Ecology and non-chemical control of Rumex crispus
and R. obtusifolius (Polygonaceae): a review
J G ZALLER
Institute of Organic Agriculture, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany
Received 26 February 2004
Revised version accepted 3 August 2004
Summary
Rumex crispus and R. obtusifolius are among the most
important perennial weeds in agriculture throughout the
world. This literature survey revealed that the majority
of studies on Rumex ecology, which were conducted
under field conditions are of a descriptive nature, while
experimental studies mainly report data derived under
laboratory or greenhouse conditions. Areas on Rumex
ecology which deserve more research include: historical
development of Rumex infestations, field studies on seed
and root ecology, population ecology, Rumex longevity,
and impacts of global climate change on the perform-
ance of these species. Although biological, mechanical
and cultural control methods were often effective in
controlling Rumex populations, they were rarely suc-
cessful enough to eradicate the weeds. As both species
Introduction
Rumex crispus L. (curled dock) and Rumex obtusifolius
L. (broad-leaved dock) are among the most often
studied weed species worldwide, the latter is also
considered as one of the five most widely distributed
non-cultivated plant species in the world (Allard, 1965;
see Hultén, 1950 and Meusel et al., 1965 for maps of
their distribution). Both species are troublesome weeds
in both grasslands (mainly pastures) and arable lands,
but are also early colonizers of many disturbed areas in
lowland and upland. The species are present on almost
all soil types but less often on peat and rarely on acid
soils. The range of altitude to which these species have
become adapted is very great; a maritime ecotype of
R. crispus grows on beaches another ecotype can also
be found at 2500 m above sea level in the Middle East
and south-western USA or at 3000 m in Iran
and 3500 m in Argentina (Hultén, 1950). Generally,
Correspondence: J G Zaller, Institute of Ecology and Conservation Biology, University of Vienna, Althanstrabe 14, A-1090 Vienna, Austria. Tel: (+43)
1 4277 54221; Fax: (+43) 1 4277 9542; E-mail: jgzaller@yahoo.de
are considered to be indicators of agricultural misman-
agement, there is a definite need for well-replicated, full-
factorial, long-term field experiments to assess the role
of management factors most often stated to be respon-
sible for Rumex infestation and distribution (e.g. high
soil N and K levels, slurry and farmyard manure
application, sward disturbance, cutting frequency, gra-
zing management, ploughing, soil compaction). It is
recommended that future research on non-chemical
Rumex control should focus more on the efficacy of
combined applications of biological, mechanical and
cultural control methods.
Keywords: agricultural management strategies, arable
grassland, biological, cultural, mechanical, weed
control, Rumex spp., research needs.
R. obtusifolius has a more distinct distribution and
ranges from the sea level up to c. 1500 m in altitude.
These Rumex species are of agricultural significance
because they compete with sown or native pasture
species or arable crops and occupy area which could be
utilized by more palatable crop species. Estimates of the
area infested by these Rumex species are scarce: for the
UK it is estimated that c. 0.3–0.7 · 106 ha of grassland
are seriously infested with R. obtusifolius (Haggar, 1980;
Peel & Hopkins, 1980); for Germany, about seven of 10
grassland farms are considered to have serious problems
with these species (Bach, 1992; Hofmann, 1992); in
Japan (East-Hokkaido), 60% of all permanent grass-
lands are estimated to be infested with these species
(Hongo, 1986). All those sources predict that Rumex
infestation will most likely increase in the future. For
Central Europe, it is estimated that more than 80% of
all herbicides used in conventional grassland farming are
used to control these species (Galler, 1989). The fear of

European Weed Research Society Weed Research 2004 44, 414–432
 Rumex ecology and non-chemical control 415

an infestation of grassland and arable land by R. crispus physiology (about 20%) and medical use of the two
and R. obtusifolius is also among the most important species (about 15%).
obstacles for farmers to switch from conventional to
organic farming in Central Europe (Dierauer & Stöp-
Biology and Ecology
pler-Zimmer, 1994).
Generally, both species are, to a certain extent, The majority of biological and ecological studies on the
indicators of mismanagement of agricultural land and of two Rumex species have focussed on topics in the field of
high soil nitrogen concentrations, and R. crispus vegetation ecology (including geobotany, growth
additionally indicates soil compaction (e.g. Ellenberg, responses, plant development, species distribution and
1986; Oberdorfer, 1990). Thus, one of the factors most interspecific competition between plants), followed by
closely associated with the occurrence of the two species studies investigating RumexÕ seed ecology (including
in agricultural land includes excessive application of seed production, soil seedbanks, germination, dor-
organic or synthetic nitrogen fertilizers (Haggar, 1980). mancy) and other topics like nutrient concentrations
The two Rumex species are particularly successful as and feeding value of Rumex plants, or Rumex as a host
weeds on agricultural land because of: (i) the ability to for diseases and parasites (Fig. 1). Remarkably few
flower several times a year, (ii) the production of large
number of seeds, which remain viable in the soil for
many years, (iii) their ability to quickly establish from
seeds and (iv) their germination whenever environmental
conditions provide a reasonable probability for the
seedling to survive (Cavers & Harper, 1964). Addition-
ally, these Rumex species show considerable ability to
re-grow from vegetative fragments left in the soil after
cultivation or cutting (Gwynne & Murray, 1985; Pino
et al., 1995).
The aim of this paper is to synthesize the available
literature on the ecology and non-chemical control of
R. crispus and R. obtusifolius based on about 700
references available through international scientific lit-
erature databases (e.g. Agris – http://www.fao.org/agris;
CAB International – http://www.cabi-publishing.org;
ISI Web of Science – http://www.isiknowledge.com)
and additional non-indexed sources (used especially for
publications before 1973). A large body of information
exists on these two species and a few reviews have been
published focussing mainly on their biology and non-
chemical control (Cavers & Harper, 1964; Foster, 1989)
or their seed ecology (Roberts & Totterdell, 1981).
Rather than just re-reviewing the vast literature, the
intention was to briefly summarize and critically evaluate
the published literature in order to pinpoint gaps of
knowledge in Rumex ecology and their non-chemical
control which could be filled by future research.
Of the reviewed publications, about 30% were of
descriptive nature (including reviews and model analy-
ses), about 20% of the papers report data from field
experiments, 20% of the studies stem from greenhouse
experiments and 30% from laboratory experiments. The
number of studies published on the two Rumex species
peaked during 1993–99 with more than 40 publications
appearing per year. Averaged over the past 30 years,
Fig. 1 Ecological topics covered by publications on Rumex crispus
most of the studies considered ecological aspects in a and R. obtusifolius available through scientific literature databases
broad sense (about 70%), followed by papers on (Agris, CAB International, ISI Web of Science; 1973–2003: total
chemical and non-chemical control (about 40%), 528 publications).

European Weed Research Society Weed Research 2004 44, 414–432

416 J G Zaller
studies have addressed effects of soil properties on
Rumex development and infestation (Fig. 1).
Both species of Rumex are highly variable and show
great phenotypic plasticity; therefore, the characteristics
given below can vary substantially depending on the
environmental conditions. Both Rumex species are
native to Europe and are up to 1.5 m tall perennial
herbs, with up to 40 mm thick fleshy taproots which
may extend up to 2.5 m in the soil (Kutschera et al.,
1992). At least for R. obtusifolius, it is known that it
hybridizes freely with many other members of the
subgenus Rumex, and R. crispus · R. obtusifolius is very
common and widely distributed (Lousley, 1939).
Although no clear data are available on the longevity
of Rumex plants, it can be observed that some plants live
for decades. Readers more interested in the general
biology and ecology of the two species are referred to
Cavers and Harper (1964), who give a very thorough
description of these species. Neither of the two Rumex
species do occur in higher abundance in native plant
communities (Ellenberg, 1986), but are definitely stimu-
lated and distributed by human activities.
Flowering, seed production and soil seedbank
Flowering and seed production can occasionally happen
in the seedling year but usually takes place in the second
year starting in spring and may continue until a hard
frost in late autumn (Foster, 1989). It is reported that
both species have a tendency to die after producing seeds
(Cavers & Harper, 1964); however, this may not be the
case in all environments. Six days after the end of first
flowering, 15% of the seeds are already viable, and after
18 days, >90% of the seeds are able to germinate
(Dierauer & Stöppler-Zimmer, 1994). The flowers have
no nectar and are mainly wind pollinated. Fruits can be
blown by wind for a considerable distance, be carried
floating along with water or be distributed in dung after
passing through the digestive system of grazing cattle.
Many fruits probably just fall to the ground and
germinate in clusters near the parent plant.
The number of seeds set by Rumex is determined by
plant size at flowering and the duration of flowering;
hence estimates vary greatly and range from 100 to
>60 000 per year (Cavers & Harper, 1964). It is best to
assume that even individual sparsely separated plants
can potentially add thousands of seeds to the soil
seedbank. The continued infestation of pastures and
crops by Rumex is, to some extent, dependent on the
persistence of viable seeds on and below the soil surface.
Pasture seedbank in the uppermost 15 cm of soil
contains about 5 · 106 Rumex seeds m)2 (Hunt &
Harkess, 1968); however, it might even be higher in
pastures with a history of Rumex infestation. It is
estimated that about 90% of Rumex seeds are lost
because of dispersion, predation, death or decay (Wea-
ver & Cavers, 1979a). Because of this high seed mortality
under field conditions, the contribution of the soil
seedbank to the infestion of fields with Rumex species is
probably over-estimated even if some seeds remain
viable for about 80 years and accumulate in the soil
(Darlington & Steinbauer, 1961). Seed size of R. crispus
and R. obtusifolius is between 2.0–3.0 mm in length and
1.0–2.0 mm in width; however, size varies as a conse-
quence of environmental influences (e.g. predation,
position, defoliation) in which the mother plant was
growing (Brouwer & Stählin, 1975). Whether seed size
affects germination of both species is not clear. Small
seeds of R. crispus (Maun & Cavers, 1971) and
R. obtusifolius (Cideciyan & Malloch, 1982) germinated
to higher percentages than large seeds. Lighter seeds of
R. crispus and R. obtusifolius grew and competed less
successfully than did seeds of normal mass (Cideciyan &
Malloch, 1982). Rumex seeds have also been shown to
be eaten (Piearce et al., 1994) and vertically distributed
in the soil by earthworms (J G Zaller, unpubl. obs.).
Seed viability of R. crispus was tested in a longevity
trial started by Beal in 1879, where R. crispus seeds
among seeds of other species were mixed with subsoil,
placed in inverted bottles and buried to a depth of 50 cm.
After 50 years, 50% of buried R. crispus seeds germina-
ted (Kivilaan & Bandurski, 1981), after 80 years, still 2%
seeds germinated (Darlington & Steinbauer, 1961). In a
similar experiment where seeds were buried at 1 m depth,
germination of R. crispus was 80% after 1 year and 76%
after 10 years; germination for R. obtusifolius was 94%
after 3 years and 83% after 21 years (Toole & Brown,
1946). The seeds pass the digestive tracts of birds and
cattle without being harmed but are destroyed when fed
to chickens (Cooper et al., 1960).
Seed germination and dormancy
Particularly valuable contributions have been made
to the knowledge of the seeds of R. crispus and
R. obtusifolius by Harper (1965), Williams (1971) and
Baskin and Baskin (1985). The seeds have also been the
choice of many workers for studying the phytochrome
system (Vicente et al., 1962, 1968; Vergnano Gambi,
1966; Le Deunff & Chaussat, 1968; Le Deunff, 1971).
There is a general agreement that seed germination of
both species is promoted by light and alternating
temperatures. Temperature fluctuations can affect ger-
mination even in the absence of light (Isikawa & Fujii,
1961; Kurimoto et al., 1974; Weaver & Cavers, 1979b;
Takaki et al., 1981; Hand et al., 1982; van Assche &
Vanlerberghe, 1989). Under natural conditions, seeds of
both Rumex species can germinate throughout the year;

