Russian knapweed is widespread in the U.S. and especially common in the semiarid portions of the western states and adjacent Canada. Maddox and others  reported infestations in South Dakota, Minnesota, and Virginia in 1985, and current distribution maps indicate its occurrence in several midwestern and Great Plains states [40,77]. The Plants database provides a distribution map of Russian knapweed in the United States.
The following table reflects estimates of Russian knapweed acreage as reported by surveyed states or provinces in 1988 and again in 2000 (from ):
|State/Province||1988 Acreage||2000 Acreage|
|New Mexico||not reported||15,000|
|British Columbia||not reported||450|
Although inventories are more common and more accurate in the year 2000 than in 1988, 50% of these states reported only 50% accuracy, while 31% reported 51 to 75% accuracy, and 2 states reported 75 to 100% accuracy in the 2000 survey .
The following biogeographic classification systems are presented as a guide to demonstrate where Russian knapweed might be found based on reported occurrence and biological tolerance to factors that are likely to limit its distribution. Precise distribution information is limited, especially in the southwestern, central, midwestern, and eastern states. Therefore, these lists are speculative and not exhaustive.ECOSYSTEMS :
In eastern Washington, the most common associate of Russian knapweed is basin wildrye (Leymus cinereus) . In this area, Russian knapweed occurs in big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata)/bluebunch wheatgrass (Pseudoroegneria spicata), black greasewood (Sarcobatus vermiculatus)/saltgrass (Distichlis spicata) and basin wildrye/saltgrass habitat types . Russian knapweed may also be found in the big sagebrush/basin wildrye habitat type in Oregon .
In Idaho, Russian knapweed may be found with bluebunch wheatgrass, Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoensis), snowberry (Symphoricarpos spp.), and rose (Rosa spp.). In this area it may threaten rare plants such as Spalding's silene (Silene spaldingii), smallhead goldenweed (Pyrrocoma liatriformis), sagebrush Mariposa lily (Calochortus macrocarpus var. maculosus), and Idaho hawksbeard (Crepis bakeri ssp. idahoensis) .
In Montana, Russian knapweed was found growing in alfalfa and grain fields in Missouri River bottomlands in the north-central part of the state. Vegetation in the area included sagebrush (Artemisia spp.)-grassland (where dominants included western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii), smooth brome (Bromus inermis), and Canada wildrye (Elymus canadensis)); black greasewood; plains cottonwood (Populus deltoides ssp. monilifera); willow (Salix spp.) and "meadow" types. Plants associated with Russian knapweed included barley (Hordeum spp.), witchgrass (Panicum capillare), green bristlegrass (Setaria viridis), pigweed (Amaranthus spp.), Chenopodium spp., old-man's-whiskers (Geum triflorum), summer-cypress (Kochia scoparia), and common dandelion (Taraxacum officinale) . Of 21 diverse sites in southwestern Montana dominated by curlleaf mountain-mahogany (Cercocarpus ledifolius), Russian knapweed occurred on 2 sites west of the Continental Divide in 1975 .
Middle Rocky Mountains:
In Wyoming, Russian knapweed occurs on perennial grasslands dominated by blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis) .
In Colorado, the most severe infestations of Russian knapweed occur in mountain and western slope counties, with lighter infestations associated with blue grama on the eastern plains . Habitats in which Russian knapweed may be found include riparian woodlands dominated by cottonwood (Populus spp.), skunkbush sumac, and willow; riparian shrubland; and sagebrush/fourwing saltbush (Atriplex canescens) shrublands.Great Basin:
Russian knapweed shoot development originates from root-borne buds. A patch of Russian knapweed may have 9 to 27 shoots per square foot (100-300/m²) . Russian knapweed stems are thin, erect and openly branched, standing up to 3 feet (0.9 m) tall. Rosette leaves are 2 to 4 inches (5-10 cm) long and 0.4 to 1 inch (1-2.5 cm) wide. Leaves grow smaller near the tops of the stems. Flowerheads arise terminally and are 0.25 to 0.5 inch (0.6 to 1.3 cm) in diameter. Russian knapweed seeds are achenes and are oblong, 2.1 to 2.4 mm in length by 0.6 to 0.7 mm in width. Seeds are covered with many fine hairs and have a pappus on the apex ([83,86] and sources therein).
Several allelopathic compounds have been isolated form Russian knapweed [29,71,72]. It is known that allelopathy plays an important role in Russian knapweed ecology and that these compounds can interfere with the growth of associated plants .RAUNKIAER  LIFE FORM:
Breeding system: Russian knapweed is monoecious and is an obligate outcrosser .
Pollination: Russian knapweed is insect pollinated [36,83].
Seed production: A single Russian knapweed plant can produce about 1,200 seeds per year (Ivanova 1966, as cited by [83,86]). Watson  reported Russian knapweed seed production of about 100 seeds per plant per year along roadsides, and about 292 seeds per plant on rangeland in British Columbia, with a high ovule abortion rate. Beck  reports seed production of about 50 to 500 per shoot in Colorado. Flower production declines with decreasing light levels .
