Next Article in Journal
Organomineral Fertilizer in Planting of Potato Cultivars Ágata and Atlantic
Previous Article in Journal
Empowering Smart Soybean Farming with Deep Learning: Progress, Challenges, and Future Perspectives
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agronomy
Volume 15
Issue 8
10.3390/agronomy15081832
agronomy-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Communication

Grazing Reduces Field Bindweed Infestations in Perennial Warm-Season Grass Pastures

by
Leonard M. Lauriault
1,*,
Brian J. Schutte
2,
Murali K. Darapuneni
1 and
Gasper K. Martinez
3
1
Rex E. Kirksey Agricultural Science Center, New Mexico State University, Tucumcari, NM 88401, USA
2
Entomology, Plant Pathology and Weed Science Department, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM 88003, USA
3
Agricultural Science Center, New Mexico State University, Farmington, NM 87401, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2025, 15(8), 1832; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15081832
Submission received: 28 June 2025 / Revised: 26 July 2025 / Accepted: 27 July 2025 / Published: 29 July 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Weed Science and Weed Management)
Versions Notes

Abstract

Field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis L.) is a competitive herbaceous perennial weed that reduces productivity in irrigated pastures. Grazing might reduce competition by field bindweed when it begins growth in the spring, thereby encouraging encroachment by desirable grass species during the summer. To test this hypothesis, a two-year study was conducted in two adjacent, privately owned, irrigated, warm-season perennial grass pastures (replicates) that were heavily infested with field bindweed. Study sites were near Tucumcari, NM, USA. The fields were grazed with exclosures to evaluate ungrazed management. Aboveground biomass of field bindweed, other weeds, and perennial grass were measured, and field bindweed plants were counted in May of 2018 and 2019. There was no difference between years for any variable. Other weed biomass and field bindweed biomass and plant numbers were reduced (p < 0.05) by grazing (61.68 vs. 41.67 g bindweed biomass m−2 for ungrazed and grazed management, respectively, and 108.5 and 56.8 bindweed plants m−2 for ungrazed and grazed management, respectively). Otherwise, perennial grass production was unaffected by either year or management. These results indicate that grazing can be an effective tool to reduce field bindweed competition in warm-season perennial grass pastures.