European Weed Research Society Weed Research 2004 44, 414–432

however, there are clear flushes of germination in early
spring and early autumn when strong temperature
fluctuations between day and night occur (Roberts &
Totterdell, 1981). The seedlings of R. obtusifolius are
somewhat slower in germination and early development
than those of R. crispus (Cavers & Harper, 1964).
Generalizations about the germination behaviour of
both species have to be made carefully although, as light
requirement for germination of buried seeds may
fluctuate dramatically with time (Taylorson & Hen-
dricks, 1972; Froud-Williams et al., 1984; Baskin &
Baskin, 1985) and may be affected by the light
environment experienced by the seeds before burial
(Fenner, 1985). Recently, Boyd and Van Acker (2003)
found that seedling emergence of R. crispus was highest
when seeds were placed on the soil surface and soil
moisture was at field capacity. However, when the soil
was drier, seedling emergence was similar for different
seeding depths ranging between 1 and 7 cm (Boyd &
Van Acker, 2003).
The time of seed production determines germination
ability of R. obtusifolius; seeds developed in spring
showed little germination ability, whereas germination
rate of seeds from summer was 95% (Adolf & Linke,
1992). Moreover, seeds from the second regeneration
after cutting showed higher germination rates than those
from the third regeneration harvested in autumn (Adolf
& Linke, 1992).
Seed dormancy of Rumex spp. was reviewed by
Roberts and Totterdell (1981). The role played by
dormancy in the germination ecology of R. crispus is not
clear (Baskin & Baskin, 1985). In general, Rumex
appears to have only short-term innate dormancy
(several weeks to months), dormancy is more commonly
induced for example by soil burial.
Plant establishment
Both species have low competitive abilities as seedlings,
and cannot become established in closed communities
(Cavers & Harper, 1964; Weaver & Cavers, 1979a),
additionally there is high seedling mortality over the first
winter (Cavers, 1967; Hongo, 1986, 1989). Surprisingly,
no data seem to be available on the rate of germination
and seedling establishment in dense grassland commu-
nities versus grassland gaps. Establishment of seedlings
and transplants of R. crispus and R. obtusifolius are also
thought to be dependent on historical abundance of
Rumex on specific sites: new seeds or transplants had
been unable to survive where relics of Rumex popula-
tions occurred (Cavers, 1967).
Especially on soil with high nitrogen content, Rumex
species can be observed to grow faster than most of
the other co-occurring species. However, no data are

European Weed Research Society Weed Research 2004 44, 414–432
Rumex ecology and non-chemical control 417
available on whether a higher relative growth rate of
Rumex compared with crop species is dependent on
higher nutrient uptake kinetics of Rumex. There are also
some doubts as to whether the two Rumex spp. are
nitrophilous in all developmental stages. For example,
soil nitrogen concentrations of microsites where
the closely related nitrophilous Rumex alpinus L.
emerged were not higher than surrounding pasture soil
(J G Zaller, unpubl. obs.). Generally, field studies on the
population dynamics of both Rumex species are seri-
ously lacking. For example, it is not known to what
extent climatic effects (e.g. drought or rain periods, cold
winters, etc.) or previous field history contribute to the
variation in incidence of Rumex from one year to
another.
Root ecology and regeneration
A thorough knowledge of the root system of Rumex is
imperative for the development of sustainable control
strategies against these species. Root growth of both
species is greatest in spring and plants which have
overwintered often develop adventitious roots when
highest growth recommences (Cavers & Harper, 1964).
R. crispus could produce new plants from rootstocks
after 40 days, and R. obtusifolius were incapable of
regrowth from rootstocks until 51 days (Monaco &
Cumbo, 1972). Recent results of Pino and colleagues
(1995) show, despite the reservations of other authors
(Cavers & Harper, 1964; Hongo, 1989), that R. obtusi-
folius does have a true clonal growth system. Therefore,
clonal growth may be the usual regenerative system in
dense swards, where germination and seedling establish-
ment are prevented and would maintain and increase the
occupancy of available space. Seed dispersal and seed-
ling establishment would remain the strategy for colon-
izing gaps in the sward and for maintaining genetic
variability of the population. The main structure
involved in clonal growth is the subterranean stem
component (i.e. the rhizome) with its ability to produce
adventitious roots and new taproots. Almost all 3-year-
old plants develop secondary taproots, and 5-year-old or
older plants are usually heavily divided as secondary
taproots become the main root system (Pino et al.,
1995). The result is a dense population of clones that
occupy an increasing area (i.e. phalanx strategy in clonal
growth), a survival strategy common in plants from
closed communities (Harper, 1977). Root longevity of
R. obtusifolius was estimated to be <2 years in fertile
soil and >4 years in infertile soil (Cavers & Harper,
1964), but is most likely much longer.
Regeneration of Rumex spp. from root fragments has
been studied and it is now confirmed that regeneration
of shoots can take place only from the uppermost part of
418 J G Zaller
the taproot (i.e. botanically the rhizome; Healy, 1953;
Hudson, 1955; Pino et al., 1995). Regrowth ability seems
related to the previous presence of buds, as fragments
lacking buds (e.g. parts below the root-collar) have been
shown to be unable to regenerate (Hughes, 1938; cited in
Pino et al., 1995). However, there are also studies
showing that regeneration is possible from all root
parts, ranging from below 10% regeneration from pieces
of root end and top parts, to a 90% regeneration of the
middle parts of the roots (Adolf & Linke, 1992). It is
very likely that these contradicting results are due to a
confusion between roots and rhizomes which are
difficult to distinguish. Root fragment size (Pino et al.,
1995) and mass (J G Zaller, unpubl. obs.) have been
shown to be unrelated to regrowth, at least under
greenhouse conditions. Regenerative ability of Rumex
roots can additionally be explained by high contents of
certain chemicals (e.g. phenolics) in the roots which
actively suppress the growth of some fungi and bacteria
(Kasai et al., 1982) and thus resist decay.
Morphological and anatomical responses of rhizomes
of R. obtusifolius to different depths of burial in the field
showed that the rhizomes regenerated from 5, 10 and
20 cm depths (Roberts & Hughes, 1939), but failed to re-
grow when buried 30 cm below surface (Klimes, 1993).
Burial depth had no effect on the number of internodes
produced during a growing season. It however led to a
30-fold increased length of internodes with increasing
depths and in the case of deeply buried rhizomes, the
carbohydrate reserves of the last-year segment were
nearly completely depleted (Klimes, 1993). Root frag-
ment regeneration at different depths were also influ-
enced by soil moisture levels. Especially under
waterlogged conditions, root fragment regeneration
was possible from the soil surface, but it was prevented
when fragments remained buried (Pino et al., 1995).
Fragmentation of Rumex roots and stems may easily
occur as the result of ploughing or other soil cultivation
methods thus giving rise to clusters of plants where
previously there was only one. The root system of
hybrids between R. crispus and R. obtusifolius seem to
have slightly greater regenerative ability than the parents
(Cavers & Harper, 1964). Root regeneration has been
found to be dependent not only on abiotic conditions
but also on seasonal control (Hudson, 1955). It has been
assumed that regeneration is possible only during the
early spring (Hudson, 1955; Cavers & Harper, 1964),
although regeneration has been observed in greenhouse
conditions into late autumn (J G Zaller, unpubl. obs.).
R. obtusifolius regrowth from rhizome fragments have
also been shown to be altered by competition of
neighbouring grassland species (Zaller, 2004).
The pool size of reserves stored in roots is probably
the best measure of the potential to contribute to
future growth (Chapin et al., 1990). Mono- and disac-
charides can make up >50% of the concentration of
total sugars in the roots of R. crispus and R. obtusi-
folius (Kühbauch et al., 1980; Hatcher, 1996) and much
of the increase in root carbohydrate concentrations
seems to occur during autumn (Voigtländer et al.,
1976). The average nitrate concentration in roots was
more than six times higher than in above-ground parts
(Gebauer et al., 1984). Generally, R. obtusifolius nitrate
content fluctuates rapidly as a consequence of nitrate
fertilization (Gebauer et al., 1984; Melzer et al., 1984).
As the accumulation of nitrate is a short-term process
only, R. obtusifolius cannot be considered as a nitrate-
storage plant (Rehder, 1982). The ability of R. obtusi-
folius to take up nitrate more efficiently than other
plants is suggested to be responsible for the temporary
increase of endogenous nitrate (Melzer et al., 1984). No
mycorrhizal fungi have been shown to be associated
with roots of these Rumex species (Cavers & Harper,
1964). Clearly, if one seeks to find sustainable control
strategies against these Rumex species, the enormous
ability of vegetative regeneration needs to be taken into
account.
Ecological interactions and global climate change
The two Rumex spp. appear to be vulnerable to
ecological interactions especially in their early stages of
their development. Once Rumex has produced the
taproot it has a great advantage over the shallower-
rooted grasses and herbs and is very difficult to eradicate
(Jeangros & Nösberger, 1990; Niggli et al., 1993).
Comparing both Rumex species based on their ecolog-
ical indicator values (Ellenberg et al., 1991), R. crispus
shows less requirement for soil nutrients but a higher
requirement for soil moisture than R. obtusifolius. Yet
very few studies have addressed the effects of varying
soil fertility or moisture levels on the development of
both species. In one study, doubling of nitrogen fertil-
ization increased Rumex growth especially when root
competition from grass species was present (Jeangros &
Nösberger, 1990).
Interactions between Rumex spp. and insect herbiv-
ory have been studied frequently (Bentley & Whittaker,
1979; Whittaker et al., 1979; Bentley et al., 1980; Smith
& Whittaker, 1980a,b; Whittaker, 1982) and will be
considered in more detail in a later section as it is more
relevant for the development of biological control
methods. Herbivory by Gastrophysa viridula Deg.
(Coleoptera, Chrysomelidae) altered the outcome of
the competition between R. crispus and R. obtusifolius in
grassland (Bentley & Whittaker, 1979) and also inter-
acted with competition by grasses resulting in a reduced
R. obtusifolius mass (Cottam et al., 1986). The larvae of

European Weed Research Society Weed Research 2004 44, 414–432

certain weevils (Apion spp.) which live within the stalks
of Rumex (Hopkins & Whittaker, 1980) and in turn play
host to hymenopterous parasites was also studied
(Hopkins et al., 1984).
Allelopathic effects of R. obtusifolius aqueous shoot
extracts have been shown to inhibit the germination of
sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.), soyabean [Glycine max
(L.) Merr.; Beres & Kazinczi, 2000] as well as native
grassland species like Trifolium repens L. (J G Zaller,
unpubl. obs.). Residues of R. obtusifolius decreased the
germination of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), barley
(Hordeum vulgare L.), sunflower and soyabean by >80%
(Beres & Kazinczi, 2000), and decreased seedling growth
of maize (Zea mays L.) and soyabean (Beres & Kazinczi,
2000). However, all these studies have been conducted
under controlled conditions and it remains to be shown if
findings are consistent under field conditions.
The two Rumex spp. have also been at the centre of
investigations on effects of elevated atmospheric CO2 or
ozone concentrations; however, there do not seem to be
studies involving other factors of global climate change
(e.g. global warming, ultraviolet-B radiation). An early
study investigated the effects of ozone and smog on
Rumex plants and showed that leaves exposed to these
pollutants partially turned red because they had been
stimulated to form anthocyanin, while untreated plants
did not form the pigment (Koukal & Dagger, 1967). A
later study found that R. obtusifolius grows less when
fumigated with increased ozone concentrations com-
pared with plants fumigated with less ozone (Reiling &
Davison, 1992). Rumex spp. grown at elevated
atmospheric CO2 concentrations showed greater root
proliferation and increased water-use efficiency
(R. obtusifolius; Pearson & Brooks, 1995), reduced
nitrogen and oxalate concentrations, increased C:N
ratio in leaves (R. obtusifolius; Brooks & Whittaker,
1998) and increased leaf areas (both Rumex spp.; Salt
et al., 1995) than those grown at ambient CO2. These
CO2-induced alterations in food quality of Rumex leaves
and stimulated leaf-mining insects (Salt et al., 1995)
however, affected the herbivory of insect larvae only
little (Brooks & Whittaker, 1998). Because of its
reactions to elevated atmospheric CO2, it has also been
suggested that R. obtusifolius expands more than other
species in an environment with higher CO2 and could
thus occupy habitats where nutrient availability is
usually not limiting plant growth (e.g. agricultural soils;
Grime, 1996). Clearly, this issue deserves more detailed
research.
Rumex for food and forage
The importance of both species changed dramatically
during the past 100 years. R. obtusifolius, in particular,

