Dog Strangling Vine Control with Herbicides
An invasive perennial weed from the milkweed family, dog strangling vine, is extremely difficult to control once it gets established (Figure 1). Progress has been made on biological control of this weed in Ontario through the release of Hypena opulenta, a leaf feeding caterpillar. However, integrated strategies that include both biological and chemical methods are often most effective at reducing large and dense infestations of this weed. Recently, Dr. Tardif's laboratory at the University of Guelph, compared the effectiveness of fifteen herbicide treatments at controlling dense populations of dog strangling vine within a York region woodlot. Below is a summary of observations for the most asked about herbicide treatments to control dog strangling vine.
- Arsenal Powerline (3 L/ha): Control was not overly impressive in the weeks following application. A year after application it was the most effective at controlling dog strangling vine (Figure 3 and 4). Unfortunately, since this product is non-selective, other undesirable weeds, like garlic mustard, started growing the following year.
- Garlon XRT (2.5 L/ha): Offers the quickest and most effective control of top growth. However, with no residual activity, re-growth is evident a year after application (Figure 5).
- Roundup Weathermax (6.6 - 8.3 L/ha): Control was not overly impressive in the weeks following application. A year after application, control is variable and is best described as reducing stand numbers but re-growth from rhizomes do occur the following year (Figure 6 and 7).
Figure 1: Dog strangling vine along a roadside in York region that is creeping into the fenceline and bordering corn field.
Figure 2: An unsprayed area within the York region woodlot where the University of Guelph trial was conducted.
Figure 3: Control with Arsenal Powerline 1 year after application, compared to an un-sprayed area in the background. Garlic mustard started to establish in 2 of the 4 randomized plots.
Figure 4: Control with Arsenal Powerline (left) compared to an un-sprayed area (right).
Figure 5: Control with Garlon XRT at one year after application compared to the un-sprayed area in the background.
Figure 6: Roundup Weathermax (glyphosate) demonstrating very good control the year after application when compared to the un-sprayed area in the background.
Figure 7: Roundup Weathermax (glyphosate) demonstrating poorer control with re-growth the year after application when compared to the un-sprayed area in the background.
For more information:
Toll Free: 1-877-424-1300
|Author:||Mike Cowbrough, Weed Specialist - Field Crops/OMAFRA|
|Creation Date:||November 2020|
|Last Reviewed:||November 2020|