Seed dispersal: Russian knapweed seedheads generally remain closed at maturity, and the relatively heavy seeds tend to lose the small pappus bristles at maturity; therefore, wind dispersal is an unlikely method for long-range seed dispersal [58,83]. Ballistic dispersal may be more important than wind dispersal: Mature achenes dehisce from the receptacle and usually remain in the involucre, but can be launched over distances roughly equal to the height of the plant when the involucre sways in a breeze . The primary means of long-range seed dispersal is probably via contaminated hay and other seed (primarily alfalfa), or by movement of farm machinery or other vehicles [58,61].
Seed banking: Seed banking of Russian knapweed is not reported in the literature. It is unclear how long Russian knapweed seeds can remain viable, as reports vary from 2 to 3 years (Ivanova 1966 as cited by ), while Andersen (1968) reported successful germination after 5 years of dry storage , and Selleck  reported successful germination of seeds after up to 9 years storage at room temperature.
Germination: Russian knapweed seeds do not germinate readily , and germination rarely occurs in the field [66,83]. An initial dormancy period has been observed in Russian knapweed seeds and can be broken by alternating temperatures. Russian knapweed seeds are able to germinate under a wide range of temperatures (33 to 95 °F (0.5-35 °C)) with optimum germination occurring between 68 and 86 °F (20-30 °C) (, and sources therein). Light is not essential for germination, but alternating light and darkness improves germination, and white light appears to stimulate germination .
Seedling establishment/growth: No information
Asexual regeneration: Russian knapweed reproduces primarily by vegetative means, and can spread rapidly and form dense colonies. The root system consists of the taproot, 1 to many horizontal roots, and their vertical extensions. Buds on the horizontal roots can form adventitious shoots that can grow to be independent plants ([58,83,86] and sources therein). Spread can be hastened by cultivation .SITE CHARACTERISTICS:
Elevation: There are few reports in the literature on the elevational range of Russian knapweed. It is primarily an invader of croplands. It can be found up to 8,600 to 9,300 feet (2,620-2,835 m) in its native land (Klokov and others 1963, as cited by ), and up to 6,300 feet (1,900 m) in California . It has been observed between 4,025 to 7,850 feet (1,220-2,380 m) in Utah .
Moisture and temperature: Watson  reports a typical infestation of Russian knapweed in British Columbia with annual precipitation of 9.8 inches (245 mm) and mean summer temperature of 70.5 °F (21.4 °C) . Fructan metabolism in Russian knapweed gives it a competitive advantage by facilitating growth at relatively cool temperatures when soil moisture is usually most plentiful . Only relative descriptions of the moisture requirements of Russian knapweed are available in the literature. Observations in southeastern Colorado suggest that stands of Russian knapweed are denser where precipitation is "lower" . Similarly, while Russian knapweed is found in both irrigated and arid areas in Canada, it is more common and more competitive in "drier" regions [66,83,86]. However, it has been documented as well established under irrigated conditions . In Washington, Russian knapweed is most commonly found in areas with relatively high soil moisture content such as irrigated or irrigation runoff areas; near rivers, creeks, canals, coulees, and draws; on toeslopes; in deep, fine textured soils in high precipitation zones and valley bottoms; and in poorly drained soils . Russian knapweed can tolerate some flooding, but not severe drought .
Soils: In its native land, Russian knapweed grows on clayey, sandy or rocky steppes and sunny meadows, on saline soils, clayey, rocky, or sandy shores of lakes and rivers, on rocky and clayey slopes of hills, and on bottomlands (Klokov and others 1963, as cited by ). In Washington, Russian knapweed is often found on sites with either greater effective rooting depth or greater effective moisture than adjacent areas , and it tolerates saline and alkaline soils . Russian knapweed occurs mostly in alkaline, seasonally wet habitats in Montana . Researchers in Colorado have noted that while Russian knapweed can grow on a variety of soil types, it appears to be most competitive on soils with high clay content [30,61]. Goslee and others  suggest that the ability of Russian knapweed to dominate on fine-textured soils while forming a persistent mixture with other species on coarse soils may be due to allelopathy, since allelopathy is likely to have more impact on fine-textured soils.
Watson  reports that the northern limit of Russian knapweed in British Columbia is 54 °N, but that most infestations occur in the drier southern regions of British Columbia, Alberta, and Saskatchewan.SUCCESSIONAL STATUS:
|North Dakota||late June|||
Fire regimes: Russian knapweed occurs primarily in agricultural communities in the western U.S. and southwestern Canada, where historic fire regimes have been dramatically altered. The historic fire regimes of the more native communities in which Russian knapweed sometimes occurs are of varied frequency and severity. Russian knapweed did not occur in these communities at the time in which historic fire regimes were functioning, but has established since fire exclusion began. It is unclear how historic fire regimes might affect Russian knapweed populations. It is also unclear how the presence of Russian knapweed might affect these fire regimes. Dense infestations of Russian knapweed may change the fire regime by changing the fuel characteristics and fire return interval at a given site. Research in this area is needed.