European Weed Research Society Weed Research 2004 44, 414–432
Rumex ecology and non-chemical control 419
was cultivated together with the closely related R. alpinus
in special gardens in order to produce food for pigs or
spinach-like food for humans (Stebler & Schröter, 1892).
The indigenous people of northern California are said to
have used the seeds of Rumex species to make a cooked
mush (Holm et al., 1977). R. obtusifolius leaves served as
a popular antidote for nettle stings and a tea made
from the root was formerly used for curing boils
(Machatschek, 1999).
In modern agriculture, both Rumex species are
undesirable in grasslands and in all types of crops mainly
because they decrease yields and reduce forage feeding
value (Savory & Soper, 1970; Oswald & Haggar, 1976;
Marten et al., 1987). Densities of 10 R. obtusifolius plants
m)2 or a ground cover of 30% can reduce total yield in a
perennial ryegrass sward by 30% (Oswald & Haggar,
1983; Courtney, 1985). Forage nutritive value and
palatability of Rumex crispus is, as with most cultivated
forages, negatively influenced by maturation and
crude protein and in vitro digestibility concentration of
R. crispus declined 13 and 22%, respectively, from the
vegetative to seed-set stages of development (Bosworth
et al., 1986). Leaves of both Rumex species have only
20% less palatability and digestibility than those of
perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.) (Courtney &
Johnston, 1978). Compared with lucerne (Medicago
sativa L.), R. crispus had similar crude protein concen-
trations (Marten et al., 1987) and R. obtusifolius showed
similar nitrogen and crude fibre concentration but higher
lignin concentrations (Waghorn & Jones, 1989). Despite
the average nutritive value of the Rumex spp., rumicin
from the above-ground parts and chrysarobin from the
roots have been identified as biologically active sub-
stances in the plant which may cause gastric disturbances
and dermatitis if large amounts are eaten by cattle (Holm
et al., 1977). There are also concerns over Rumex species
containing very high levels of nitrate and oxalate in their
foliage (Hatcher et al., 1995a; Bohner, 2001), and they
are suspected of being fatal to livestock in some
circumstances (Kingsbury, 1964). However, research in
New Zealand showed that 10% of R. obtusifolius
material in a portion of grass and lucerne inhibited bloat
in cattle, because of a decreased concentration on soluble
crude protein in the rumen because of R. obtusifolius
(Waghorn & Jones, 1989). Composition of other
chemicals of both species varies considerably and is not
very different fom that of the cultivated species (Vengris
et al., 1953; Fairbairn & Thomas, 1959).
Non-chemical control in grassland and
arable land
The long-term goal of control measures against the two
Rumex species is to hinder the build-up of seeds and to
420 J G Zaller
weaken their regrowth capacity by removing or destroy-
ing their above- and below-ground biomass. Of the
c. 250 reviewed studies published over the last 30 years
which exclusively focus on non-chemical control meth-
ods, contributions on biological control dominated
(range between 25 and 67% per year) followed by
cultural methods (between 22 and 100% per year) and
mechanical and direct control methods (between 7 and
36% per year; Fig. 2). In particular, publications focus-
sing on mechanical measures increased in the last few
years (Fig. 2), which could be explained by the expan-
sion of organic farming and the increased demand for
non-chemical control measures. However, the very few
contributions on mechanical control measures in the
1970s and 1980s, perhaps reflect the expectations in new
chemical herbicides developed against Rumex species
during this period (Fig. 2).
Biological control
Numerous predators and parasites associated with both
Rumex species have been found; however, only few have
a significant damaging effect on their hosts and can be
considered for biological control. Cavers and Harper
(1964) mention 34 herbivorous insect species which can
affect both Rumex spp., from collections in Italy; 198
insect species have been identified affecting mainly
R. crispus (Spencer et al., 1981). Additionally, around
20 fungal species have been identified as potential
Fig 2. Relative contribution of publications covering non-chemical control methods against Rumex crispus and R. obtusifolius available
through scientific literature databases (Agris, CAB International, ISI Web of Science; 1973–2003: total 253 publications). No studies
on Rumex control were available in 1990.
biocontrol agents (Greaves, 1986). The most thoroughly
studied organisms for RumexÕ biocontrol are the Co-
leoptera Gastrophysa viridula Degeer and the rust fungus
Uromyces rumicis (Schumach.) G. Winter. Of about 110
studies published to date on biological control of Rumex
species, >50% used insects (mainly from the order of
Coleoptera), about a quarter used fungi and only a few
examined the effects of plant extracts or specific grazing
by goats or sheep to control Rumex species (Table 1).
Only a few researchers combined biological control
methods in their work (see below).
While earlier studies explored mainly the potential of
control with Coleoptera in the laboratory, greenhouse or
field (Bentley & Whittaker, 1979; Naito et al., 1979a,b;
Hopkins & Whittaker, 1980; Julien et al., 1982), later
research additionally investigated effects on specific
plant traits. Coleoptera have been shown to reduce
Rumex seed production (Bentley et al., 1980; DeGrego-
rio et al., 1991), regeneration (DeGregorio et al., 1991),
leaf and shoot growth (Cottam et al., 1986) and to alter
Rumex cover (Kohout & Kohoutova, 1994; Kohout,
1994). However, in summary, Rumex plants were rarely
so badly attacked by these beetles that they died out as a
consequence, unless some other agent further weakened
the plants. Very promising results have recently been
reported from experiments under controlled conditions
where Coleoptera beetles in clip cages were able to
systemically reduce R. obtusifolius leaf area even after
cages had been removed (Moore et al., 2003). To the

European Weed Research Society Weed Research 2004 44, 414–432
 Table 1 Selected studies investigating biological control measures against Rumex crispus (R.c.) and R. obtusifolius (R.o.)

Control Experimental
organism Control spp. Rumex spp. conditions Main results Reference

Coleoptera Apion miniatum Geom. R.o. Laboratory, field Herbivore regulates R.o. populations Kohout (1994); Kohout and Kohoutova (1994)
by leaf and root consumption
Apion violaceum Kirby R.o. Field Herbivore affects stem height and numbers Hopkins and Whittaker (1980)
Gastrophysa atrocyanea Mots. R.o. Field Herbivore shows potential as biocontrol agent Naito et al. (1979a,b)
Gastrophysa viridula R.c., R.o. Greenhouse R.o. preferred by herbivore over R.c. Bentley and Whittaker (1979)
G. viridula R.c, R.o. Field Herbivory reduced seed number (R.c., R.o.) Bentley et al. (1980)
and seed mass (R.o.)
G. viridula R.c. Field Herbivory reduced growth and survival Whittaker (1982)
and interacted with flooding
G. viridula R.o. Field Herbivory reduced growth only when Cottam et al. (1986)
grown in competition
Hypera rumicis L. R.c. Field Herbivory reduced growth, seed production DeGregorio et al. (1991)
and regeneration
Lixus cribricollis Boh. R.c. Laboratory R.c. food plant for herbivore Julien et al. (1982)
Rust fungus Ramularia rubella (Bonord.) Nannf. R.o. Greenhouse Rust infection decreased leaf area and Huber-Meinicke et al. (1989)
root dry matter content
Uromyces rumicis R.c. Field Rust infection reduced regrowth Inman (1970)

