Acanthospermum hispidum (bristly starbur)
- Summary of Invasiveness
- Taxonomic Tree
- Notes on Taxonomy and Nomenclature
- Plant Type
- Distribution Table
- History of Introduction and Spread
- Risk of Introduction
- Habitat List
- Hosts/Species Affected
- Host Plants and Other Plants Affected
- Biology and Ecology
- Latitude/Altitude Ranges
- Air Temperature
- Rainfall Regime
- Soil Tolerances
- Notes on Natural Enemies
- Pathway Vectors
- Plant Trade
- Impact Summary
- Environmental Impact
- Impact: Biodiversity
- Social Impact
- Risk and Impact Factors
- Uses List
- Similarities to Other Species/Conditions
- Prevention and Control
- 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
- Acanthospermum hispidum DC. (1836)
Preferred Common Name
- bristly starbur
Other Scientific Names
- Acanthospermum humile Chev.
International Common Names
- English: goat's head; star burr; Texas cockspur; upright starbur
- Spanish: corona de la reina; cuagrilla
- French: herbe savane
- Portuguese: carrapicho-de-carneiro
Local Common Names
- Argentina: cuajrilla; torito
- Bolivia: espinoso; estrella; tacuo
- Brazil: amor de negro; cabeca de boi; camboeiro; carrapicho de carneiro; chifre de carneiro; chifre de veado; espinho de agulha; espinho de cigano; federacão; poejo de praia; retirante
- Colombia: carrapichno; carrapicho rasteiro
- Dominican Republic: mala mujer
- East Africa: jina la kawaida
- India: kattu nerinji; saroto
- Mauritius: herbe tricorne
- Nigeria: kasinyawo
- Paraguay: toro rati
- South Africa: donkieklits; regop sterklits
- USA: bristly starbur; goathead
- Zambia: kanjata; nchesa; nseeto
- Zimbabwe: sibama yauli
- ACNHI (Acanthospermum hispidum)
- ACNHU (Acanthospermum humile)
Summary of InvasivenessTop of page A. hispidum is a troublesome annual weed of annual and perennial crops, which has spread remarkably widely from its origins in South America, almost exclusively as a result of accidental rather than deliberate transfer. The spiny fruits are a particular hazard to livestock and assist the movement of the weed in agricultural produce. There are many countries, and regions within larger countries, to which it could yet be introduced and prove invasive, with corresponding costs to agriculture.
Taxonomic TreeTop of page
- Domain: Eukaryota
- Kingdom: Plantae
- Phylum: Spermatophyta
- Subphylum: Angiospermae
- Class: Dicotyledonae
- Order: Asterales
- Family: Asteraceae
- Genus: Acanthospermum
- Species: Acanthospermum hispidum
Notes on Taxonomy and NomenclatureTop of page Acanthospermum combines the Greek akanthos, meaning 'spiny' or 'thorny', with sperma, meaning seed, a reference to the large hooked spines on the seed; hispidum is from the Latin hispidus, meaning 'hairy' or 'bristly', alluding to the generally rough, hairy covering on stems and leaves (Parsons and Cuthbertson, 1992).
DescriptionTop of page A. hispidum is an annual herb, up to 90 cm high with a shallow, branched tap root. The stem is erect, and exhibits regular dichotomous branching to form a more or less flat-topped plant, covered in stiff hairs. Leaves are in opposite pairs, without petioles, obovate, up to 8 cm long and 3 cm wide, slightly lobed, irregularly toothed and hairy. Inflorescences are solitary, composite heads in the axils of upper leaves, sessile, pale yellow-green and about 6 mm in diameter. Florets are quite few and are monoecious, the 5-10 ray florets being female and a similar number of disc florets male. The fruit consists wedge-shaped achenes grouped into star-shaped clusters. The achenes (also called burrs) are about 6 mm long and covered with numerous short, stiff, hooked spines, with two much longer spines at the apex.
Plant TypeTop of page Annual
DistributionTop of page A. hispidum originates from South America and can be considered native wherever it occurs in South and Central America and in the Caribbean (USDA-ARS, 2005), but has spread very widely in North America, Africa, Asia and Australia and now occurs in over 60 countries (Holm et al., 1997; USDA-ARS, 2005, etc). Although mainly tropical and sub-tropical in distribution, it is also recorded from temperate Northeast Russia, near Vladivostok (Buch and Shvydkaya, 1989), and from France (Ballais, 1969).
