A Comparison of Non‐Chemical Alternatives for Reducing Creeping Thistle ( <i>Cirsium arvense</i> ) Abundance in a Conservation Grassland

ABSTRACT Semi‐natural grasslands harbour important biodiversity, yet managing them for nature conservation can involve toxic agrochemicals. This study compares treatment efficacy of two non‐chemical methods of reducing creeping thistle ( Cirsium arvense ) abundance to the efficacy of a narrow spectrum herbicide containing triclopyr and clopyralid. We used six replicates of six 100 m 2 plots ( n = 36) over 3 years to compare mechanical topping (cutting), manual pulling and no management to spot‐spraying with Grazon Pro. Two complete thistle counts were carried out per year to quantify change in abundance. We also tested for temporal trends across 4 years, evaluated edge effects, and characterised spatial distribution. Leaving creeping thistles unmanaged yielded similar counts within years and a marked increase across years (effect size = 0.26; p ‐value = 0.001). The efficacy of topping compared poorly to spraying (effect size = −0.33; p ‐value &lt; 0.001), and no temporal trend was apparent. Conversely, manual pulling was marginally more effective than spraying (effect size = 0.15; p ‐value = 0.08), with a consistently negative temporal trend (effect size = −0.34; p ‐value &lt; 0.001). No temporal trend was detected in sprayed plots. Edge effects were negative in topped plots and positive in sprayed and pulled plots. Spatial distribution was random where thistles were left unmanaged (aggregation index R = 0.95), uniform in sprayed plots ( R = 1.27), and clumped where thistles were pulled or topped ( R = 0.69 and 0.89, respectively). These findings signify that manual pulling of creeping thistle is slightly more effective at reducing abundance than spraying, and is the only method that we tested to produce a consistent abundance reduction over time. We recommend that manual pulling replace spot spraying with herbicides on conservation grasslands to avoid the negative impacts of herbicide on biodiversity.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Grass and Forage Science
Published
2026-07-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/gfs.70063
Primary Topic
Weed Control and Herbicide Applications
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

A Comparison of Non‐Chemical Alternatives for Reducing Creeping Thistle ( Cirsium arvense ) Abundance in a Conservation Grassland

Mateo D. M. Ruiz, David J. Ramsden, Matthew Twiggs
Grass and Forage Science
Weed Control and Herbicide Applications
article

A Comparison of Non‐Chemical Alternatives for Reducing Creeping Thistle ( Cirsium arvense ) Abundance in a Conservation Grassland

Mateo D. M. Ruiz, David J. Ramsden, Matthew Twiggs
article en

Abstract

ABSTRACT Semi‐natural grasslands harbour important biodiversity, yet managing them for nature conservation can involve toxic agrochemicals. This study compares treatment efficacy of two non‐chemical methods of reducing creeping thistle ( Cirsium arvense ) abundance to the efficacy of a narrow spectrum herbicide containing triclopyr and clopyralid. We used six replicates of six 100 m 2 plots ( n = 36) over 3 years to compare mechanical topping (cutting), manual pulling and no management to spot‐spraying with Grazon Pro. Two complete thistle counts were carried out per year to quantify change in abundance. We also tested for temporal trends across 4 years, evaluated edge effects, and characterised spatial distribution. Leaving creeping thistles unmanaged yielded similar counts within years and a marked increase across years (effect size = 0.26; p ‐value = 0.001). The efficacy of topping compared poorly to spraying (effect size = −0.33; p ‐value &lt; 0.001), and no temporal trend was apparent. Conversely, manual pulling was marginally more effective than spraying (effect size = 0.15; p ‐value = 0.08), with a consistently negative temporal trend (effect size = −0.34; p ‐value &lt; 0.001). No temporal trend was detected in sprayed plots. Edge effects were negative in topped plots and positive in sprayed and pulled plots. Spatial distribution was random where thistles were left unmanaged (aggregation index R = 0.95), uniform in sprayed plots ( R = 1.27), and clumped where thistles were pulled or topped ( R = 0.69 and 0.89, respectively). These findings signify that manual pulling of creeping thistle is slightly more effective at reducing abundance than spraying, and is the only method that we tested to produce a consistent abundance reduction over time. We recommend that manual pulling replace spot spraying with herbicides on conservation grasslands to avoid the negative impacts of herbicide on biodiversity.

Grass and Forage ScienceVol. 81(3)
Northern Devon Healthcare NHS Trust (GB)
Life in Land
Openalex Percentile: Top 8%
Weed Control and Herbicide Applications
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.