European Weed Research Society Weed Research 2004 44, 414–432

U. rumicis R.c., R.o. Greenhouse, Rust infection reduced leaf number, root Schubiger et al. (1986)
laboratory and leaf biomass
Fungus Armellaria mellea Sum. R.o. Laboratory Fungus increased root roening Hughes et al. (1996)
Coleoptera and G. viridula and U. rumicis R.c., R.o. Field Reduced leaf area and biomass caused by Hatcher et al. (1994a,b, 1994c)
rust fungus rust-herbivore interactions
G. viridula and U. rumicis R.c., R.o. Field Reduced leaf area and regrowth additive Hatcher (1996)
effects of fungi and beetles
G. viridula and U. rumicis R.o. Greenhouse Herbivory alone caused greater growth Hatcher et al. (1997b)
reduction than rust alone; additive effects
of fertilization, herbivory and rust
G. viridula and U. rumicis R.o. Field Beetle herbivory reduced fungal infection; Hatcher and Paul (2000)
and R. rubella and systematic induced resistance by R.o.
Venturia rumicis (Desm.) G. Winter independent of nutrient fertilization
Plant extracts Capsicum annuum L. R.c. Laboratory Inhibition of germination and growth Gonzalez et al. (1997)
Maize gluten meal R.c. Laboratory Reduced survival, shoot length and Bingaman and Christians (1995)
root development
Maize pollen R.c. Laboratory Reduction of radicle growth Jimenez et al. (1983)
Cyanobacterin R.c. Laboratory Inhibition of germination Gleason and Case (1986)
Wheat gluten R.c. Laboratory Reduced germination and growth Gough and Carlstrom (1999)
Natural Benzonitrile, benzyl cyanide, R.c. Laboratory Stimulation of germination and French et al. (1986)
chemicals methyl salicylate growth of Rumex and rust
Phenolics R.c. Laboratory Inhibition of germination Gonzalez et al. (1995)
Rumex ecology and non-chemical control 421
422 J G Zaller
best of my knowledge, no study investigated the
possibilities of using cages containing G. viridula to
control Rumex species in the field. Moreover, no
information is available on naturally occurring biocon-
trol agents like seed-feeding insects.
Fungi (especially the rust fungus U. rumicis) were
tested very early for efficacy to control Rumex species in
field experiments and were shown to reduce regrowth
(Inman, 1970), leaf and root growth (Schubiger et al.,
1986; Huber-Meinicke et al., 1989) and to increase root
rotting (Hughes et al., 1996), however, again never
sufficiently effective to eradicate Rumex.
Several studies have examined the interactive effects
between foliar fungal pathogens and herbivorous
insects (Hatcher et al., 1994a,b, 1997a; Hatcher, 1996;
Hatcher & Paul, 2000). Results from those experiments
show that U. rumicis is poor at infecting young Rumex
leaves (Hatcher et al., 1994b, 1995a,b) while these
leaves are preferred by G. viridula for oviposition
(Hatcher et al., 1994c). Beetles alone removed up to
79% of leaf area of both Rumex spp. and rust infection
caused a decrease of about 50% in leaf area (Hatcher,
1996). The combination of herbivory and infection had
an additive effect, causing a reduction in leaf area of
92% of R. crispus and 88% of R. obtusifolius (Hatcher,
1996). Previous herbivory reduced the area and mass of
regrowth in the following spring by 78% in both
species, and here too the combined effects of herbivory
and infection were additive, leading to a 80% reduction
in shoot dry mass and an average 77% reduction in
root dry mass and a reduced amount of total non-
structural carbohydrates in the roots (Hatcher, 1996).
These studies clearly demonstrate the possibility to
control Rumex spp. with a combined application of
herbivores and fungi. Further research on this issue
should explore how the two agents can be applied
under field conditions by farmers and should also
monitor the long-term effects on Rumex populations of
this control method.
Extracts or natural chemicals derived from various
plant species have been shown to reduce germination
and shoot and root development of Rumex seedlings
(Table 1). However, as all experiments were conducted
under laboratory conditions, it remains to be investi-
gated whether those effects also occur under field
conditions (Table 1). Several other agents (e.g. vinegar,
K–Mg salt, NaCl) have been suggested as potential
control methods against Rumex spp.; however, results
have not been published.
Previous research also suggests that efficacy of
biological control might be greater when Rumex plants
are already stressed by ecological or environmental
conditions (e.g. competition, flooding) (Whittaker,
1982).
Mechanical and other direct control measures
Mechanical methods for Rumex control have changed
little over the years and are dominated by field research
on effects of cutting and pulling by hand (Table 2). A
threshold, when single plant control in grassland
becomes uneconomical, is considered to be around
2000 Rumex plants per hectare (Pötsch, 2003).
Cutting has been shown to deplete carbohydrates
stored in Rumex shoots and roots (Hidaka, 1973; Lang
et al., 1974; Voigtländer et al., 1976; Nashiki et al.,
1998) and to decrease seed input into the soil seedbank
(Pino et al., 1994). Not very surprisingly, the more
frequently the cutting occurs, the more the Rumex
species are affected (Table 2). Cutting frequency has
also been shown to affect the two species differently.
R. obtusifolius showed more regrowth capacity (Hongo,
1987) and seed production (Hongo, 1988a,b) after
cutting than R. crispus. Cutting height also influenced
morphology (Hopkins & Johnson, 2002) and seed
production (Hongo, 1987) of regrowing Rumex but
not necessarily its biomass production (Hopkins &
Johnson, 2002). As a result of the very rapid replenish-
ment of root carbohydrates by R. obtusifolius within 2
(Hidaka, 1973) to 3 weeks (Roberts & Hughes, 1939)
even five to seven cuts per season after 6 years was able
to reduce Rumex abundance only by 60% (Courtney,
1985). Cutting every 2 weeks will therefore be needed to
control this species.
Effects of hand and/or machine pulling has rarely
been the subject of more recent studies (Niggli & Irla,
1984; Pekrun et al., 2002). New developments include a
motor-driven dock pulling machine which can pull up
about 600 Rumex plants per hour (Pötsch, 2003).
Comparisons of the efficiency of Rumex removal showed
that machine pulling is fastest (6 s/plant), followed by
hand-pulling (23 s/plant) and hand infrared flaming
(50 s/plant) (Pötsch, 2003). No data are available on the
long-term effects of pulling or flaming on Rumex
populations. Methods to regulate heavier Rumex infes-
tations in grassland also include ploughing and roto-
vating. Shallow ploughing or rotovating is thought to
sever the plants below the shoot buds and thus prevent
the taproots from regenerating. When grassland is
ploughed, recruitment from the seedbank and re-estab-
lishment of fragments produced during agronomic
practices would be the most important way for regen-
eration of Rumex populations (Pino et al., 1995).
Regeneration of Rumex species has been observed from
root fragments from different soil depths and root parts
as small as 0.5 cm (Dierauer & Stöppler-Zimmer, 1994);
therefore, long-term effects of soil cultivation in grass-
land seem only to be effective if root fragments are
collected after cultivation.

European Weed Research Society Weed Research 2004 44, 414–432
 Table 2 Main results of selected studies investigating mechanical and other direct non-chemical control measures against Rumex crispus (R.c.) and R. obtusifolius (R.o.)

Rumex spp. Plant part Experimental

Control measure tested studied conditions Main result Reference

Cutting R.o. Shoots, roots Field, greenhouse Cutting in 3-weekly intervals reduced carbohydrate content Hidaka (1973)
in shoots and roots
R.o. Shoots Field, orchard Cutting two times/month reduced R.o. cover by 50% Guncan (1979)
R.o. Shoots Field, grassland 5–7 cuts/year reduced R.o. abundance by 60%, after Courtney (1985)
3–4 cuts/year by 40%
R.c., R.o. Shoots Field, grassland The higher cutting frequency the lower biomass of R.c. Hongo (1987)
and R.o.; R.o. showed more regrowth after cutting than R.c.
R.c., R.o. Shoots, roots Field, grassland Lower cutting height led to less seeds in R.c; R.o. seed Hongo (1988a)
production unresponsive to cutting height
R.c., R.o. Shoots, roots Field, grassland Viable seed production after fourth cutting higher in R.o. Hongo (1988b)
than R.c.; root mass higher in R.o. than R.c.
R.o. Leaves, shoots Greenhouse Regrowth not affected by cutting Nilsson and Hallgren (1991)
R.o. Shoots, roots Field, grassland Frequent cutting stimulated seedling growth and regeneration Hughes et al. (1993)
of tap roots and prevented seed production in adult plants

European Weed Research Society Weed Research 2004 44, 414–432

R.o. Leaves, shoots Field, grassland 4-weekly cutting interval more effective than 6-weekly; Niggli et al. (1993)
interaction with fertilization
R.o. Shoots, roots Field, grassland Cutting only effective when 10 cm below ground Dierauer and Thomas (1994)
R.o. Shoots Field, grassland Six cuts per year led up to 300% increase R.o. cover Aquilina and Clarke (1994)
R.o. Shoots Field, arable land Cutting reduced seed input into soil seedbank Pino et al. (1994)
R.o. Shoots, roots Field, grassland Four cuts per year decreased R.o. cover and Novak (1995a,b)
increased feeding value of herbage
R.o. Roots Field, grassland Cutting reduced carbohydrate content Nashiki et al. (1998)
R.o. Shoots Field, grassland Cutting advanced sprouting in following year Martinkova and Honek (2001)
Cutting and soil aeration R.c., R.o. Shoots Field, grassland Soil aeration and frequent cutting reduced Hopkins et al. (1997)
Cutting and manuring R.o. Leaves, shoots Field, grassland Height of cutting influenced ramet and leaf density but not Hopkins and Johnson (2002)
biomass production; 4-weekly cutting reduced R.o. in herbage
Cutting and drilling R.o. Shoots, roots Field, grassland The more root and shoot mass removed Pekrun et al. (2002)
the higher success; hand driller successful
Pulling R.o. Shoots, roots Field, grassland Drilling reduced R.o. cover Niggli and Irla (1984)
R.o. Shoots Field, grassland Automatic pulling reduced R.o. cover Pötsch (2001, 2003)
Flaming R.o. Shoots Field, arable land Flaming had little effect on Rumex cover Dierauer and Thomas (1994)
Solarization R.c. Shoots Field, arable land Suppression of R.c. cover by solarization Campiglia et al. (1998)
Hot water application R.o. Shoots Field, orchard Frequent application reduced R.o. cover Kurfess and Kleisinger (2000)
Rumex ecology and non-chemical control 423
424 J G Zaller

Parr and Brockman (1985)

Control through management practices (cultural

Huarte and Arnold (2003)

Pino et al. (1996, 1999);

Hann and Kromp (2003)
control)

Sakanoue et al. (1995)

Hopkins et al. (1997)
Nashiki et al. (1993);

Mineta et al. (1997)

Fisher et al. (1993)
While both biological and mechanical control methods

Novak (1995a,b)

Courtney (1985)
Nashiki (1995)
mainly aim at reducing or eliminating existing Rumex
infestations, cultural methods generally focus on the

Reference
prevention of infestations. Cultural control comprises
grazing, undersowing, mulching, crop rotation and the
choice of cultivars (Table 3). There is a general

High seeding rate of L. perenne suppressed number of R.o. seedlings

consensus that the essential principle of any cultural

Lucerne increased R.o. cover, cereal cropping decreased R.o. cover

Nondormant cultivar of lucerne and higher seeding density reduced
Rumex control programme for grasslands must be the
provision of a dense, vigorous and competitive sward,

Mixed grazing reduced R.o. cover more than grazing by either

R.o. mass in grassland herbage lower after simulated grazing
High seeding rate with Lolium perenne reduced R.o. cover,
achieved by continuous undersowing and/or high seed-

Cutting time in consideration of dock beetle life cycle can

ing rates, moderate fertilization and a site-specific
stocking system (Parr & Brockman, 1985; Fisher et al.,

Mulching and no-tillage increased R.c. populations

1993; Nashiki, 1995; Novak, 1995b; Hopkins et al.,
1997). For arable land, a diverse crop rotation including

Seeding mixture prevented R.o. germination

regular weed control measures like harrowing, a high

fertilization had no effect on R.o. yield

seeding/planting density and a continuous crop cover

High sward density suppressed R.o.

seem to be important to prevent Rumex infestations.

L. perenne suppressed R.o. cover

reduce R.o. cover and regrowth

Recently, it was also demonstrated that lucerne culti-
vars with low levels of winter dormancy and an
Table 3 Selected studies investigating cultural control measures against Rumex crispus (R.c.) and R. obtusifolius (R.o.)

than after silage cutting

increased planting density could significantly reduce
the emergence of R. crispus (Huarte & Arnold, 2003).
The findings that Rumex seedlings are often found only

R.c. emergence

cattle or goats
on bare ground and that their growth is negatively
Main result

affected by shading indicate that control through in autumn

competition for light should be successful. The competi-
tion of grasses and herbs may also restrict Rumex
regrowth in the short term (Zaller, 2004), but for the
Field, arable land

arable land
arable land
long term Niggli and colleagues (1993) doubt that
Field, grassland

Field, grassland

grassland
grassland
grassland

grassland

Field, grassland

Field, grassland
Experimental

effective control by competition of grasses can be

conditions

achieved, because of the tremendous regrowth potential

of Rumex species.
Field,
Field,
Field,
Field,
Field,
Field,
Sward management has been shown to be able to
significantly affect suppression of grass production by
Plant part

Rumex species. In a 6-year trial, with a simulated

studied

Shoots

Shoots

Shoots

Shoots
Shoots
Shoots
Shoots
Shoots
Shoots

Shoots

Shoots
grazing regime (five to seven cuts per year) Rumex
suppressed grass yields by no more than 16% whereas
under simulated silage cutting (three to four cuts per
Rumex spp.

year) grass yield was reduced by up to 70% (Courtney,

tested

1985). This is an area which definitely requires more

R.o.

R.o.

R.o.
R.o.
R.o.

R.o.
R.o.

R.o.

R.o.
R.c.

