- Taxonomic Tree
- Notes on Taxonomy and Nomenclature
- Distribution Table
- Habitat List
- Hosts/Species Affected
- Biology and Ecology
- Air Temperature
- Natural enemies
- Notes on Natural Enemies
- Plant Trade
- Impact Summary
- 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
- Senecio vulgaris L. (1753)
Other Scientific Names
- SENVU (Bayer)
International Common Names
- English: birdseed; chickenweed; common groundsel; grimsell; grinning (or grundie)-swallow; grinsel; grondiswil; ground glutton; groundiswel; groundiswelie; groundiswell; groundsel; groundsil; groundswell; groundswyle; groundwill(y); grounsel; grummel; grundsel; grundy; grunistule; grunithule; grunnishule; grunsel; grunsil; grunswaithe; old-man-of-spring; sention; simson; swallow
- Spanish: buenvaron; hierba cana; lechocinos
- French: grand mouron; herbe à la chardonnerette; herbe aux charpentiers; herbe aux coitrons; séneçon; séneçon commun; séneçon vulgaire; toute venue
- Arabic: moraar; nabat al-tuore
- Portuguese: cardo morto; tasneirinha
Local Common Names
- Algeria: Acheba Salema
- Argentina: senecio comun
- Belgium: klein kruiskruid
- Brazil: cardo-misto
- Canada: ragwort; staggerwort
- Colombia: cineraria; yuyito
- Denmark: almindelig brandbaeger
- Finland: pelovillakko
- Germany: Gemeines Greiskraut; Gemeines Kreuzkraut; Gewohnliches Greiskraut
- Italy: calderugia; Cardoncello; erba calderina; solleciola; verzellina
- Japan: noborogiku
- Madagascar: anadraisoa
- Netherlands: Gewoon Kruiskruid
- Norway: akersineblom
- Poland: starzec zwyczajny
- Sweden: korsbo; vanlig korsort
- Turkey: kanarya otu; sofiera
- SENVU (Senecio vulgaris)
Taxonomic TreeTop of page
- Domain: Eukaryota
- Kingdom: Plantae
- Phylum: Spermatophyta
- Subphylum: Angiospermae
- Class: Dicotyledonae
- Order: Asterales
- Family: Asteraceae
- Genus: Senecio
- Species: Senecio vulgaris
Notes on Taxonomy and NomenclatureTop of page The generic name Senecio describes the aggregated fruits of this species which are white and have a head-like form, similar to the cranium of an old man covered by sparse weak hairs. The pappus also resembles a white beard, thus its latin name probably derives from the latin word 'Senex' meaning old or an elderly man. Dioscoride called this plant 'Erigeron' which means the spring old women. Vulgaris is derived from the latin vulgari meaning common, usual or ordinary (Zimdahl, 1989).
The genus Senecio is cosmopolitan, with 1500 species found in almost every country in the world (LeStrange, 1977). About 25 species contain alkaloids poisonous to humans and animals. S. vulgaris (a polyploid) has a worldwide distribution and a high self-pollinating ability (Gibbs et al., 1975). Two forms are known, S. vulgaris f. radiatum (radiate) and S. vulgaris f. vulgaris (non-radiate). The first produce more capitula/plant and more seeds/capitulum than the second (Oxford and Andrew, 1976), whereas the relative fecundity of the non-radiate form is greater in the spring and autumn (Abbott and Horril, 1991). Another intermediate morph has also been reported in the UK (Abbott and Horril, 1991). The radiate variant seems to have originated from introregression between S. vulgaris (2n = 40) and S. squalidus (2n = 20) (Abbott et al., 1992a). This was probably a result of continuous gene flow between the two species, and probably the introduction of an allele controlling capitulum type into populations of S. vulgaris through hybridization (Hull, 1976), that lead to capitulum polymorphism in S. vulgaris (Oxford et al., 1996).
Two subspecies of this weed have been reported, the non-weedy, late developing S. vulgaris subsp. denticulatus and its weedy, early developing derivative subsp. vulgaris var. vulgaris, both differ in chloroplast genomes by at least eight site mutations (Harris and Ingram, 1992). Isoenzyme studies revealed that the cosmopolitan S. vulgaris var. vulgaris (tetraploid) is an evolutionary derivative of S. vulgaris subsp. denticulatus, since the two taxa exhibit very high genetic identity (Comes and Kadereit, 1996). The tetraploid radiate groundsel differs markedly from typical inland radiate groundsel (S. vulgaris var. hibernicus) (Irwin and Abbott, 1992). The latter gained no increased genetic diversity for esterases via introgression of germplasm from S. squalidus and thus maintained a low level of genetic diversity for esterases relative to var. vulgaris in populations containing both varieties (Abbott et al., 1992b).
DescriptionTop of page S. vulgaris is a slender annual (sometimes biennial) herb, 4-60 cm tall, leafy and can be hairy or glabrous. Leaf axils somewhat 'cottony' in appearance, stem succulent, hollow, slightly angled, branched, thickish, erect or ascending. Leaves dense, slightly fleshy and all pinnatifid, with lower leaves petiolate, oblong-spathulate, dentate to short-lobed, cauline leaves oblong in outline, sessile, half-clasping and auriculate at base; lobes distant, oblong, rachis, lobes and auricles denticulate. Peduncles shorter or somewhat longer than heads (Feinbrun-Dothan, 1978) and also somewhat cottony. Flower-heads 2-4 mm in diameter, cylindrical, usually in dense corymbs; phyllaries linear, reflexed in fruit; discoid or rarely radiate with short ligules. Flowers yellow, found all year around, and ray flowers absent. Disc florets usually 6-7 mm, rather broad when in flower; involucral bracts linear, acute, narrowly scarious-margined; tip blackish, ending in a tuft of hairs, bracts of the calycule 8 or more, triangular; blackish at least in their upper part, much shorter than involucre.
Achenes 2.2 x 0.7 mm, fusiform, ribbed, hairy, appressed-hirtellous, brown and produced most of the year (LeStrange, 1977). Pappus longer than achene, prominent, white and hairy. This weed spreads easily by means of its small fruits equipped with single, white ephemeral hairs. A single specimen can produce up to several thousand fruits in one year (Chancellor, 1983). Seeds and fruit become sticky when wet.
DistributionTop of page S. vulgaris is usually regarded as a temperate weed and although it has a worldwide distribution it appears to be more localized in many European countries (Chater and Walters, 1976) and North America. The weed is especially prolific and plentiful on fertile soil, completely smothering crops at early stages. However, its spread in tropical regions is very limited, with only a restricted number of countries in Africa and South America affected. It is also quite well represented in Asian and Mediterranean countries.