1. Introduction

Field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis L., which means “to entwine the field [1]”) is a competitive, summer-active weed that reduces productivity in irrigated pastures and other croplands in temperate regions, globally, due to its extensive root system [2,3,4,5,6] and competition for light [4,7,8,9,10,11], water [4,7,8,9,10,12], nutrients [4,7,8,10], and space [9]. While field bindweed is reported to be a poor competitor for light [11,12], it also produces 2 m vines that can remain prostrate or climb on neighboring plants [1,11]. It is adapted to a broad range of environmental conditions and soil types [1,8,9], even at 3000 masl [1]. Thus, it is one of the most common weeds in agricultural [4,5] and natural [5,13] systems globally.
Potential benefits of field bindweed include promoting soil microbial activity [14] and potentially contributing to species diversity in perennial pastures, although it can also reduce diversity by outcompeting weaker species [1]. Field bindweed was introduced into the US Pacific Northwest as an orchard floor cover crop [1,11], but its invasiveness was unknown at the time. Field bindweed requires insect pollination since it is self-incompatible for seed production [1,5,7,15] but it does not necessarily serve as suitable pollinator habitat [12,13] because its nectar is concealed in the flowers [12]. To overcome this, field bindweed blooms over a long season [1,12] with a high number of flowers [12] that are attractive to pollinators [16]. Otherwise, it is used a medicinal herb [1] and livestock protein supplement in some countries [11]. The root system has potential as an energy source [1,17] and may have value for bioremediation of heavy metal-contaminated lands due to the presence of endophytic fungi [18].
Competition in annual cropping systems by weeds, such as field bindweed, is based on their ability to mimic the lifecycle and ecology of economic crops [4]. Consequently, field bindweed has been identified as an obstacle to organic production [19]. Phenotypic plasticity to environmental stresses is greater in homogenous (uncultivated) environments [7] including high-elevation (560–1400 masl) mixed cool- and warm-season grasslands [20].
Field bindweed spreads by lateral roots, rhizomes, and seed [15], the latter of which can survive for up to 30 years [2,3,5]. Seeds are the most common method of spreading from field to field and can be moved by grazing animals [21,22]. Within fields, field bindweed spreads mostly by rhizomes [5]. Seed production is favored in semiarid regions with calcareous soils [5], but field bindweed invasion is less frequent on resource-poor soils in semiarid regions [23]. Spreading within a field, even semiarid grasslands [20], often occurs as single plants invade open areas. For example, the largest single genotype in a single patch can be 50 m across, within a perennial ecosystem [5]. Because the root system can reach 6–9 m into the soil, chemical and mechanical controls alone are relatively ineffective [2,3,24,25] and grazing has previously been shown to be marginally [5,11] and temporarily effective [2,3], although that conclusion was based on very limited research [19,26]. Even soil fumigation is ineffective for killing field bindweed seed [11].
A meta-analysis [3] indicated that nonchemical control methods were as effective as chemical controls in the short-term. However, in the long-term, chemical and nonchemical methods may be ineffective because field bindweed patches can persist due to its massive root system [12], seed bank, and vegetative reproductive propagules [27], the latter of which can produce a new plant with as little as 5 cm of lateral root or rhizome after tillage [11]. The soil seed bank viability is reduced by fungal pathogens, and more so in areas with warm winters and summer rainfall [28]; however, field bindweed seeds survive composting at <60 °C [29]. Electricity has been tested and found effective in limited situations for the control of field bindweed and other weedy species [30]. Flaming and hot foam applications also proved ineffective, as regrowth was observed 2 days after treatment [31]. After foam treatment at one site, field bindweed increased to represent 30% of the weed cover by 27 days after application, which was not attributable to new plants generated from the seed bank [31]. This is not surprising, because lateral roots regenerate new vertical roots and shoots about 0.38–1 m from the parent plant [1,11], allowing a single plant to spread more than 3 m in several directions, and rhizomes can invade about 25 m2 in a growing season [11].
Several practices used in annual cropping and noncrop systems are not applicable in perennial cropping systems and many practices are relatively ineffective when used alone [19]. Soil health indicators, including greater organic matter content and microbial activity consistent with perennial warm-season grass pastures in temperate, high-precipitation regions, also have been associated with weed-suppressive activity against field bindweed [32].
Numerous organisms have been evaluated as potential biocontrol agents for field bindweed, including allelopathic plants [8,24], phytochemicals [33], arthropods [2,5,16,19,25,34,35], and pathogens [6,9,16,19,25]. The bindweed gall mite (Aceria malherbae Nucazzi) provides some control in areas receiving <900 mm annual precipitation, with some exceptions [36] when the field bindweed is stressed by other factors, such as other biological controls, drought, grazing, or herbicide applications [2,5,37]. The gall mite is widely distributed throughout most of western North America from southern Canada to northern Mexico wherever field bindweed is found [5,11,33]. One of the first effects of the gall mite on field bindweed is the inhibition of flowering [37], which can minimize seed production and potential transfer by grazing livestock since field bindweed seed is tolerant of ruminant digestion [1,21]. Smith [35] reported that without any additional management in unirrigated sites, gall mites can damage field bindweed sufficiently to allow encroachment by other plant species.
More research in field bindweed management has been done in annual cropping systems than perennial cropping systems with considerably less emphasis on perennial native and non-native grasslands, although it is less competitive in perennial systems [3]. Consequently, more research is needed on the impact of field bindweed in perennial systems [3], especially under grazing [23]. Therefore, the objective of this study was to evaluate the influence of season-long rotational grazing on gall mite-infested field bindweed competition and warm-season perennial grass productivity.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Site Description

