Rumex obtusifolius (broad-leaved dock)
- 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
- Biology and Ecology
- Latitude/Altitude Ranges
- Air Temperature
- Rainfall Regime
- Soil Tolerances
- Natural enemies
- Notes on Natural Enemies
- Means of Movement and Dispersal
- Pathway Vectors
- Impact Summary
- Environmental Impact
- Impact: Biodiversity
- Social Impact
- Risk and Impact Factors
- 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
- Rumex obtusifolius L.
Preferred Common Name
- broad-leaved dock
International Common Names
- English: bitter dock
- Spanish: acedera de hojas obtusas; acedera obtusifolia; romaza de hoja grande
- French: patience à feuilles obtuses
- Portuguese: labaca-obtusa; manteigueira
Local Common Names
- Czech Republic: stovik tupolisty
- Germany: Stumfblättriger Ampfer
- Greece: lapatho
- Italy: lingua di capra; romice a foglie ottuse; romice comune; romice dei tetti
- Japan: ezonogishigishi
- Netherlands: zuring, ridder-
- Poland: Szczaw tepolistny
- Sweden: skraeppa, tomt-
- RUMOB (Rumex obtusifolius)
Summary of InvasivenessTop of page R. obtusifolius can be an invasive species on account of its prolific production of seeds, which can remain viable for a long time, its capability for vegetative reproduction, and adaptability to different environments. Mature plants are capable of withstanding unfavourable climatic conditions, such as severe cold and drought, thanks to the deep spreading root. It is primarily a weed of grassland, and in this habitat it benefits from agricultural practices which lead to disturbance or eutrophication. It reduces production from grassland and lowers the feeding value of the sward to animals.
Taxonomic TreeTop of page
- Domain: Eukaryota
- Kingdom: Plantae
- Phylum: Spermatophyta
- Subphylum: Angiospermae
- Class: Dicotyledonae
- Order: Polygonales
- Family: Polygonaceae
- Genus: Rumex
- Species: Rumex obtusifolius
Notes on Taxonomy and NomenclatureTop of page The Latin name Rumex obtusifolius given by Linnaeus seems to be the only name in use in modern literature. The species is highly variable. Subspecies described by Rechinger and Akeroyd (1993) include:
- subsp. obtusifolius (subsp. agrestis) (Fries) Èelak - native in Western Europe
- subsp. subalpinus (Schur.) Èelak - occurring in the Carpathians and mountains of the Balkan peninsula and in Western Asia
- subsp. transiens (Simonk.) Rech. f. - native in Central Europe, where the areas of subsp. obtusifolius and subsp. sylvestris overlap
- subsp. sylvestris - native of Europe from Italy and Sweden eastwards and in the Caucasus.
Recently, Stace (1997) recommended a division into varieties for the British Isles:
- var. obtusifolius
- var. microcarpus Dierb. (subsp. sylvestris (Wallr.) Celak.)
- var. transiens (Simonk.) Kubat (subsp. transiens (Simonk.) Rech. f.)
Characteristic morphological features of plant leaves are reflected in the Latin word 'obtusifolius', which means 'with blunt leaves', and common names in many languages, such as French, Polish and Czech, are a translation of this word.
DescriptionTop of page R. obtusifolius is an erect perennial herb, 40-150 cm tall, with a stout, branched taproot, extending to a depth of 150 cm in soils that allow deep root penetration. Over the taproot, adult plants develop a fleshy underground stem, 3-5 cm long, with a branched crown. Basal rosette leaves and leafy stems develop from the crown. Stems are stiff, glabrous, ribbed with reddish blotches. Basal and lower leaves are petioled, ovate-oblong, with a cordate base and a rounded apex, and have a large and paper-like ochrea. Upper leaves are narrow, ovate-lanceolate to lanceolate at the top with a pointed apex. Lamina are 10-30 cm long and 6-15 cm wide, becoming progressively smaller upwards, slightly wavy along their margins, green, may be reddish-veined, turning more reddish-purple with age.
Inflorescences are 15-50 cm long racemes, with alternate leaves without petioles among the branches. Flowers, arranged in whorls, are small, with 6 inner valves, sometimes called tepals, which are 3-6 mm long and 2-3 mm wide, triangular to oblong-ovate, on pedicels 5-10 mm long, green in the beginning and reddish-brown at maturity. Fruit is a triangular achene, enclosed within three inner perianth segments, up to 5-6 mm long and 3 mm wide, with three to five teeth. The seeds are polymorphic, differing in size.