The following table provides some fire regime intervals for communities and ecosystems in which Russian knapweed may be found:
|Community or Ecosystem||Dominant Species||Fire Return Interval Range (years)|
|sagebrush steppe||Artemisia tridentata/Pseudoroegneria spicata||20-70 |
|basin big sagebrush||A. tridentata var. tridentata||12-43 |
|mountain big sagebrush||A. t. var. vaseyana||15-40 [5,15,46]|
|Wyoming big sagebrush||A. t. var. wyomingensis||10-70 (40**) [79,89]|
|saltbush-greasewood||Atriplex confertifolia-Sarcobatus vermiculatus||< 35 to < 100|
|desert grasslands||Bouteloua eriopoda and/or Pleuraphis mutica||5-100|
|plains grasslands||B. spp.||< 35|
|blue grama-needle-and-thread grass-western wheatgrass||B. gracilis-Hesperostipa comata-Pascopyrum smithii||< 35 |
|curlleaf mountain-mahogany*||Cercocarpus ledifolius||13-1000 [6,65]|
|mountain-mahogany-Gambel oak scrub||C. l.-Quercus gambelii||< 35 to < 100|
|western juniper||Juniperus occidentalis||20-70|
|Rocky Mountain juniper||J. scopulorum||< 35|
|creosotebush||Larrea tridentata||< 35 to < 100|
|pinyon-juniper||Pinus-Juniperus spp.||< 35 |
|mountain grasslands||Pseudoroegneria spicata||3-40 (10**) [3,4]|
|elm-ash-cottonwood||Ulmus-Fraxinus-Populus spp.||< 35 to 200 [24,82]|
Postfire colonization potential: There is no information in the literature regarding the postfire colonization potential of Russian knapweed; however, general precautions should be followed to prevent establishment after fire. The USDA Forest Service's Guide to noxious weed prevention practices  provides several fire management considerations for weed prevention in general that may apply to Russian knapweed. Wildfire managers might consider including weed prevention education and providing weed identification aids during fire training; avoiding known weed infestations when locating firelines, monitoring camps, staging areas, helibases, etc., to be sure they are kept weed free; taking care that equipment is weed free; incorporating weed prevention into fire rehabilitation plans; and acquiring restoration funding.
When planning a prescribed burn, preinventory the project area and evaluate cover and phenology of any Russian knapweed present on or adjacent to the site, and avoid ignition and burning in areas at high risk for Russian knapweed establishment or spread. Avoid creating soil conditions that promote weed germination and establishment. Discuss weed status and risks in burn rehabilitation plans .To prevent infestation, re-establish vegetation on bare ground as soon after fire as possible, using either natural recovery or artificial techniques as appropriate to site conditions and objectives. When reseeding after wildfires and prescribed burns, use only certified weed-free seed. Monitor the burn site and associated disturbed areas after the fire and the following spring for emergence of Russian knapweed, and treat to eradicate any emergent Russian knapweed plants. Regulate human, pack animal, and livestock entry into burned areas at risk for weed invasion until desirable site vegetation has recovered sufficiently to resist weed invasion. Additional guidelines and specific recommendations and requirements are available .
Examination of feeding sites and analysis of rumen contents indicate some use of Russian knapweed by white-tailed deer in north-central Montana in the summer and winter months . Russian knapweed is considered important forage for Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep in British Columbia . Birds and rodents eat the seeds .PALATABILITY:
Whitson  claims an 11% average annual increase of infestations in Wyoming. See Distribution and Occurrence for current estimations of infested acres for several western states. Olson  and Griffith  provide guidelines and methods for estimating the ecologic and economic impact of noxious weeds on rangelands.
Control: Russian knapweed has a competitive advantage in a variety of environments, and will continue to persist unless it is suppressed long enough to allow the introduction and establishment of desirable species [13,17]. Continued monitoring and follow-up treatments must be conducted at least annually to eliminate reinfestation of Russian knapweed [17,61].
Keys to controlling Russian knapweed are 1) stressing the plant and causing it to expend nutrient reserves in its root system , 2) eliminating new seed production, and 3) controlling its vegetative spread by planting competitive species and/or isolating the infestation so as not to spread root fragments to other locations during treatment. If sufficient human resources are available, mechanical control is a good place to start. Hand pulling or cutting the plants to kill the tops will starve the roots if done repeatedly, every time they sprout . Continued vigilance is necessary since removed aerial parts are rapidly regenerated from vegetative buds on the roots .
Integrated weed management: Managers are encouraged to integrate control methods that complement one another. Integrated management includes considerations of not only killing the target plant, but also of establishing desirable species and maintaining weed-free systems over the long term. Factors to be addressed before a management decision is made include inventory and assessment to identify the target weed(s) and determine the size of the infestation(s); assessment of nontarget vegetation, soil types, climatic conditions, and important water resources; and an evaluation of the benefits and limitations of each control method . Components of any integrated weed management program are sustained effort, constant evaluation, and the adoption of improved strategies .
Conceptual models can be developed to determine the probability that the weed management strategy will result in the desired plant community, based on the life histories and population dynamics of the species in the existing plant community . A weed management strategy may include designed disturbance (e.g., mechanical or chemical control), controlled colonization (e.g., planting competitive species), and controlled species performance (e.g., biological control) [10,68,88]. An integrated management plan for Russian knapweed includes efforts to place continual stress on the plant .