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||Holm et al., 1991|
|Armenia||Present||Native||Komarov et al., 1961|
|Azerbaijan||Present||Native||Komarov et al., 1961|
|China||Present||Native||Holm et al., 1991|
|-Hong Kong||Present||Introduced||Holm et al., 1991|
|-Ningxia||Present||Wittig et al., 2000|
|Georgia (Republic of)||Present||Native||Komarov et al., 1961|
|India||Widespread||Komarov et al., 1961; Kakrani and Kalyani, 1984|
|Iran||Widespread||Native||Holm et al., 1991|
|Iraq||Present||Native||Holm et al., 1991|
|Israel||Widespread||Native||Post, 1933; Yaacoby et al., 1996|
|Japan||Widespread||Native||Numata and Yoshizawa, 1975|
|Jordan||Widespread||Native||Holm et al., 1991|
|Kazakhstan||Present||Native||Komarov et al., 1961|
|Korea, DPR||Present||Native||Komarov et al., 1961|
|Korea, Republic of||Widespread||Native||Holm et al., 1991|
|Kyrgyzstan||Present||Komarov et al., 1961|
|Lebanon||Present||Native||Holm et al., 1991|
|Mongolia||Present||Komarov et al., 1961|
|Saudi Arabia||Widespread||Chaundhary & Howaishel, 1980|
|Taiwan||Absent, intercepted only||Introduced||Hsu, 1973|
|Tajikistan||Present||Komarov et al., 1961|
|Turkmenistan||Present||Komarov et al., 1961|
|Uzbekistan||Present||Native||Komarov et al., 1961|
|Algeria||Present||Native||Quezel and Santa, 1963|
|Egypt||Widespread||Native||Holm et al., 1991|
|Kenya||Widespread||Introduced||Holm et al., 1991|
|Mozambique||Present||Introduced||Holm et al., 1991|
|Tunisia||Widespread||Native||Holm et al., 1991|
|Bermuda||Present||Introduced||Fawcett & Rendle, 1936|
|Canada||Present||Present based on regional distribution.|
|-Alberta||Widespread||Introduced||1937||Invasive||Robinson et al., 2003|
|-British Columbia||Widespread||Introduced||1875||Invasive||Robinson et al., 2003|
|-Manitoba||Widespread||Introduced||1922||Invasive||Robinson et al., 2003|
|-New Brunswick||Widespread||Introduced||1914||Invasive||Robinson et al., 2003|
|-Newfoundland and Labrador||Widespread||Introduced||1894||Invasive||Robinson et al., 2003|
|-Northwest Territories||Widespread||Introduced||1949||Invasive||Robinson et al., 2003|
|-Nova Scotia||Widespread||Introduced||1890||Invasive||Robinson et al., 2003|
|-Ontario||Widespread||Introduced||1877||Invasive||Robinson et al., 2003|
|-Prince Edward Island||Widespread||Introduced||1902||Invasive||Robinson et al., 2003|
|-Quebec||Widespread||Introduced||1882||Invasive||Robinson et al., 2003|
|-Saskatchewan||Widespread||Introduced||1896||Invasive||Robinson et al., 2003|
|-Yukon Territory||Widespread||Introduced||1902||Invasive||Robinson et al., 2003|
|Mexico||Present||Introduced||Hultén and Fries, 1986|
|USA||Widespread||Introduced||Invasive||USDA-NRCS, and, 2002|
|-Alabama||Present||Introduced||USDA-NRCS, and, 2002|
|-Alaska||Present||Introduced||USDA-NRCS, and, 2002|
|-Arizona||Present||Introduced||USDA-NRCS, and, 2002|
|-Arkansas||Present||Introduced||USDA-NRCS, and, 2002|
|-California||Present||Introduced||USDA-NRCS, and, 2002|
|-Colorado||Present||Introduced||USDA-NRCS, and, 2002|
|-Connecticut||Present||Introduced||USDA-NRCS, and, 2002|
|-Delaware||Present||Introduced||USDA-NRCS, and, 2002|
|-Florida||Present||Introduced||USDA-NRCS, and, 2002|
|-Georgia||Present||Introduced||USDA-NRCS, and, 2002|
|-Hawaii||Present||Introduced||USDA-NRCS, and, 2002|
|-Idaho||Present||Introduced||USDA-NRCS, and, 2002|
|-Illinois||Present||Introduced||USDA-NRCS, and, 2002|
|-Indiana||Present||Introduced||USDA-NRCS, and, 2002|
|-Iowa||Present||Introduced||USDA-NRCS, and, 2002|
|-Kansas||Present||Introduced||USDA-NRCS, and, 2002|
|-Kentucky||Present||Introduced||USDA-NRCS, and, 2002|
|-Louisiana||Present||Introduced||USDA-NRCS, and, 2002|
|-Maine||Present||Introduced||USDA-NRCS, and, 2002|
|-Maryland||Present||Introduced||USDA-NRCS, and, 2002|
|-Massachusetts||Present||Introduced||USDA-NRCS, and, 2002|
|-Michigan||Present||Introduced||USDA-NRCS, and, 2002|
|-Minnesota||Present||Introduced||USDA-NRCS, and, 2002|
|-Mississippi||Present||Introduced||USDA-NRCS, and, 2002|
|-Missouri||Present||Introduced||USDA-NRCS, and, 2002|
|-Montana||Present||Introduced||USDA-NRCS, and, 2002|
|-Nebraska||Present||Introduced||USDA-NRCS, and, 2002|
|-Nevada||Present||Introduced||USDA-NRCS, and, 2002|
|-New Hampshire||Present||Introduced||USDA-NRCS, and, 2002|
|-New Jersey||Present||Introduced||USDA-NRCS, and, 2002|
|-New Mexico||Present||Introduced||USDA-NRCS, and, 2002|
|-New York||Present||Introduced||USDA-NRCS, and, 2002|
|-North Carolina||Present||Introduced||USDA-NRCS, and, 2002|
|-North Dakota||Present||Introduced||USDA-NRCS, and, 2002|
|-Ohio||Present||Introduced||USDA-NRCS, and, 2002|
|-Oklahoma||Present||Introduced||USDA-NRCS, and, 2002|
|-Oregon||Present||Introduced||USDA-NRCS, and, 2002|
|-Pennsylvania||Present||Introduced||USDA-NRCS, and, 2002|
|-Rhode Island||Present||Introduced||USDA-NRCS, and, 2002|
|-South Carolina||Present||Introduced||USDA-NRCS, and, 2002|
|-South Dakota||Present||Introduced||USDA-NRCS, and, 2002|
|-Tennessee||Present||Introduced||USDA-NRCS, and, 2002|
|-Texas||Present||Introduced||USDA-NRCS, and, 2002|
|-Utah||Present||Introduced||USDA-NRCS, and, 2002|
|-Vermont||Present||Introduced||USDA-NRCS, and, 2002|
|-Virginia||Present||Introduced||USDA-NRCS, and, 2002|
|-Washington||Present||Introduced||USDA-NRCS, and, 2002|
|-West Virginia||Present||Introduced||USDA-NRCS, and, 2002|
|-Wisconsin||Present||Introduced||USDA-NRCS, and, 2002|
|-Wyoming||Present||Introduced||USDA-NRCS, and, 2002|
Central America and Caribbean
|Cuba||Present||Introduced||Fawcett & Rendle, 1936|
|Haiti||Present||Introduced||Fawcett & Rendle, 1936|
|Jamaica||Present||Introduced||Fawcett & Rendle, 1936|
|Argentina||Widespread||Introduced||Delhey and Kiehr-Delhey, 1988|
|Chile||Widespread||Introduced||Finot et al., 1996|
|Colombia||Widespread||Introduced||Mena et al., 1978|
|Ecuador||Present||Introduced||Holm et al., 1991|
|Falkland Islands||Present||Introduced||Hultén and Fries, 1986|
|Albania||Widespread||Native||Hayek, 1931; Chater and Walters, 1976|
|Andorra||Present||Native||Chater and Walters, 1976|
|Austria||Widespread||Native||Chater and Walters, 1976|
|Belarus||Widespread||Native||Komarov et al., 1961; Chater and Walters, 1976|
|Belgium||Widespread||Native||Reichenbach and Reichenbach, 1854; Chater and Walters, 1976|
|Bosnia-Hercegovina||Widespread||Native||Hayek, 1931; Chater and Walters, 1976|
|Bulgaria||Widespread||Native||Chater and Walters, 1976|
|Croatia||Widespread||Native||Hayek, 1931; Chater and Walters, 1976|
|Czech Republic||Widespread||Native||Chater and Walters, 1976|
|Czechoslovakia (former)||Widespread||Native||Chater and Walters, 1976|
|Denmark||Widespread||Native||Reichenbach and Reichenbach, 1854; Chater and Walters, 1976|
|Estonia||Widespread||Native||Komarov et al., 1961; Chater and Walters, 1976|
|Faroe Islands||Present||Native||Chater and Walters, 1976|
|Finland||Restricted distribution||Introduced||Chater and Walters, 1976|
|France||Widespread||Native||Invasive||Rouy, 1903; Chater and Walters, 1976|
|-Corsica||Widespread||Native||Rouy, 1903; Chater and Walters, 1976|
|Germany||Widespread||Native||Invasive||Reichenbach and Reichenbach, 1854; Chater and Walters, 1976|
|Greece||Widespread||Native||Hayek, 1931; Chater and Walters, 1976|
|Hungary||Widespread||Native||Reichenbach and Reichenbach, 1854; Chater and Walters, 1976|
|Iceland||Present||Native||Invasive||Chater and Walters, 1976|
|Ireland||Widespread||Native||Invasive||Chater and Walters, 1976|
|Italy||Widespread||Native||Chater and Walters, 1976; Pignatti, 1982|
|Latvia||Widespread||Native||Komarov et al., 1961; Chater and Walters, 1976|
|Liechtenstein||Widespread||Native||Chater and Walters, 1976|
|Lithuania||Widespread||Native||Komarov et al., 1961; Chater and Walters, 1976|
|Luxembourg||Widespread||Native||Chater and Walters, 1976|
|Macedonia||Widespread||Native||Hayek, 1931; Chater and Walters, 1976|
|Malta||Present||Haslam et al., 1977|
|Moldova||Widespread||Native||Chater and Walters, 1976|
|Monaco||Present||Native||Chater and Walters, 1976|