The study was conducted in two adjacent privately-owned, irrigated, predominantly native perennial, warm-season grass pastures (21.7 and 27.1 ha) that were heavily infested with field bindweed, near Tucumcari, NM, USA (35.16 lat., −103.58 lon.; elev. 1219 masl) in 2018 and 2019. The study was discontinued after 2019 due to COVID-19 restrictions. Although not verified, the field bindweed was probably infested with gall mites, because bindweed gall mites are ubiquitous in the region [35,37] and flowering was not observed on field bindweed, while other plant symptoms [37] were noted. The soil was Quay (fine silty, mixed, superactive, thermic Ustic Haplocalcids) loam. The climate in the region is Köppen–Geiger cold semiarid (http://www.cec.org/north-american-environmental-atlas/climate-zones-of-north-america/, accessed 22 May 2023), characterized by cool, dry winters and warm, moist summers. Approximately 83% of the precipitation occurs as intermittent, relatively intense rainfall events from April through October. Weather data were collected at the New Mexico State University Rex E. Kirksey Agricultural Science Center located approximately 12.25 km from the study site (Table 1). During the study period, average annual temperatures were only slightly warmer than the 120-year long-term average. Precipitation before the study was initiated in October 2017 was much greater than the average but from November 2017 through the end of 2019 precipitation was less than average (Table 1). Irrigation water was sporadically available in 2017, being shut off three times in the growing season due to limited availability. In 2018 and 2019, water was available for limited season-long irrigation at the farmer’s discretion.

2.2. Study Management

In August 2017, 165 mm of precipitation fell (Table 1), promoting late summer growth of pasture grasses. Flood irrigation (16.5 mm ha−1) using surface water was applied from 20–27 September to supplement another 159 mm of precipitation that fell in September and early October. In 2018, irrigation was applied when possible to supplement 357 mm of precipitation (Table 1), of which only 17.8 mm fell from January through June. In 2019, irrigation was applied when possible to supplement total annual 305 mm of precipitation. No fertilizers or pesticides were applied during the study period.
Grazing by 50 beef cattle (Bos taurus) units (bulls or cows with calves) took place from 16 October to 25 November 2017. A similar stocking density grazed rotationally between the two pastures from 26 May until 11 November 2018 and from 1 January until 13 December 2019. Cattle were rotated to the other pasture when the currently occupied pasture was reduced to 5 cm stubble.

2.3. Measurements

In mid-October 2017, prior to grazing, three permanent 4.88 m × 4.88 m exclosures were uniformly distributed in each pasture as sub-replicates. Exclosures were constructed of four 4.88 m × 1.27 m feedlot panels (https://www.tractorsupply.com/tsc/product/feedlot-panel-cattle-16-ft-l-x-50-in-h-3502077, accessed on 26 July 2025; Tractor Supply Co., Brentwood, TN, USA) forming a square and attached to driven t-posts (https://www.tractorsupply.com/tsc/product/studded-t-post-6-ft-125-lb-per-foot-3609112, accessed on 26 July 2025; Tractor Supply Co., Brentwood, TN, USA) at each corner and midpoint of each side. At the time of exclosure installation, aboveground plant biomass within a 0.31 m quadrat was hand-clipped to ground level in each exclosure. To evaluate the effect of the previous year’s grazing and winter conditions on field bindweed, other weeds, and grass, in May of 2018 and 2019, standing biomass was hand-clipped to ground level in (ungrazed) and near each exclosure (grazed). Sampling locations outside the exclosures were selected from notably grazed areas to represent the observed composition and density of standing forage within the exclosure, but far enough away from the exclosures to avoid trampling adjacent to the exclosures. Clipped material was bagged separately as field bindweed, other broadleaf weed, and grass without regard to whether or not it was alive or dead. Field bindweed plants were counted as they were clipped and calculated to plants m−2. Harvested material was dried in a forced-air oven at 60 °C for 48 h to determine dry biomass calculated to g m−2. Field bindweed plant weight was calculated by dividing the dry biomass by the number of plants. Sub-replicate data were averaged by management (grazed or ungrazed) within pastures.

2.4. Statistical Description

Field bindweed and forage data were subjected to analysis of variance using the mixed procedure of SAS version 9.4 [38] to compare year (2018 and 2019) and management (grazed or ungrazed) and the year × management interaction. Pasture was considered random (with three sub-replicates averaged for each plot); year and management were considered fixed effects. When the F-test for year or the year × management interaction was significant (p ≤ 0.05), combinations of year and management were compared using least significant differences using the PDMIX800 macro [39]. All differences reported are significant at p ≤ 0.05 and trends (0.05 ≤ p ≤ 0.10 [40]) are discussed.