R.c.

research.
Grazing (simulated by 5–7 cuts/year)

Mixed grazing by cattle and goats

Tillage
Crop cultivar and seeding density

A tillage operation is often recommended as the ultimate

non-chemical control measure to respond to heavy
Rumex infestations on arable land and even on grass-
Cutting management
Mulching, no-tillage

land. If a tillage operation removes the upper 7 cm of

Control measure

Seeding mixture

the root and then destroys it by desiccation or freezing,

Sward density
Undersowing

Crop rotation
Seeding rate

it is suggested that it is effective because the remaining

root cannot regenerate (Holm et al., 1977). Another
suggestion to eliminate Rumex spp. is to use a succession

European Weed Research Society Weed Research 2004 44, 414–432


of carefully managed rotovations timed to exhaust the
root of Rumex spp. (Cavers & Harper, 1964; Hunt &
Harkess, 1968). However, tillage has also been reported
to stimulate Rumex distribution in arable land (Dierauer
& Stöppler-Zimmer, 1994). Manipulative experiments
testing the effects of different tillage methods on Rumex
populations and distribution are seriously lacking. The
effect of tillage in darkness on seed germination of
Rumex species in arable land (Hartmann & Nezadal,
1990) is also unclear. Because Rumex is a light-sensitive
weed species, ploughing and tillage on bright days might
provoke a flush of emerging seedlings in the subsequent
weeks. Therefore, soil tillage in darkness may reduce
germination and emergence of Rumex species by
excluding light during soil disturbance. Long-term
cultivation and different tillage systems produce im-
portant changes in the composition and density of the
soil seedbanks (e.g. Cardina et al., 1991) and the effects
of different tillage systems take a very long time to
become evident (Feldman et al., 1997). By comparing
the soil seedbank of different tillage systems it could be
shown that the tillage system which caused more
disturbance (e.g. mouldboard ploughing) was more
advantageous to germination of R. crispus than the
systems of lesser disturbances (e.g. disc, chisel and
no-tillage; Feldman et al., 1997). The situation becomes
even more complex as soil nitrate concentrations has
been shown to influence the germination of Rumex; an
early application of nitrogen fertilizer just before or after
soil disturbance is suggested to result in higher Rumex
seedling emergence than a later application (Milberg,
1997). This is a very interesting area which should be
explored further and could result in recommendations
for how to best combine fertilization and tillage in order
to control Rumex species in arable land. Additionally,
time of soil disturbance can make an enormous differ-
ence to the dynamics of weed populations. For instance,
soil disturbance in late summer has been suggested to
actually promote the growth of Rumex populations
rather than prevent it (Weaver & Cavers, 1979a,b).
However, soil disturbance during winter prevents
Rumex germination especially when daytime soil surface
temperature do not reach 15C (Roberts & Totterdell,
1981).
Fertilization
Although a high fertilization rate is commonly stated as
a key factor supporting Rumex infestations, it is
surprising that there have been very few studies on the
effects of different application rates of fertilizers (e.g.
slurry, manure, compost, synthetic fertilizer) on the
occurrence of Rumex in grassland and arable land. In
mixtures with Lolium perenne L., Poa pratensis L. and

European Weed Research Society Weed Research 2004 44, 414–432
Rumex ecology and non-chemical control 425
Alopecurus pratensis L., increasing nitrogen fertilization
stimulated R. obtusifolius more than the competing
grasses (Niggli, 1985), and an additional reduction of
cutting frequency from six to four per season stimulated
R. obtusifolius especially at high nitrogen levels (Niggli,
1985). Fertilizer applications of 200 kg ha)1 year)1
nitrogen increased leaf area of Rumex species in autumn
by 70% and resulted in a 19% higher leaf mass and a
43% higher root mass compared with unfertilized plants
(Hatcher et al., 1997a). The finding that an increase in
added nitrogen from 200 to 400 kg ha)1 year)1 did not
affect Rumex biomass production (Hatcher et al.,
1997a) suggests that even nitrophilous Rumex may not
necessarily profit from excessive fertilizer applications.
Increasing nitrogen fertilization did also not allow
R. obtusifolius to escape the effects of the insect and
fungus and did not alter the additive nature of the
insect–fungus interaction (Hatcher et al., 1997a,c).
Grazing management
Effects of different grazing systems (e.g. rotational
grazing, set stocking, continuous grazing) or stocking
rate (i.e. grazing animals per hectare) on Rumex
infestation have rarely been studied (Table 3). Grazing
management can influence the ability of Rumex to
invade pastures, primarily by altering the competitive-
ness of other pasture species as Rumex is usually
avoided by grazers. It is generally assumed that both
species are mainly refused or eaten only in very young
stages by cattle, sheep and horses, but is a favourite
food plant of deer (Cavers & Harper, 1964). However,
there are also observations that even mature, up to
1.5 m tall plants of R. crispus and R. obtusifolius are
completely removed by certain sheep breeds (J G Zaller,
unpubl. obs.). More studies need to be conducted on
how mixed grazing can be used to control Rumex
distribution in pastures, for instance simultaneous
grazing by cows and goats improved R. obtusifolius
control better than single grazing by either cows or
goats (Sakanoue et al., 1995).
Other indirect control measures
The most important indirect control measures against
Rumex infestations according to Dierauer and Stöppler-
Zimmer (1994) are: (i) a balanced fertilizer use on arable
land and grassland, (ii) avoiding poaching damage by
grazing animals or using heavy machinery in wet soil
conditions, (iii) removing single Rumex plants before
they reach the seeding stage, (iv) careful composting of
farmyard manure and (v) use of certified dock-free
seeding material. However, no information is available
as to what extent these indirect measures actually
426 J G Zaller
contribute to the control or prevention of Rumex
infestations.
When mainly organic fertilizer is used, composting of
farmyard manure is recommended. Temperatures within
the heap of 55C or higher have been shown to destroy
the seeds of Rumex spp. (Dierauer & Stöppler-Zimmer,
1994), and aeration of slurry for a few days can
completely inhibit the germination ability of Rumex
seeds (Vogtmann et al., 1979). Additionally, there are
indications that not only higher temperatures during
composting are responsible for decreased Rumex germi-
nation but also antagonistic non-thermophilic micro-
organisms during composting (J G Zaller, unpubl. obs.).
Another important vector for the spread of Rumex
on agricultural land is through seeds in herbage seed
material. Rumex seeds have been found in 21% of
commercial crop seed material with wide variation
between different crops (Evans & Yates, 1981, 1985).
According to the regulations of the European Union,
a certified grass–clover seed mixture can still contain
up to 200 Rumex seeds kg)1 – in Switzerland the
threshold being 10 seeds kg)1 (Dierauer & Stöppler-
Zimmer, 1994), and in Austria 0 seeds kg)1 (Krautzer,
2001).
Research needs: Rumex ecology and non-
chemical control
Although the reviewed Rumex species are among the
most frequently studied plant species worldwide, it is
surprising how many aspects regarding their ecology
and non-chemical control have still not been addressed
in past research. Some specific areas in which further
research is needed are listed below.
Rumex ecology
Research on Rumex ecology was mainly focused on
seeds and vegetation ecology derived from laboratory
and greenhouse studies. However, there is still a lack of
data on germination and dormancy of seeds under field
conditions. Once the seeds germinated, survival rates of
Rumex seedlings on open ground as opposed to shaded
sward gaps or dense sward communities are unclear.
Interesting for the development of control strategies
would also be to know whether more diverse grassland
communities are better able to prevent the development
of Rumex infestations than less diverse grasslands.
There is still a fundamental lack of knowledge on the
variation of Rumex populations across different geo-
graphical locations and their adaptations to climatic
conditions (e.g. annual precipitation, mean air tempera-
ture) and spatial and temporal patterns of nutrient
availability on agricultural land. Moreover, the increase
in Rumex infestation on arable land during the last
decades should also be investigated. Although Rumex
root ecology has been studied by several authors, there
are still some general problems which need to be
addressed, regarding root dynamics and root ecology,
for instance: (i) How long do Rumex roots and
populations live? (ii) How important is root herbivory?
(iii) How important is clonal growth in dense grassland
swards as opposed to arable land? (iv) What is the
spatial extension of Rumex clones in grassland and
arable land? (v) How important is clonal integration in
Rumex populations? (vi) How important are nutrient-
rich microsites for Rumex growth and development in
comparison with crop plants? Surprisingly, only a few
studies focussed on the effects of soil properties on the
development of Rumex establishment and distribution.
Those data would be especially interesting to estimate
the long-term success of single plant control strategies.
Moreover, more research directed into allelopathic
interactions of Rumex species and crop species would
help in improving the efficacy of new non-chemical
control strategies.
Responses of Rumex species to global environmental
changes such as elevated CO2, global warming, sum-
mertime ozone concentration, nitrogen deposition, ele-
vated UV-B radiation, decreasing species diversity in
agro-ecosystems, have rarely been investigated and
deserve more research effort. Because the two Rumex
species are undesirable on agricultural land, the design
of ecological experiments should always include a link to
interactions of particular ecological properties with
certain management practices.
Non-chemical control
An impressive body of literature is already available
on non-chemical control methods. However, the
majority of research focused mainly on short-term
effects of control measures against Rumex species.
Thus, there is a definite need for long-term manipu-
lative field experiments to assess the combined effects
of various non-chemical control measures on Rumex
in a variety of grassland and arable agro-ecosystems.
Moreover, more long-term research should focus on
the factors most often stated to be responsible for the
development of Rumex infestations (e.g. high soil
nitrogen and potassium levels, fertilization with slurry
and farmyard manure, sward disturbance, cutting
frequency).
Surprisingly little is known about the effects of
different grazing systems (e.g. rotational grazing, set
stocking, continuous grazing), and/or stocking rate, the
impact of different species or varieties of grazers on
Rumex infestations in pasture ecosystems. For arable

European Weed Research Society Weed Research 2004 44, 414–432

systems, investigations on the influence on Rumex of
crop rotation design and/or different methods of soil
cultivation (e.g. ploughing, direct drilling, harrowing,
tillage at darkness) are needed.
As the combination of different biocontrol agents (e.g.
Coleoptera insects or rust fungi) has been demonstrated
to be effective to decrease Rumex biomass production
under controlled conditions, more research on the
combination of biological methods, also with mechanical
and cultural methods at varying environmental condi-
tions, should be conducted (Hatcher & Melander, 2003).
Research on indirect control measures should also
include the influence of different composting methods
on Rumex residue and seed viability and the effect of
certified Rumex-free seed material versus non-certified
seed material on the expansion of these Rumex species.
Acknowledgements
I am very grateful to Peter Juroszek for critical
comments on the manuscript.
References
Adolf G & Linke G (1992) Zur Biologie des Stumpfblättrigen
Ampfers (Rumex obtusifolius L.). In: Erfahrungen und
Ergebnisse bei der Bekämpfung von Ampfer (Rumex
obtusifolius L.) auf mehreren Grünlandstandorten unter
Praxisbedingungen (ed. Martin-Luther-Universität
Halle-Wittenberg), 1–19. Martin-Luther-Universität,
Halle-Wittenberg, Germany.
Allard RW (1965). Genetic systems associated with colonizing
ability in predominantly self-pollinating species. In: The
Genetics of Colonizing Species (eds HG Baker & GL
Stebbins), 49–75.Academic Press, New York, USA.
Aquilina M & Clarke JH (1994) Effect of cutting date and
frequency on perennial broad-leaved weeds on set-aside.
Aspects of Applied Biology 40, Arable Farming Under CAP
Reform, Part 2, 541–546.
van Assche JA & Vanlerberghe KA (1989) The role of
temperature on the dormancy cycle of seeds of Rumex
obtusifolius L. Functional Ecology 3, 107–115.
Bach A (1992) Ergebnisse der flächendeckenden Amp-
ferbekämpfung in etablierten Beständen. In: Erfahrungen
und Ergebnisse bei der Bekämpfung von Ampfer (Rumex
obtusifolius L.) auf mehreren Grünlandstandorten unter
Praxisbedingungen (ed. Martin-Luther-Universität
Halle-Wittenberg), 1–15. Martin-Luther-Universität,
Halle-Wittenberg, Germany.
Baskin JM & Baskin CC (1985) Does seed dormancy play a role
in the germination ecology of Rumex crispus? Weed Science
33, 340–343.
Bentley S & Whittaker JB (1979) Effects of grazing by a
chrysomelid beetle, Gastrophysa viridula, on competition
between Rumex obtusifolius and Rumex crispus. Journal of
Ecology 67, 79–90.
Bentley S, Whittaker JB & Malloch AJC (1980) Field
experiments on the effects of grazing by a chrysomelid beetle