|Netherlands||Widespread||Native||Not invasive||Reichenbach and Reichenbach, 1854; Chater and Walters, 1976|
|Norway||Widespread||Native||Chater and Walters, 1976|
|Poland||Widespread||Native||Chater and Walters, 1976|
|Portugal||Widespread||Native||Chater and Walters, 1976|
|-Azores||Widespread||Native||Chater and Walters, 1976|
|-Madeira||Present||Press and Short, 1994|
|Romania||Widespread||Native||Chater and Walters, 1976|
|Russian Federation||Present||Present based on regional distribution.|
|-Central Russia||Widespread||Native||Komarov et al., 1961; Chater and Walters, 1976|
|-Eastern Siberia||Present||Native||Komarov et al., 1961|
|-Northern Russia||Present||Komarov et al., 1961; Chater and Walters, 1976|
|-Russian Far East||Present||Native||Komarov et al., 1961|
|-Southern Russia||Widespread||Native||Komarov et al., 1961|
|-Western Siberia||Present||Native||Komarov et al., 1961|
|San Marino||Present||Native||Chater and Walters, 1976|
|Slovakia||Widespread||Native||Chater and Walters, 1976|
|Slovenia||Widespread||Native||Chater and Walters, 1976|
|Spain||Restricted distribution||Native||Not invasive||Chater and Walters, 1976|
|-Balearic Islands||Widespread||Native||Chater and Walters, 1976|
|Sweden||Widespread||Native||Chater and Walters, 1976|
|Switzerland||Widespread||Native||Reichenbach and Reichenbach, 1854; Chater and Walters, 1976|
|UK||Widespread||Native||Invasive||Chater and Walters, 1976; Stace, 1997|
|-Channel Islands||Widespread||Native||McClintock, 1975; Le Sueur, 1984|
|Ukraine||Widespread||Native||Komarov et al., 1961; Chater and Walters, 1976|
|Yugoslavia (former)||Widespread||Native||Hayek, 1931; Chater and Walters, 1976|
|Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro)||Widespread||Native||Chater and Walters, 1976|
|Australia||Widespread||Introduced||Lazarides et al., 1997|
|-New South Wales||Present||Introduced||Lazarides et al., 1997|
|-Queensland||Present||Introduced||Lazarides et al., 1997|
|-South Australia||Present||Introduced||Lazarides et al., 1997|
|-Tasmania||Present||Introduced||Lazarides et al., 1997|
|-Victoria||Present||Introduced||Lazarides et al., 1997|
|-Western Australia||Present||Introduced||Lazarides et al., 1997|
|New Zealand||Widespread||Introduced||Webb, 1987|
HabitatTop of page S. vulgaris is a weed of arable land and waste ground and is widespread in some countries. It is common in different parts of the world, and is frequently a problem at altitudes up to 2000 m. Plants with a nuclear genome resistant to triazine appear to be better adapted to cooler temperatures than triazine-susceptible genomes (MacCloskey and Holt, 1991). It is native to Europe, Northern Africa and Asia (Euro-Siberian, Mediterranean and W. Irano-Turanian).
S. vulgaris is an important weed on peatland and cultivated bog (MacNaeidhe and Curran, 1980), is flood sensitive (Lambers et al., 1978) and has different degrees of tolerance to soluble lead (Briggs, 1976). It is highly sensitive to ozone treatment which causes leaf discoloration (Bergmann et al., 1995). This weed has a genetic response to spatial variations of the environment (Abbott, 1976), greatly influenced by the spatial pattern of its individuals with other species and its effect on population dynamics. Topodemes from saline sites are in general more salt tolerant than those from non-saline habitats (Briggs, 1978).
It is favoured by reduced cultivation (Nielson and Pinnerup, 1982) and higher populations are found under zero tillage. It became numerous during the nutrient-rich tillage phase, but does not necessarily persist (MacNaeidhe and Curran, 1982). Wilmanns (1975) found that intensive weed control increased populations, and heavy application of certain herbicides resulted in morphological and physiological variations between and within its populations (Abbott, 1974) that were apparently due to inherent physiological differences between its main biotypes (Radozevich and Appleby, 1973). It was among the first species to recolonize after herbicide treatment with simazine (Strykers and Himme, 1972c).
Elevated carbon dioxide levels results in more branches and longer root systems. At high carbon dioxide concentrations and low water levels, root systems have branching and foraging patterns, and similar root lengths to those grown under ambient carbon dioxide combined with high water levels. The threshold freezing temperature for bulk tissues is between -1 and -4°C (Paul and Ayres, 1991). It is very adaptable and capable of growing under adverse conditions. Brown and Molyneux (1996) found that water and/or nutrient deficiency did not significantly alter the concentration of senecionine or seneciphylline alkaloids in plant tissues.
Habitat ListTop of page
|Terrestrial – Managed||Cultivated / agricultural land||Present, no further details||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
|Protected agriculture (e.g. glasshouse production)||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)|
|Urban / peri-urban areas||Present, no further details||Harmful (pest or invasive)|
Hosts/Species AffectedTop of page A very diverse group of crop species is invaded by S. vulgaris in different geographical areas in tropical, sub-tropical and cool weather regions. The weed appears to be of high geographical and climatic tolerance since seed germination occurs at a range of temperatures between 7 and 25°C. However, the losses caused by this weed depend on the crop species affected and the availability of optimum growth conditions for the weed to fully exert its effects through competition, allelopathy or both. The weed is able to compete with different crop species of different growth habits and habitats in different cropping systems. Many of the infested crops reported are important feed or fodder crops. The ability of this species to develop new morphs in nature, to produce a huge number of readily germinating seeds and its increasing tolerance to different herbicide groups may all contribute towards the existence and success of this weed as a major threat to agriculture.
Biology and EcologyTop of page S. vulgaris behaves like a summer annual (Nielsen and Pinnerup, 1982). Seed dormancy is part of the seasonal cycle and can be modified by temperature, nitrate levels and soil moisture (Karssen, 1980) whereas germination appears to be opportunistically fire-independent (Zammit and Zedler, 1994). Seeds have a very high capacity for germination within a wide range of temperatures 7-25°C (Kozhevnikova and Makhaeva, 1974) the optimum being 7-10°C. Growth of this weed is greatly influenced by carbon dioxide and soil moisture.
Wind is the most important medium for the transport of S. vulgaris seeds (MacNaeidhe and Curran, 1982). Seed dormancy appears to be strongly related to habitat and geographical location. Ren and Abbott (1991, 1992) found that seeds of a Mediterranean population showed strong innate dormancy over a wide range of temperatures, enabling the species to adopt a winter annual life cycle, whereas those of British groundsel showed more than 80% germination at 20°C. Dormancy however, can be overcome by stratification, leaching, treatment with gibberellic acid alone or with kinetin, and by wounding the fruit and seed coat (Ren and Abbott, 1992). In the soil, temperature, nitrate and soil moisture were among the factors affecting dormancy. Seed germination requires white and red light (Hilton, 1983). The non-radiate morph of this weed tends to show early germination before winter, producing an equivalent or greater seed output/plant than the radiate morph, while radiate seeds produced in the following autumn show a tendency towards late germination in the spring (Marshall and Abbott, 1987). Plants of both biotypes from intensively-weeded habitats developed more quickly from sowing to first fruiting than plants from less intensively-weeded habitats whereas within the same habitat, non-radiate plants developed faster than radiate plants (Kadereit and Briggs, 1985).