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.Last updated: 10 Jan 2020
|Continent/Country/Region||Distribution||Last Reported||Origin||First Reported||Invasive||Reference||Notes|
|Angola||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Holm et al. (1979)|
|Benin||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Holm et al. (1979)|
|Botswana||Present, Widespread||Introduced||Invasive||Phillips (1991)|
|Congo, Democratic Republic of the||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Holm et al. (1979)|
|Côte d'Ivoire||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Holm et al. (1979)|
|Ethiopia||Present, Localized||Introduced||Invasive||Stroud and Parker (1989)|
|Gambia||Present, Widespread||Introduced||Invasive||Terry (1981)|
|Ghana||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Holm et al. (1979)|
|Kenya||Present, Widespread||Introduced||1945||Invasive||Terry and Michieka (1987); Blundell (1992)|
|Madagascar||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Holm et al. (1979)|
|Malawi||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Banda and Morris (1986)|
|Mauritius||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Holm et al. (1979)|
|Mozambique||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Holm et al. (1979)|
|Namibia||Present||Introduced||Wells et al. (1986)|
|Niger||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Holm et al. (1979)|
|Senegal||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Berhaut (1967); Holm et al. (1979)|
|Sierra Leone||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Adams (1963)|
|Somalia||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Terry and Michieka (1987)|
|South Africa||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Henderson and Anderson (1966)|
|Tanzania||Present, Widespread||Introduced||Invasive||Terry and Michieka (1987)|
|Uganda||Present, Localized||Introduced||Invasive||Terry and Michieka (1987)|
|Zambia||Present, Widespread||Introduced||Invasive||CABI (Undated)||Original citation: Vernon (1983)|
|Zimbabwe||Present, Widespread||Introduced||Invasive||Drummond (1984)|
|China||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Wang (1990); CABI (Undated)|
|-Yunnan||Present, Widespread||Introduced||Invasive||CABI (Undated)||Original citation: Wang et al., 1990|
|India||Present, Widespread||Introduced||Invasive||Holm et al. (1979); Moody (1989)|
|-Andhra Pradesh||Present, Widespread||Introduced||Invasive||Rao et al. (1987)|
|-Gujarat||Present, Widespread||Introduced||Invasive||Bhattacharyya and Pandya (1996)|
|-Karnataka||Present, Widespread||Introduced||1917||Invasive||Subbaiah et al. (1995); CABI (Undated)|
|-Tamil Nadu||Present, Widespread||Introduced||1917||Invasive||Mariappan and Narayanasamy (1972); CABI (Undated)|
|Indonesia||Present, Localized||Introduced||Invasive||Kostermans et al. (1987)|
|-Irian Jaya||Present, Localized||Introduced||Invasive||Kostermans et al. (1987)|
|-Java||Present, Localized||Introduced||Invasive||Kostermans et al. (1987)|
|Sri Lanka||Present, Localized||Introduced||Invasive||Holm et al. (1979)|
|Thailand||Present, Localized||Introduced||Invasive||Holm et al. (1979)|
|France||Present, Localized||Introduced||Ballais (1969)|
|Russia||Present||CABI (Undated a)||Present based on regional distribution.|
|-Russian Far East||Present, Localized||Introduced||CABI (Undated)||Original citation: Buch & Shvydkya, 1989|
|Antigua and Barbuda||Present||Native||USDA-ARS (2005)|
|Belize||Present||Native||Invasive||Holm et al. (1979)|
|Canada||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Holm et al. (1979)|
|Costa Rica||Present||Native||USDA-ARS (2005)|
|El Salvador||Present||Native||USDA-ARS (2005)|
|Guadeloupe||Present, Widespread||Native||Invasive||Fournet and Hammerton (1991)|
|Montserrat||Present, Widespread||Native||Fournet and Hammerton (1991); USDA-ARS (2005)|
|Puerto Rico||Present||Native||Invasive||Holm et al. (1979)|
|Saint Kitts and Nevis||Present||Native||USDA-ARS (2005)|
|Trinidad and Tobago||Present, Localized||Native||Invasive||Fournet and Hammerton (1991)|
|U.S. Virgin Islands||Present||Native||USDA-NRCS (2005)|
|United States||Present, Localized||Introduced||Invasive||Lorenzi and Jeffery (1987)|
|-Alabama||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Lorenzi and Jeffery (1987)|
|-Arizona||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Lorenzi and Jeffery (1987)|
|-Florida||Present, Widespread||Introduced||Invasive||Lorenzi and Jeffery (1987); Hall and Vandiver (1991)||First reported: 1800s|
|-Georgia||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Lorenzi and Jeffery (1987)|
|-Hawaii||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Holm et al. (1979)|