European Weed Research Society Weed Research 2004 44, 414–432
Rumex ecology and non-chemical control 427
(Gastrophysa viridula) on seed production and quality in
Rumex obtusifolius and Rumex crispus. Journal of Ecology
68, 671–674.
Beres I & Kazinczi G (2000) Allelopathic effects of shoot
extracts and residues of weeds on field crops. Allelopathy
Journal 7, 93–98.
Bingaman BR & Christians NE (1995) Greenhouse screening of
corn gluten meal as a natural control product for broadleaf
and grass weeds. HortScience 30, 1256–1259.
Bohner A (2001) Physiologie und futterbaulicher Wert des
Ampfers. In: 7. Alpenländisches Expertenforum zum Thema
ÔÔBestandesführung und Unkrautregulierung im Grünland –
Schwerpunkt Ampfer (ed. Bundesanstalt für alpenländische
Landwirtschaft, Gumpenstein), 39–44. Bundesanstalt für
alpenländische Landwirtschaft, Irdning, Austria.
Bosworth SC, Hoveland CS & Buchanan GA (1986) Forage
quality of selected cool-season weed species. Weed Science
34, 150–154.
Boyd NS & Van Acker RC (2003) The effects of depth and
fluctuating soil moisture on the emergence of eight
annual and six perennial plant species. Weed Science 51,
725–730.
Brooks GL & Whittaker JB (1998) Responses of multiple
generations of Gastrophysa viridula feeding on Rumex
obtusifolius, to elevated CO2. Global Change Biology 4,
63–75.
Brouwer W & Stählin A (1975) Handbuch der Samenkunde.
DLG-Verlag, Frankfurt/Main, Germany.
Campiglia E, Temperini O, Mancinelli R, Marucci A & Saccardo
F (1998) Soil solarization in the Mediterranean environment:
effect on weed control and yield of cos lettuce (Lactuca sativa
L. var. longifolia Lam.). Italus Hortus 5, 36–42.
Cardina J, Regnier E & Harrison K (1991) Long-term tillage
effects on seed banks in three Ohio soils. Weed Science 39,
186–194.
Cavers PB (1967) Studies in the dynamics of plant populations.
1. The fate of seed and transplants introduced into various
habitats. Journal of Ecology 55, 59–71.
Cavers PB & Harper JL (1964) Biological flora of the British
Isles. Rumex obtusifolius L. and R. crispus L. Journal of
Ecology 52, 737–766.
Chapin FS, Schulze E-D & Mooney HA (1990) The ecology and
economics of storage in plants. Annual Review of Ecology
and Systematics 21, 423–447.
Cideciyan MA & Malloch AJC (1982) Effects of seed size on the
germination growth and competitive ability of Rumex
crispus and Rumex obtusifolius. Journal of Ecology 70,
227–232.
Cooper J, Maxwell T & Owens A (1960) A study of the passage
of weed seeds through the digestive tract of the chicken.
Poultry Science 39, 161–163.
Cottam DA, Whittaker JB & Malloch AJC (1986) The
effects of chrysomelid beetle grazing and plant competition
on the growth of Rumex obtusifolius. Oecologia 70,
452–456.
Courtney AD (1985). Impact and control of docks in grassland.
In: Weeds, Pests and Diseases of Grassland and Herbage
Legumes (ed. JS Brockman), 120–127. British Crop Protec-
tion Council, Croydon, UK.
Courtney AD & Johnston R (1978) A consideration of the
contribution to production of Rumex obtusifolius in a
428 J G Zaller
grazing regime. In: Proceedings 1978 of the British
Crop Protection Conference – Weeds, Brighton, UK,
325–331.
Darlington H & Steinbauer GP (1961) The 80 year period of
Dr. Beal’s seed viability experiment. American Journal of
Botany 48, 321–325.
DeGregorio RE, Ashley RA, Adams RG, Streams FA &
Schaefer CW (1991) Biocontrol potential of Hypera rumicis
(L.) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) on curly dock (Rumex
crispus L.). Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 2, 7–24.
Dierauer H-U & Stöppler-Zimmer H (1994) Unkrautregulierung
ohne Chemie. Verlag Eugen Ulmer, Stuttgart, Germany.
Dierauer HU & Thomas JM (1994) Efficiency of different
non-chemical methods of controlling broadleaf dock (Rumex
obtusifolius). In: Maitrise des adventices par voie non
chimique. Communications de la Quatrieme Conference
Internationale I.F.O.A.M., (ed. IFOAM), 311–314. IFOAM,
Dijon, France.
Ellenberg H (1986) Vegetation Mitteleuropas mit den Alpen, 4th
edn. Verlag Eugen Ulmer, Stuttgart, Germany.
Ellenberg H, Weber HE, Düll R, Wirth V, Werner W &
Paulissen D (1991) Zeigerwerte von Pflanzen in Mitteleuropa.
Verlag Erich Goltze, Göttingen, Germany.
Evans AW & Yates CW (1981) Survey of the distribution of
important weeds in herbage seed crops in England and
Wales in 1978 season. Journal of the National Institute of
Agricultural Botany 16, Cambridge, UK, 289–309.
Evans AW & Yates CW (1985) Survey of the distribution and
occurrence of weeds in herbage seed crops in England and
Wales in 1983 and a comparison with 1973 and 1978 seasons
already reported. Journal of the National Institute of
Agricultural Botany 17, Cambridge, UK, 75–93.
Fairbairn CG & Thomas B (1959) The potential nutritive value
of some weeds common to northeastern England. Journal
of the British Grassland Society 14, 36–46.
Feldman SR, Alzugaray C, Torres PS & Lewis P (1997) The
effect of different tillage systems on the composition of the
seedbank. Weed Research 37, 71–76.
Fenner M (1985) Seed Ecology. Chapman and Hall, London,
UK.
Fisher NM, Davies DHK & Williams GH (1993) Vegetation
succession and the effect of management on weedy species in
an old arable field under set-aside. In: Proceedings 1993 of a
Conference on Crop Protection in Northern Britain, Dundee,
UK, 229–234.
Foster L (1989) The biology and non-chemical control of dock
species Rumex obtusifolius and R. crispus. Biological
Agriculture and Horticulture 6, 11–25.
French RC, Kujawski PT & Leather GR (1986) Effect of various
flavor-related compounds on germination of curly dock seed
(Rumex crispus) and curly dock rust (Uromyces rumicis).
Weed Science 34, 398–402.
Froud-Williams RJ, Drennan DSH & Chancellor RJ (1984) The
influence of burial and dry-storage upon cyclic changes in
dormancy, germination and response to light in seeds of
various arable weeds. New Phytologist 96, 473–481.
Galler J (1989) Grünlandverunkrautung. Ursachen, Vorbeu-
gung, Bekämpfung. Leopold Stocker Verlag, Graz, Austria.
Gebauer G, Melzer A & Rehder H (1984) Nitrate content and
nitrate reductase activity in Rumex obtusifolius L. I.
Differences in organs and diurnal changes. Oecologia 63,
136–142.
Gleason FK & Case DE (1986) Activity of the natural algicide,
cyanobacterin, on angiosperms. Plant Physiology 80, 834–837.
Gonzalez L, Souto XC, Sanchez AM & Reigosa MJ (1995)
Response of the weeds Rumex crispus, Plantago lanceolata,
Chenopodium album, Amaranthus retroflexus, Cirsium sp. and
Solanum nigrum to the addition of allelopathic compounds.
In: Proceedings of the 1995 Congress of the Spanish Weed
Science Society (ed. Spanish Weed Science Society), 345–348.
Spanish Weed Science Society, Huesca, Spain.
Gonzalez L, Souto XC & Reigosa MJ (1997) Weed control by
Capsicum annuum. Allelopathy Journal 4, 101–110.
Gough RE & Carlstrom R (1999) Wheat gluten meal inhibits
germination and growth of broadleaf and grassy weeds.
HortScience 34, 269–270.
Greaves MP (1986) Developments in biologial control. British
Crop Protection Society Monograph 29, 155–160.
Grime JP (1996) The changing vegetation of Europe: What is
the role of elevated carbon dioxide? In: Carbon dioxide,
Populations, and Communities (eds C Körner & FA Bazzaz),
85–92. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, USA.
Guncan A (1979) The biology of Rumex obtusifolius L. and
its control in hazelnut plantations. Ataturk Universitesi
Yayinlari 558, 28.
Gwynne DC & Murray CB (1985) Weed Biology and Control
in Agriculture and Horticulture. Batsford Academic and
Educational, London, UK.
Haggar RJ (1980) Survey on the incidence of docks (Rumex
spp.) in grassland in 10 districts in U.K. in 1972. A.D.A.S.
Quarterly Review 39, 256–270.
Hand DJ, Craig G, Takaki M & Kendrick RE (1982) Interaction
of light and temperature of Rumex obtusifolius. Planta 156,
457–460.
Hann P & Kromp B (2003) Der Ampferblattkäfer (Gastrophysa
viridula Deg.) – ein natürlicher Gegenspieler des Stumpf-
blättrigen Wiesenampfers (Rumex obtusifolius). Landbau-
forschung Völkenrode 255, 73–78.
Harper JL (1965) Establishment, aggression, and cohabitation
in weedy species. In: The Genetics of Colonizing Species (eds
HG Baker & GL Stebbins), 243–266. Academic Press, New
York, USA.
Harper JL (1977) Population Biology of Plants. Academic Press,
London, UK.
Hartmann KM & Nezadal W (1990) Photocontrol of weeds
without herbicides. Naturwissenschaften 77, 158–163.
Hatcher PE (1996) The effect of insect–fungus interactions on
the autumn growth and over-wintering of Rumex crispus and
R. obtusifolius seedlings. Journal of Ecology 84, 101–109.
Hatcher PE & Melander B (2003) Combining physical, cultural
and biological methods: prospects for integrated non-
chemical weed management strategies. Weed Research 43,
303–322.
Hatcher PE & Paul ND (2000) Beetle grazing reduces natural
infection of Rumex obtusifolius by fungal pathogens. New
Phytologist 146, 325–333.
Hatcher PE, Paul ND, Ayres PG & Whittaker JB (1994a) The
effect of an insect herbivore and a rust fungus individually,
and combined in sequence, on the growth of two Rumex
species. New Phytologist 128, 71–78.