3. Results and Discussion

The pastures had field bindweed biomass of 9.59 g m−2, 51.2 plants m−2, and 0.191 g plant wt in mid-October 2017 prior to grazing. The main effect means and results of statistical analysis for 2018 and 2019 are reported in Table 2.
The only significant year × management effect was for field bindweed plant wt (Table 2 and Table 3), because grazed field bindweed plant wt was greater than ungrazed in 2018 and both grazed and ungrazed in 2019. The cause of this interaction is not well understood, because neither field bindweed biomass nor plant numbers showed an interaction effect (Table 2). Perhaps the warmer temperatures in spring prior to data collection (March–May), coupled with grazing, stimulated growth of individual plants by producing numerous short stems with more smaller leaves below the grazing horizon [26]. Alternatively, the larger field bindweed plants under grazing in 2018 may have escaped grazing the previous autumn since grazing had not yet been initiated by sampling time in 2018. The plant wt of about 1-month-old plants under grazing in 2018 of the present study (Table 3) was slightly greater than those measured elsewhere at 70 days of age while still vegetative and not grazed [8]. Plant wt in the present study, however, was much less than 54-day-old field bindweed grown under climate-controlled conditions at 12.93 g plant−1 [41] and considerably less than 3-month-old plants exposed to outside conditions, but also not grazed, in another study (25 g plant−1) [7].
The main effect of year was not significant for any variable, except there was a trend (0.05 ≤ p ≤ 0.10 [40]) toward a decline across years for field bindweed plant wt (Table 2). Generally, across years, field bindweed biomass, plants, and plant wt were numerically higher in 2018 than in 2019 while other weed and grass biomasses were numerically higher in 2019 than in 2018. Temperatures were fairly consistent between years and only slightly higher than the long-term average (Table 1). However, precipitation varied widely, decreasing across years and may have influenced field bindweed biomass and plant counts, although not significantly, and led to the trend toward a difference in plant wt (Table 2).
Grazing decreased field bindweed biomass and plant numbers (Table 2). Otherwise, there were trends toward and increase in field bindweed plant wt and a reduction in other weed biomass, while grass biomass was not affected. As part of their meta-analysis, Orloff et al. [19] cited several studies indicating that practices that depleted root carbohydrate reserves in field bindweed increased crop competition. In this study, leaf surface reduction by grazing, coupled with the gall mite, is likely to have reduced carbohydrate production and transfer to reserves in field bindweed roots, as indicated by the reduced field bindweed density and biomass in grazed plots (Table 2). Field bindweed has a competitive advantage over many perennial warm-season grasses because it initiates growth earlier in the spring [25]. Because field bindweed continues expending root carbohydrates for about 14 days after emergence [19], initiating grazing on warm-season grass pastures before field bindweed emergence in spring [25] would perhaps allow defoliation of the field bindweed, to maintain a lower leaf area to continue carbohydrate depletion and reduce competition for water and nutrients. The lack of any effect on grass biomass (Table 2) suggests that grazing had no detrimental effect due to defoliation. This may also be related to the rotational grazing management that was used, which may have enhanced the competition from the grass, as the desirable crop, against the field bindweed and other weeds [19,35].
It is not unexpected that field bindweed biomass would be less under grazing (Table 2), because it is preferred by livestock [26] and evidence of grazing was observed in the present study. The early spring perennial warm-season grass biomass (Table 2) was the equivalent of 838 kg ha−1 (calculated from ungrazed grass biomass in Table 2). With spring growth just beginning, that should have provided sufficient carrying capacity for the rotational grazing management imposed by the landowner using livestock adapted to grazing native perennial warm-season grasses [42]. The grass biomass in May was apparently not so dense as to prevent selective grazing on the field bindweed, as Stahler and Carlson [26] reported was the case for bluegrass (Poa spp.) pastures infested with field bindweed. Alternatively, more selective grazing of the field bindweed, as indicated by reduced bindweed biomass and plant numbers (Table 2) may have taken place because the grass was a mixture of early new growth comingled by senescent old growth that reduced palatability [26]. In a grazing study by Stahler and Carlson [26], other weeds also were selectively grazed with the field bindweed, consistent with the difference in management for other weed biomass in the present study (Table 2). Grazing on neutral slopes (<10°), similar to the present study, was associated with greater prevalence of native, desirable grasses and forbs than invasive, non-native species, including field bindweed [23].
The plant counts in the present study (Table 2) indicate a high infestation compared to those reported by Jurado-Exposito et al. [27], who measured about 22 field bindweed plants m−2 when sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) was vegetative and about 42 plants m−2 when wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) was grain filling, both in May. They [27] also stated that >14 plants m−2 was a moderate infestation; this is also the economic threshold for chemical control. Stahler [10] reported that when winter rye (Secale cereale L.) was harvested in mid-July, the rye stand supported 14 field bindweed plants m−2, but the field bindweed had not produced any seed by that time despite developing normally and having a few flowers.
In the study region, field bindweed begins spring growth in April, when air temperatures are sustained at 14 °C [25] (Table 1). Field bindweed increases in spring after the initiation of growth into June in unfertilized grasslands [14] similar to those used in the present study. Otherwise, plant counts are highest in May [27] and generally decline across the season, being least in September prior to first frost (L. Lauriault, unpublished data). While Jurado-Exposito et al. [27] reported that crops and years (environmental conditions) influenced plant numbers, there was no year effect and no year × management interaction in the present study. That said, despite the crop being the same, there was a treatment effect such that grazing reduced the number of field bindweed plants (Table 2). Still, the greater number of field bindweed plants in this study may have been associated with the typically low organic matter and nutrient content associated with soils in semiarid regions, including the present study location (L. Lauriault, unpublished data), which do not encourage weed suppressive microbial activity [32]. Contrary to the results of the present study in which grazing reduced the number of field bindweed plants (Table 2), Stahler and Carlson [26] reported that, after three years of continuous (late May until September) grazing of bindweed-infested alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.)–grass mixtures, the number of field bindweed plants remained unchanged. Otherwise, field bindweed plant numbers increased where hay was harvested rather than grazing [26].