Prevention: The most efficient and effective method of managing invasive species is to prevent their invasion and spread . The fact that Russian knapweed became established wherever Turkestan alfalfa seed was planted suggests that only seed that has been cleaned and tested for purity should be used . Preventing the establishment of Russian knapweed in natural areas is achieved by maintaining healthy natural communities and by conducting aggressive monitoring at least 3 times each year . Begin monitoring in spring (late May to mid-June) when the plants have recently bolted; next in the summer (July) to find any missed plants that have flowered and are easily recognizable; and finally in the fall (late August or early September) to find any late-blooming plants that might have regrown from the root system of plants that had been pulled during an earlier search. Monitoring efforts are best concentrated on the most disturbed areas in a site, particularly along roadsides, parking lots, fencelines, and waterways. When an infestation is found, the location can be recorded and the surrounding area surveyed to determine the size and extent of the infestation, so these sites can be revisited on follow-up surveys . For more on monitoring see Johnson . It is important to kill whatever plants are found, followed by some combination of mechanical, chemical and/or biological control .
Weed prevention and control can be incorporated into all types of management plans, including logging and site preparation, management of grazing allotments, recreation management, research projects, road building and maintenance, and fire management . See the Guide to noxious weed prevention practices  for specific guidelines in preventing the spread of weed seeds and propagules under different management conditions.
Physical or mechanical control: Removal of the aboveground portion of Russian knapweed plants reduces the current year's growth and will eliminate seed production for that year, but it will not kill the roots of Russian knapweed. Cutting, mowing or disking Russian knapweed infestations several times annually will control the existing topgrowth. Often, the plants that reemerge are smaller in size and lower in vigor. This is a good indication that the plants are under stress and that their nutrient reserves are declining . Cutting (or mowing) 3 times a year (spring, summer, fall) stresses Russian knapweed plants and forces them to use nutrient reserves stored in the root system. Unless repeated frequently, the cut plants recover vigorously the following year . Mowing can also damage surrounding plants and is not likely to be feasible in natural areas . Mowing twice during the growing season in Wyoming was not effective in controlling Russian knapweed . Mowing may stimulate regeneration of aerial parts and prevent dehydration of underground organs (Tarshis 1967, as cited by ).
Cutting is slightly less effective than pulling since cutting does not remove any portion of the Russian knapweed root. Pulling plants 2 to 3 times annually contained, but did not eliminate, a Russian knapweed infestation in Washington (Youtie 1998, as cited by ). Cutting roots for 3 years to a depth of 12 inches (30 cm) can destroy the root system in the top meter of soil. Root fragments up to 16 inches (40 cm) long are killed by burial below 12 inches (30 cm), indicating some control by deep plowing (, and sources therein).
Early control attempts involved starving the roots by smothering with straw and manure, which worked on small patches when materials were thick enough to prevent stems from penetrating through to sunlight. Sheet metal and paper have also been used successfully to control small patches , indicating that solarization with black plastic may be effective for controlling Russian knapweed, especially since its growth form causes it to occur in patches.
Fire: See the Fire Management Considerations section of this summary.
Biological: Subanguina picridis, a gall-forming nematode, is the first biological control agent approved for release on Russian knapweed and is established at limited sites in Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, Wyoming, Alberta, and British Columbia . Subanguina picridis has not proven to be an effective agent under field conditions. Additional agents are being sought and tested [44,62,64]. The biology, gall morphology and physiology, and effectiveness in weed control of S. picridis are discussed by Harris and Shorthouse  and Rosenthal .
Grazing is not a viable method of control for Russian knapweed since the plant is generally avoided by grazing animals and can be poisonous to horses. When Russian knapweed is present on horse pasture, it must be removed or fenced off to prevent horses from eating it.
Chemical: Before using herbicides for control of invasive plants, managers must consider the effectiveness of the herbicide on the target plant, appropriate timing and rates of application, the potential impacts on nontarget organisms, and residual activity and toxicity of the herbicide. If chemical control is used it must be incorporated into long-term management plans that include replacement of weeds with desirable species, careful land use management, and prevention of new infestations . Use of herbicides may be limited in natural areas. See the Weed Control Methods Handbook for considerations on the use of herbicides in natural areas and detailed information on specific chemicals.
In most situations, Russian knapweed cannot be effectively managed by herbicide alone . Chemical control of Russian knapweed has proven more difficult than that of other knapweed species . However, herbicide treatments may stress the plant enough to give desirable plants a competitive advantage [8,10]. Herbicides evaluated for control of Russian knapweed include 2,4-D, picloram, dicamba, clopyralid, glyphosate, and combinations thereof. Comparative trials designed to evaluate chemicals, combinations, rates, and/or timings are available [23,28,80]. Carpenter and Murray  give a synopsis of the effects of picloram, clopyralid, and glyphosate on Russian knapweed and associated species. Benz and others  evaluated several chemicals with and without seeding of "improved" grass species. Best results were obtained with clopyralid + 2,4-D and 'Sodar' thickspike wheatgrass (Elymus lanceolatus) . Carpenter  includes extensive data on the effects of different rates of picloram, clopyralid, and metsulfuron on the density of nontarget plants from several families.