European Weed Research Society Weed Research 2004 44, 414–432

Hatcher PE, Paul ND, Ayres PG & Whittaker JB (1994b)
Interactions between Rumex spp., herbivores and a rust
fungus: Gastrophysa viridula grazing reduces subsequent
infection by Uromyces rumicis. Functional Ecology 8,
265–272.
Hatcher PE, Paul ND, Ayres PG & Whittaker JB (1994c) The
effect of foliar disease (rust) on the development of
Gastrophysa viridula (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Ecologi-
cal Entomology 19, 349–360.
Hatcher PE, Paul ND, Ayres PG & Whittaker JB (1995a)
Interactions between Rumex spp, herbivores and a rust
fungus – the effect of Uromyces rumicis infection on leaf
nutritional quality. Functional Ecology 9, 97–105.
Hatcher PE, Ayres PG & Paul ND (1995b) The effect of
natural and simulated insect herbivory, and leaf age, on the
process of infection of Rumex crispus L. and R. obtusifolius
L. by Uromyces rumicis (Schum.) Wint. New Phytologist 130,
239–249.
Hatcher PE, Paul ND, Ayres PG & Whittaker JB (1997a)
Added soil nitrogen does not allow Rumex obtusifolius to
escape the effects of insect–fungus interactions. Journal of
Applied Ecology 34, 88–100.
Hatcher PE, Paul ND, Ayres PG & Whittaker JB (1997b)
Nitrogen fertilization affects interactions between the com-
ponents of an insect–fungus–plant tripartite system. Func-
tional Ecology 11, 537–544.
Hatcher PE, Paul ND, Ayres PG & Whittaker JB (1997c)
The effect of nitrogen fertilization and rust fungus
infection, singly and combined, on the leaf chemical
composition of Rumex obtusifolius. Functional Ecology 11,
545–553.
Healy A (1953) Control of docks. New Zealand Journal of
Science and Technology, Section A 34, 473–475.
Hidaka M (1973) Effect of cutting on the total nonstructural
carbohydrates (TNC) contents in the roots and crowns of
Rumex obtusifolius L. Journal of the Japanese Grassland
Society 19, 313–317.
Hofmann F (1992) Der Stumpfblättrige Ampfer und
Möglichkeiten seiner Bekämpfung. In: Erfahrungen und
Ergebnisse bei der Bekämpfung von Ampfer (Rumex obtusi-
folius L.) auf mehreren Grünlandstandorten unter Praxisbed-
ingungen (ed. Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg),
1–13. Martin-Luther-Universität, Halle-Wittenberg,
Germany.
Holm L, Plucknett DL, Pancho JV & Herberger JP (1977) The
World’s Worst Weeds: Distribution and Biology. University
Press of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI, USA.
Hongo A (1986) Infestation of Rumex obtusifolius L. and
distribution pattern of its individual plants in sown grass-
lands in Eastern Hokkaido. Weed Research, Japan 31,
300–305.
Hongo A (1987) Effects of treading and cutting on the growth
of broadleaved dock (Rumex obtusifolius L.) and curly dock
(Rumex crispus L.). Research Bulletin of Obihiro University
15, 107–112.
Hongo A (1988a) Effect of cutting on growth and seed
production of Rumex obtusifolius L. and Rumex crispus L. in
eastern Hokkaido. I. Cutting at different maturing stages
and different heights with respect to transplanted plants.
Weed Research, Japan 33, 1–7.

European Weed Research Society Weed Research 2004 44, 414–432
Rumex ecology and non-chemical control 429
Hongo A (1988b) Effect of cutting on growth and seed
production of Rumex obtusifolius L. and Rumex crispus L. in
eastern Hokkaido. II. Cutting at different maturing stages
with respect to plants established from seeds. Weed
Research, Japan 33, 8–13.
Hongo A (1989) Survival and growth of seedlings of Rumex
obtusifolius L. and Rumex crispus L. in newly sown grass-
land. Weed Research, Japan 29, 7–12.
Hopkins A & Johnson RH (2002) Effect of different manuring
and defoliation patterns on broad- leaved dock (Rumex
obtusifolius) in grassland. Annals of Applied Biology 140,
255–262.
Hopkins MJG & Whittaker JB (1980) Interactions between
Apion species (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) and Polygona-
ceae. II. Apion violaceum Kirby and Rumex obtusifolius
L. Ecological Entomology 5, 241–247.
Hopkins MJG, Williams P & Fisher JP (1984) The parasite
complex associated with stem-boring Apion (Col., Curcu-
lionidae) feeding on Rumex species (Polygonaceae).
Entomologist’s Monthly Magazine 120, 187–192.
Hopkins A, Jones EL, Bowling PJ & Johnson RH (1997) Cultural
methods of dock control in permanent pasture. In: British
Grassland Society Fifth Research Conference (ed. British
Grassland Society), 39–40. University of Plymouth, Newton
Abbot, Devon, UK.
Huarte HR & Arnold RLB (2003) Understanding mechanisms
of reduced annual weed emergence in alfalfa. Weed Science
51, 876–885.
Huber-Meinicke G, Defago G & Sedlar L (1989) Ramularia
rubella (Bon.) Nannf. as a potential mycoherbicide against
Rumex weeds. Botanica Helvetica 99, 81–89.
Hudson J (1955) Propagation of plants by root cuttings. 2.
Seasonal fluctuation of capacity to regenerate from roots.
Journal of Horticultural Science 30, 242–251.
Hughes EW (1938) Studies into the biology of some Rumex
species. MSc thesis, University of Wales, Cardiff, Wales,
UK.
Hughes CNG, Froud Williams RJ & Fox RTV (1993) The effects
of fragmentation and defoliation on Rumex obtusifolius and
its implication for grassland management. In: Proceedings
1993 of the Brighton Crop Protection Conference – Weeds,
Brighton, UK, 767–772.
Hughes CNG, West JS, Fox RTV, Moran VC & Hoffmann JH
(1996) Control of broad-leaved docks by Armillaria mellea.
In: Proceedings 1996 of the 9th International Symposium on
Biological Control of Weeds, Stellenbosch, South Africa,
531–534.
Hultén E (1950) Atlas över växternas utbredning i norden.
Generalstabens Litografiska Anstalts Förlag, Stockholm,
Sweden.
Hunt I & Harkess R (1968) Docks in grassland. Scottish Journal
of Agriculture 47, 160–162.
Inman RE (1970) Observations on the biology of Rumex rust
Uromyces rumicis (Schum.)Wint. Botanical Gazette 131,
234–241.
Isikawa S & Fujii T (1961) Photocontrol and temperature
dependence of germination of Rumex seeds. Plant and Cell
Physiology 2, 51–62.
Jeangros B & Nösberger J (1990) Effects of an established sward
of Lolium perenne L. on the growth and development of
430 J G Zaller
Rumex obtusifolius L. seedlings. Grass and Forage Science 45,
1–7.
Jimenez JJ, Schultz K, Anaya AL, Hernandez J & Espejo O
(1983) Allelopethic potential of corn pollen. Journal of
Chemical Ecology 9, 1011–1025.
Julien MH, Kassulke RC & Harley KLS (1982) Lixus
cribricollis (Col.: Curculionidae) for biological control of the
weeds Emex spp. and Rumex crispus in Australia. Entomo-
phaga 27, 439–446.
Kasai T, Okuda M, Sano H, Mochizuki H, Sato H & Sakamura S
(1982) Biological activity of the constituents in roots of
ezo-no-gishigishi (Rumex obtusifolius). Agricultural and
Biological Chemistry 46, 2809–2813.
Kingsbury, JM (1964) Poisonous Plants of the United States and
Canada. Prentice-Hall, New York, USA.
Kivilaan A & Bandurski RS (1981) The one hundred year
period for Dr. W. J. Beal’s seed viability experiment.
American Journal of Botany 68, 1290–1292.
Klimes L (1993) Morphometry of leaves of Rumex crispus, R.
obtusifolius and their hybrid (R. x pratensis). Preslia 65,
219–224.
Kohout V (1994) The weevil (Apion miniatum Germar) – a
biological regulator of distribution of broad-leaved docks.
Ochrana Rostlin 30, 79–81.
Kohout V & Kohoutova SN (1994) Possibilities of utilization of
species Apion miniatum Germar in biological control of
genus Rumex. Zeitschrift für Pflanzenkrankheiten und
Pflanzenschutz 14, 217–220.
Koukal J & Dagger W (1967) Anthocyanin formation as a
response to ozone and smog treatment in Rumex crispus L.
Plant Physiology 42, 1023–1024.
Krautzer B (2001) Saatgutqualität als Grundlage für ampfer-
freie Nach- und Neuansaaten im Grünland. In: 7. Alpen-
ländisches Expertenforum zum Thema ÔÔBestandesführung
und Unkrautregulierung im Grünland – Schwerpunkt
Ampfer (ed. Bundesanstalt für alpenländische Landwirt-
schaft Gumpenstein), 45–50. Bundesanstalt für alpenländi-
sche Landwirtschaft, Irdning, Austria.
Kühbauch W, Imhoff H & Voigtländer G (1980) Verteilung
der 14C-Aktivität nach 14CO2-Applikation auf die Nicht-
strukturkohlenhydrate im Stumpfblättrigen Ampfer,
Wiesenkerbel und Bärenklau in verschiedenen Wachs-
tumsstadien. Zeitschrift für Acker- und Pflanzenbau 149,
488–502.
Kurfess W & Kleisinger S (2000) Wirkung von Heißwasser auf
Unkrautpflanzen. Zeitschrift für Pflanzenkrankheiten und
Pflanzenschutz 17, 473–477.
Kurimoto S, Otake S, Takihiro T & Kimura H (1974)
Ecological studies on the control of broad leaf dock,
Rumex obtusifolius L., in the grassland, 1: Some
properties of germination. Bulletin of the Hiroshima
Prefectural Agricultural Experiment Station (Japan) 33,
57–61.
Kutschera L, Lichtenegger E & Sobotik M (1992) Wurzelatlas
mitteleuropäischer Grünlandpflanzen. Band 2. Pteridophyta
und Dicotyledoneae (Magnoliopsida). Teil 1: Morphologie,
Anatomie, Ökologie, Verbreitung, Soziologie, Wirtschaft.
Gustav Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart, Germany.
Lang V, Voigtländer G & Kühbauch W (1974) Zum Reserve-
stoffwechsel von Stumpfblättrigen Ampfer (Rumex obtusi-
folius L.). Weed Research 15, 153–158.
Le Deunff Y (1971) Mise en évidence du phytochrome chez
les smences de Rumex crispus L. Annales de Physiologie
Ve´ge´tale 9, 201–208.
Le Deunff Y & Chaussat R (1968) Etude de la dormance
secondaire des semences chez Rumex crispus L. Annales de
Physiologie Ve´ge´tale 10, 227–236.
Lousley JE (1939) Notes on British Rumices. I. Botanical
Society and Exchange Club of the British Isles Report 12,
118–157.
Machatschek M (1999) Nahrhafte Landschaft. Ampfer,
Kümmel, Wildspargel, Rapunzelgemüse, Speiselaub und
andere wiederentdeckte Nutz- und Heilpflanzen. Böhlau
Verlag, Vienna, Austria.
Marten GC, Sheaffer CC & Wyse DL (1987) Forage nutritive
value and palatability of perennial weeds. Agronomy Journal
79, 980–986.
Martinkova Z & Honek A (2001) Regeneration of Rumex
obtusifolius L. after cutting. Rostlinna Vyroba 47, 228–232.
Maun MA & Cavers PB (1971) Seed production and dormancy
of Rumex crispus. I. The effects of removal of cauline leaves
at anthesis. Canadian Journal of Botany 49, 1123–1130.
Melzer A, Gebauer G & Rehder H (1984) Nitrate content and
nitrate reductase activity in Rumex obtusifolius L. II.
Responses to nitrate starvation and nitrogen fertilization.
Oecologia 63, 380–385.
Meusel H, Jäger E & Weinert E (1965) Vergleichende
Chorologie der Zentraleuropäischen Flora. Karten Gustav
Fischer Verlag, Jena, Germany.
Milberg P (1997) Weed seed germination after short-term light
exposure: Germination rate, photon fluence response and
interaction with nitrate. Weed Research 37, 157–164.
Mineta T, Hidaka K, Enomoto T & Oki Y (1997) Changes in
weed communities in direct-seeded paddy fields under
Astragalus sinicus L. living mulch and no-tillage cultivation
during three years. Journal of Weed Science and Technology
42, 88–96.
Monaco T & Cumbo E (1972) Growth and development of curly
dock and broadleaf dock. Weed Science 20, 64–67.
Moore JP, Taylor JE, Paul ND & Whittaker JB (2003) The use
of clip cages to restrain insects reduces leaf expansion
systemically in Rumex obtusifolius. Ecological Entomology
28, 239–242.
Naito A, Miyazaki M & Emura K (1979a) Studies on the
biological control of Rumex obtusifolius L. a grassland
weed by Gastrophysa atrocyanea Mots. (Chrysomelidae,
Coleoptera) 1. On the host specificity of the insect. Bulletin
of the National Grassland Research Institute Japan 14,
117–123.
Naito A, Miyazaki M & Kanda K (1979b) Studies on the
biological control of Rumex obtusifolius L., a grassland
weed, by Gastrophysa atrocyanea Mots. (Coleoptera:
Chrysomelidae). II. Dispersal of overwintered adult insects.
Applied Entomology and Zoology 14, 51–55.
Nashiki M (1995) Competition of the weed, Rumex obtusifolius
L., with pasture plants for early control in new grassland.
Bulletin of the Tohoku National Agricultural Experiment
Station 90, 93–153.
Nashiki M, Meguro R & Suyama T (1993) Control of growth of
Rumex obtusifolius L. during grass establishment by
manipulation of seeding rate. Weed Research, Japan 38,
205–213.

