Biologiczna walka z chwastami na przykladzie Rumex confertus Willd.

• Autorzy: Piesik D
• Języki publikacji: PL

Abstrakty

EN

Weeds, the detrimental plant organisms connected with the man's activity, need to be controlled. Human development and increasing mobility created an intentional or accidental introduction of the plants, of ten exotic ones, into new places, and ecosystems. Prevailing method of weed control consists in application of the chemicals. They are acting rapidly and radically eliminate the density of imdesirable plant population. However, the chemical formulas are often little selective, contaminate the environment and their effectiveness drops very fast with arising resistance of plant organisms. Biological methods of weed population control seem to bring a solution of this problem. Such methods are of particular research interest on the terrains of river banks, because of ecological reasons - a threat of surface water pollution. Rumex confertus Willd. plants seem to be complying with the qualification criteria as requested to biological weed control.

Słowa kluczowe

PL

szczaw omszony; rdestowate; biologiczne metody ochrony roslin; ochrona roslin; chwasty; zwalczanie chwastow; Rumex confertus; Polygonaceae

• Wydawca: -
• Czasopismo: Postępy Nauk Rolniczych
• Rocznik: 2001
• Tom: 48
• Numer: 3
• Opis fizyczny: s.85-98,rys.,bibliogr.

Twórcy

autor

Piesik D

• Akademia Techniczno-Rolnicza, ul.Kordeckiego 20, 85-225 Bydgoszcz

Bibliografia

• [1] Allard R. 1965. Genetic systems associated with colonizimg ability in predominantly self-pollinated species. W: 'The genetics of colonizing species'. Academic Press: New York 49: ss. 123.
• [2] Allen J.M. 1975. Docks in Western Australia. J. Dept. Agric. West. Aust. 16: 67-71.
• [3] Boczek J. 1996. Stan i perspektywy walki biologicznej z chwastami. Post. Nauk Rol. 4: 77-89.
• [4] Boczek J., Petanovic R. 1996. Eriophid mites as agents for biological control of weeds. Proc. IX Int. Symp. Biol. Contr. Weeds, Stellenbosch South Africa: 127-131.
• [5] Briese D.T. 1996. Phylogeny: can it help us to understand host choice by biological weed control agents? Proc. IX Int. Symp. Biol. Contr. Weeds, Stellenbosch South Africa: 63-70.
• [6] Cameron P.J., Hill R.L., Bain J., Thomas W.P. 1993. Analysis of importations for biological control of insectpests and weeds in New Zealand. Biocontr. Sci. Technol. 3: 387-404.
• [7] Cavers P.B., Harper J.L. 1964. Biological flora of the British Isles, Rumex obtusifolius L. and Rumex crispus L. Ecol. 52: 737-766.
• [8] Chew F.S., Renwick J.A.A. 1995. Host plant choice in Pieris butterflies. Chem. Ecol. Insects 2: 214-240.
• [9] Clements S.L., Cristof aro M. 1996. A review of open - field tests in host – specificity determination of insects f or biological control of weeds. Biocontr. Sci. Technol. 6: 21-32.
• [10] Coble H.D. 1995. Rationalizing weed control options for the future. Second Int. Weed Contr. Congr., Copenhagen 4: 1169-1174.
• [11] Coble H.D. 1996. Weed management tools and their impact on the agro-ecosystem. Second Int. Weed Contr. Congr., Copenhagen 3: 1143-1146.
• [12] Craemer C., Neser S. 1996. Eriophyoid mites (Acari: Eriophyoidea) as possible control agents of introduced plants in South Africa. Proc. IX Int. Symp. Biol. Contr. Weeds, Stellenbosch South Africa: 228.
• [13] Cullen J.M. 1989. Current problems in host-specificity screening. Proc. VII Int. Symp. Biol. Contr. Weeds, Rome, Italy: 27-36.
• [14] Einhellig F.A., Rasmussen J.A. 1972. Interplant influences of Rumex crispus. Proc. S.D. Acad. Sci. 51: 265-266.
• [15] Ehler L.E. 1998. Invasion biology and biological control. Biol. Contr. 13: 127-133.
• [16] Field R.J., Dastgheib F., Plew J.N. 1996. Enhanced development of the principles and application of integrated weed management. Second Int. Weed Contr. Congr., Copenhagen 3: 1135-1140.
• [17] Gassmann A. 1996. Classical biological control of weeds with insects: a case for emphasizing agent demography. Proc. IX Int. Symp. Biol. Contr. Weeds, Stellenbosch South Africa: 171-175.
• [18] Gassmann A., Schroeder D. 1995. The search for effective biological control agents in Europe: History and lessons from leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula L.) and cypress spurge (Euphorbia cyparissias L.). Biol. Contr. 5: 466-477.
• [19] Groves R.H. 1995. Biological control of weeds - past, present and future. Proc. VIII Int. Symp. Biol. Contr. Weeds, Lincoln University, Canterbury: 1-5.