Cultural: Russian knapweed is sensitive to light competition , and crops that produce dense shade under irrigation (e.g., alfalfa) have been successfully used to suppress Russian knapweed . Any treatment that provides control of Russian knapweed must either release competitive species present in the understory or be combined with reseeding before long-term sustainable control can be achieved [86,87]. When perennial grasses such as western wheatgrass and blue grama were present in the understory, single applications of picloram resulted in 85% control of Russian knapweed 8 years following treatment. When sites that lacked a desirable understory were similarly treated, annual weeds replaced Russian knapweed. Two applications of picloram and clopyralid before seeding and 1 application 1 year after seeding with wheatgrass (Triticaceae) species and Russian wildrye provided control up to 5 years after seeding . Herbicide application and planting of Russian wildrye provided a competitive monoculture 7 to 9 years after treatment in Wyoming. The dense, fibrous root system of Russian wildrye may give it a competitive advantage in the capture of moisture and nutrients and physically inhibit the entry of Russian knapweed lateral roots [12,13].Whitson  suggests that the use of herbicides to control Russian knapweed before establishing perennial grasses can be an important part of a management system. Benz and others  found that seeded grass species needed an initial control treatment of Russian knapweed in Wyoming old fields before they could establish. It has also been suggested that tillage of Russian knapweed surface residue is necessary to hasten the decomposition of allelochemicals before planting competitive species [8,12,86], although no experimental evidence was given to support this assertion. Furthermore, experimental evidence provided by Bottoms and Whitson  suggests that grass cover is similar between tilled and untilled plots, and that "the only significant treatment providing both yield and control was nontilled Russian wildrye treated with picloram." Tilling is not possible or appropriate for most natural areas . The nonnative smooth brome competes well with young Russian knapweed shoots and is somewhat tolerant to the growth inhibitors in the soil . Unfortunately, smooth brome is itself invasive in many grassland and meadow habitats across North America .
1. Allen, Eugene O. 1968. Range use, foods, condition, and productivity of white-tailed deer in Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management. 32(1): 130-141. 
2. Andersen, Mark C. 1993. Diaspore morphology and seed dispersal in several wind-dispersed Asteraceae. American Journal of Botany. 80(5): 487-492. 
3. Arno, Stephen F. 1980. Forest fire history in the Northern Rockies. Journal of Forestry. 78(8): 460-465. 
4. Arno, Stephen F. 2000. Fire in western forest ecosystems. In: Brown, James K.; Smith, Jane Kapler, eds. Wildland fire in ecosystems: Effects of fire on flora. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 2. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 97-120. 
5. Arno, Stephen F.; Gruell, George E. 1983. Fire history at the forest-grassland ecotone in southwestern Montana. Journal of Range Management. 36(3): 332-336. 
6. Arno, Stephen F.; Wilson, Andrew E. 1986. Dating past fires in curlleaf mountain-mahogany communities. Journal of Range Management. 39(3): 241-243. 
7. Balfour, Patty M. 1989. Effects of forest herbicides on some important wildlife forage species. Victoria, BC: British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Research Branch. 58 p. 
8. Beck, K. G. 2001. Russian knapweed. Fact sheet No. 3.111. In: Fact sheets, Natural Resources Online, Colorado State University Cooperative Extension, [Online]. Available: http://www.ext.colostate.edu/PUBS/NATRES/03111.html [2001, December 17]. 
9. Beck, K. George; Hanson, D. Eric. 1989. Rangeland grass seed germination and mycorrhizal fungi affected by Russian knapweed aqueous extracts. In: Fay, Peter K.; Lacey, John R., eds. Proceedings of the knapweed symposium; 1989 April 4-5; Bozeman, MT. Bozeman, MT: Montana State University: 204. 
10. Benz, Lani J.; Beck, K. George; Whitson, Thomas D.; Koch, David W. 1999. Reclaiming Russian knapweed infested rangeland. Journal of Range Management. 52(4): 351-356. 
11. Bernard, Stephen R.; Brown, Kenneth F. 1977. Distribution of mammals, reptiles, and amphibians by BLM physiographic regions and A.W. Kuchler's associations for the eleven western states. Tech. Note 301. Denver, CO: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 169 p. 
12. Bottoms, Rick M.; Whitson, Tom D. 1998. A systems approach for the management of Russian knapweed (Centaurea repens). Weed Technology. 12(2): 363-366. 
13. Bottoms, Rick M.; Whitson, Tom D.; Nelson, C. Jerry; Coutts, John H. 2001. Factors that make Russian knapweed a highly competitive plant. In: Smith, Lincoln, ed. Proceedings, 1st international knapweed symposium of the 21st century; 2001 March 15-16; Coeur d'Alene, ID. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service: 100. Abstract. 
14. Bottoms, Rick. 2002. [Email to Kristin Zouhar]. January 8. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri, Agronomy Specialist. On file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT; RWU 4403 files. 3 p. 
15. Burkhardt, Wayne J.; Tisdale, E. W. 1976. Causes of juniper invasion in southwestern Idaho. Ecology. 57: 472-484. 
16. Bussan, Alvin J.; Dyer, William E. 1999. Herbicides and rangeland. In: Sheley, Roger L.; Petroff, Janet K., eds. Biology and management of noxious rangeland weeds. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press: 116-132. 
17. Carpenter, Alan T.; Murray, Thomas A. 1999. Element Stewardship Abstract for Acroptilon repens (L.) De Candolle/(Centaurea repens (L.)): Russian knapweed. In: Weeds on the web: The Nature Conservancy Wildland Invasive Species Program, [Online]. Available: http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu/esadocs/acrorepe.html [2002, January 11]. 