4. Conclusions

Based on the results of this study, grazing can be an effective tool to reduce field bindweed competition in warm-season perennial grass pastures.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, L.M.L.; methodology, L.M.L. and M.K.D.; validation, L.M.L. and M.K.D.; formal analysis, L.M.L.; investigation, L.M.L. and G.K.M.; resources, L.M.L.; data curation, L.M.L.; writing—original draft preparation, L.M.L.; writing—review and editing, L.M.L., B.J.S. and M.K.D.; visualization, L.M.L.; supervision, L.M.L. and M.K.D.; project administration, L.M.L. and M.K.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

Salaries and research support were provided by state and federal funds appropriated to the New Mexico Agricultural Experiment Station. This research was also partially supported by Hatch Projects NM-LAURIAULT-19H (accession 1021538).

Institutional Review Board Statement

All animal handling and experimental procedures were in accordance with guidelines set by the New Mexico State University Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, although specific approval for this study was not needed because no procedures were used that were beyond typical animal production practices (e.g., surgery, unapproved pharmaceuticals, etc.).

Data Availability Statement

Data are available upon reasonable request from the authors.

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge technical and field assistance by Jason Box, Jared Jennings, and Shane Jennings, and secretarial assistance by Patty Cooksey and Charyl Ward, all at Tucumcari; and the staff with the NMSU Library Document Delivery Service; NMSU College of Agricultural, Consumer and Environmental Sciences Information Technology; and other University support services. The input and use of land and livestock provided by Phillip Box, local farmer and rancher and member of the Rex E. Kirksey Agricultural Science Center Advisory Committee, is greatly appreciated.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Sosnoskie, L.M.; Hanson, B.D.; Steckel, L.E. Field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis): “all tied up”. Weed Technol. 2020, 34, 916–921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Boldt, P.E.; Sobhian, R. Release and establishment of Aceria malherbae (Acari: Eriophyidae) for control of field bindweed in Texas. Environ. Entomol. 1993, 22, 234–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Davis, S.; Mangold, J.; Menalled, F.; Orloff, N.; Miller, Z.; Lehnhoff, E. A meta-analysis of field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) management in annual and perennial systems. Weed Sci. 2018, 66, 540–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Fanfarillo, E.; Latini, M.; Iberite, M.; Bonari, G.; Nicolella, G.; Rosati, L.; Salerno, G.; Abbate, G. The segetal flora of winter cereals and allied crops in Italy: Species inventory and chorological, structural and ecological features. Plant Biosyst. 2020, 154, 935–946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Gaskin, J.F.; Cortat, G.; West, N.M. Vegetative versus sexual reproduction varies widely in Convolvulus arvensis across western North America. Biol. Invasions 2023, 25, 2219–2229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Gomzhina, M.; Gasich, E. Axochyta erotica sp. nov. pathogenic on Convolvulus arvensis. Diversity 2024, 16, 246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Gianoli, E. Plasticity of traits and correlations in two populations of Convolvulus arvensis (Convolvulaceae) differing in environmental heterogeneity. Int. J. Plant Sci. 2004, 165, 825–832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Hassan, M.S.; Naz, N.; Ali, H.; Ali, B.; Akram, M.; Iqbal, R.; Afmal, S.; Ali, B.; Ercisli, S.; Golokhvast, K.S.; et al. Response of Asphodelus tenuifoliu L. (wild onion) and Convolvulus arvensis L. (field bindweed) against shoot extract of Trianthema portulacastrum L. (horse purslane). Plants 2023, 12, 458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Sotelo-Ceron, N.D.; Maldonado-Mendoza, I.E.; Leyva-Madrigal, K.Y.; Martinez-Alvarez, J.C. Isolation, selection, and identification of phytopathogenic fungi with bioherbicide potential for the control of field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis L.). Weed Biol. Manag. 