• [20] Hurle K. 1996. Weed management impact on the abiotic environment in particular on water and air quality. Second Int. Weed Contr. Congr., Copenhagen 3: 1153-1158.
• [21] Isaacson D.L., Sharratt D.B., Coombs E.M. 1996. Biological control in the management and spread of invasive weed species. Proc. IX Int. Symp. Biol. Contr. Weeds, Stellenbosch South Africa: 27-31.
• [22] Jędruszczak M. 1998. Niektóre ekologiczne skutki ochrony przed chwastami. Zagadnienia ochrony roślin w aspekcie rolnictwa integrowanego i ekologicznego, Puławy: 78-84.
• [23] Julien M.H., Kerr J.D., Chan R.R. 1984. Biological control of weeds: an evaluation. Prot. Ecol. 7: 3-25.
• [24] Jordan N.R., Jannink J.L. 1996. Evolution in weed populations: when should it concern weed managers? Second Int. Weed Contr. Congr., Copenhagen 1: 27-34.
• [25] Kovalev O. V., Zaitzev V.F. 1996. A new theoretical approach to the selection of promising agents for biological weed control. Proc. IX Int. Symp. Biol. Contr. Weeds, Stellenbosch South Africa: 283-285.
• [26] Kropff M.J. 1996. Weed popularion dynamics. Second Int. Weed Contr. Congr., Copenhagen 1: 3-14.
• [27] Labrada R. 1996. The importance of biological control for the reduction of the incidence of major weeds in developing countries. Proc. IX Int. Symp. Biol. Contr. Weeds, Stellenbosch South Africa: 287-290.
• [28] Latowski K. 1993. Study of the synanthropic flora of the Balkan peninsula. Wiad. Bot. 37(3-4): 71-72.
• [29] Lonsdale W.M. 1996. Plant population processes and weed control. Proc. IX Int. Symp. Biol. Contr. Weeds, Stellenbosch South Africa: 33-37.
• [30] Markin G.P., Gardner D.E. 1993. Status of biological control in vegetation management in forestry. Can. J. For. Res. 23: 2023-2031.
• [31] Marocchi G. 1989. New Problems in weed control in Italy. Proc. VII Int. Symp. Biol. Contr. Weeds, Rome Italy: 633-637.
• [32] Miyazaki M., Naito A. 1981. Studies on the biological control of Rumex obtusifolius L., a grassland weed, by Gastrophysa atrocyanea Mots. (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Bulletin of the National Grassland Research Institute 20: 103-111.
• [33] Moss S.R., Rubin B. 1993. Herbicude - resistant weeds: a wordlwide perspective. J. Agric. Sci. 120: 141-148.
• [34] Norris R.F. 1996. Weed population dynamics: seed production. Second Int. Weed Contr. Congr., Copenhagen 1: 15-20.
• [35] Oswald A.K., Haggar R.J. 1976. The effect of asulam on two Lolium perenne swards containing Rumex obtusifolius. Weed Res. 13: 224-230.
• [36] Pimentel D. 1991. Diversification of biological control strategies in agriculture. Crop Protection 10: 243-253.
• [37 Pruszyński S. 1998. Tendencje i niechemiczne metody w ochronie roślin. Zagadnienia ochrony roślin w aspekcie rolnictwa integrowanego i ekologicznego, Puławy: 7-15.
• [38] Rechinger K.H. 1984. Rumex (Polygonaceae) in Australia: a reconsideration. Nuytsia 5(1): 75-122.
• [39] Schroeder D. 1992. Biological control of weeds: a review of principles and trends. Pesq. agropec. bras., Brasilia 27: 191-212.
• [40] Scott J.K., Sagliocco J.L. 1991. Host - specificity of root borer, Bembecia chrysidiformis (Lepidoptera: Sesiidae), a potential control agent for Rumex spp. (Polygonaceae) in Australia. Entomophaga 36(2): 235-244.
• [41] Scott J.K., Sagliocco J.L. 1991. Chamaesphecia doryliformis (Lep.: Sesiidae), a second root borer for the control of Rumex spp. (Polygonaceae) in Australia. Entomophaga 36(2): 245-251.
• [42] Scott J.K., Shivas R.G. 1990. Potential biological control agents for Emex spp. Proc. 9 th Aust. Weeds Conf.: 480-483.
• [43] Spencer N.R. 1980. Exploration for biotic agents for the control of Rumex crispus. Proc. Int. Symp. Biol. Contr. Weeds, Brisbane, Australia 1980: 125-151.
• [44] Swanton C.J. i inni 1993. Crop losses dueto weeds in Canada. Weed Technol. 7: 537-542.
• [45] Trzcińska-Tacik H. 1963. Rumex confertus Willd. w Polsce. Fragm. Florist. Geobot., Ann. IX, Pars 1: 73-84.
• [46] Wenda-Piesik A., Piesik D. 1997. Biologiczna walka z chwastami. Nowoczesne Rolnictwo 39: 17.
• [47] Willis A.J., Ash J.E. 1996. Combinations of stress and herbivory by a biological control mite on the growth of target and non-target native species of Hypericum in Australia. Proc. IX Int. Symp. Biol. Contr. Weeds, Stellenbosch South Africa: 93-100.
• [48] Zemlinskij S.E. 1958. Szczawiel konskij - Rumex confertus Willd. Lek. Rast. ZSRR: 553-554.
• [49] Zimdahl R.L. 1994. Who are you and where are you going? Weed Technol. 8: 388-391.
• [50] Zwerger P. 1996. Integrated weed management in developed nations. Second Int. Weed Contr. Congr., Copenhagen 3: 933-942.