontario, London, Canada

Mariani CL, Earley CG, McKinnon C, 1993. Early nesting by the American goldfinch, Carduelis tristis, and subsequent parasitism by the brown-headed cowbird, Molothrus ater, in Ontario. Canadian Field Naturalist, 107:349-350

Martin WC, Hutchins CR, 1981. A flora of New Mexico, Vol. 2. Hirschberg, Germany: J. Cramer

McAvoy TJ, Kok LT, Mays WT, 1987. Dispersal of Trichosirocalus horridus (Panzer) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) in southwest Virginia. Journal of Entomological Science, 22(4):324-329

McCarty MK, Scifres CJ, Robinson LR, 1984. A descriptive guide for major Nebraska thistles. Publication, Nebraska Agricultural Experiment Station, SB 493:27pp

McDonald PM, Tappeiner JC, 1986. Weeds: the cycles suggest controls. Journal of Forestry, 84: 33-37

McDonald RC, Kidd KA, Robbins NS, 1994. Establishment of the rosette weevil, Trichosirocalus horridus (Panzer) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) in North Carolina. Journal of Entomological Science, 29(3):302-304

McGowan GS, Wallace JW, 1972. Flavonoids and phenolic acids from Cirsium lanceolatum. Phytochemistry, 11:1503-1504

Michael PW, 1970. Weeds of grasslands. In: Moore RM, ed. Australian grassland. Canberra, Australia: Australian National University Press, 349-360

Michaux B, 1989. Associated fauna at one site of Cirsium vulgare (Savi) Ten., (Compositae: Cynareae). New Zealand Entomologist, No. 12:13-17

Michaux B, 1989. Reproductive and vegetative biology of Cirsium vulgare (Savi) Ten. (Compositae: Cynareae). New Zealand Journal of Botany, 27:401-414

Minehan D, 1996. Practical problems with existing thistle control: where is more research needed?. Plant Protection Quarterly, 11(SUP2):279-280

Missouri Botanical Garden, 2003. VAScular Tropicos database. St. Louis, USA: Missouri Botanical Garden.

Mitich LW, 1998. Bull thistle, Cirsium vulgare. Weed Technology, 12(4):761-763; 23 ref

Mohlenbrock RH, 1986. Guide to the vascular flora of Illinois, revised edition. Carbondale, Illinois, USA: Southern Illinois University Press

Moore RJ, Frankton C, 1962. Cytotaxonomic studies in the tribe Cynareae (Compositae). Canadian Journal of Botany, 40:281-293

Moore RJ, Frankton C, 1974. The Thistles of Canada. Monograph, Research Branch, Canada Department of Agriculture, No. 10:112 pp

Nasr-Esfahani M, 1993. Soil-solarization for the control of weeds in Pantanagar. Integrated weed management for sustainable agriculture. Proceedings of an Indian Society of Weed Science International Symposium, Hisar, India, 18-20 November 1993 Hisar, Haryana, India; Indian Society of Weed Science, Vol. III:233-237

Nishida T, 2002. Alien plants invasion of forage crop fields and artificial grasslands - distribution and routes of invasions. Grassland Science, 48(2):168-176; 49 ref

Nobile RA, Lujan VS, 1989. Description and illustration of the seeds of prescribed agricultural weeds in Argentina. Malezas, 17(1):63-70

O'Kennon B, Nesom G, 1988. First report of Cirsium vulgare (Asteraceae) from Texas. SIDA, 13:115-116

Olson BE, Lacey JR, 1994. Sheep: a method for controlling rangeland weeds. Sheep Research Journal, Special issue:105-112

Parsons WT, 1973. Noxious Weeds of Victoria. Melbourne, Australia: Inkata Press Proprietary Ltd. 311 pp

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

Patterson TM, 1973. Control of chickweed in pasture. Proceedings of the 26th New Zealand Weed and Pest Control Conference, Auckland., 48-49

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

Petersen PM, 1982. Vegetation changes resulting from a lowering of the local water table. Nordisk Jordbrugsforskning, 64(4):536-537

Peterson LA, 1977. A field guide to edible wild plants of eastern and central North America. Boston, USA: Houghton Mifflin Company

Petryna L, Moora M, Nunes CO, Cantero JJ, Zobel M, 2002. Are invaders disturbance-limited? Conservation of mountain grasslands in Central Argentina. Applied Vegetation Science, 5(2):195-202; 40 ref