Plant TypeTop of page Broadleaved
DistributionTop of page R. obtusifolius is native to Eurasia but has been introduced to all continents. It is distributed mainly in temperate regions but can also be found inside the Arctic Circle and at high altitude in equatorial areas. Hultén (1950) describes it as a circumpolar plant and gives its northernmost limits as 68°N latitude.
Distribution TableTop of page
The distribution in this summary table is based on all the information available. When several references are cited, they may give conflicting information on the status. Further details may be available for individual references in the Distribution Table Details section which can be selected by going to Generate Report.
|Continent/Country/Region||Distribution||Last Reported||Origin||First Reported||Invasive||Reference||Notes|
|Afghanistan||Present||Native||Invasive||Holm et al., 1979|
|Armenia||Present||Native||Invasive||Holm et al., 1979|
|Azerbaijan||Present||Native||Invasive||Holm et al., 1979|
|China||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Holm et al., 1979|
|India||Present||Introduced||Klimes and Kapahi, 1990|
|Indonesia||Present||Present based on regional distribution.|
|-Java||Present||Introduced||Cavers and Harper, 1964|
|Iran||Present||Holm et al., 1979|
|Iraq||Present||Holm et al., 1979|
|Korea, DPR||Present||Introduced||Holm et al., 1979|
|Korea, Republic of||Present||Introduced||Shim et al., 2001|
|Pakistan||Present||Allah et al., 2006|
|Turkey||Present||Native||Holm et al., 1979|
|Lesotho||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Wells et al., 1986|
|Namibia||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Wells et al., 1986|
|South Africa||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Wells et al., 1986|
|Canada||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Holm et al., 1979|
|-British Columbia||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Cranston et al., 2000|
|Greenland||Present||Introduced||Holm et al., 1979|
|Mexico||Widespread||Introduced||Invasive||Holm et al., 1979|
|USA||Widespread||Introduced||Invasive||Holm et al., 1979|
|-New Hampshire||Present||Introduced||Invasive||USDA-NRCS, 2002|
|-New Jersey||Present||Introduced||Invasive||USDA-NRCS, 2002|
|-New Mexico||Present||Introduced||Invasive||USDA-NRCS, 2002|
|-New York||Present||Introduced||Invasive||USDA-NRCS, 2002|
|-North Carolina||Present||Introduced||Invasive||USDA-NRCS, 2002|
|-Rhode Island||Present||Introduced||Invasive||USDA-NRCS, 2002|
|-South Carolina||Present||Introduced||Invasive||USDA-NRCS, 2002|
|-South Dakota||Present||Introduced||Invasive||USDA-NRCS, 2002|
|-West Virginia||Present||Introduced||Invasive||USDA-NRCS, 2002|
Central America and Caribbean
|Guatemala||Present||Introduced||Holm et al., 1979|
|Argentina||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Holm et al., 1979|
|Brazil||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Holm et al., 1979|
|Chile||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Holm et al., 1979|
|Colombia||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Holm et al., 1979|
|Peru||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Holm et al., 1979|
|Uruguay||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Holm et al., 1979|
|Venezuela||Present||Introduced||Invasive||Holm et al., 1979|
|Albania||Present||Native||Invasive||Holm et al., 1979|
|Austria||Present||Native||Invasive||Poetsch and Krautzer, 2002|
|Belarus||Present||Native||Rechinger and Akeroyd, 1993|
|Belgium||Widespread||Native||Invasive||Holm et al., 1979|
|Bosnia-Hercegovina||Present||Native||Rechinger and Akeroyd, 1993|
|Bulgaria||Present||Native||Invasive||Rechinger and Akeroyd, 1993|
|Croatia||Present||Native||Rechinger and Akeroyd, 1993|
|Czech Republic||Present||Mikulka and Kneifelová-Korcáková, 2006|
|Czechoslovakia (former)||Present||Native||Invasive||Holm et al., 1979|
|Denmark||Present||Native||Invasive||Rechinger and Akeroyd, 1993|
|Estonia||Present||Native||Rechinger and Akeroyd, 1993|
|Faroe Islands||Present||Native||Rechinger and Akeroyd, 1993|
|Finland||Present||Introduced||Rechinger and Akeroyd, 1993|
|France||Present||Native||Invasive||Holm et al., 1979|
|-Corsica||Present||Native||Rechinger and Akeroyd, 1993|
|Germany||Present||Native||Invasive||Holm et al., 1979|
|Gibraltar||Present||Native||Rechinger and Akeroyd, 1993|
|Greece||Present||Native||Holm et al., 1979|
|Hungary||Present||Native||Invasive||Holm et al., 1979|
|Ireland||Present||Native||Invasive||Holm et al., 1979|
|Italy||Present||Native||Invasive||Holm et al., 1979|
|Latvia||Present||Native||Holm et al., 1979|
