Rumex longifolius
DC.
Common Name:
Door-yard dock
Synonyms and Other Names:
Rumex domesticus Hartman, R. hippolapathum Fries, dooryard dock, door-yard dock, long-leaved dock, northern dock
Identification:
This species is perennial, and has glabrous or very indistinctly papillose leaves normally only on branches of inflorescence, or on veins of leaf blades abaxially, with fusiform, vertical rootstock. Stems are erect, branched distal to middle, and 50-120 (up to 160) cm. Leaves include deciduous or partially persistent orcea at maturity; blades are broadly lanceolate to ovate-lanceolate or oblong-lanceolate, normally 25-50 (up to 60) × 7-15 cm, ca. 3-4 times as long as wide. The base is broadly cuneate, rounded-truncate, or slightly cordate, margins are entire, undulate or weakly crisped, occasionally flat, apex acute or subacute. Inflorescences are terminal, occupying distal 1/2 of stem, normally dense, narrowly paniculate, branches usually straight or arcuate. Pedicels are articulated in proximal 1/ 3, filiform, 4-9 mm, articulation distinctly swollen. 10-20 flowers are in whorls; inner tepals broadly orbiculate or reniform, (4.5-)5-6(-7) × (4.5-)5-7(-7.5) mm, base usually distinctly cordate, margins entire or subentire to very weakly erose, flat, apex obtuse or, rarely, subacute; tubercles normally absent, sometimes with 1 indistinct tubercle or slightly thickened midvein less than 1-1.3 mm wide. Achenes are dark brown, (2.5-)3-3.5(-4) × 1.5-2 mm. 2n = 60.
Size:
Native Range:
Eurasia and Asia.
|
|
|
This map only depicts Great Lakes introductions.
|
|
Great Lakes Nonindigenous Occurrences:
This species has been introduced into North and South Africa, North and South America, Australia and New Zealand. The first Great Lakes report is from 1901 on Lake Superior. Voss (1985) reported records of the Eurasian plant from Isle Royale from 1901-1960. The 1901 date is the earliest validated date available even though an earlier record may exist, since some of the collections reported in Robinson and Fernald (1908) of Rumex patientia were actually Rumex longifolius (Fernald 1950). Robinson and Fernald (1908) reported Rumex patientia from Newfoundland, New York, and Pennsylvania and a variety from Michigan, Montana, and westward. Britton and Brown (1913) reported Rumex patientia from various localities on the east coast and in the Midwest. Gray (1889) noted Rumex patientia from New England and New York.
Table 1. Great Lakes region nonindigenous occurrences, the earliest and latest observations in each state/province, and the tally and names of HUCs with observations†. Names and dates are hyperlinked to their relevant specimen records. The list of references for all nonindigenous occurrences of Rumex longifolius are found here.
Table last updated 5/1/2024
† Populations may not be currently present.
Ecology:
This species commonly inhabits waste places, roadsides, cultivated fields, river valleys, and meadows (eFloras, 2014). The species have a true clonal growth system. and vegetative shoots may be the most usual regenerative system in dense swards. Seed dispersal and seedling establishment would remain the strategy for colonizing gaps in the sward and for maintaining genetic variability of the population. Flowering and seed production can occasionally happen in the year of seeding but usually takes place in the second year, from the spring and until hard frost in late autumn.
Means of Introduction:
Inadvertent spread from cultivation.
Status:
Unknown.
Great Lakes Impacts:
Summary of species impacts derived from literature review. Click on an icon to find out more...
| Environmental | Socioeconomic |
|
| | |
Current research on the environmental impact of Rumex longifolius in the Great Lakes is inadequate to support proper assessment.
Rumex longifolius likely pushes out native species once established. Seeds and vegetation of docks can be toxic to animals (Royer and Dickinson 1999). These plants can host high diversity of plant pathogens and invertebrate pests that may affect surrounding plants (Edwards and Taylor 1963, Martinkova et al., 2009). This species is known to frequently hybridize with other members of its genus. Current research on the socioeconomic impact of Rumex longifolius in the Great Lakes is inadequate to support proper assessment.
Dock is occasionally eaten by humans: in high quantities, the oxalic acid it contains can be a health risk by producing kidney stones in sensitive individuals. These docks are undesirable in grasslands because they decrease yields and reduce forage feeding value. As a weed of pastures and meadows, the main impact of this plant is to reduce the value of infested land as grazing for livestock. R. obtusifolius is only 65% as valuable as grass as grazing material because of a combination of reduced palatability (and therefore grazing levels) and reduced digestibility (Courtney & Johnson, 1978 in Grossrieder & Keary, 2004). Its oxalic acid may be poisonous to livestock in large quantities. Mature plants also suppress the grass yield of pasture. Oswald and Haggar (in Grossrieder & Keary, 2004) found that increasing ground cover by Rumex reduced grass yields, as did increasing Rumex density.
There is little or no evidence to support that Rumex longifolius has significant beneficial impacts in the Great Lakes.
Management:
Regulations (pertaining to the Great Lakes)
There are no federal or state (within the Great Lakes region) regulations for this species. Note: Check federal, state/provincial, and local regulations for the most up-to-date information.
Control
Biological
Docks are grazed by cattle, sheep, goats, and deer, but not by horses.
Physical
Repeated cultivation is recommended for control of young (seedling) populations.
Mowing has little effect on established docks, but will prevent seed production. However, frequent cutting encourages taproot growth, branching shoots, and may aid seedling development (from previous year’s seed bank), and so is not recommended. In a pasture heavily infested with docks, the best option may be to plough and reseed with grass, but not immediately. The docks are likely to regenerate both vegetatively and from seed, and a period of fallowing or arable cropping may help to reduce re-establishment.
Chemical
Many chemical controls are available for dock species. However, very few are approved for use in or near water. Repeated treatments are usually needed to control re-growth.
Dicamba (benzoic acid) is effective on curly dock (Rumex crispus), but not on broadleaf dock (R. obtusifolius). Picloram (pyridine) is effective on most Rumex species. 2,4-DB amine or 2,4-D ester are effective when applied before the flower stalk elongates, but require a 30 day withdrawl before feeding as forage. Aminopyralid can be applied to actively growing plants before the bud stage. Chlorsulfuron and metsulfuron can be used with young, actively growing plants, but should not be used on powdery, dry, or light sandy soils. Sulfoteturon has similar use, but should not be applied to cropland. Glyphosate can be used at early heading (Pacific Northwest Extension 2013).
Note: Check state/provincial and local regulations for the most up-to-date information regarding permits for control methods. Follow all label instructions.
References
(click for full reference list)
Author:
Cao, L, and L. Berent
Contributing Agencies:
Revision Date:
8/9/2019
Citation for this information:
Cao, L, and L. Berent, 2024, Rumex longifolius DC.: U.S. Geological Survey, Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database, Gainesville, FL, and NOAA Great Lakes Aquatic Nonindigenous Species Information System, Ann Arbor, MI, https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/greatlakes/FactSheet.aspx?Species_ID=2693&Potential=N&Type=0&HUCNumber=DGreatLakes, Revision Date: 8/9/2019, Access Date: 5/2/2024
This information is preliminary or provisional and is subject to revision. It is being provided to meet the need for timely best science. The information has not received final approval by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and is provided on the condition that neither the USGS nor the U.S. Government shall be held liable for any damages resulting from the authorized or unauthorized use of the information.