Based on herbicide tolerance, two biotypes have been reported: triazine-susceptible and triazine-resistant. Colonization by the second group can be encouraged by herbicides (Barralis et al., 1983) and populations can increase rapidly from the initial frequency of the resistant genotype (Scott and Putwain, 1981). Both are quite different in anatomical, physiological and biochemical characters, thus reflecting differences in their growth and development (Radozevich et al., 1979; Holt, 1988; Chodova et al., 1995). Susceptible biotypes produce greater total dry matter, height, number of leaves, leaf area, root/shoot ratio, total chlorophyll/unit leaf weight, chlorophyll a:b ratio, soluble protein, carbon dioxide assimilation rate, oxygen evolution in continuous stroma-free chloroplast and relative growth rate. Resistant plants have a decreased fitness to grow and reproduce, and their competitive ability is lower than the susceptible biotype (Holt et al., 1981; Sims, 1982; Holt, 1983). Holt and Radosevich (1982, 1983) found that shading lowered all growth parameters in both biotypes, but growth values remained greater in susceptible rather than resistant biotypes.
Air TemperatureTop of page
|Parameter||Lower limit||Upper limit|
|Mean annual temperature (ºC)||4||19|
|Mean maximum temperature of hottest month (ºC)||25||45|
|Mean minimum temperature of coldest month (ºC)||-14||8|
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||40||mm; lower/upper limits|
Natural enemiesTop of page
|Natural enemy||Type||Life stages||Specificity||References||Biological control in||Biological control on|
|Coleosporium tussilaginis f.sp. senecionis-sylvati||Pathogen|
|Golovinomyces cichoracearum var. fischeri||Pathogen|
Notes on Natural EnemiesTop of page S. vulgaris is attacked by a high number of natural enemies including fungi, bacteria, viruses, nematodes, aphids, insects, mites and even birds. However, almost all are polyphagous and need to be carefully evaluated before being considered for a biological control programme. Many of the enemies reported are well known as pests, attacking a wide range of agricultural and horticultural plant species and causing severe damage in different crops.
Plant TradeTop of page
|Plant parts liable to carry the pest in trade/transport||Pest stages||Borne internally||Borne externally||Visibility of pest or symptoms|
|Fruits (inc. pods)||fruits|
|Growing medium accompanying plants||fruits|
|Stems (above ground)/Shoots/Trunks/Branches||fruits|
|Plant parts not known to carry the pest in trade/transport|
|True seeds (inc. grain)|
Impact SummaryTop of page
|Fisheries / aquaculture||Negative|
ImpactTop of page S. vulgaris is of widespread significance in over 49 countries, infesting most cultivated crops in different parts of the world. It has been reported to be a serious weed of maize in Canada, of woody plant nurseries in England, Norway and Sweden; and of horticultutal crops (vegetables and small fruits) in the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden; and of strawberries in Scotland.
With regard to competitiveness, S. vulgaris is one of the most dominant weeds in maize where prevention of yield losses requires a weed-free period of 274-135 growing degree days, although this was associated with a yield loss of 8.3 and 12.7% (Ferrero et al., 1996). In carrots, and in the presence of other weed species, the critical period of weed competition occurs 60 days after emergence. The weed strongly competes with apple trees, lowers N concentration in leaves, causes a deficit in soil moisture, reduces root activity and decreases yield and quality (Atkinson and Crisp, 1983). S. vulgaris has a low demand for K and Mg and higher requirements for Ca and P (Qasem and Hill, 1993a, 1995a). However, during severe root restriction, the weed showed a higher tissue concentration of P and Mg and lower Ca (Qasem and Hill, 1995b). It showed a higher specific absorption rate of N, P, K, Ca and Mg than tomato (Qasem and Hill, 1993b), while its competition index with Chenopodium album increased according to its proportion in the mixture (Qasem and Hill, 1994). Growth of this species was greatly reduced with ammonia and urea forms of nitrogen, and both affected the weed root concentration of P (Qasem and Hill, 1993c).
Although no specific study is available on the losses caused by this weed in different crops, it was found to reduce yields of broccoli by 18 and 30% at densities of 3 or 8 plants/m², respectively (Agamalian, 1983). Many studies have reported this species as a noxious weed prevalent in most crops and causing yield losses in association with other weeds, yet it frequently escapes chemical control. In addition to the losses caused through direct competition, certain studies reported an allelopathic activity of S. vulgaris on certain species.
S. vulgaris has different biotypes, one of which exhibits resistance to different herbicide groups, making control sometimes difficult. It infests all types of cultivated crops including herbs, shrubs or woody trees in different cropping systems. This reflects the high ecological tolerance of this species and it is thus considered as a highly successful colonizer under different conditions. Wind dissemination, and the rapidity and ease of seed germination give it an advantage to survive and to exist in nature. The weed serves as a host for a wide range of agricultural pests attacking different economic crops worldwide (See Natural Enemies).
Chemical tissue analysis of S. vulgaris has revealed the presence of free and N-oxide alkaloids (retrosine, seneciophyllinen, senecionine, spartioidine, usaramine and riddaline), mainly concentrated in the flower heads. The pyrrolizidine alkaloids are readily converted by the liver into toxic pyrroles causing liver disease in horses (Mendel et al., 1988). These alkaloids are also toxic to cattle, causing many livestock deaths and show significant effects on hepatic enzymes in rats (Kakrani and Kalyani, 1984). Several species of Senecio have been linked to human fatalities in incidents of bread poisoning, where seeds of other plant parts have been incorporated into bread for human consumption. In addition, the weed contains sesquiterpene-lactone, and leaf extracts possess a low concentration of free amino acids.
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
- Damaged ecosystem services
- Ecosystem change/ habitat alteration
- Negatively impacts agriculture
- Negatively impacts human health
- Negatively impacts animal health
- Reduced native biodiversity
- Competition - monopolizing resources
- Pest and disease transmission
- Highly likely to be transported internationally accidentally
- Difficult to identify/detect as a commodity contaminant
- Difficult/costly to control
UsesTop of page Although S. vulgaris is regarded as a troublesome weed in most countries, with at least one biotype resisting chemical treatment by certain herbicides, it serves as a favourite food for rabbits and the seeds are eaten by birds. It is of medicinal value, used internally and externally at the flowering stage and before head opening, while leaves and juice of the plant can also be used the year around to treat a wide range of medical conditions (Kakrani and Kalyani, 1984). It has been used extensively in folk medicine as a vermifuge or laxative (Fogelfors, 1984) and as a healing herb, to stop bleeding from nose bleeds and during menstruation. It has antihelminthic, astringent, expectorant and haemostatic properties, and has been used medicinally as a useful remedy for toothache (LeStrange, 1977). Culpeper (1802, quoted by Mitich (1995)) states that the leaves, when stamped and strained into milk and drunk, help treat red gums and upset children. The plant cools inflammations and is an easy emetic when prepared as a tea. Taken in ale, it acts against stomach pains, strangury, jaundice and destroys worms.
Similarities to Other Species/ConditionsTop of page S. vulgaris differ from other annual species of Senecio in having black-tipped bracts and inconspicuous heads without ligulate flowers (Frankton and Mulligan, 1987). The genetic control character of a non-radiate mutant of S. vulgaris was identical with the genetic control of non-radiate S. squalidus (Ingram and Taylor, 1982).
Graumann and Gottsberger (1988), showed that S. jacobaea, S. erucifolius, S. aquaticus and S. fuchsii, all with an allogamous reproduction system, possess showy capitula with prominent ray-florets and attract a broad array of cross-pollinating insects. Pollen/ovule ratio is high and biomass investment is preferentially in the flowers and lower in fruits. The autogamous S. vulgaris has reduced ray-florets, a pollen/ovule ratio about 10 times lower and a converse biomass investment compared with the above species.