|-Louisiana||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Lorenzi and Jeffery (1987)|
|-Mississippi||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Lorenzi and Jeffery (1987)|
|-New Jersey||Present, Localized||Introduced||Invasive||USDA-NRCS (2005)|
|-New Mexico||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Lorenzi and Jeffery (1987)|
|-North Carolina||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Lorenzi and Jeffery (1987)|
|-Oregon||Present, Localized||Introduced||Invasive||USDA-NRCS (2005)|
|-South Carolina||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Lorenzi and Jeffery (1987)|
|-Texas||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Lorenzi and Jeffery (1987)|
|-Virginia||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Lorenzi and Jeffery (1987)|
|Australia||Present, Localized||Introduced||Invasive||Parsons and Cuthbertson (1992)|
|-New South Wales||Present, Localized||Introduced||Invasive||Holm et al. (1997)|
|-Northern Territory||Present, Localized||Introduced||Invasive||Miller and Schultz (1997)|
|-Queensland||Present, Localized||Introduced||Invasive||Holm et al. (1997)|
|-South Australia||Present, Localized||Introduced||Invasive||Holm et al. (1997)|
|-Western Australia||Present, Localized||Introduced||Invasive||Holm et al. (1997)|
|Bolivia||Present||Native||Gonzalez and Webb (1989)|
|Brazil||Present, Widespread||Native||Invasive||Lorenzi (1982)|
|-Espirito Santo||Present||Native||Invasive||Lorenzi (1982)|
|-Mato Grosso||Present||Native||Invasive||Lorenzi (1982)|
|-Minas Gerais||Present||Native||Invasive||Lorenzi (1982)|
|-Rio Grande do Norte||Present||Native||Invasive||Lorenzi (1982)|
|-Rio Grande do Sul||Present||Native||Invasive||Lorenzi (1982)|
|-Santa Catarina||Present||Native||Invasive||Lorenzi (1982)|
|-Sao Paulo||Present||Native||Invasive||Lorenzi (1982)|
|Colombia||Present||Native||Invasive||Holm et al. (1979)|
|French Guiana||Present||Native||USDA-ARS (2005)|
|Peru||Present||Native||Invasive||Holm et al. (1979)|
History of Introduction and SpreadTop of page It was introduced accidentally to Florida, USA, in the 1800s (Hall and Vandiver, 1991); first recorded in Queensland, Australia in the late 19th century (Parsons and Cuthbertson, 1992); in India in 1917 (Tadulingam and Venkatarayana, 1955); and in Kenya in 1945 (Blundell, 1992). In each case there was some lag before it became invasive, but in India this was apparent by the 1940's. In Australia it was naturalized by 1906 and then spread steadily. The origin and means of introduction are generally unknown, but in Florida and at other points along the eastern USA, it is believed to have been introduced in ship ballast (Hall and Vandiver, 1991) and in most other areas it is assumed to have come in accidentally, as a crop seed contaminant, or adhering to imported wool, skins and furs, rather than deliberately. In southern India, it was first noted around railway stations, and it seems clear that railways have been an important means of spread within countries.
Risk of IntroductionTop of page Although a very large number of countries outside South America have already been infested, there is certainly scope for further spread, e.g. to Mexico and Japan, as well as more widely within countries such as USA and China where many regions with warm summer temperatures remain free so far. As the weed commonly occurs in a wide range of crops in so many countries there is a highly significant risk of accidental introduction via contaminated crop seed as well as in other agricultural produce, including animal products and bags, etc., to which the spiny fruits may be attached. Deliberate introduction is somewhat less likely, though its many traditional medicinal uses could result in a temptation to import for development of pharmaceuticals.
A. hispidum is listed as a prohibited or restricted species for the states of Western Australia and Northern Territories in Australia, and for Hawaii, USA.
HabitatTop of page A. hispidum is a common weed of arable land, pastures, roadsides and wasteland. It grows in a wide range of climatic conditions and soil types (particularly light soils). It appears to behave similarly in both native and invaded areas. It is mainly tropical and sub-tropical in distribution, but occurs up to altitudes of 1700 m in East Africa (Terry and Michieka, 1987), 1500 m in Bhutan (Parker, 1992) and 1300 m in the Dominican Republic (Jurgens, 1977). It is also recorded from temperate Northeast Russia, near Vladivostok (Buch and Shvydkaya, 1989), and from France (Ballais, 1969), but whether it is fully naturalized in these localities seems doubtful.