2023, 23, 99–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Stahler, L.M. Shade and soil moisture as factors in competition between selected crops and field bindweed, Convolvulus arvensis. J. Am. Soc. Agron. 1948, 40, 490–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Mitich, L.W. Field bindweed. Weed Technol. 1991, 5, 913–915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Morrison, J.; Izquierdo, J.; Plaza, E.H.; Gonzalez-Andujar, J.L. The attractiveness of five common Mediterranean weeds to pollinators. Agronomy 2021, 11, 1314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Daugaliyeva, S.; Daugaliyeva, A.; Amirova, K.; Yelubayeva, A.; Kapar, A.; Abiti, A.; Partipilo, T.; Toktarov, N.; Peletto, S. Forage honeybees from different ecological areas determined through melissopalynological analysis and DNA metabarcoding. Insects 2024, 15, 674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Benizri, E.; Amiaud, B. Relationship between plants and soil microbial communities in fertilized grasslands. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2005, 37, 2055–2064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Westwood, J.H.; Tominage, T.; Weller, S.C. Characterization and breakdown of self-incompatibility in field bindweed (Convulvulus arvensis, L.). J. Hered. 1997, 88, 459–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Rosenthal, S.S. European organisms of interest for the biocontrol of Convolvulus arvensis in the United States. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds (E.S. Del Fosse, Ed.), Brisbane, Australia, 22–29 July 1980. [Google Scholar]
  17. Schutte, B.J.; Lauriault, L.M. Nutritive value of field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) roots as a potential livestock feed and the effect of Aceria malherbae on root components. Weed Technol. 2015, 29, 329–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Saad, M.M.G.; Saad, M.A.; Saad, B.S.; Zakaria, F.A.; Husain, A.-R.A.; Abdelgaleil, S.A.M. Bioremediation and microbial-assisted phytoremediation of heavy metals by endophytic Fusarium species isolated from Convolvulus arvensis. Bioremed. J. 2024, 28, 202–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Orloff, N.; Mangold, J.; Miller, Z.; Menalled, F. A meta-analysis of field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis L.) and Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense L.) management in organic agricultural systems. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2018, 254, 264–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Lubben, M.; Erschbamer, B. Long term changes of the inner-alpine steppe vegetation: The dry grassland communities of the Vinschgau (South Tyrol, Italy) 40–50 years after the first vegetation mapping. Veg. Classif. Surv. 2021, 2, 117–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Haidar, M.A.; Gharif, C.; Sleiman, F.T. Survival of weed seeds subjected to sheep rumen digestion. Weed Res. 2010, 50, 467–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Oveisi, M.; Ojaghi, A.; Mashhadi, H.R.; Muller-Scharer, H.; Yazdi, K.R.; Kaleibar, B.P.; Soltani, E. Potential for endozoochorous seed dispersal by sheep and goats: Risk of seed transport via animal faeces. Weed Res. 2021, 61, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Gelbard, J.L.; Harrison, S. Roadless habitats as refuges for native grasslands: Interactions with soil, aspect, and grazing. Ecol. Appl. 2003, 13, 404–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Hassan, M.S.; Naz, N.; Ali, H. Evaluation of the allelopathic potential of Trianthema portulacastrum L. on Convolvulus arvensis. Biochem. Syst. Ecol. 2022, 104, 104491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. McClay, A.S.; De Clerck-Floate, R.A. Chapter 66, Convolvulus arvensis L., field bindweed (Convolvulaceae). In Biological Control Programmes in Canada, 1981–2000; Mason, P.G., Huber, J.T., Eds.; CAB International: Wallingford, UK, 2002; pp. 331–337. [Google Scholar]