|Lithuania||Present||Native||Holm et al., 1979|
|Luxembourg||Present||Native||Rechinger and Akeroyd, 1993|
|Macedonia||Present||Native||Rechinger and Akeroyd, 1993|
|Moldova||Present||Native||Rechinger and Akeroyd, 1993|
|Monaco||Present||Native||Rechinger and Akeroyd, 1993|
|Netherlands||Present||Native||Invasive||Holm et al., 1979|
|Norway||Present||Native||Holm et al., 1979|
|Poland||Present||Native||Invasive||Holm et al., 1979|
|Portugal||Present||Native||Holm et al., 1979|
|-Azores||Present||Introduced||Rechinger and Akeroyd, 1993|
|Romania||Present||Native||Holm et al., 1979|
|Russian Federation||Present||Native||Invasive||Holm et al., 1979|
|-Central Russia||Present||Native||Rechinger and Akeroyd, 1993|
|-Northern Russia||Present||Introduced||Rechinger and Akeroyd, 1993|
|-Southern Russia||Present||Native||Rechinger and Akeroyd, 1993|
|Serbia||Present||Native||Rechinger and Akeroyd, 1993|
|Slovakia||Present||Novák and Slamka, 2003|
|Slovenia||Present||Native||Rechinger and Akeroyd, 1993|
|Spain||Present||Native||Invasive||Holm et al., 1979|
|-Balearic Islands||Present||Native||Rechinger and Akeroyd, 1993|
|Sweden||Present||Native||Holm et al., 1979|
|Switzerland||Present||Native||Invasive||Holm et al., 1979|
|UK||Present||Native||Invasive||Holm et al., 1979|
|-Channel Islands||Present||Native||Rechinger and Akeroyd, 1993|
|-England and Wales||Present||Hopkins and Johnson, 2003|
|Ukraine||Present||Native||Invasive||Holm et al., 1979|
|Yugoslavia (former)||Present||Native||Invasive||Holm et al., 1979|
|Australia||Present||Introduced||Holm et al., 1979|
|New Zealand||Present||Native||Holm et al., 1979|
History of Introduction and SpreadTop of page R. obtusifolius has been described as a 'follower of man' by Cavers and Harper (1964), who attribute its absence from high altitude areas in the UK to the lack of land disturbance. The original dates of its introduction are not normally noted. Vibrans (1998) reports that it was already present in Mexico a few years after the arrival of the first Europeans and was described in the Codice Florentino, which was written around 1550 in Mexico.
Risk of IntroductionTop of page In the UK, R. obtusifolius is specified as one of the five injurious weeds in the 1959 Weeds Act which require prevention from seeding, and its control can be enforced on an occupier of land (DEFRA, 2002). In the USA it is listed as an invasive weed (USDA-NRCS, 2002).
HabitatTop of page R. obtusifolius is present in cool temperate permanent grasslands throughout the world (Holm et al., 1977). On agricultural land it commonly grows in meadows and pastures, abandoned fields, field borders, hedgerows and orchards. It also occurs as a ruderal on roadsides, ditchbanks, and along riversides and streams, and can be found in woodland margins and forest clearings.
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)|
|Managed grasslands (grazing systems)||Present, no further details||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Disturbed areas||Present, no further details||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Rail / roadsides||Present, no further details||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Urban / peri-urban areas||Present, no further details||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Terrestrial ‑ Natural / Semi-natural||Natural forests||Present, no further details||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Riverbanks||Present, no further details||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Wetlands||Present, no further details||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Coastal areas||Present, no further details||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
Hosts/Species AffectedTop of page R. obtusifolius is not normally a weed of crops. However, Pino et al. (1998) report that in recent decades the species has seriously invaded irrigated lucerne (= alfalfa) (Medicago sativa) crops in Spain. It was also noted in lucerne crops in Tasmania (TAD, 1974) and New Zealand (Askarian et al., 1993).
Biology and EcologyTop of page Genetics
The chromosome number is 2n = 40. Hybridization between R. obtusifolius and other members of the subgenus Rumex occurs frequently (Cavers and Harper, 1964). The commonest hybrid is R. crispus x R. obtusifolius, described as R. acutus by Linnaeus and also as R. pratensis Mert & Koch. It can be recognized by intermediate leaves and tepals. This is the most fertile Rumex hybrid, and produces some viable seeds. Other hybrids, with R. longifolius, R. confertus, and R. patientia, are virtually sterile.