The closely related species S. jacobaea has a different chromosome number (2n = 80) (Murin and Majovsky, 1987), and is widely spread as a poisonous weed of range land and pastures in different countries. The tissues of this plant contain hepatoxic alkaloids which are also present in the honey produced from its nectar, and include senecionine, seneciphylline, jacoline, jaconin and jacozine which are potentially carcinogenic, mutagenic and tetragenic and may pose hazards to man (Deinzer et al., 1977). Since S. jacobaea is a rangeland species, biological control methods are the most important and highly emphasized. These can be achieved with a number of natural enemies. In comparison with S. vulgaris, only a few herbicides have been tested; 2,4-D and MCPA alone or in combination with dicamba are extremely good and give more than 99% control.
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.
A combination of cultural and chemical control methods were effective against different weeds, including S. vulgaris, in lupins (Jambrina, 1983). Boydston (1995) found that rototilling without herbicides in the spring and at layby in asparagus gave best control, whereas Tessier and Leroux (1994) reported best control of S. vulgaris in broccoli using an intercropping system, by sowing the intercrop 25 days after transplanting combined with two cultivations. Intercropping can be performed using red clover, and winter or annual ryegrass. Plastic mulch and pre-sowing soil solarization proved to be effective in strawberries (MacGiolla, 1989); spring tillage in spring wheat (Arshad et al., 1994) was also good for crop flowering, yield and control of weed populations including S. vulgaris. Ploughing (10-14 cm deep) in the autumn or spring suppressed S. vulgaris in peppermint, whereas disking (5-9 cm deep) was not sufficient to control this weed (Talkington and Berry, 1986).
A vast quantity of literature is available on chemical control, and a great number of herbicides have proved to be very effective in different crops. More importantly, a large number of herbicides have failed to affect the weed, some even encouraging growth or population levels (van Himme et al., 1981). However, the effectiveness of herbicides depends on time, rate, method of application and crop stage. Results of different experiments have confirmed the importance of herbicide mixtures or the combination of chemicals with cultural and mechanical methods of weed control.
Effective treatments in the following crops have been reported:
Apple orchards: The effectiveness of a mixture of dalapon and aminotriazol has been reported by Kurhan and Kurcman (1979). Oxyfluorfen (Cleave, 1984) and simazine applied in the spring were also effective against this weed. For heavy weed infestations, linuron and dichlobenil were excellent (Demeyere et al., 1988), the same herbicides and metazachlor were highly successful in pears (Aalbers, 1993).
Vineyards: for S. vulgaris control in grapes, sulfosate (Trouslard, 1991), simazine + diuron + oil, napropamid + simazine (Rozier, 1986) and a split application of diuron (Magnien and Riffiod, 1983) have all proved effective. Thiazopyr has been reported as an excellent treatment in this crop (Warner and Holmdal, 1995).
Container-grown ornamentals and nurseries: For tree nurseries, diuron and oxyfluorfen were highly effective (Noye, 1989), whereas oryzalin resulted in more than 98.8% control; chloroxuron and oxadiazone being less effective. Late application of metazachlor or chlorotoluron, isoxaben, napropamide and dichlobenil are also very useful treatments.
In ornamentals and other container grown nurseries, dithiopyr gives 100% control of S. vulgaris (Smith and Treaster, 1992). Oxyfluorfen alone or in combination with oryzalin is also effective and lasts for 3-4 months after application (Derr, 1989; Staats and Klett, 1993). Oxadiazon granules show promising results (Elmore et al., 1979). Other effective herbicides include terbacil (Kelly, 1972), oryzalin, oxyfluorfen + oryzalin, and isoxaben + oryzalin (Hood and Klett, 1992). Mixtures of atrazine with napropamide, and oxyfluorfen with propazamide give good control (Moon, 1984). Napropamid alone (Kelly, 1982) or in combination with simazine, dichlobenil (Ticknor, 1977), bromoxynil, methazol and norflurazon (Ryan, 1976) are also useful herbicides. Cyanazine and methazol both prevent early spring infestation.
Early application of sulfometuron-methyl and imazapyr have adequately controlled the weed in Pinus taeda (Metcalfe, 1985), whereas Ahrens and Cubanski (1981) found that glyphosate and oxyfluorfen gave good control in evergreen forest trees.
Strawberries: Hexazan (Barring, 1981), pendimethalin + napropamide (MacGiolla, 1989), propachlor, lenacel in combination with phenmedipham (post-emergence) or chlorxuron (Quast, 1987) have all been used successfully. Phenmedipham applied at the cotyledon stage (Avall, 1974), simazine, and lenacil + chloxuron at the 4-5 leaf stage were all effective against the weed and selective to crop plants (Strychers and Himme, 1971).
Vegetables: a wide range of herbicides have been recommended: sulfallate in lettuce (Jones and Suckling, 1978), with pronamide and chlorxuron alone or in combination also being useful (Uprichard, 1972). For outdoor-drilled crops, carbatamide with chlorpropham are possible, but are marginally less selective (Fort, 1973). In celery, paraquat applied 2 days before crop emergence followed by mineral oil at the 1-2 leaf stage, or with linuron 9 days after sowing, was highly effective and killed the weed almost totally (van Himme et al., 1975). For weed control in brassicas, trifluralin + napropamide in pre-sowing treatment, or followed by propachlor after drilling has been tested (Roberts, 1972), a mixture of carbetamide and azioprotryne, desmetryne or dimefuron, all gave good results with a marked reduction in S. vulgaris populations (Suckling, 1977). Propyzamide + aziprotryne (Cassidy, 1977) was found effective. Cyanazine, pyridate (Bullen et al., 1993), liquid ammonium nitrate or ammonium thiosulfate can be used at the 2-4 leaf stage of broccoli, during early weed growth (Agamalian, 1991). The weed is extremely susceptible to phenmedipham in sugarbeet (Bomer, 1979).
Onions: The most promising herbicides in these crops include 3,6 dichloropicolinic acid at or after the 2-leaf stage (Lake, 1980) and chlorpropham + trifluralin at the 3-4 leaf stage. Ioxynil + carbetamide + propyzamide gave excellent control at the 2-leaf stage (Cassidy, 1977). In leek, prynachlor was satisfactory (Stryckers and Himme, 1972a; Ampe and Bockstaele, 1973). In addition, cycluron, pyrazone with chlorbufam, propachlor and chloroxuron were all effective and selective herbicides. In directly-sown onion, pyridate (Bullen et al., 1993) and propachlor were highly successful (German Plant Protection Service, 1975), whereas seedbed treatments of chlorthal dimethyl with prynachlor as pre-emergence and pyrazon with chlorbufam and prynachlor were highly effective (Cantele et al., 1977).
Legumes: HCS-3510 is generally recommended. However, in lupin, Fogard (atrazine) during or after sowing and before weed emergence (Jambrina, 1983), or metachlor + linuron (Mitich et al., 1989) effectively controls the weed. Dichlobenil (Stryckers and Himme, 1972b) and bentazon (post-emergence) (Roberts et al., 1974) are possible herbicides for weed control in dwarf french beans. Pope (1980) reported that in soyabean, linuron, followed by alloxydim 76 days after sowing or (Mortia et al., 1983) was successful, whereas in broad bean, terbutryne + terbuthylazine and trietazine + simazine were effective.
Carrots: late pre-emergence application of metoxuron followed by post-emergence of linuron, propyzamid + diuron, simazine or propazine (Fiveland, 1977) and chlorbromuron provide good control at the late cotyledon stage (MacNaeidhe, 1972 ). Trifluralin can be incorporated before sowing, followed by post-emergence application of metoxuron or prometryne (Dobrzanski, 1975). Metribuzin, linuron, metaxuron and pentachlor after the 3- leaf stage, all gave good weed control (German Plant Protection Service, 1974)
Potato: EPTC and metobromuron were found useful herbicides for weed control in this crop (UK Advisory Service, 1970).
Pumpkin and squash: ioxynil is effective (Esau and Rumney, 1985), and clomazone was found to be selective by Al-Khatib et al. (1995).