Habitat ListTop of page
|Terrestrial – Managed||Cultivated / agricultural land||Present, no further details||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Managed forests, plantations and orchards||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)|
|Terrestrial ‑ Natural / Semi-natural||Natural grasslands||Present, no further details||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Riverbanks||Present, no further details||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
Hosts/Species AffectedTop of page A. hispidum is a widely occurring crop weed (Holm et al., 1997) infesting small- and large-grained cereals, legumes, tree crops (citrus, peach, rubber, vines), vegetables and oil seeds. Most crops are likely to be infested with A. hispidum when grown within the habitat range of this weed.
Host Plants and Other Plants AffectedTop of page
|Abelmoschus esculentus (okra)||Malvaceae||Other|
|Ananas comosus (pineapple)||Bromeliaceae||Main|
|Arachis hypogaea (groundnut)||Fabaceae||Main|
|Eleusine coracana (finger millet)||Poaceae||Other|
|Glycine max (soyabean)||Fabaceae||Main|
|Helianthus annuus (sunflower)||Asteraceae||Main|
|Hevea brasiliensis (rubber)||Euphorbiaceae||Other|
|Hordeum distichon (two-rowed barley)||Poaceae||Other|
|Manihot esculenta (cassava)||Euphorbiaceae||Other|
|Nicotiana tabacum (tobacco)||Solanaceae||Other|
|Oryza sativa (rice)||Poaceae||Main|
|Phaseolus vulgaris (common bean)||Fabaceae||Main|
|Pisum sativum (pea)||Fabaceae||Other|
|Prunus persica (peach)||Rosaceae||Other|
|Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)||Poaceae||Main|
|Sesamum indicum (sesame)||Pedaliaceae||Other|
|Solanum melongena (aubergine)||Solanaceae||Other|
|Solanum tuberosum (potato)||Solanaceae||Other|
|Sorghum bicolor (sorghum)||Poaceae||Other|
|Triticum aestivum (wheat)||Poaceae||Other|
|Zea mays (maize)||Poaceae||Main|
Biology and EcologyTop of page Physiology and Phenology
A. hispidum is a prolific seed producer; a pure stand can contain more than one million plants/ha, producing one billion seeds, weighing almost 10 tonnes (Schwerzel, 1970). After burial for one year, 80% of seed remains viable. Freshly harvested seed has 36% germination, dropping to 15% after dry storage for one year (Holm et al., 1997 - citing the work of P Thomas in Zimbabwe during 1975-82). Most seeds of A. hispidum emerge within three years of production and all seeds die within eight years whether the field is cultivated or not (Schwerzel and Thomas, 1979; Voll et al. 2001). Garcia and Sharif (1995a,b) showed that seeds were generally dormant immediately after being collected. The achenes responded positively to light, and germination was equally promoted by red and far-red light. The germination was highest in the temperature range 20-25°C. Seeds also responded to scarification.
Seedlings emerge over an extended period in the presence of adequate soil moisture and when temperatures are high enough (20-30°C). Subsequent growth is rapid, the first fruit appearing 35-40 days after emergence, seed maturation occurring 45-50 days later (Parsons and Cuthbertson, 1992).
Biomass and seed production are reduced when A. hispidum grows in the shade. This probably accounts for its reduced competitiveness in mixed cropping systems compared with crop monocultures (Shetty et al., 1982).
A. hispidum is monoecious, having male flowers in the centre and female flowers on the outside of the inflorescence. Self-pollination and cross-pollination occur by wind. The spiny achenes (burrs) are readily dispersed on the wool and fur of animals and through contamination of hay and crop residues. They are also carried considerable distances by streams and floodwaters.
A. hispidum apparently requires a certain minimum warmth to germinate and thrive. In South Africa it occurs in the summer rainfall areas but not so much where there is a Mediterranean climate with winter rainfall. It would presumably be susceptible to frost, but, as an annual, it can occur in temperate areas with very low minimum temperatures, as the summer temperatures, even in e.g. Northeast Russia, can regularly exceed 20°C.