18. Carpenter, Jeffrey L. 1986. Responses of three plant communities to herbicide spraying and burning of spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa) in western Montana. Missoula, MT: University of Montana. 110 p. Thesis. 
19. Chatterton, N. Jerry. 1994. Fructan metabolism and cool-temperature growth in cheatgrass. In: Monsen, Stephen B.; Kitchen, Stanley G., compilers. Proceedings--ecology and management of annual rangelands; 1992 May 18-22; Boise, ID. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-313. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 333-336. 
20. Cronquist, Arthur; Holmgren, Arthur H.; Holmgren, Noel H.; Reveal, James L.; Holmgren, Patricia K. 1994. Intermountain flora: Vascular plants of the Intermountain West, U.S.A. Vol. 5: Asterales. New York: The New York Botanical Garden. 496 p. 
21. Culver, Roger Norman. 1964. An ecological reconnaissance of the Artemisia steppe on the east central Owyhee uplands of Oregon. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 99 p. Thesis. 
22. Dall'Armellina, Armando A.; Zimdahl, Robert L. 1988. Effect of light on growth and development of field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) and Russian knapweed (Centaurea repens). Weed Science. 36: 779-783. 
23. Drake, K. K.; Cauffman, Carl; Whitson, T. D. 1989. Russian knapweed (Centaurea repens (L.) control in pastureland. Western Society for Weed Science. 13: 03. 
24. Duchesne, Luc C.; Hawkes, Brad C. 2000. Fire in northern ecosystems. In: Brown, James K.; Smith, Jane Kapler, eds. Wildland fire in ecosystems: Effects of fire on flora. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 2. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 35-51. 
25. Duncan, Celestine Lacey. 2001. Knapweed management: another decade of change. In: Smith, Lincoln, ed. Proceedings, 1st international knapweed symposium of the 21st century; 2001 March 15-16; Coeur d'Alene, ID. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service: 1-7. 
26. Duncan, Elizabeth Ann. 1975. The ecology of curl-leaf mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus ledifolius Nutt.) in southwestern Montana with special reference to use by mule deer. Bozeman, MT: Montana State University. 87 p. Thesis. 
27. Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p. 
28. Ferrell, M. A.; Whitson, T. D. 1989. Russian knapweed control in rangeland. Western Society for Weed Science. 13: 04. 
29. Fletcher, R. A.; Renney, A. J. 1963. A growth inhibitor found in Centaurea spp. Canadian Journal of Plant Science. 43: 475-481. 
30. Fraleigh, Harold D.; Beck, K. George; Peters, Debra P. 2001. Precipitation effects on Russian knapweed dominance. In: Smith, Lincoln, ed. Proceedings, 1st international knapweed symposium of the 21st century; 2001 March 15-16; Coeur d'Alene, ID. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service: 100-101. Abstract. 
31. Garrison, George A.; Bjugstad, Ardell J.; Duncan, Don A.; Lewis, Mont E.; Smith, Dixie R. 1977. Vegetation and environmental features of forest and range ecosystems. Agric. Handb. 475. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 68 p. 
32. Goslee, S. C.; Peters, D. P. C.; Beck, K. G. 2001. Modelling invasive weeds in grasslands: the role of allelopathy in Acroptilon repens invasion. Ecological Modelling. 139: 31-45. 
33. Great Plains Flora Association. 1986. Flora of the Great Plains. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. 1392 p. 
34. Griffith, Duane. 1999. Economic evaluation procedures for noxious weed management on rangeland. In: Sheley, Roger L.; Petroff, Janet K., eds. Biology and management of noxious rangeland weeds. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press: 44-56. 
35. Harris, P.; Shorthouse, J. D. 1996. Effectiveness of gall inducers in weed biological control. The Canadian Entomologist. 128(6): 1021-1055. 
36. Harrod, Richy J.; Taylor, Ronald J. 1995. Reproduction and pollination biology of Centaurea and Acroptilon species, with emphasis on C. diffusa. Northwest Science. 69(2): 97-105. 
37. Hickman, James C., ed. 1993. The Jepson manual: Higher plants of California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1400 p. 
38. Johnson, Douglas E. 1999. Surveying, mapping, and monitoring noxious weeds on rangelands. In: Sheley, Roger L.; Petroff, Janet K., eds. Biology and management of noxious rangeland weeds. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press: 19-36. 
39. Jones, Stanley D.; Wipff, Joseph K.; Montgomery, Paul M. 1997. Vascular plants of Texas. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. 404 p. 
40. Kartesz, John T. 1999. A synonymized checklist and atlas with biological attributes for the vascular flora of the United States, Canada, and Greenland. 1st ed. In: Kartesz, John T.; Meacham, Christopher A. Synthesis of the North American flora (Windows Version 1.0), [CD-ROM]. Chapel Hill, NC: North Carolina Botanical Garden (Producer). In cooperation with: The Nature Conservancy; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service; U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 
41. Kelsey, Rick G.; Bedunah, Donald J. 1989. Ecological significance of allelopathy for Centaurea species in the northwestern United States. In: Fay, Peter K.; Lacey, John R., eds. Proceedings: knapweed symposium; 1989 April 4-5; Bozeman, MT. Bozeman, MT: Montana State University: 10-32. 