Physiology and Phenology
Germination of R. obtusifolius seeds can occur in any month of the year (Cavers and Harper, 1964), although it is concentrated in March-April and in August-October. The species shows very high sensitivity to light; germination of its seeds is controlled by phytochrome (Taylorson and Hendricks, 1972) and is more rapid in the presence of light (Milberg, 1997). Daylight or near-red light stimulates germination, whereas far-red light, increased by the presence of a leaf canopy, inhibits it (Takaki et al., 1981). Seeds can also germinate in the absence of light after an exposure to alternating temperatures (van Assche and Vanlerberghe, 1989); this accounts for the spring flush of germination when the temperature fluctuations in the soil are very large. Constant temperatures induce secondary dormancy (Roberts and Totterdell, 1981). Benvenuti et al. (2001) report that thermal optima for germination are between 20 and 25°C in light or in darkness. In their study seedlings did not emerge when seeds were buried at a depth of more than 8 cm. Seeds exhibit great within- and between-plant polymorphism, which enables germination under various environmental conditions (Honek and Martinkovà, 2002). Unlike seeds buried in the autumn in the soil that pass through annual dormancy/non-dormancy cycles, the seeds continuously shed from dry standing shoots of R. obtusifolius become germinable all year round, after a short period of burial.
In the seedling year most plants remain at the rosette stage and a long stout rootstock is produced, but flowering and seed set do not normally take place until the second year, unless competition from other plants is weak. A dense sward limits the juvenile growth and establishment of R. obtusifolius in grassland (Jeangros and Nösberger, 1990). The establishment of young plants is favoured by frequent mowing (Hongo, 1989). Adult R. obtusifolius plants in the close vicinity of the seedlings exert a negative influence on their survival (Makuchi and Kanda, 1980).
The plant is a hemicryptophyte and after overwintering regrowth from the rosette usually takes place in late February-March. New shoots are produced from buds on the underground stem. Inflorescences are first formed in early May and may be initiated until the first severe frost (Cavers and Harper, 1964). Flowering and seed set can occur twice in one growing season, first flowers appearing in May-June and the second, after cutting and regrowth of shoots, in August-September. Individual plants may live for at least 5 years. Inflorescences are produced every year under normal conditions and plants do not usually die after producing seed.
Reproduction is amphimictic. Flowers have no nectar and are mainly wind-pollinated. Most individuals are highly self-fertile, although there is variation in this respect between plants.
Propagation is mainly by seeds, produced in very large numbers, varying from less than 100 to 60,000 per plant in a single year. Fruits can be blown for a considerable distance by wind, be carried floating on water, and be dispersed via the digestive system of birds and animals (Cavers and Harper, 1964). Spines on the fruit assist in long-distance distribution by animals, attached to fur or feathers, and by humans.
Seeds may remain viable for a long period when buried deeply in the soil; 83% germinated after burial for 21 years (Toole and Brown, 1946).
In a study carried out by Pino et al. (1995), R. obtusifolius plants showed a clonal growth system in which the roots branch after the first flowering and produce adventitious roots, which accumulate reserves over the next 2 years and separate from the original taproot in the fifth year. This 'phalanx' type of growth allows the plant to reproduce in areas where seedling establishment is inhibited by competition for space. It also has the capacity of vegetative propagation from fragments of root or underground stem split up by cultivation. This is a less important method of reproduction than through seeds; it can, however, significantly facilitate the spread of the species locally (Brock, 1972; Pino et al., 1995).
Growth and development are promoted by climatic conditions typical for temperate regions. Cavers and Harper (1964) state that for the UK there does not seem to be any climatic limitation of the species. It is present inside the Arctic Circle in Northern Scandinavia, can be found at various altitudes and was recorded at 3200 m in Mexico.
R. obtusifolius can grow on a wide range of soils, except peat (Cavers and Harper, 1964). Ellenberg (1974) classifies it as indifferent to pH but its growth is inhibited on the most acid soils. It is a typically nitrophilous plant (Melzer et al., 1984) and shows high abundance on soils with high potassium concentrations (Humphreys et al., 1999). It is favoured by humid conditions, but mature plants with a well-established root system are capable of withstanding severe drought periods.
No mycorrhizal root symbionts have been recorded.