A. hispidum is especially common on very light sandy soils, but is by no means restricted to this soil type, occurring as a serious weed on a wide range of soils, including clays.
A. hispidum is an alternative host for several crop pests, see the section on Economic Impact for further details.
Latitude/Altitude RangesTop of page
|Latitude North (°N)||Latitude South (°S)||Altitude Lower (m)||Altitude Upper (m)|
Air TemperatureTop of page
|Parameter||Lower limit||Upper limit|
|Mean annual temperature (ºC)||4||30|
RainfallTop of page
|Parameter||Lower limit||Upper limit||Description|
|Dry season duration||0||7||number of consecutive months with <40 mm rainfall|
|Mean annual rainfall||500||1500||mm; lower/upper limits|
Rainfall RegimeTop of page Bimodal
Soil TolerancesTop of page
Notes on Natural EnemiesTop of page Lloyd (1956) searched for natural enemies of A. hispidum in South America (the centre of origin of this weed) but concluded that there was little hope of finding effective biological control agents. Heliothis peltigera is of some benefit in controlling A. hispidum in Gujarat State, India but it can be a pest of economic plants (Manjunath et al., 1976).
Pathway VectorsTop of page
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|
|True seeds (inc. grain)||fruits; seeds||Yes||Pest or symptoms usually visible to the naked eye|
Impact SummaryTop of page
|Fisheries / aquaculture||None|
ImpactTop of page A. hispidum is a weed problem in at least 25 crops, and is one of the three principal weeds of Zimbabwe and Brazil (Holm et al., 1997). It is a declared noxious weed in Hawaii, USA and Australia. The quality of sheep wool is reduced when contaminated by the spiny achenes, and livestock are harmed when the achenes penetrate the hooves, often resulting in infection and subsequent lameness. The plant is toxic to animals when consumed on a daily basis, but is generally avoided by livestock (Holm et al., 1991)
Crop yields are decreased in the presence of A. hispidum which competes for water, nutrients and light. Walker et al. (1989) illustrated a negative linear relationship between groundnut seed yield and the period of interference from A. hispidum. Each week of interference reduced seed yields by 20, 205 and 134 kg/ha, respectively, over three consecutive years, and as little as two weeks of interference caused significant seed yield reductions. Full-season interference from 8 and 64 A. hispidum plants per 7.5 m of crop row reduced groundnut seed yields by 14% and 50%, respectively. Chivinge (1990) recorded losses in soyabean due to A. hispidum planted in pots the same day, but no loss when the weed was planted after 11 or 22 days. Congo, N'zama and Tombé (1999) studied different ratios of soyabean and A. hispidum at a range of densities and concluded that the two species share the same resources without antagonistic interactions. Holm et al. (1997) note that this is a C3 plant with relatively inefficient photosynthesis but that its competitive effect may be enhance by allelopathic influence. Crop losses are also caused by interference from A. hispidum at harvest time. This is a major cause of soyabean yield losses in Brazil (Davis et al., 1979).
A. hispidum is an alternative host for a number of crop pests and diseases including: Heliothis peltigera and H. armigera [Helicoverpa armigera] (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) (Patel et al., 1971; Manjunath et al., 1976); Calidea dregii (Hemiptera: Scutelleridae), a cotton pest in Tanzania (Reed and Kayumbo, 1965); the soyabean pests Euschistus heros and Nezara viridula (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) (Panizzi and Rossi, 1991; Mourao and Panizzi, 2000); Tomato leaf curl virus [Tomato yellow leaf curl virus] (Mariappan and Narayanasamy, 1972; Sastry, 1984); Tobacco leaf curl virus (Mariappan and Narayanasamy, 1977; Swanson et al., 1998); Groundnut ringspot virus, the causal agent of spotted wilt in tobacco, (Nunes-e-Silves et al., 2000); Xanthomonas campestris pv. sesami (Nayak and Sharma, 1980); and Verticillium albo-atrum, a wilt-causing pathogen (da Silva and Tokeshi, 1979).
Environmental ImpactTop of page A. hispidum appears to occur relatively rarely in undisturbed habitats, and has not been reported to have an undesirable impact on natural vegetation.
Impact: BiodiversityTop of page A. hispidum is not known to have invaded national parks or other protected areas beyond occurrence as a weed of already disturbed ground, e.g. along roadsides.
Social ImpactTop of page The spiny fruits of this weed can cause pain and injury to man and animals, and there are some concerns about toxicity to livestock, but there are no reports of serious impact on tourism or other human activities.