  26. Stahler, L.M.; Carlson, A.E. Controlling field bindweed by grazing with sheep. J. Am. Soc. Agron. 1947, 39, 5964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Jurado-Exposito, M.; Lopez-Granados, F.; Gonzalez-Andujar, J.L.; Garcia-Torres, L. Spatial and temporal analysis of Convolvulus arvensis L. populations over four growing seasons. Eur. J. Agron. 2004, 21, 287–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Leishman, M.R.; Masters, G.J.; Clarke, I.P.; Brown, V.K. Seed bank dynamics: The role of fungal pathogens and climate change. Funct. Ecol. 2000, 14, 293–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Liu, T.; Wang, M.; Awasthi, M.K.; Chen, H.; Awasthi, S.K.; Duan, Y.; Zhang, Z. Measurement of cow manure compost toxicity and maturity based on weed seed germination. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 245, 118894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Lehnhoff, E.A.; Neher, P.; Indacochea, A.; Beck, L. Electricity as an effective weed control tool in non-crop areas. Weed Res. 2022, 62, 149–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Martelloni, L.; Frasconi, C.; Sportelli, M.; Fontanelli, M.; Raffaelli, M.; Peruzzi, A. Flaming, glyphosate, hot foam, and nonanoic acid for weed control: A comparison. Agronomy 2020, 10, 129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Kremer, R.J.; Li, J. Developing weed-suppressive soils through improved soil quality. Soil Tillage Res. 2003, 72, 193–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Nojadeh, M.S.; Pouresmaeil, M.; Younessi-Hamzekhanlu, M.; Venditti, A. Phytochemical profile of fennel essential oils and possible applications for natural antioxidant and controlling Convolvulus arvensis. Nat. Prod. Res. 2021, 35, 4164–4168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. McClay, A.S.; De Clerck-Floate, R.A. Chapter 45 Convolvulus arvensis L. field bindweed (Convolvulaceae). Biological Control Programmes in Canada, 2001–2012; Mason, P.G., Gillespie, D.R., Eds.; CAB International: Wallingford, UK, 2013; pp. 307–309. [Google Scholar]
  35. Smith, L.; de Lillo, E.; Amrine, J.W., Jr. Effectiveness of eriophid mites for biological control of weedy plants and challenges for future research. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 2010, 51, 115–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Lauriault, L.M.; Kleeschulte, J.; Michels, G.K.; Thompson, D. First report of Aceria malherbae gall mites for control of field bindweed in Missouri. Southwest Entomol. 2013, 38, 353–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Lauriault, L.M.; Thompson, D.; Pierce, J.; Bennett, A.; Schutte, B.; Beck, L.; Sutherland, C.; Jimenez, D.; Hamilton, W. Circular 600, Managing Aceria Malherbae Gall Mites for Control of Field Bindweed; New Mexico State University: Las Cruces, NM, USA, 2018; p. 12. Available online: https://pubs.nmsu.edu/_circulars/CR600/index.html (accessed on 26 July 2025).
  38. SAS Institute. The SAS 9.4 for Windows; SAS Institute Inc.: Cary, NC, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  39. Saxton, A.M. A macro for converting mean separation output to letter groupings in Proc Mixed. In Proceedings of the 23rd SAS Users Group International, Nashville, TN, USA, 22–25 March 1998; pp. 1243–1246. [Google Scholar]
  40. Ramsey, F.L.; Schafer, D.W. The Statistical Sleuth: A Course in Methods of Data Analysis, 2nd ed.; Duxbury: Pacific Grove, CA, USA, 2002; p. 42. [Google Scholar]