Cereals: effective and selective treatments include FRI 298 (isoproturon + diflafenican) applied pre or post-emergence in wheat and barley (Drummond and Horsnail, 1987), simazine + atrazine during or after sowing in maize, but pre-emergence for the weed (Panero, 1972), acetochlor or metachlor with urea derivatives and dicamba as soil treatments (Torok, 1983), and pyridate and bromophenoxin with terbuthylazine also proved effective. Use of rimsulfuron as a a surfactant gave excellent results (Kreidi, 1992).
Lucerne: Using bromoxynil alone or with sethoxydim provided long lasting control in lucerne seedlings (Carter and Hendrick, 1983). Asulam in a post-emergence treatment gave more than 95% control (Harper et al., 1974), and carbetimade prevented S.vulgaris infestations (Soper and Hutchison, 1974). Diuron, metribuzin, terbacil, chloropropham, paraquat and secbumetron are all possible alternatives (Norris et al., 1984).
Mamarot and Rodriguez (1997) provide suggestions for use of herbicides and herbicide mixtures in a wide range of crops in France.
Despite the wide range of natural enemies reported as attacking S. vulgaris, only two fungal species (Erysiphe fischeri and Puccinia lagenophorae) have been tested as biological control agents. Plants infected with E. fischeri continued growing to set seeds even when 75-100% of the aerial parts were colonized but dry matter production of the weed was markedly reduced (Clarke et al., 1979).
Under glasshouse conditions, P. lagenophorae infection reduced weed dry weight both in pure and mixed stands with lettuce. The fungus inhibited leaf expansion and production of capitula, reduced the number of flowering plants and led to more rapid and early senescence of the weed whereas mature, infected, flowering plants died earlier and more rapidly than healthy plants (Paul and Ayres, 1987).The high death rate occurring among autumn-inoculated plants was due to infection of the hypocotyl which was always killed within 1-2 weeks. However, heavily-infected plants were still able to produce some capitula and potentially set seed. Inoculation of plants bearing aecia of P. lagenophorae with an isolate of Puccinia intermedium caused 50% death of hosts 18 days after inoculation and 37 days after inoculation with Gibberella avenacea (Hallett and Ayres, 1992). In a different study, Ascard and Jonasson (1991) reported good control of S. vulgaris in cabbage fields using meal of seed residues of mustard (Sinapis alba).
ReferencesTop of page
Abbott RJ, 1974. Patterns of morphological and physiological variation between and within populations from disparate habitats, of Senecio vulgaris L., an inbreeding species. Patterns of morphological and physiological variation between and within populations from disparate habitats, of Senecio vulgaris L., an inbreeding species. Oxford, UK: Oxford University.
Abbott RJ, 1976. Variation within common groundsel, Senecio vulgaris L. 1. Genetic response to spatial variations of the environment. New Phytologist, 76(1):153-164
Abbott RJ; Horrill JC, 1991. Survivorship and fecundity of the radiate and non-radiate morphs of groundsel, Senecio vulgaris L., raised in pure stand and mixture. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 4(2):241-257
Abbott RJ; Irwin JA; Ashton PA, 1992. Genetic diversity for esterases in the recently evolved stabilized introgressant, Senecio vulgaris L. var. hibernicus Syme, and its parental taxa S. vulgaris L. var. vulgaris L. and S. squalidus L. Heredity, 68(6):547-556
Alexander JCM, 1979. The Mediterranean species of Senecio sections Senecio and Delphinifolius. Notes Royal Bot. Gard. Edin., 37:387-428.
Ascard J; Jonasson T, 1991. White mustard meal interesting for weed control. Swedish Crop Protection Conference. Weeds and weed control Uppsala, Sweden; Sveriges Lantbruksuniversitet (Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences), 32:139-155
Atkinson D; Crisp CM, 1983. The effect of weeds and grass on apple yield and quality. 10th International Congress of Plant Protection 1983. Volume 3. Proceedings of a conference held at Brighton, England, 20-25 November, 1983. Plant protection for human welfare. British Crop Protection Council Croydon UK, 124
Avall H, 1974. Results from weed control trials up to 1973. Weed control in canning peas. Weeds and weed control. Proceedings of the 15th Swedish Weed Conference. Lantbrukshogskolan. Uppsala Sweden, parts 1+2, 84
Bergmann E; Bender J; Weigel HJ; Grennfelt P; Rodhe H; Thornelof E; Wisniewski J, 1995. Growth responses and foliar sensitivities of native herbaceous species to ozone exposures. Acid reign `95? Proceedings from the 5th International Conference on Acidic Deposition: Science and Policy. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, 85(3):1437-1442.
Brown MS; Molyneux RJ, 1996. Effects of water and mineral nutrient deficiencies on pyrrolizidine alkaloid content of Senecio vulgaris flowers. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 70(2):209-211; 7 ref.
Bujßn M; Castelao AM; Sainz MJ, 1995. Weeds in an ecological culture of asparagus (Asparagus officinalis L.) in Galicia: first results. Proceedings of the 1995 Congress of the Spanish Weed Science Society, Huesca, Spain, 14-16 November 1995., 83-86; 7 ref.
Bulcke R; Himme Mvan, 1989. Resistance to herbicides in weeds in Belgium. Importance and perspectives on herbicide-resistant weeds. Proceedings of a meeting of the EC Experts' Group, Tollose, Denmark, 15-17 November 1988 [edited by Cavalloro, R.; Noye, G.] L-2985, Luxembourg; Office for Official Publications of the European Community, No. EUR 11561 EN:31-39
Bullen MR; Cornes DW; Ryan PJ, 1993. The crop tolerance of cabbage, Brussels sprouts and onions to pyridate. Brighton crop protection conference, weeds. Proceedings of an international conference. Farnham, UK; British Crop Protection Council (BCPC), Vol. 3:1047-1052
Cantele A; Pimpini F; Zanin G, 1977. Results from a three year trial on chemical weed control in the onion seedbed. Rivista della Ortoflorofrutticoltura Italiana, 61(4):209-223.
Carda KM; Fay PK; Stougaard RN; Keener TK, 1992. Weed survey of peppermint fields in the flathead valley, Montana. In: Lym, RG, ed. Proceedings of the Western Society of Weed Science. Newark, California, USA; Western Society of Weed Science, 45:47-52
Chancellor RJ, 1983. The Identification of Weed Seedlings of Farm and Garden. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Scientific Publications.
Chater AO; Walters SM, 1976. Senecio L. In: Tutin TG, Heywood VH, Burges NA, Moore DM, Valentine DH, Walters SM, Webb DA, eds. Flora Europaea Volume 4 Plantaginaceae to Compositae (and Rubiaceae). Cambridge, UK; Cambridge University Press, 191-205.
Chodovß D; Mikulka J; Kocovß M, 1995. Comparison of chlorophyll fluorescence and chlorophyll content in triazine-resistant and -susceptible common groundsel (Senecio vulgaris). Ochrana Rostlin, 31(3):185-194; 16 ref.
Clarke DD; Kalio VDBen; Harry I, 1979. Studies on the physiological basis of tolerance using the wild host plant/parasite system, Senecio vulgaris, Erysiphe fischeri. Abstracts of Papers, IX International Congress of Plant Protection and 71st Annual Meeting of the American Phytopathological Society. Washington, D.C.: USA, 781
Comes HP; Kadereit JW, 1996. Genetic basis of speed of development in Senecio vulgaris L. var. vulgaris, S. vulgaris ssp. denticulatus (O.F. Muell.) P.D. Sell, and Senecio vernalis Waldst. & Kit. Heredity, 77(5):544-554; 44 ref.
Davis PH, 1975. Flora of Turkey and the East Aegean Islands, Vol. 5. Edinburgh, UK: University Press.
Drummond JM; Horsnail GB, 1987. FR1298 (isoproturon + diflufenican) - a new herbicide for use in winter cereals in northern Britain. Proceedings, Crop Protection in Northern Britain 1987. Invergowie, Dundee, UK; Association for Crop Protection in Northern Britain, 55-60
Elmore CL; Humphrey WA; Mock TW, 1979. Two pre-emergence herbicides in container grown ornamentals. Progress report. Flower and Nursery Report, Cooperative Extension, University of California, Summer:4-5
Fawcett WB; Rendle AB, 1910. Flora of Jamaica: containing descriptions of the flowering plants known from the island. London, UK: British Museum.