Risk and Impact FactorsTop 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
- Negatively impacts agriculture
- Negatively impacts human health
- Negatively impacts animal health
- Competition - monopolizing resources
- Pest and disease transmission
- Produces spines, thorns or burrs
- Highly likely to be transported internationally accidentally
UsesTop of page A. hispidum is used in traditional medicine for its anthelmintic and antalgic properties in central Africa (Menut et al., 1995). The root is used to cure coughing and bronchitis and a boiled tea of the leaves reduces fever, promotes sweating and cures diarrhoea (Holm et al., 1997). Various tribes in west Africa use A. hispidum for the treatment of arthritis, leprosy, migraine, rheumatism and stomach complaints (Burkhill, 1985). Summerfield and Saalmüller (1998) refer to the use of A. hsipidum as a traditional treatment for infectious diseases in Benin and show that, in the porcine immune system, A. hispidum enhances the proliferation of T lymphocytes. Summerfield et al. (1997) also showed inhibitory activity of A. hispidum extracts on several herpes and pseudo-rabies viruses.
Uses ListTop of page
- Host of pest
Similarities to Other Species/ConditionsTop of page Acanthospermum australe is a prostrate, glandular herb, similar to A. hispidum but softly tomentose on all parts.
Acanthospermum glabratum is a trailing, annual herb, uncommon in Kenya in the 1970s but becoming quite a common weed in central Kenya by 1990 (PJ Terry, Long Ashton Research Station, University of Bristol, personal communication, 1998).
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.
Quarantine must be considered an integral part of any control programme. All animals brought onto a farm, as well as those transferred from infested to burr-free parts of the farm, must be checked and any burrs removed (Parsons and Cuthbertson, 1992).
Seeds of A. hispidum lose their viability within eight years (Schwerzel and Thomas, 1979), so that prevention of seeding will eventually exhaust the soil seedbank and eradicate the weed. Seedbank depletion can be achieved by ploughing to bury existing seeds to a depth of at least 10 cm, followed by the sowing of an appropriate perennial pasture. Any seedlings which emerge in the pasture should be removed by pulling, hoeing or with herbicides (Parsons and Cuthbertson, 1992).
Cultivation or slashing prior to seed set is beneficial but slashing after seed set will quickly spread the plant (Miller and Schultz, 1997). Mowing A. hispidum and other weeds growing through a groundnut crop was shown by Wehtje et al. (1999) to be beneficial as an alternative to a late post-emergence treatment.
Herbicides that are reputed to give control of A. hispidum include: 2,4-D, diolamine, acetochlor, atrazine, bentazon, butachlor, cyanazine, diuron, fluometuron, imazethapyr, lactofen, linuron, mefluidide, metolachlor, napropamide, oxyfluorfen, paraquat, pendimathalin, simazine and terbutryn. Pendimethalin is reported to be selective against A. hispidum in groundnut (Gowda et al., 2002), though Reddy et al. (2002) found A. hispidum to be less susceptible than other broad-leaved weeds to pendimethalin, fluchloralin and metolachlor in field bean. A. hispidum was shown by Luo and Matsumoto (2002) to be somewhat more susceptible to the graminicide fluazifop-butyl than other broad-leaved weeds but Gowda et al. (2002) did not confirm this in the field. Foloni and Christoffoletti (1999) indicate promising selectivity in soyabean for the new herbicides carfentrazone and carfentrazone-ester.
ReferencesTop of page
Adams CD, 1963. Compositae. In: Hutchinson J, Dalziel JM, Hepper FN, eds. Flora of West Tropical Africa, Volume 2, Second edition. London, UK: Crown Agents.
Ballais C, 1969. Plants adventices de la Gironde. Toulouse, France: Monde Plantes, 365:5-9.
Banda EA; Morris B, 1986. Common Weeds of Malawi. Lilongwe, Malawi: The University of Malawi.
Berhaut J, 1967. Flore du Senegal. Dakar, Senegal: Editions Clairafrique.
Bhattacharyya G; Pandya SM, 1996. Distribution studies on exotic weeds of Saurashtra (India). Advances in Plant Sciences, 9:29-32.
Blundell M, 1992. Wild Flowers of East Africa. London, UK: Harper Collins.
Burkhill HM, 1985. The Useful Plants of West Tropical Africa. Vol. I. Families A-D. Kew, UK: Royal Botanic Gardens.