42. Kuchler, A. W. 1964. United States [Potential natural vegetation of the conterminous United States]. Special Publication No. 36. New York: American Geographical Society. 1:3,168,000; colored. 
43. Lackschewitz, Klaus. 1991. Vascular plants of west-central Montana--identification guidebook. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-227. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 648 p. 
44. Littlefield, Jeff L.; de Meij, Ann E.; Sobhian, Rouhollah. 2001. Potential host range of two Urophora flies and an eriophyid mite for the biological control of Russian knapweed. In: Smith, Lincoln, ed. Proceedings, 1st international knapweed symposium of the 21st century; 2001 March 15-16; Coeur d'Alene, ID. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service: 102-103. Abstract. 
45. Maddox, Donald M.; Mayfield, Aubrey; Poritz, Noah H. 1985. Distribution of yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis) and Russian knapweed (Centaurea repens). Weed Science. 33: 315-327. 
46. Miller, Richard F.; Rose, Jeffery A. 1995. Historic expansion of Juniperus occidentalis (western juniper) in southeastern Oregon. The Great Basin Naturalist. 55(1): 37-45. 
47. Mohlenbrock, Robert H. 1986. [Revised edition]. Guide to the vascular flora of Illinois. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. 507 p. 
48. Mullin, Barbara. 1992. Meeting the invasion: integrated weed management. Western Wildlands. 18(2): 33-38. 
49. Munz, Philip A.; Keck, David D. 1973. A California flora and supplement. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1905 p. 
50. Nolan, Daryl G.; Upadhyaya, Mahesh K. 1988. Primary seed dormancy in diffuse and spotted knapweed. Canadian Journal of Plant Science. 68: 775-783. 
51. Olson, Bret E. 1999. Impacts of noxious weeds on ecologic and economic systems. In: Sheley, Roger L.; Petroff, Janet K., eds. Biology and management of noxious rangeland weeds. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press: 4-18. 
52. Panter, Kip E. 1991. Neurotoxicity of the knapweeds (Centaurea spp.) in horses. In: James, Lynn F.; Evans, John O., eds. Noxious range weeds. Westview Special Studies in Agriculture Science and Policy. Boulder, CO: Westview Press: 316-324. 
53. Paysen, Timothy E.; Ansley, R. James; Brown, James K.; Gottfried, Gerald J.; Haase, Sally M.; Harrington, Michael G.; Narog, Marcia G.; Sackett, Stephen S.; Wilson, Ruth C. 2000. Fire in western shrubland, woodland, and grassland ecosystems. In: Brown, James K.; Smith, Jane Kapler, eds. Wildland fire in ecosystems: Effects of fire on flora. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 2. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 121-159. 
54. Raunkiaer, C. 1934. The life forms of plants and statistical plant geography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 632 p. 
55. Renney, A. J. 1959. Centaurea spp. infestations in British Columbia. Proceedings, Western Canadian Weed Control Conference. 10: 18-19. On file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. 
56. Rice, Barry Meyers; Randall, John, compilers. 2001. Weed report: Acroptilon repens--Russian knapweed. In: Wildland weeds management and research: 1998-99 weed survey. Davis, CA: The Nature Conservancy, Wildland Invasive Species Program. 21 p. On file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. 
57. Robles, M.; Wang, N.; Kim, R.; Choi, B. H. 1997. Cytotoxic effects of repin, a principal sesquiterpene lactone of Russian knapweed. Journal of Neuroscience Research. 47: 90-97. 
58. Roche, Ben F., Jr.; Piper, Gary L.; Talbott, Cindy Jo. 1986. Knapweeds of Washington. Pullman, WA: Washington State University, Cooperative Extension, College of Agriculture and Home Economics. 41 p. 
59. Roche, Cindy Talbott. 1990. Knapweed: major populations in Washington. In: Roche, Ben F.; Roche, Cindy Talbott, eds. Range weeds revisited: Proceedings of a symposium: A 1989 Pacific Northwest range management short course; 1989 January 24-26; Spokane, WA. Pullman, WA: Washington State University, Department of Natural Resource Sciences, Cooperative Extension: 23-28. 
60. Roche, Cindy Talbott; Roche, Ben F. Jr. 1988. Distribution and amount of four knapweed (Centaurea L.) species found in eastern Washington. Northwest Science. 62(5): 242-253. 
61. Rogers, Charles F. 1928. Canada thistle and Russian knapweed and their control. Bulletin 348. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado Agricultural College, Colorado Experiment Station. 44 p. 
62. Rosenthal, S. S. 1996. Russian knapweed: Acroptilon repens. In: Rees, Norman E.; Quimby, Paul C., Jr.; Piper, Gary L.; [and others]. Biological control of weeds in the West. Bozeman, MT: Western Society of Weed Science: 2 p. 
63. Sapsis, David B. 1990. Ecological effects of spring and fall prescribed burning on basin big sagebrush/Idaho fescue--bluebunch wheatgrass communities. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 105 p. Thesis. 
64. Schaffner, Urs; Baker, J. Lars; Kazmer, David J.; [and others]. 2001. Biological control of Russian knapweed: state of the art. In: Smith, Lincoln, ed. Proceedings, 1st international knapweed symposium of the 21st century; 2001 March 15-16; Coeur d'Alene, ID. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service: 63. Abstract. 