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)||6||12|
|Mean maximum temperature of hottest month (ºC)||12||24|
|Mean minimum temperature of coldest month (ºC)||-5||6|
RainfallTop of page
|Parameter||Lower limit||Upper limit||Description|
|Mean annual rainfall||600||1800||mm; lower/upper limits|
Rainfall RegimeTop of page Uniform
Soil TolerancesTop of page
- seasonally waterlogged
Natural enemiesTop of page
|Natural enemy||Type||Life stages||Specificity||References||Biological control in||Biological control on|
Notes on Natural EnemiesTop of page Cavers and Harper (1964) give a list of parasites and predators of R. obtusifolius, which includes 32 insect species and 12 fungi species. Shim et al. (2001) record 85 insect species associated with R. obtusifolius, a naturalized plant in Korea. In the UK the most studied invertebrate herbivore species is a chrysomelid beetle Gastrophysa viridula, suggested as a potential agent for biological control. In Japan, a similar capacity was shown for G. atrocyanea (Miyazaki and Naito, 1973). In natural conditions, grazing by herbivores does not result in the total destruction of R. obtusifolius plants. Of plant pathogens, a rust fungus Uromyces rumicis, specific to the genus, and the honey fungus Armillaria mellea, can cause particular damage to the weed.
Means of Movement and DispersalTop of page Natural Dispersal (Non-Biotic)
Propagation is mainly by seeds produced in very large numbers. Long-distance dispersal is achieved by wind and water.
Vector Transmission (Biotic)
By humans and animals, attached with the spines on the fruit. Ingested seeds are resistant to digestion and are spread in the droppings (SAC, 1986).
Cultivation, which causes root fragmentation, facilitates vegetative reproduction of the weed and aids its local spread. Nishida (2002) attributes invasion of R. obtusifolius into agricultural land in Japan to application of manure from cattle fed on imported feed contaminated with weed seeds.
Impact SummaryTop of page
|Fisheries / aquaculture||None|
ImpactTop of page R. obtusifolius is considered to be one of the most troublesome weeds in intensively managed permanent grassland (Holm et al., 1977; Jeangros and Nösberger, 1990; Niggli et al., 1993). It reduces production from grassland by reducing grass yields. Oswald and Haggar (1983) showed that densities of 5-10 plants/m² resulted in a reduction in total grass herbage of up to 30%. In infrequently cut swards the effect on grass yield is directly related to the percentage ground cover, with an approximately 1% decline in grass DM yield for each per cent ground cover of the weed (Courtney, 1985). Courtney and Johnston (1978) report that, on average, both the palatability and the digestibility are about 20% less for R. obtusifolius than for grasses. Therefore its feeding value for the grazing animal is only about 65% that of grasses. Digestibility of woody stems and inflorescences is only about 50% that of grass; intake by both cattle and sheep falls significantly after flowering (McGhie et al., 1983; Derrick et al., 1993).
Environmental ImpactTop of page Studies of Lutts et al. (1987), Carballeira et al. (1988) and Carral et al. (1988) showed that the presence of R. obtusifolius plants exerts allelopathic control over gemination and root growth of grasses. The area and the intensity of the effect increased with the size of individual plants. Roots are resistant to decomposition and infection by some fungi and bacteria due to the presence of organic acids and naphthalene and anthraquinone derivatives in the tissue (Kasai et al., 1982).
Impact: BiodiversityTop of page Impacts of R. obtusifolius as an alien species on native plant communities have not been documented.
Social ImpactTop of page No relevant instances have been documented.
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
- Reduced native biodiversity
- Competition - monopolizing resources
- Highly likely to be transported internationally accidentally
- Difficult/costly to control
UsesTop of page Trichopoulou et al. (2000) report that R. obtusifolius is used in the traditional diet of rural Greece as a wild edible green, consumed in various ways. Analysis of its flavonoid content shows that it contains twice the amount of quercetin contained in onions (Allium cepa).
A study in Zealand (Waghorn and Jones, 1989) suggested that condensed tannin in R. obtusifolius prevents bloat in cattle.
Harada and Hatanaka (2001) report that it can be a useful plant for reducing thallium (Tl) concentration in the soil.
Similarities to Other Species/ConditionsTop of page The species which can be most readily confused with R. obtusifolius is R. crispus, especially as it occurs in similar habitats. Lamina of R. crispus leaves are narrower and have strongly wavy margins. The taproot in R. crispus is usually smaller and less branched in the upper part. Tepals of the flowers are heart-shaped with entire margins, whereas in R. obtusifolius they are triangular and have toothed margins. Young R. obtusifolius plants may be confused with R. conglomeratus on the account of morphological similarity of tepals with indistinct teeth and leaves without a pronounced heart-shaped base.