Feinbrun-Dothan N, 1978. Flora Palaestina. Vol.3. Jerusalem, Israel: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities.
Ferrero A; Scanzio M; Acutis M, 1996. Critical period of weed interference in maize. In: Brown H, Cussans GW, Devine MD, Duke SO, Fernandez-Quintanilla C, Helweg A, Labrada RE, Landes M, Kudsk P, Streibig JC, eds. Proceedings of the Second International Weed Control Congress, 1-4:171-176.
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.
Fiveland TJ, 1977. Carrots. [Review of Weed Research 1976. 5th Conference on Plant Protection, 1977] Synspunkter omkring Ugrasforsoekene 1976. 5 Informasjonsmoete i Plantevern, 1977. Statens Plantevern Ugrasbiologisk Avdeling. Vollebekk Norway, 73-75
Flexner JL; Westigard PH; Gonzalves P; Hilton R, 1991. The effect of groundcover and herbicide treatment on twospotted spider mite density and dispersal in southern Oregon pear orchards. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 60(2):111-123
Fort G, 1973. Weed Control in Summer Lettuce. Compte Rendu de la 7e Conference du COLUMA (Comité Frantais de Lutte contre les Mauvaises Herbes), 691-695.
Fuerst EP, 1984. Effects of inhibitors and diverters of photosynthetic electron transport on herbicide resistant and susceptible weed biotypes. Dissertation Abstracts International, B (Sciences and Engineering), 45(4):1079B-1080B
German Plant Protection Service, 1974. Biologische Bundesanstalt fur Land- und Forstwirtschaft Annual Report of the German Plant Protection Service, 1973. Mainz, Germany: Braunschweig.
German Plant Protection Service, 1975. Biologische Bundesanstalt fur Land- und Forstwirtschaft. Annual Report of the German Plant Protection Service, 1974. Hamburg, Germany: Braunschweig.
Haslam SM; Sell PD; Wolseley RA, 1977. A Flora of the Maltese Islands. Malta: Malta University Press.
Hayek A, 1931. Prodromus Florae peninsulae Balcanicae. Band 2. Verlag des repertoriums, Dahlem bei Berlin, Germany.
Himme M van; Stryckers J, 1975. Comparison of contact herbicides post-em. in direct-sown leeks. Himme, M. van; Stryckers, J. : Review of the results obtained for the cropping year 1973-74 by the Centrum voor Onkruidonderzoek. Rijksuniversiteit-Gent. Belgium, 110-111
Himme M van; Stryckers J; Bulcke R, 1977. Self-blanching celery: comparison of compounds applied pre-em. and post-em. In: Himme M van, Stryckers J, Bulcke R. Review of results obtained in the cropping years 1975-1976-1977 by the Centrum voor Onkruidonderzoek.: Bespreking van de resultaten bereikt door het Centrum voor Onkruidonderzoek tijdens de proefjaren 1975-1976-1977. Belgium:Rijksuniversiteit Gent.
Himme M van; Stryckers J; Bulcke R, 1981. Review of the results obtained in the cropping year 1979-1980 by the Centrum voor Onkruidonderzoek. Bespreking van de resultaten bereikt door het Centrum voor Onkruidonderzoek tijdens het teeltjaar 1979-1980. Belgium: Rijksuniversiteit Gent, Mededeling 34.
Hodkinson HD, 1972. Weed control in fodder brassicas and vegetables using granular alachlor and propachlor. Proceedings of the 11th British Weed Control Conference. London, British Crop Protection Council, UK: 150-157
Holt JS; Radosevich SR, 1982. Growth and development in biotypes of common groundsel (Senecio vulgaris) resistant or susceptible to triazines. Proceedings of the Western Society of Weed Science, 35:162
Hultén E; Fries M, 1986. Atlas of North European vascular plants: north of the Tropic of Cancer. Königstein, Federal Republic of Germany: Koeltz Scientific Books.
Johnson p; Molyneux RJ, 1985. Variation in toxic pyrrolizidine alkaloid content of plants, associated with site, stage of growth and environmental conditions. Plant toxicology. Proceedings of the Australia-USA poisonous plants symposium. Yeerongpilly, Queensland, Australia: Animal Research Institute, 209-218
Jones AG; Suckling RF, 1978. The development of sulfallate for the control of composite weeds in drilled and transplanted lettuce in the United Kingdom. Proceedings 1978 British Crop Protection Conference - Weeds. London, UK: British Crop Protection Council, 83-86
Kadereit JW; Briggs D, 1985. Speed of development of radiate and non-radiate plants of Senecio vulgaris L. from habitats subject to different degrees of weeding pressure. New Phytologist, 99(1):155-169
Kakrani HK; Kalyani GA, 1984. Effect of seneciphylline and senecionine on hepatic drug metabolizing enzymes in rats. Journal of Ethnopharmacology, 12(3):271-278.
Komarov VL; Schischkin BK; Bobrov EG, 1961. Flora of the USSR. Vol. 26. Leningrad, USSR: Academiae Scientiarum.
Kreidi M, 1992. CATO (DPX-E9636) - a new sulfonylurea for grass and weed control in maize and potatoes. Zeitschrift für Pflanzenkrankheiten und Pflanzenschutz, Sonderheft 13:663-666; [presented at the 16th German conference on weed biology and control, held at Stuttgart-Hohenheim, Germany, on 10-12 March 1992]; 2 ref.
Kurhan N; Kurcman M, 1979. Studies on the control methods of the broad-leaved weeds in apple nursery. Turkey, Zirai Mucadele ve Zirai Karantina Genel Mudurlugu, Arastirma Dairesi Baskanligi: Plant protection research annual (report). Turkey: Zirai mucadele arastirma yilligi, 169-171.
Lake CT, 1980. 3,6-dichloropicolinic acid for the control of creeping thistle (Cirsium arvense) and annual composite weeds in vegetable crops. Proceedings 1980 British Crop Protection Conference - Weeds. Farnham, UK: British Crop Protection Council, 107-114
Le Sueur L, 1984. Flora of Jersey. Jersey: SociTtT Jersiaise.
LeStrange R, 1977. A History of Herbal Plants. London, UK: Angus and Robertson, Publishers.
MacGiolla Ri P, 1989. Herbicide programmes in soft fruit crops aimed at minimising the development of weed populations. Importance and perspectives on herbicide-resistant weeds. In : Cavalloro R, Noye G, eds. Proceedings of a meeting of the EC Experts' Group. L-2985, Luxembourg; Office for Official Publications of the European Community, No. EUR 11561 EN:111-119
Magnien C; Riffiod G, 1983. Trials for control of traizine-resistant dicotyledonous weeds. Compte rendu de la 12e conference du COLUMA. Tome II Paris, France; Comité Frantais de Lutte contre les Mauvaises Herbes, 311-327
Mamarot J; Rodriguez A, 1997. Sensibilité des Mauvaises Herbes aux Herbicides. 4th edition. Paris, France: Association de Coordination Technique Agricole.
Marshall DF; Abbott RJ, 1987. Morph differences in seed output and the maintenance of the polymorphism for capitulum type and outcrossing rate in Senecio vulgaris L. Transactions, Botanical Society of Edinburgh, 45(2):107-119
McClintock D, 1975. The wild flowers of Guernsey. London, UK: Collins.
McCloskey WB; Holt JS, 1991. Effect of growth temperature on biomass production of nearly isonuclear triazine-resistant and -susceptible common groundsel (Senecio vulgaris L.). Plant, Cell and Environment, 14(7):699-705
McHenry WB; Bushnell RB; Oliver MN and Norris RF, 1990. Three poisonous plants common in pasture and hay: fiddleneck, common groundsel, yellow starthistle. University of California Cooperative Extension Publ. 21483, Berkeley, CA.