Chakravarti S, 1963. Weed control in India. Indian Agriculturalist, 7:23-58.
Davis G; Voll E; Lorenzi H; Chehata A, 1979. Soybean yield response to control of Brachiaria plantaginea and Acanthospermum hispidum. Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Meeting of the Southern Weed Science Society., 333
Drummond RB, 1984. Arable Weeds of Zimbabwe. Harare, Zimbabwe: Agricultural Research Trust of Zimbabwe.
Foloni LL; Christoffoleti PJ, 1999. Chemical weed control in soybean in Brazil using new herbicides and mixtures. 1999 Brighton crop protection conference: weeds. Proceedings of an international conference, Brighton, UK, 15-18 November 1999., Volume 1:315-318; 3 ref.
Gonzalez G; Webb ME, 1989. Manual para la Identificacion y Control de Malezas. Santa Cruz, Bolivia: Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical.
Gowda RC; Devi LS; Prasad TVR, 2002. Bio-efficacy of herbicides in groundnut and residues of pendimethalin in soil under fingermillet - groundnut cropping system. Pesticide Research Journal, 14(2):263-267; 5 ref.
Hall DW; Vandiver VV, 1991. Bristly starbur, Acanthospermum hispidum DC. SP37. Florida, USA: Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida.
Henderson M; Anderson JG, 1966. Common Weeds in South Africa. South Africa: Department of Agricultural and Technical Services.
Holm L; Doll J; Holm E; Pancho J; Herberger J, 1997. World Weeds. Natural Histories and Distribution. New York, USA: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Kostermans AJGH; Wirjahardja S; Dekker RJ, 1987. The weeds: description, ecology and control. Weeds of rice in Indonesia [edited by Soerjani, M.; Kostermans, A.J.G.H.; Tjitrosoepomo, G.] Jakarta, Indonesia; Balai Pustaka, 24-565
Lloyd D, 1956. Remarks on the possible biological control programme with the weed Acanthospermum hispidum DC. Canadian Entomologist, 88:613-622.
Lorenzi H, 1982. Weeds of Brazil, terrestrial and aquatic, parasitic, poisonous and medicinal. (Plantas daninhas de Brasil, terrestres, aquaticas, parasitas, toxicas e medicinais.) Nova Odessa, Brazil: H. Lorenzi, 425 pp.
Luo XiaoYong; Matsumoto H, 2002. Susceptibility of a broad-leaved weed, Acanthospermum hispidum, to the grass herbicide fluazifop-butyl. Weed Biology and Management, 2: 98-103.
Manjunath TM; Patel RC; Yadav DN, 1976. Observations on Heliothis peltigera (Schiff.) (Lep., Noctuidae) and its natural enemies in Anand (Gujarat State, India). Proceedings of the Indian Academy of Sciences, B, 93(2):55-65.
Mariappan V; Narayanasamy P, 1972. Acanthospermum hispidum DC., a new host of tomato leaf curl virus. Madras Agricultural Journal, 59:355-357.
Marzocca A, 1979. Manual de Malezas. 3rd edition. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Editorial Hemisferio Sur.
Menut C; Molangui T; Lamaty G; Ouamba JM; Silou T; BessiFre JM, 1995. Aromatic plants of tropical Central Africa. XXIV. Volatile constituents of Acanthospermum hispidum DC from the Congo. Journal of Essential Oil Research, 7(6):589-592; 16 ref.
Mourao APM; Panizzi AR, 2000. Diapause and different seasonal morphs of Euschistus heros (Fabr.) (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) in northern Paranß State. Anais da Sociedade Entomolo^acute~gica do Brasil, 29(2):205-218; 23 ref.
Nunes-e-Silva J; Pio-Ribeiro G; Andrade GP, 2000. Efficiency of measures of integrated control against spotted wilt of tobacco in Arapiraca, Alagoas, Brazil. (in Portuguese) Fitopatologia Brasileira, 25: 664-667.
Reed W; Kayumbo H, 1965. Detailed studies of pests. Tanzania Western Cotton Growing Area, Progress Report Experimental Station, 13-16.
Schwerzel P, 1970. Weed phenology and life-span observations. PANS, 16:511-515.
Subbaiah H; Nanjappa HV; Ramachandrappa BK, 1995. Chemical weed control studies under sole and intercropping systems in groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Mysore Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 29(4):320-326; 10 ref.
