Leucanthemum vulgare (oxeye daisy)
Identity
- Preferred Scientific Name
- Leucanthemum vulgare (Vaill.) Lam.
- Preferred Common Name
- oxeye daisy
- Other Scientific Names
- Chrysanthemum ircutianum Turcz.
- Chrysanthemum lanceolatum Vest
- Chrysanthemum leucanthemum (L.) E.H.L.Krause
- Chrysanthemum leucanthemum var. pinnatifidum Lecor & Lam.
- Chrysanthemum praecox (M.Bieb.) DC
- Chrysanthemum pratense Salisb.
- Chrysanthemum sylvestre Willd.
- Leucanthemum atratum var. heterophyllum (Willd.) Rouy
- Matricaria leucanthemum (L.) Scop.
- Pontia heterophylla (Willd.) Bubani
- Pontia vulgaris Bubani
- Pyrethrum leucanthemum (L.) Franch.
- Tanacetum leucanthemum (L.) Sch.Bip.
- International Common Names
- Englishdog daisymarguerite daisymoon daisywhite daisywhiteweedyellow daisy
- Spanishmargarita de los pradosmargarita mayormargariton
- Frenchgrande margueriteLeucanthème vulgaire
- Local Common Names
- Chinabin ju
- Franceleucanthéme communmarguerite blanche
- GermanyFrühblühende MargeriteGewöhnliche WucherblumeMagerwiesen-MargeriteWiesen-MargeriteWiesen-Wucherblume
- Italymargherita comune
- Japanfuransugiku
- Netherlandsgrote Margriet
- Russian Federationnivjanik obyknovennyjpopovnikprästkrageromaška lugovaja
- South Africamargriet
- Swedenpraestkrage
- EPPO code
- CHYLE (Leucanthemum vulgare)
Pictures
Distribution
Host Plants and Other Plants Affected
Host | Host status | References |
---|---|---|
Brassica napus | Other | |
Helianthus annuus (sunflower) | Other | |
Hordeum vulgare (barley) | Other | |
Linum usitatissimum (flax) | Other | |
Medicago sativa (lucerne) | Other | |
Triticum aestivum (wheat) | Other |
Prevention and Control
Prevention
SPS Measures
L. vulgare is a provincially regulated as a weed in Alberta and federally regulated as a primary noxious weed by the Seeds Act (Canadian Council on Invasive Species, 2016). It is also a prohibited weed in Victoria, Australia (Weeds of Queensland, 2015).
Control
Cultural Control and Sanitary Measures
In Canada, Booth and Skelton (2009) found that feeding by goats (Capra aegagrus) could provide control equivalent to that provided by the use of herbicides over a five year period. Given the susceptibility of L. vulgare to shading, the use of fertilizers can be a very effective means of suppression, often at least equal to that from herbicides, via the increased growth of competing vegetation (Clements et al., 2004). It also has the advantage of enhancing any forage species and avoiding the damage that may be done to them by most herbicides.
Physical/Mechanical Control
Seedlings and established plants are readily destroyed by cultivation, but this may not be feasible without damaging associated pasture plants and it may also result in the stimulation of new germination and rapid re-establishment of L. vulgare. In Montana, regular mowing of grassland infested with L. vulgare has also been suggested to be effective to reduce seed production (Mangold et al., 2009). However, in Alberta it has been found that mowing can increase the density of L. vulgare and in an experimental one-year study a positive correlation between the number of mowings per year and the number of L. vulgare plants in the following year has been found (Clements et al., 2004).
Biological Control
Based on literature surveys eight European species have been prioritized as potential biological control agents based on records of their restricted host range. These include the root-mining tortricid moths Dichrorampha aeratana and D. baixerasana, the shoot-mining Dichrorampha consortana, the root-feeding weevils Cyphocleonus trisulcatus and Diplapion stolidum, the root-galling fly Oxyna nebulosa, the flowerhead-attacking tephritid fly Tephritis neesii and the flowerhead-attacking weevil Microplontus campestris (McClay et al., 2013). From 2010 onwards, host-specificity tests have been conducted to investigate the host range of these potential biological control agents. Tests with D. stolidum and C. trisulcatus revealed that these species are not specific enough to be considered further. In addition, tests with M. campestris revealed that this species has no evident impact on seed output. Host-specificity tests with D. aeratana and O. nebulosa are ongoing. and to date, none of these potential agents have been introduced to North America.
Chemical Control
Due to the variable regulations around (de-)registration of pesticides, we are for the moment not including any specific chemical control recommendations. For further information, we recommend you visit the following resources:
•
EU pesticides database (http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/pesticides/eu-pesticides-database/)
•
PAN pesticide database (www.pesticideinfo.org)
•
Your national pesticide guide
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Copyright
Copyright © CABI. CABI is a registered EU trademark. This article is published under a Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)
History
Published online: 4 October 2022
Language
English
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
SCITE_
Citations
Export citation
Select the format you want to export the citations of this publication.
EXPORT CITATIONSExport Citation
View Options
View options
Get Access
Login Options
Check if you access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.