65. Schultz, Brad W. 1987. Ecology of curlleaf mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus ledifolius) in western and central Nevada: population structure and dynamics. Reno, NV: University of Nevada. 111 p. Thesis. 
66. Selleck, G. W. 1964. A competition study of Cardaria spp. and Centaurea repens. Proceedings, 7th British Weed Control Conference. 7: 569-576. 
67. Sheley, Roger L.; Jacobs, James S.; Carpinelli, Michael F. 1998. Distribution, biology, and management of diffuse knapweed (Centaurea diffusa) and spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa). Weed Technology. 12(2): 353-362. 
68. Sheley, Roger L.; Svejcar, Tony J.; Maxwell, Bruce D.; Jacobs, James S. 1996. Successional rangeland weed management. Rangelands. 18(4): 155-159. 
69. Sheley, Roger; Manoukian, Mark; Marks, Gerald. 1999. Preventing noxious weed invasion. In: Sheley, Roger L.; Petroff, Janet K., eds. Biology and management of noxious rangeland weeds. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press: 69-72. 
70. Shiflet, Thomas N., ed. 1994. Rangeland cover types of the United States. Denver, CO: Society for Range Management. 152 p. 
71. Stevens, K. L.; Merrill, G. B. 1985. Sequiterpene lactones and allelochemicals from Centaurea species. American Chemical Society Symposium Series. 286: 83-98. 
72. Stevens, Kenneth L. 1986. Allelopathic polyacetylenes from Centaurea repens (Russian knapweed). Journal of Chemical Ecology. 12(6): 1205-1211. 
73. Stevens, O. A. 1956. Flowering dates of weeds in North Dakota. North Dakota Agricultural Experiment Station Bimonthly Bulletin. 18(6): 209-213. 
74. Stickney, Peter F. 1989. Seral origin of species comprising secondary plant succession in Northern Rocky Mountain forests. FEIS workshop: Postfire regeneration. Unpublished draft on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory, Missoula, MT. 10 p. 
75. Talbott, C. J. 1987. Distribution and ecologic amplitude of selected Centaurea species in eastern Washington. Pullman, WA: Washington State University. [Number of pages unknown] Thesis. 
76. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2001. Guide to noxious weed prevention practices. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 25 p. Available online: http://www.fs.fed.us/rangelands/ftp/invasives/documents/GuidetoNoxWeedPrevPractices_07052001.pdf [2005, October 25]. 
77. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2007. PLANTS Database, [Online]. Available: http://plants.usda.gov/. 
78. University of Montana, Division of Biological Sciences. 2001. INVADERS Database System, [Online]. Available: http://invader.dbs.umt.edu/ [2001, June 27]. 
79. Vincent, Dwain W. 1992. The sagebrush/grasslands of the upper Rio Puerco area, New Mexico. Rangelands. 14(5): 268-271. 
80. Vollmer, Joseph G.; Vollmer, Jennifer L. 2001. BASF product update for knapweed control. In: Smith, Lincoln, ed. Proceedings, 1st international knapweed symposium of the 21st century; 2001 March 15-16; Coeur d'Alene, ID. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service: 99. Abstract. 
81. Voss, Edward G. 1996. Michigan flora. Part III: Dicots (Pyrolaceae--Compositae). Bulletin 61: Cranbrook Institute of Science; University of Michigan Herbarium. Ann Arbor, MI: The Regents of the University of Michigan. 622 p. 
82. Wade, Dale D.; Brock, Brent L.; Brose, Patrick H.; Grace, James B.; Hoch, Greg A.; Patterson, William A., III. 2000. Fire in eastern ecosystems. In: Brown, James K.; Smith, Jane Kapler, eds. Wildland fire in ecosystems: Effects of fire on flora. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 2. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 53-96. 
83. Watson, A. K. 1980. The biology of Canadian weeds. 43. Acroptilon (Centaurea) repens (L.) DC. Canadian Journal of Plant Science. 60: 993-1004. 
84. Weber, William A.; Wittmann, Ronald C. 1996. Colorado flora: eastern slope. 2nd ed. Niwot, CO: University Press of Colorado. 524 p. 
85. Welsh, Stanley L.; Atwood, N. Duane; Goodrich, Sherel; Higgins, Larry C., eds. 1987. A Utah flora. The Great Basin Naturalist Memoir No. 9. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University. 894 p. 
86. Whitson, Tom D. 1999. Russian knapweed. In: Sheley, Roger L.; Petroff, Janet K., eds. Biology and management of noxious rangeland weeds. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press: 315-322. 
87. Whitson, Tom D. 2001. Fall applications of picloram for control of Russian knapweed prior to reseeding perennial cool-season grasses. In: Smith, Lincoln, ed. Proceedings, 1st international knapweed symposium of the 21st century; 2001 March 15-16; Coeur d'Alene, ID. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service: 101-102. Abstract. 
88. Wilson, Linda M.; McCaffrey, Joseph P. 1999. Biological control of noxious rangeland weeds. In: Sheley, Roger L.; Petroff, Janet K., eds. Biology and management of noxious rangeland weeds. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press: 97-115. 
89. Young, James A.; Evans, Raymond A. 1981. Demography and fire history of a western juniper stand. Journal of Range Management. 34(6): 501-505. 
FEIS Home Page