European Weed Research Society Weed Research 2004 44, 414–432

Nashiki M, Meguro R & Fukuda E (1998) Effect of cutting on
carbohydrate content of Rumex obtusifolius L. Journal of
Weed Science and Technology 43, 274–276.
Niggli U (1985) Bekämpfung von Rumex obtusifolius L. und
Bestandeslenkung in intensiv bewirtschafteten Naturwiesen.
PhD Thesis, Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule,
Zürich, Switzerland.
Niggli U & Irla E (1984) Neuere Geräte zur Einzelstock-
Bekämpfung von Blacken (Rumex obtusifolius). Mitteilungen
für die Schweizerische Landwirtschaft 1/2, 25–27.
Niggli U, Nösberger J & Lehmann J (1993) Effects of nitrogen
fertilization and cutting frequency on the competitive
ability and the regrowth capacity of Rumex obtusifolius L.
in several grass swards. Weed Research 33, 131–137.
Nilsson H & Hallgren E (1991) Chemical and mechanical
control of dock (Rumex obtusifolius). A greenhouse experi-
ment. Swedish Crop Protection Conference Weeds and Weed
Control 32, 267–276.
Novak J (1995a) Changes in ruderal grassland after no-tillage
resowing with cocksfoot. Acta Fytotechnica 51, 95–104.
Novak J (1995b) The influence of utilization and the changes of
nitrogen content in eutrophicated soil on the retreat of
Rumex obtusifolius. Acta Fytotechnica 51, 73–80.
Oberdorfer E (1990) Pflanzensoziologische Exkursionsflora, 6th
edn. Verlag Eugen Ulmer, Stuttgart, Germany.
Oswald AK & Haggar RJ (1976) The effect of asulam on two
Lolium perenne swards containing Rumex obtusifolius. Weed
Research 16, 7–10.
Oswald AK & Haggar RJ (1983) The effects of Rumex
obtusifolius on the seasonal yield of two mainly
perennial ryegrass swards. Grass and Forage Science 38,
187–191.
Parr TW & Brockman JS (1985) The control of weed
populations during grass establishment by the manipulation
of seed rates. In: Weeds, Pests and Diseases of Grasslands and
Herbage Legumes (ed. JS Brockman), 20–28. British Grass-
land Society Occasional Symposium No. 18, British Crop
Protection Council, Croydon, UK.
Pearson M & Brooks GL (1995) The influence of elevated CO2
on growth and age-related-changes in leaf gas-exchange.
Journal of Experimental Botany 46, 1651–1659.
Peel S & Hopkins A (1980) The incidence of weeds in grassland.
In: Proceedings 1980 of the British Crop Protection Con-
ference – Weeds, Brighton, UK, 877–890.
Pekrun C, Jund D, Hofrichter V, Wagner S, Thumm U &
Claupein W (2002) Pflanzen- und ackerbauliche Maßnahmen
zur Ampferbekämpfung auf Acker- und Grünlandflächen
unter den Produktionsbedingungen des Ökologischen
Landbaus. Zeitschrift für Pflanzenkrankheiten und
Pflanzenschutz 18, 533–540.
Piearce TG, Roggero N & Tipping N (1994) Earthworms and
seeds. Journal of Biological Education 28, 195–202.
Pino J, Sans FX, Masalles RM & Thomas JM (1994) The
effect of periodical shoot removal on Rumex obtusifolius L.
establishment in irrigated alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.)
crops. In: Maitrise des adventices par voie non chimique.
Communications de la quatrieme conference internationale
I.F.O.A.M (ed. IFOAM), IFOAM, Dijon, France, 2,
319–324.
Pino J, Haggar RJ, Sans FX, Masalles RM, Hamilton RNS &
Sackville Hamilton RN (1995) Clonal growth and fragment

European Weed Research Society Weed Research 2004 44, 414–432
Rumex ecology and non-chemical control 431
regeneration of Rumex obtusifolius L. Weed Research 35,
141–148.
Pino J, Sans FX, Masalles RM et al. (1996) Population
dynamics of Rumex obtusifolius under contrasting alfalfa
cropping systems. In: Proceedings 1996 of the Second
International Weed Control Congress, Copenhagen,
Denmark, 165–170.
Pino J, Sans FX & Masalles RM (1999) Effect of crop length on
the population dynamics of Rumex obtusifolius in an alfalfa-
winter cereal crop rotation. In: SEMh Congreso 1999:
Sociedad Española de Malherbologia, Actas (ed. Weed
Control Spanish Society), 127–131. Weed Control Spanish
Society, Logroño, Spain.
Pötsch EM (2001) Wissenswertes zur mechanischen und
chemischen Ampferbekämpfung. In: 7. Alpenländisches
Expertenforum zum Thema ÔÔBestandesführung und
Unkrautregulierung im Grünland – Schwerpunkt Ampfer
(ed. Bundesanstalt für alpenländische Landwirtschaft
Gumpenstein), 75–81, Bundesanstalt für alpenländische
Landwirtschaft, Irdning, Austria.
Pötsch EM (2003) Möglichkeiten der mechanisch/biologischen
Ampferbekämpfung. Landbauforschung Völkenrode 255,
63–68.
Rehder H (1982) Nitrogen relations of ruderal communities
(Rumicion alpini) in the Northern Calcareous Alps.
Oecologia 55, 120–129.
Reiling K & Davison AW (1992) The response of native,
herbaceous species to ozone: growth and fluorescence
screening. New Phytologist 120, 29–37.
Roberts RA & Hughes EW (1939) Biological studies in the
control of docks (Rumex spp.). Welsh Journal of Agriculture
15, 218–237.
Roberts EH & Totterdell S (1981) Seed dormancy in Rumex
species in response to environmental factors: review article.
Plant, Cell and Environment 4, 97–106.
Sakanoue S, Kitahara N & Hayashi H (1995) Biological control
of Rumex obtusifolius L. by goat grazing. Japan Agricultural
Research Quarterly 29, 39–42.
Salt DT, Brooks GL & Whittaker JB (1995) Elevated
carbon-dioxide affects leaf-miner performance and plant-
growth in docks (Rumex spp). Global Change Biology 1,
153–156.
Savory BM & Soper D (1970) Factors affecting the control of
docks (Rumex spp.) with Asulam. In: Proceedings 1970 of the
10th British Weed Control Conference, Brighton, UK, 358–
365.
Schubiger FX, Défago G, Kern H & Sedlar L (1986) Damage to
Rumex crispus L. and Rumex obtusifolius L. caused by the
rust fungus Uromyces rumicis (Schum.) Wint. Weed Research
26, 347–350.
Smith RW & Whittaker JB (1980a) Factors affecting
Gastrophysa viridula populations (Coleoptera: Chrysome-
lidae) in different habitats. Journal of Animal Ecology 49,
537–548.
Smith RW & Whittaker JB (1980b) The influence of habitat
type on the population dynamics of Gastrophysa viridula
Degeer (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Journal of Animal
Ecology 49, 225–236.
Spencer NR, Rosenthal SG & Hostetter N (1981) Exploration
for biotic agents for the control of Rumex crispus. In:
Proceedings 1981 of the 5th International Symposium on
432 J G Zaller
Biological Control of Weeds, Brisbane, Queensland,
Australia, 125–151.
Stebler FG & Schröter C (1892) Beiträge zur Kenntnis der
Matten und Weiden der Schweiz. X. Versuch einer Übersicht
über die Wiesentypen der Schweiz. Landwirtschaftliches
Jahrbuch der Schweiz 6, 95–212.
Takaki M, Kendrick RE & Dietrich SMC (1981) Interactions of
light and temperature on the germination of Rumex
obtusifolius L. Planta 152, 209–214.
Taylorson RB & Hendricks SB (1972) Phytochrome control of
germination of Rumex crispus L. seeds induced by
temperature shifts. Plant Physiology 50, 645–648.
Toole E & Brown E (1946) Final results of the Duvel buried
seed experiment. Journal of Agricultural Research 72,
201–210.
Vengris J, Drake M, Colby WG & Bart J (1953) Chemical
composition of weeds and accompanying crop plants.
Agronomy Journal 45, 213–218.
Vergnano Gambi, O (1966) Influence of light and temperature
on the germination of some Rumex seeds. Webbia 21,
461–474.
Vicente M, Engelhardt M & Silberschmidt K (1962) The
influence of temperature on the germination response to
light of seeds of Rumex obtusifolius. Phyton, Buenos Aires 19,
163–167.
Vicente M, Noronha AB, Silberschmidt K & Meneghini M (1968)
Successive reversion of the effect of temperature on
germination of Rumex obtusifolius L. by far-red light.
Phyton, Buenos Aires 25, 11–16.
Vogtmann H, Quante G, Plakolm G & Hurni B (1979) Die
Reduktion der Keimfähigkeit von Unkrautsamen und
Hygienisierungseffekt durch die Belüftung von Gülle.
Schweizerische landwirtschaftliche Monatshefte 57, 225–234.
Voigtländer G, Lang V and Kühbauch W (1976) Zum
Reservestoffwechsel des Stumpfblättrigen Ampfers (Rumex
obtusifolius L.) und des Wiesenknöterich (Polygonum
bistorta L.). Landwirtschaftliche Forschung 29, 109–117.
Waghorn GC & Jones WT (1989) Bloat in cattle. Potential of
dock (Rumex obtusifolius) as an antibloat agent for cattle.
New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 32, 227–235.
Weaver SE & Cavers PB (1979a) Dynamics of seed populations
of Rumex crispus and R. obtusifolius (Polygonaceae) in
disturbed and undisturbed soil. Journal of Applied Ecology
16, 909–917.
Weaver SE & Cavers PB (1979b) The effects of date of
emergence and emergence order on seedling survival rates in
Rumex crispus and R. obtusifolius. Canadian Journal of
Botany 57, 730–738.
Whittaker JB (1982) The effect of grazing by a chrysomelid
beetle, Gastrophysa viridula, on growth and survival of
Rumex crispus on a shingle bank. Journal of Ecology 70, 291–
296.
Whittaker JB, Ellistone J & Patrick CK (1979) The dynamics
of a chrysomelid beetle, Gastrophysa viridula, in a hazardous
natural habitat. Journal of Animal Ecology 48, 973–986.
Williams J (1971) Seed polymorphism and germination. 2. The
role of hybridization in germination polymorphism of
Rumex crispus and R. obtusifolius. Weed Research 11, 12–21.
Zaller JG (2004) Competitive ability of Rumex obtusifolius
against native grassland species: above- and belowground
allocation of biomass and nutrients. Journal of Plant
Diseases and Protection 19, 345–351.

European Weed Research Society Weed Research 2004 44, 414–432