  41. Ziska, L.H. Evaluation of the growth response of six invasive species to past, present and future atmospheric carbon dioxide. J. Exp. Bot. 2003, 54, 395–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Allison, C.D. Factors affecting forage intake by range ruminants: A review. Rangel. Ecol. Manag. 1985, 38, 305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Monthly and annual mean air temperatures and total monthly and annual precipitation at Tucumcari, NM, USA, from 2017 through 2019 and the long-term (1905–2024) means.
Table 1. Monthly and annual mean air temperatures and total monthly and annual precipitation at Tucumcari, NM, USA, from 2017 through 2019 and the long-term (1905–2024) means.
YearJan.Feb.Mar.Apr.MayJuneJulyAug.Sep.Oct.Nov.Dec.Annual
Temperature, °C
20173.79.76.414.417.825.327.823.921.115.611.94.815.2
20183.36.111.113.322.227.227.225.622.213.96.73.315.2
20193.95.68.914.417.223.929.025.923.915.47.64.715.0
Long-term3.55.69.514.219.124.326.325.321.615.28.64.014.8
Precipitation, mm
20172645569462540165679200590
20180141346142992201081416357
2019416244731488615070305
Long-term101219284747676839341716404
Table 2. Year and management (Mgt) effects on field bindweed-infested perennial warm-season grass pastures in the Southern High Plains at Tucumcari, NM, USA. Values are the lsmeans of two pastures as replicates, each with three sub-replicates averaged, for the year × management interaction.
Table 2. Year and management (Mgt) effects on field bindweed-infested perennial warm-season grass pastures in the Southern High Plains at Tucumcari, NM, USA. Values are the lsmeans of two pastures as replicates, each with three sub-replicates averaged, for the year × management interaction.
Field Bindweed
EffectBiomassPlantsPlant Wt.Other Weed BiomassGrass Biomass
g m−2m−2g plant−1g m−2g m−2
Year
201866.8687.00.9049.2258.23
201936.5078.40.45148.8693.42
SE11.308.70.0836.0835.62
Mgt
Ungrazed61.68108.50.56126.8983.75
Grazed41.6756.80.7871.1967.90
SE8.288.70.0727.0231.23
p-values
Year0.19790.52250.06440.19010.5571
Mgt0.04370.01370.07210.08860.7096
Year × Mgt0.98900.12040.03110.17130.3453
Table 3. The year × management effect on field bindweed plant weight (g plant−1) in grass perennial warm-season grass pastures at Tucumcari, NM, USA. Values are the lsmeans of two pastures as replicates, each with three sub-replicates averaged.
Table 3. The year × management effect on field bindweed plant weight (g plant−1) in grass perennial warm-season grass pastures at Tucumcari, NM, USA. Values are the lsmeans of two pastures as replicates, each with three sub-replicates averaged.
Year
Management2018 2019
Ungrazed0.614B0.512B
Grazed1.179A0.386B
Lsmeans within the interaction followed by a similar letter are not significantly different at p < 0.05 based on least significant difference analysis.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Lauriault, L.M.; Schutte, B.J.; Darapuneni, M.K.; Martinez, G.K. Grazing Reduces Field Bindweed Infestations in Perennial Warm-Season Grass Pastures. Agronomy 2025, 15, 1832. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15081832

AMA Style

Lauriault LM, Schutte BJ, Darapuneni MK, Martinez GK. Grazing Reduces Field Bindweed Infestations in Perennial Warm-Season Grass Pastures. Agronomy. 2025; 15(8):1832. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15081832

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lauriault, Leonard M., Brian J. Schutte, Murali K. Darapuneni, and Gasper K. Martinez. 2025. "Grazing Reduces Field Bindweed Infestations in Perennial Warm-Season Grass Pastures" Agronomy 15, no. 8: 1832. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15081832

APA Style

Lauriault, L. M., Schutte, B. J., Darapuneni, M. K., & Martinez, G. K. (2025). Grazing Reduces Field Bindweed Infestations in Perennial Warm-Season Grass Pastures. Agronomy, 15(8), 1832. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15081832

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop