Articles on this page are available in 2 other languages: Spanish (6), Dutch (1) (learn more)
Overview
Brief Summary
Trusted
Biology
Trusted
Description
Trusted
Comprehensive Description
Description
-
Hilty, J. Editor. 2013. Illinois Wildflowers. World Wide Web electronic publication. flowervisitors.info, version 04/2013.
See: Botanical Terminology and Line Drawings, Ecological Terminology, Website Description, Links to Other Websites, Reference Materials
Trusted
Distribution
Occurrence in North America
HI ID IL IN IA KS KY LA ME MD
MA MI MN MS MO MT NE NV NH NJ
NM NY NC ND OH OK OR PA RI SC
SD TN TX UT VT VA WA WV WI WY
AB BC MB NB NF NT NS ON PQ SK
YT MEXICO
Trusted
the United States. It occurs in all 50 states, almost all Canadian
provinces, and Mexico [62,126].
- 62. Kearney, Thomas H.; Peebles, Robert H.; Howell, John Thomas; McClintock, Elizabeth. 1960. Arizona flora. 2d ed. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1085 p. [6563]
- 126. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service. 1971. Common weeds of the United States. New York: Dover Publications, Inc. 463 p. [2378]
Trusted
Regional Distribution in the Western United States
This species can be found in the following regions of the western United States (according to the Bureau of Land Management classification of Physiographic Regions of the western United States):
1 Northern Pacific Border
2 Cascade Mountains
3 Southern Pacific Border
4 Sierra Mountains
5 Columbia Plateau
6 Upper Basin and Range
7 Lower Basin and Range
8 Northern Rocky Mountains
9 Middle Rocky Mountains
10 Wyoming Basin
11 Southern Rocky Mountains
12 Colorado Plateau
13 Rocky Mountain Piedmont
14 Great Plains
15 Black Hills Uplift
16 Upper Missouri Basin and Broken Lands
Trusted
Localities documented in Tropicos sources
United States (North America)
Note: This information is based on publications available through Tropicos and may not represent the entire distribution. Tropicos does not categorize distributions as native or non-native.
-
Hartman, R. L. & B. E. Nelson. 1998. Novelties from North America north of Mexico: A 20-Year Vascular plant Diversity Baseline. 1–51 (mss.).
http://www.tropicos.org/Reference/11044
-
DOLL, R. 1977. Zur Taraxacum - Flora Nordamerikas. Feddes Repert. 88: 63–80.
http://www.tropicos.org/Reference/19130
Trusted
Localities documented in Tropicos sources
Costa Rica (Mesoamerica)
Guatemala (Mesoamerica)
Mexico (Mesoamerica)
Note: This information is based on publications available through Tropicos and may not represent the entire distribution. Tropicos does not categorize distributions as native or non-native.
-
SPECIMEN BASED RECORD. Published protolog data.
http://www.tropicos.org/Reference/9990002
-
Breedlove, D. E. 1986. Flora de Chiapas. Listados Floríst. México 4: i–v, 1–246.
http://www.tropicos.org/Reference/513
Trusted
Localities documented in Tropicos sources
Argentina (South America)
Australia (Oceania)
Bolivia (South America)
Brazil (South America)
Canada (North America)
Honduras (Mesoamerica)
Ecuador (South America)
Colombia (South America)
Guatemala (Mesoamerica)
El Salvador (Mesoamerica)
Costa Rica (Mesoamerica)
Chile (South America)
Mexico (Mesoamerica)
Madagascar (Africa & Madagascar)
Tanzania (Africa & Madagascar)
Venezuela (South America)
Peru (South America)
India (Asia)
Panama (Mesoamerica)
United States (North America)
Uruguay (South America)
Paraguay (South America)
New Zealand (Oceania)
China (Asia)
Caribbean (Caribbean)
Note: This information is based on publications available through Tropicos and may not represent the entire distribution. Tropicos does not categorize distributions as native or non-native.
-
Jørgensen, P. M. & C. Ulloa Ulloa. 1994. Seed plants of the high Andes of Ecuador---A checklist. AAU Rep. 34: 1–443.
http://www.tropicos.org/Reference/47124
-
SPECIMEN BASED RECORD. Published protolog data.
http://www.tropicos.org/Reference/9990002
-
Molina Rosito, A. 1975. Enumeración de las plantas de Honduras. Ceiba 19(1): 1–118.
http://www.tropicos.org/Reference/866
-
Serrano, M. & J. Teran. 2000. Identific. Esp. Veg. Chuquisaca 1–129. PLAFOR, Intercooperación, Fundación Ceibo, Sucre.
http://www.tropicos.org/Reference/1014273
-
Humbert, H. 1963. Composées. Fl. Madagasc. 189: 623–911.