Prevention and ControlTop of page Cultural Control
In Japan, Sakanoue et al. (1995) used mixed grazing by goats and cows on a permanent pasture, and after 3 years reported effective control of R. obtusifolius by goats through a process of defoliation, suppression of propagation, and population decrease. SAC (1986) recommend, as a preventive measure, maintaining a dense, well-managed grassland sward, which can minimise infestation since seedlings of R. obtusifolius are poor competitors and seed germination is inhibited in the presence of a dense leaf canopy. The choice of high-tillering and persistent grasses further reduces competition from R. obtusifolius. Moreover, excessive treading and poaching in pastures should be avoided.
In a study carried out in Austria, Poetsch and Krautzer (2002) obtained a significant reduction of seed germination within three weeks of composting of farmyard manure, and they state that it can therefore be seen as an efficient tool to interrupt the R. obtusifolius seed cycle on grassland farms. Storage in silage significantly reduces the viability of mature seeds (Masuda et al., 1984). Humphreys et al. (1997) report that after being subjected to 100 days in silage, seeds were non-viable. Humphreys et al. (1999) discuss the possibility of limiting the abundance of R. obtusifolius in grassland by maintaining moderate soil K concentration. Balanced fertilizer use, especially N and K, may prevent its spread (SAC, 1986).
Hand-pulling is not normally practicable and usually does not result in the complete removal of the root (SAC, 1986). Plants which have been pulled out should be burned to prevent seed dispersal. Dierauer and Thomas (1994) state that the only effective method is the removal of the entire root or cutting the root to at least 10 cm below ground. In grassland, the cutting frequency of the sward affects abundance of the weed. Courtney (1985), Niggli et al. (1993) and Hopkins and Johnson (2002) showed that under frequent defoliation (every 3-4 weeks) dock plants were less competitive and their herbage production was considerably lower than when cut every 6-7 weeks. The height of cut had no consistent effect on R. obtusifolius yields. Cavers and Harper (1964) suggest that a series of rotary cultivations may be effective for the elimination of the weed, however, the timing of land management practices has to be taken into account, as cultivation in late summer may promote the spread of the weed by shortening the length of time between germination and seed production (Weaver and Cavers, 1979). Ploughing followed by fallowing and repeated cultivation during spring and early summer is recommended by the SAC (1986) to exhaust the root reserves and provide control of young seedlings.
Asulam is the most widely used herbicide for control of mature plants in grassland (Brock, 1972; Oswald and Haggar, 1976; SAC, 1986). Other recommended compounds include thifensulfuron, fluroxypyr, triclopyr, dicamba and mecoprop. Effective application of herbicides requires an adequate leaf area present. Spraying can be carried out in May before harvesting or in the following regrowth. For heavy infestations a follow-up spraying may be necessary 8 to 12 months later (SAC, 1986). Seedlings can be controlled by MCPA, MCPB, 2,4-D or mecoprop and are most readily killed at the two- to three-leaf stage. When the level of infestation is small and the plants are scattered, selective herbicide treatment with rope wick applicators can be used (SAC, 1986).
Gastrophysa viridula has been suggested as a possible agent of biological control (Speight and Whittaker, 1987). Although heavy grazing by this beetle reduces leaf area and overall biomass (Bentley and Whittaker, 1979) and affects the number and weight of seeds (Bentley et al., 1980), it is unlikely that G. viridula, acting alone, could be an effective control agent for the weed (Speight and Whittaker, 1987). In Tasmania the clearwing dock moth Chamaesphecia doryliphormis was introduced in 1997 at 2 sites to provide control of R. obtusifolius. However, there is no further information on the establishment and efficacy of this organism (TAS, 2003).
Studies involving fungal pathogens have not developed control methods, though the possibilities have been discussed for Uromyces rumicis (Schubiger et al., 1986) and Ramullaria rubella (Huber-Meinicke et al., 1989). Hughes et al. (1996) investigated the effects of infection of Armillaria mellea and A. ostoyae, which attack the root system, and reported that the taproots were extensively rotted. Moreover, there are complex interactions between the natural enemies. Hatcher and Paul (2000) showed that grazing by G. viridula reduces natural infection of R. obtusifolius by fungal pathogens, which attack leaves.
A combination of different control practices and chemical techniques can be used to reduce infestation of mature plants. Repeated discing or rotary cultivation breaks up the taproots and the suppressed growth from root fragments allows more effective control by herbicides (SAC, 1986). An integrated programme of control involving single or repeated spraying with asulam or glyphosate, discing and sowing of grass-legume mixtures carried out in Poland is described by Biala (1998a, b) for heavily infested grassland.