Pineiro J, Harris W, 1987. Performance of mixtures of ryegrass cultivars and prairie grass with red clover cultivars under two grazing frequencies. 2. Shoot populations and natural reseeding of prairie grass. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research, 21:665-673

Radford AE, 1986. Fundamentals of Plant Systematics. New York, USA: Harper and Row, Publishers

Radford AE, Ahles HE, Bell CR, 1968. Manual of the vascular flora of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA: The University of North Carolina Press

Randall JM, 1990. Manual control of spear thistle (Cirsium vulgare), and alien biennial in Yosemite National Park, California. Biology and control of invasive plants Ruthin, Clwyd, UK; Richards, Moorhead & Laing Ltd, 64-71

Randall JM, 2000. Cirsium vulgare (Savi) Tenore. In: Bossard CC, Randall JM, Hoshovsky MC, eds. Invasive plants of California's wildlands. Berkeley, California, USA: University of California Press, 112-119

Randall JM, Rejmanek M, 1993. Interference of bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare) with growth of ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) seedlings in a forest plantation. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 23(8):1507-1513

Rotheray GE, 1986. Terellia serratulae (L.) (Dipt., Tephritidae) in Scotland. Entomologist's Monthly Magazine, 122(1468/71):254

Rousseau C, 1968. Histoire, habitat et distribution de 220 plantes introduites au Québec. Naturaliste Canadien, 95:49-169

Salveter R, 1998. The influence of sown herb strips and spontaneous weeds on the larval stages of aphidophagous hoverflies (Dipt., Syrphidae). Journal of Applied Entomology, 122(2/3):103-114; 3 pp. of ref

Seefeldt SS, Armstrong ML, 2000. Impact of perennial ryegrass seeding densities on weed emergence, growth and development. New Zealand Plant Protection Volume 53, 2000. Proceedings of a conference, Commodore Hotel, Christchurch, New Zealand, 8-10 August 2000, 38-43; 7 ref

Silvertown J, Smith B, 1989. Germination and population structure of spearthistle Cirsium vulgare in relation to experimentally controlled sheep grazing. Oecologia, 81(3):369-373

Sindel BM, 1991. A review of the ecology and control of thistles in Australia. Weed Research (Oxford), 31(4):189-201

Sindel BM, 1996. Overview of thistle management in Australia. Plant Protection Quarterly, 11(SUP2):285-289; 2 pp. of ref

Smith KGV, McLean IFG, 1998. Leucopis glyphinivora Tanasijtshuk (Dipt., Chamaemyiidae) new to Britain and the aerial distribution of its puparium via thistle pappus. Entomologist's Monthly Magazine, 133(1604-7):85-87; 6 ref

Strausbaugh PD, Core EL, 1977. Flora of West Virginia. 2nd edn. Morgantown, West Virginia, USA: Seneca Books, Inc

Thompson J, Gray M, 1981. A check-list of subalpine and alpine plant species found in the Kosciusko region of New South Wales. Telopea, 2:299-346

Tipping PW, 1992. Density of Carduus and Cirsium thistles in selected areas of Maryland. Weed Technology, 6(2):432-436

Tothill JC, Berry J, 1981. Cool season weed invasion of improved subtropical pastures. Proceedings of the Sixth Australian Weeds Conference, 1981., Volume 1:29-33

Turner CE, Pemberton RW, Rosenthal SS, 1987. Host utilization of native Cirsium thistles (Asteraceae) by the introduced weevil Rhinocyllus conicus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) in California. Environmental Entomology, 16(1):111-115

US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2009. Callippe Silverspot Butterfly (Speyeria callippe callippe). 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. In: Callippe Silverspot Butterfly (Speyeria callippe callippe). 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation : US Fish and Wildlife Service.29 pp.

US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2010. Pitcher's thistle (Cirsium pitcheri). 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. In: Pitcher's thistle (Cirsium pitcheri). 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation : US Fish and Wildlife Service.29 pp.

US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2010. Sacramento Mountains thistle (Cirsium vinaceum). 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. In: Sacramento Mountains thistle (Cirsium vinaceum). 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation : US Fish and Wildlife Service.50 pp.

US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2013. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Status for Gunnison Sage-Grouse; Proposed Rule. In: Federal Register , 78(8) : US Fish and Wildlife Service.2486-2538.