Mena F; Madronero E; Salcedo-Z A; Criollo-E H, 1984. A study of the critical period of competition between weeds and carrot (Daucus carota L.) crops on the Pasto plateau, Narino Department. Revista de Ciencias Agricolas, 8(1/14):114-120
Mendel VE; Witt MR; Gitchell BS; Gribble DN; Rogers QR; Segall HJ; Knight HD, 1988. Pyrrolizidine alkaloid-induced liver disease in horses: an early diagnosis. American Journal of Veterinary Research, 49(4):572-578
Mortia H; Doi Y; Murakami T, 1983. Studies on the succession and control of weeds in rotational upland fields in cool regions of Japan. Research Bulletin of the Hokkaido National Agricultural Experiment Station, No. 138:1-14; 19 ref.
Netland J, 1996. Weed species and frequency of simazine-resistant populations of Poa annua and Senecio vulgaris in nursery stocks imported to Norway or inland raised. In: Brown H, Cussans GW, Devine MD, Duke SO, Fernandez-Quintanilla C, Helweg A, Labrada RE, Landes M, Kudsk P, Streibig JC, eds. Proceedings of the Second International Weed Control Congress. Volumes 1-4, 461-468.
Nimbal CI; Weston LA, 1996. Mode of action of sorgoleone, a natural product isolated from Sorghum bicolor. In: Brown H, Cussans GW, Devine MD, Duke SO, Fernandez-Quintanilla C, Helweg A, Labrada RE, Landes M, Kudsk P, Streibig JC, eds. Proceedings of the Second International Weed Control Congress. Slagelse, Denmark: Department of Weed Control and Pesticide Ecology, 1-4:863-868.
Noye G, 1989. New herbicides for control of groundsel (Senecio vulgaris L.) in nursery cultures. Importance and perspectives on herbicide-resistant weeds. In: Cavalloro R, Noye G, eds. Proceedings of a meeting of the EC Experts' Group. L-2985, Luxembourg; Office for Official Publications of the European Community, No. EUR 11561 EN:105-110
Panero M, 1972. Weed control in maize today. Lotta Antiparassitaria, 24(4):3-6.
Pignatti S, 1982. Flora d'Italia. Vol. 3. Bologna, Italy: Edagricole.
Press JR; Short MJ; ed, 1994. Flora of Madeira. London, UK: HMSO.
Qasem JR; Hill TA, 1993. Nutrient accumulation of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum), fat-hen (Chenopodium album) and groundsel (Senecio vulgaris) in relation to root characteristics. Dirasat. Series B, Pure and Applied Sciences, 20(3):195-207
Quast P, 1987. Herbicide usage in strawberries. Der Herbizideinsatz bei Erdbeeren. Mitteilungen des Obstbauversuchsringes des Alten Landes, 42(4):144-148.
Quezél P; Santa S, 1963. Nouvelle Flore de l'Algerie. Éditions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris, France.
Radosevich SR; Appleby AP, 1973. Relative susceptibility of two common groundsel (Senecio vulgaris L.) biotypes to six s-triazines. Agronomy Journal, 65(4):553-555.
Reichenbach L; Reichenbach HG, 1854. Icones Florae Germanicae et Helveticae. Vol. 16, Corymbiferae. Lipsiae, Germany: Ambrosii Abel.
Ren ZS; Abbott RJ, 1991. Seed dormancy and germination in Mediterranean Senecio vulgaris L. New Phytology, 117:673-678.
Roberts HA; Bond W; Ricketts ME, 1974. Weed control in runner and dwarf beans with trifluralin and bentazone. In: Proceedings of the 12th British Weed Control Conference. London, UK: British Crop Protection Council, 427-433.
Robinson DE; O’Donovan JT; Sharma MP; Doohan DJ; Figueroa R, 2003. The biology of Canadian weeds. 123. Senecio vulgaris L. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 83:629-644.
Rouy G, 1903. Flore de France. Vol. VIII. La Rochelle: SociTtT des Sciences naturelles de la Charente-InfTrieure.
Sa G; Vasconcelos T; Nazare F, 1989. Weed flora of some orchards in Portugal. Influence of ecological factors. Proceedings of the 4th EWRS symposium on weed problems in Mediterranean climates. Vol. 1. Problems of weed control in fruit, horticultural crops and rice, 51-58.
Senesac A; Smith J; Sanok W, 1986. Preemergence weed control in newly planted and established grape vineyards on Long Island. Proceedings, 40th annual meeting of the Northeastern Weed Science Society, 149
Soper D; Hutchison AS, 1974. The regulation of grasses in clover seed crops and pasture using carbetamide. Proceedings 12th British Weed Control Conference. London, UK: British Crop Protection Council, 779-786
Staats D; Klett JE, 1993. Evaluation of weed control and phytotoxicity of preemergence herbicides applied to container-grown herbaceous and woody plants. Journal of Environmental Horticulture, 11(2):78-80; 12 ref.
Stace CA, 1997. New Flora of the British Isles. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Stryckers J; Himme H van, 1972a. Comparison of herbicides used after planting leeks. In: Stryckers J, Himme H van, eds. Review of the Results obtained for the Cropping Year 1970-71 by the Centrum voor Onkruidonderzoek. Gent, Belgium: Rijksuniversiteit, 103-104.
Stryckers J; Himme H van, 1972b. The reaction of different bean cultivars to soil-applied herbicides. In: Stryckers J, Himme H van, eds. Review of the Results obtained for the Cropping Year 1970-71 by the Centrum voor onkruidonderzoek. Gent, Belgium: Rijksuniversiteit, 78-79.
Stryckers J; Himme H van, 1972c. Minimum cultivation in hop gardens. In: Stryckers J, Himme H van, eds. Review of the Results obtained for the Cropping Year 1970-71 by the Centrum voor Onkruidonderzoek. Gent, Belgium: Rijksuniversiteit, 91-94.
Stryckers J; Himme M van, 1971. Strawberries. Stryckers J, Himme M. Van, eds. Review of the Results obtained for the Cropping Year 1969-70 by the Centrum voor Onkruidonderzoek. Mededeling, 15:98-100.
Suckling RF, 1977. Spring cabbage: evaluation of new herbicides. UK, Agricultural Development and Advisory Service, South East Region: Horticultural crops. Summary of experiments, studies and surveys 1976. London, UK: Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, 47.
Talkington ML; Berry RE, 1986. Influence of tillage in peppermint on Fumibotys fumalis (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae), common groundsel, Senecio vulgaris, and soil chemical components. Journal of Economic Entomology, 79(6):1590-1594
Tessier M; Leroux GD, 1994. Intercropping and mechanical weeding in organic production of broccoli (Brassica oleracea). Maîtrise des adventices par voie non chimique. Communications de la quatrième conférence internationale I.F.O.A.M., Dijon, France, 5-9 July 1993., Ed. 2:353-358; 7 ref.
UK Advisory Service, 1970. Weed control in broccoli seedbeds. Full reports on experiments in 1969. UK: Committee of Agriculture, Advisory Services, 20.
USDA; NRCS, 2002. The PLANTS Database, Version 3.5. National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, USA. http://plants.usda.gov.
Warner HL; Holmdal JA, 1995. Thiazopyr weed control in perennial crops. Brighton crop protection conference: weeds. Proceedings of an international conference, Brighton, UK, 20-23 November 1995., Vol. 3:943-946; 2 ref.
Wilmanns O, 1975. Changes in the Geranio-Allietum association in Kaiserstuhl vineyards? Plant sociological tables as documentation. Beitrage zur Naturkundlichen Forschung in Sudwestdeutschland, 34:429-443
Wilson IM; Walshaw D, 1963. A new rust disease of groundsel. Nature, London, 494:383.
Yaacoby T; Tal A; Alon Y; Kedar Y; Rubin B, 1996. Synergy between flumnioxazin adn other herbicides for improved weed control. In: Brown H, Cussans GW, Devine MD, Duke SO, Fernandez-Quintanilla C, Helweg A, Labrada RE, Landes M, Kudsk P, Streibig JC, 1996. Proceedings of the Second International Weed Control Congress, 1-4:1291-1296.
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/