ReferencesTop of page
Allah Bakhsh; Dasti AA; Asia Munir; Imran Khaliq; Muhammad Amin-ud-Din; Akhtar MS, 2006. Studies on shape, size and weight of certain weed seeds buried in the soil seed bank. Pakistan Journal of Weed Science Research [Proceedings of the Second International Weed Science Conference, Volume 1, Rawalpindi, Pakistan, 20-22 March 2006.], 12(1/2):79-82. http://wssp.org.pk/
Askarian M; Hampton JG; Harrington KC, 1993. Control of weeds, and particularly white clover (Trifolium repens L.), in lucerne (Medicago sativa L.) grown for seed production. Journal of Applied Seed Production, 11:51-55
Bentley S; Whittaker JB; Malloch AJC, 1980. Field experiments on the effects of grazing by a chrysomelid beetle (Gastrophysa viridula) on seed production and quality in Rumex obtusifolius and Rumex crispus. Journal of Ecology, 68(2):671-674
Carballeira A; Carral E; Reigosa MJ, 1988. Asymmetric small-scale distribution and allelopathy: interaction between Rumex obtusifolius L. and meadow species. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 14(9):1775-1786
Carral E; Reigosa MJ; Carballeira A, 1988. Rumex obtusifolius L: Release of allelochemical agents and their influence on small-scale spatial distribution of meadow species. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 14(9):1763-1773
Cavers P; Harper J, 1964. Rumex obtusifolius L. and Rumex crispus L. Journal of Ecology, 52:737-766.
Courtney AD, 1985. Impact and control of docks in grassland. Weeds, pests and diseases of grasslands and herbage legumes [edited by Brockman, J.S.] Croydon, UK; British Crop Protection Council, 120-127
Courtney AD; Johnston R, 1978. A consideration of the contribution to production of Rumex obtusifolius in a grazing regime. Proceedings 1978 British Crop Protection Conference - Weeds. British Crop Protection Council. London UK, 325-331
Cranston R; Ralph D; Wikeem B, 2000. Field Guide to Noxious and Other Selected Weeds of British Columbia. BC Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries and Ministry of Forests.
DEFRA, 2002. Weeds Act 1959. http://www.defra.gov.uk/environ/weedsact/.
Derrick RW; Moseley G; Wilman D, 1993. Intake, by sheep, and digestibility of chickweed, dandelion, dock, ribwort and spurrey, compared with perennial ryegrass. Journal of Agricultural Science, 120(1):51-61; 17 ref.
Dierauer HU, 1994. Efficiency of different non-chemical methods of controlling broadleaf dock (Rumex obtusifolius). Maitrise des adventices par voie non chimique. Communications de la quatrieme conference internationale I.F.O.A.M., Dijon, France, 5-9 July 1993 [edited by Thomas, J.M.] Quetigny Cedex, France; Association Colloque IFOAM, Ed. 2:311-314
Ellenberg H, 1974. Zeigerwerte der Gefasspflanzen Mitteleuropas. Scripta Geobotanica 9. Gottingen: Goeltze.
Hopkins A; Johnson RH, 2003. Impact of control of dock (Rumex obtusifolius) on potential production from N-fertilised swards. In: Optimal forage systems for animal production and the environment. Proceedings of the 12th Symposium of the European Grassland Federation, Pleven, Bulgaria, 26-28 May 2003 [ed. by Kirilov, A.\Todorov, N.\Katerov, I.]. Pleven, Bulgaria: Bulgarian Association for Grassland and Forage Production (BAGFP), 200-203. [Grassland Science in Europe Volume 8.]
Hughes CNG; West JS; Fox RTV, 1996. Control of broad-leaved docks by Armillaria mellea. Proceedings of the 9th international symposium on biological control of weeds, Stellenbosch, South Africa, 19-26 January 1996., 531-534; 43 ref.
Hultén E, 1950. Atlas of the Distribution of Vascular Plants in North-West Europe. Stockholm, Sweden: Esselte AB.
Humphreys J; Culleton N; Jansen T; O'Riordan EG; Storey T, 1997. Aspects of the role of cattle slurry in dispersal and seedling establishment of Rumex obtusifolius seed in grassland. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research, 36(1):39-49; 36 ref.
Humphreys J; Jansen T; Culleton N; Macnaeidhe FS; Storey T, 1999. Soil potassium supply and Rumex obtusifolius and Rumex crispus abundance in silage and grazed grassland swards. Weed Research (Oxford), 39(1):1-13; 40 ref.