US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2015. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service species assessment and listing priority assignment form: Cirsium wrightii. In: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service species assessment and listing priority assignment form: Cirsium wrightii : US Fish and Wildlife Service.37 pp.

USDA-ARS, 2003. Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN). Online Database. Beltsville, Maryland, USA: National Germplasm Resources Laboratory.

USDA-ARS, 2016. Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN). National Plant Germplasm System. Online Database. Beltsville, Maryland, USA: National Germplasm Resources Laboratory.

van Breeman AAM, van Leeuwen BH, 1983. The seedbank of three short-lived monocarpic species Cirsium vulgare (Compositae), Echium vulgare and Cynoglossum officinale (Boraginaceae). Acta Botanica Neerlandica, 32:245-246

van Cantfort AM, Rabby JC, Hegman, AR, Dunn JC, 1985. Arsenal herbicide update: new species controlled, forestry and grass release. Proceedings, Southern Weed Science Society, 38th Annual Meeting, 356

van Leeuwen BH, 1981. Influence of micro-organisms on the germination of the monocarpic Cirsium vulgare in relation to disturbance. Oecologia, 48:112-115

van Staden J, Kelly KM, Ross JA, 1995. Changes in germination requirements of Cirsium vulgare with storage. South African Journal of Botany, 61:1-4

Volna EP, 1988. Controlling root-propagated perennial weeds. Zashchita Rastenii (Moskva), No. 9:30

Wagner H, 1977. Cynareae - Chemical review. In: Heywood VH, Harborne JB, Turner BL, eds. The biology and chemistry of the Compositae, Vol. II. London, UK: Academic Press, Inc., 1017-1038

Walker AK, Michaux B, 1989. The chrysanthemum thrips, Thrips nigropilosus Uzel (Terebrantia: Thysanoptera), on Scotch thistle, Cirsium vulgare (Savi) Ten. (Compositae: Cynareae) in New Zealand. New Zealand Entomologist, No. 12:17-19

Wardle DA, Nicholson KS, Rahman A, 1992. Influence of pasture grass and legume swards on seedling emergence and growth of Carduus nutans L. and Cirsium vulgare L. Weed Research (Oxford), 32(2):119-128

Weaver JE, 1968. Prairie plants and their environment: A fifty-year study in the Midwest. Lincoln, Nebraska, USA: University of Nebraska Press

Weber WA, Wittmann RC, 1996. Colorado Flora: Eastern Slope, edition 2. Niwot, Colorado, USA: University Press of Colorado

Weinbaum Z, Milbrath GM, 1976. The isolation of tobacco etch virus from bell peppers and weeds in Southern Illinois. Plant Disease Reporter, 60(6):469-471

Wesselingh RA, Klinkhamer PGL, Jong TJ de, Schlatmann EGM, 1994. A latitudinal cline in vernalization requirement in Cirsium vulgare. Ecography, 17(3):272-277

Wheatley WM, 1981. Winning the thistle war. Agricultural Gazette of New South Wales, 92(2):25-28

Wilson GWT, Hartnett DC, 1998. Interspecific variation in plant responses to mycorrhizal colonization in tallgrass prairie. American Journal of Botany, 85(12):1732-1738; 2 pp. of ref

Wilson L, 1981. Weed regulatory control on state owned lands. Proceedings North Central Weed Control Conference, 1981, Vol.36:85-86

Witt, A., Luke, Q., 2017. Guide to the naturalized and invasive plants of Eastern Africa, [ed. by Witt, A., Luke, Q.]. Wallingford, UK: + 601 pp. doi:10.1079/9781786392145.0000

Wofford BE, 1989. Guide to the vascular plants of the Blue Ridge. Athens, Georgia, USA: The University of Georgia Press

Wunderlin RP, 1998. Guide to the Vascular Plants of Florida. Gainesville, Florida, USA: University Press of Florida

Zimdahl RL, 1989. Weeds and words. The etymology of the scientific names of weeds and crops. Ames, Iowa: USA; Iowa State University Press

Zimmermann HG, 1990. Progress with biological control of spear thistle. Plant Protection News, No. 19:5

Zimmermann HG, 1991. Biological control of spear thistle, Cirsium vulgare (Asteraceae), in South Africa. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 37(1-3):199-205

Distribution Maps

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