Summerfield A; Keil GM; Mettenleiter TC; Rziha HJ; Saalmüller A, 1997. Antiviral activity of an extract from leaves of the tropical plant Acanthospermum hispidum. Antiviral Research, 36(1):55-62; 13 ref.
Summerfield A; Saalmüller A, 1998. Interleukin-2 dependent selective activation of porcine
Swanson MM; Valand GB; Muniyappa V; Harrison BD, 1998. Serological detection and antigenic variation of two whitefly-transmitted geminiviruses: tobacco leaf curl and croton yellow vein mosaic viruses. Annals of Applied Biology, 132(3):427-435; 23 ref.
Tadulingam C; Venkataryana G, 1955. A Handbook of some South Indian Weeds, No. 38/1954. Madras, India: Directorate of Agriculture.
USDA-ARS, 2005. Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN). Online Database. Beltsville, Maryland, USA: National Germplasm Resources Laboratory. https://npgsweb.ars-grin.gov/gringlobal/taxon/taxonomysearch.aspx
USDA-NRCS, 2005. The PLANTS Database. Baton Rouge, USA: National Plant Data Center. http://plants.usda.gov.
Wang ZR, 1990. Farmland Weeds in China. Beijing, China: Agricultural Publishing House.
Wehtje G; Wells LW; Choate JH; Martin NR Jr; Curtis JM, 1999. Mowing as a weed control supplement to herbicides and cultivation in peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Weed Technology, 13: 139-143.
Wells MJ; Balsinhas AA; Joffe H; Engelbrecht VM; Harding G; Stirton CH, 1986. A catalogue of problem plants in South Africa. Memoirs of the botanical survey of South Africa No 53. Pretoria, South Africa: Botanical Research Institute.
Adams CD, 1963. Compositae. In: Flora of West Tropical Africa, 2 (Second) [ed. by Hutchinson J, Dalziel JM, Hepper FN]. London, UK: Crown Agents.
Ballais C, 1969. Plants adventices de la Gironde., 365 Toulouse, France: Monde Plantes. 5-9.
Banda EA, Morris B, 1986. Common Weeds of Malawi., Lilongwe, Malawi: The University of Malawi.
Berhaut J, 1967. (Flore du Senegal)., Dakar, Senegal: Editions Clairafrique.
Blundell M, 1992. Wild Flowers of East Africa., London, UK: Harper Collins.
CABI, Undated. Compendium record. Wallingford, UK: CABI
CABI, Undated a. CABI Compendium: Status inferred from regional distribution. Wallingford, UK: CABI
CABI, Undated b. CABI Compendium: Status as determined by CABI editor. Wallingford, UK: CABI
Drummond RB, 1984. Arable Weeds of Zimbabwe., Harare, Zimbabwe: Agricultural Research Trust of Zimbabwe.
Gonzalez G, Webb ME, 1989. (Manual para la Identificacion y Control de Malezas)., Santa Cruz, Bolivia: Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical.
Hall DW, Vandiver VV, 1991. Bristly starbur, Acanthospermum hispidum DC. SP37., Florida, USA: Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida.
Henderson M, Anderson JG, 1966. Common Weeds in South Africa., South Africa: Department of Agricultural and Technical Services.
Kostermans A J G H, Wirjahardja S, Dekker R J, 1987. The weeds: description, ecology and control. In: Weeds of rice in Indonesia. [ed. by Soerjani M, Kostermans AJGH, Tjitrosoepomo G]. Jakarta, Indonesia: Balai Pustaka. 24-565.
Marzocca A, 1979. (Manual de Malezas)., Buenos Aires, Argentina: Editorial Hemisferio Sur.
Subbaiah H, Nanjappa H V, Ramachandrappa B K, 1995. Chemical weed control studies under sole and intercropping systems in groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Mysore Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 29 (4), 320-326.
USDA-ARS, 2005. Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN). Online Database. Beltsville, Maryland, USA: National Germplasm Resources Laboratory. https://npgsweb.ars-grin.gov/gringlobal/taxon/taxonomysimple.aspx
USDA-NRCS, 2005. The PLANTS Database. Greensboro, North Carolina, USA: National Plant Data Team. https://plants.sc.egov.usda.gov
Wells M J, Balsinhas A A, Joffe H, Engelbrecht V M, Harding G, Stirton C H, 1986. A catalogue of problem plants in southern Africa incorporating the national weed list of South Africa. Memoirs, Botanical Survey of South Africa. v + 658pp.
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/