Kasai T; Okuda M; Sano H; Mochizuki H; Sato H; Sakamura S, 1982. Biological activity of the constituents in roots of ezo-no-gishigishi (Rumex obtusifolius). Agricultural and Biological Chemistry, 46(11):2809-2813
Klimes L; Kapahi BK, 1990. Rumex obtusifolius L. (Polygonaceae) - a new plant for India. Journal of Economic and Taxonomic Botany, 14:729-731.
Kozlowski LA, 2002. Critical period of weed interference in corn crop based on crop phenology. (Período crítico de interferência das plantas daninhas na cultura do milho baseado na fenologia da cultura.) Planta Daninha, 20(3):365-372.
Makuchi T; Kanda M, 1980. Seed germination and early seedling establishment of Rumex obtusifolius L. in artificial grassland. Reports of the Institute for Agricultural Research, Tohoku University, No. 31:11-17
Masuda Y; Nishimura T; Kobayashi T; Yamano D; Nakano Y; Goto I, 1984. Germination ability of Rumex obtusifolius L. in silages. Science Bulletin of the Faculty of Agriculture, Kyushu University, 38(4):181-185; 11 ref.
Mikulka J; Kneifelová-Korcáková M, 2006. Influence of management systems to the occurrence of Rumex sp. on meadows and pastures. (Vliv o?etrování luk a pastvin na výskyt Rumex sp.) In: Medzinárodná vedecká konferencia pri prílezitoti 70. výrocia krmivinárskeho výskumu na Slovensku. Trávne porasty - súcast´ horského pol'nohospodárstva a krajiny, 27.-28. septembra 2006, Banská Bystrica, Slovakia [ed. by Ferienciková, D.\Kizeková, M.\Ondrá?ek, L.\Zimková, M.]. Banská Bystrica, Slovakia: Grassland and Mountain Agriculture Research Institute, 1-6.
Miyazaki M; Naito A, 1974. Studies on the host specificity of Gastrophysa atrocyanea Mot. (Col.:Chrysomelidae), a potential biological control agent against Rumex obtusifolius L. (Polygonaceae) in Japan. In: Wapshere AJ, ed. Miscellaneous Publication, Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, No. 8:97-107
Niggli U; Nosberger J; Lehmann J, 1993. Effects of nitrogen fertilization and cutting frequency on the competitive ability and the regrowth capacity of Rumex obtusifolius L. in several grass swards. Weed Research (Oxford), 33(2):131-137.
Poetsch EM; Krautzer B, 2002. The influence of ruminal digestion and farm manure on the germination development of seeds of broad-leaved dock (Rumex obtusifolius L.). Multi-function grasslands: quality forages, animal products and landscapes. Proceedings of the 19th General Meeting of the European Grassland Federation, La Rochelle, France, 27-30 May 2002, 386-387; 3 ref.
Rechinger KH; Akeroyd JR, 1993. 8. Rumex L. In: Tutin TG, Burges NA, Chater AO, Edmundson JR, Heywood VH, Moore DM, Valentine DH, Walters SM, Webb DA, eds. Flora Europaea Volume 1 Psilotaceae to Platanaceae, 2nd Edition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 99-107.
SAC, 1986. The control of docks. UK, Scottish Agricultural Colleges, Publication No. 56.
Speight RI; Whittaker JB, 1987. Interactions between the chrysomelid beetle, Gastrophysa viridula, the weed Rumex obtusifolius and the herbicide asulam. Journal of Applied Ecology, 24:119-129.
Stace C, 1997. New Flora of the British Isles. 2nd edition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
TAD, 1974. Control of docks in lucerne. Australia, Tasmanian Department of Agriculture. Tasmanian Journal of Agriculture. 45:255-257.
TAS, 2003. Department of Primary Resources, Water and Environment. Weed Information Resources. http://www.dpiwe.tas.gov.au/inter.nsf/WebPages/RPIO-4ZW3NH?open#Identification.
Taylorson RB; Hendricks SB, 1972. Interactions of light and a temperature shift on seed germination. Plant Physiology, 49:127-130.
Toole EH; Brown E, 1946. Final results of the Duval buried seed experiment. Journal of Agricultural Research, 72:201-210.
Trichopoulou A; Vasilopoulou E; Hollman P; Chamalides C; Foufa E; Kaloudis T; Kromhout D; Miskaki P; Petrochilou I; Poulima E; Stafilakis K; Theophilou D, 2000. Nutritional composition and flavonoid content of edible wild greens and green pies: a potential rich source of antioxidant nutrients in the Mediterranean diet. Food Chemistry, 70:319-323.
USDA-NRCS, 2002. The PLANTS Database, Version 3.5. National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, USA. http://plants.usda.gov.
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.
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/