http://www.tropicos.org/Reference/1172
-
Humbert, H. 1923. Les Composées de Madagascar. Mém. Soc. Linn. Normandie 25: 1–335.
http://www.tropicos.org/Reference/10991
-
Jeffrey, C. 1966. Notes on Compositae: I. The Cichorieae in East Tropical Africa. Kew Bull. 18(3): 427–486.
http://www.tropicos.org/Reference/7443
-
Correa A., M. D., C. Galdames & M. N. S. Stapf. 2004. Cat. Pl. Vasc. Panamá 1–599. Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, Panama.
http://www.tropicos.org/Reference/1031911
-
Jørgensen, P. M. & S. León-Yánez. (eds.) 1999. Catalogue of the vascular plants of Ecuador. Monogr. Syst. Bot. Missouri Bot. Gard. 75: i–viii, 1–1181.
http://www.tropicos.org/Reference/42250
-
Breedlove, D. E. 1986. Flora de Chiapas. Listados Floríst. México 4: i–v, 1–246.
http://www.tropicos.org/Reference/513
-
Weberling, F. H. E. & J. A. Lagos. 1960. Neue Blütenpflanzen für El Salvador - C.A. (Vorläufige Liste). Beitr. Biol. Pflanzen 35(2): 177–201.
http://www.tropicos.org/Reference/1020529
-
López, A. 1995. Estud. Veg. Prov. Mizque Campero Cochabamba i–vi, 1–152. Tesis Universidad Mayor de San Simón, Cochabamba.
http://www.tropicos.org/Reference/1014735
-
Luteyn, J. L. 1999. Páramos, a checklist of plant diversity, geographical distribution, and botanical literature. Mem. New York Bot. Gard. 84: viii–xv, 1–278.
http://www.tropicos.org/Reference/1024098
-
Flora of China Editorial Committee. 1988-2013. Fl. China Unpaginated. Science Press & Missouri Botanical Garden Press, Beijing & St. Louis.
http://www.tropicos.org/Reference/42480
-
Davidse, G., M. Sousa-Peña, S. Knapp & F. Chiang Cabrera. (editores generales) 2012. Asteraceae. Fl. Mesoamer. 5(2): ined.
http://www.tropicos.org/Reference/100003860
-
Hokche, O., P. E. Berry & O. Huber. 2008. 1–860. In O. Hokche, P. E. Berry & O. Huber Nuevo Cat. Fl. Vasc. Venezuela. Fundación Instituto Botánico de Venezuela, Caracas.
http://www.tropicos.org/Reference/1033110
-
Idárraga-Piedrahita, A., R. D. C. Ortiz, R. Callejas Posada & M. Merello. 2011. Flora de Antioquia. Catálogo de las Plantas Vasculares, vol. 2. Listado de las Plantas Vasculares del Departamento de Antioquia. Pp. 1-939.
http://www.tropicos.org/Reference/100008595
-
García-Mendoza, A. J. & J. Meave del Castillo. 2011. Divers. Florist. Oaxaca 1–351. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Ciudad Universitaria.
http://www.tropicos.org/Reference/100009052
Trusted
Localities documented in Tropicos sources
Canada (North America)
Note: This information is based on publications available through Tropicos and may not represent the entire distribution. Tropicos does not categorize distributions as native or non-native.
-
Fernald, M. 1950. Manual (ed. 8) i–lxiv, 1–1632. American Book Co., New York.
http://www.tropicos.org/Reference/1327
Trusted
Localities documented in Tropicos sources
Canada (North America)
United States (North America)
Note: This information is based on publications available through Tropicos and may not represent the entire distribution. Tropicos does not categorize distributions as native or non-native.
-
Small, J. K. 1933. Man. S.E. Fl. i–xxii, 1–1554. Published by the Author, New York.
http://www.tropicos.org/Reference/1515
Trusted
National Distribution
Canada
Origin: Native
Regularity: Regularly occurring
Currently: Present
Confidence: Confident
Type of Residency: Year-round
United States
Origin: Exotic
Regularity: Regularly occurring
Currently: Present
Confidence: Confident
Trusted
Range
Trusted
Physical Description
Morphology
Description
Common dandelion is an introduced, cool-season, perennial forb [140]. It has a
thick taproot up to 6 inches (15.2 cm) long [135]. Stems are very short
and wholly underground, producing a rosette of leaves at the ground
surface. Leaves are 2 to 16 inches (5-40 cm) long [134]. The flower
heads are solitary at the end of naked, hollow stalks. Stalks can reach
heights up to 2 feet (60 cm) [126,135]. One head contains from 100 to
300 flowers [126]. Seeds of common dandelion are topped by a parachute of
bristles that aid in dissemination [55].
Common dandelion forms vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizal associations
[15,37].
- 15. Berch, Shannon M.; Gamiet, Sharmin; Deom, Elisabeth. 1988. Mycorrhizal status of some plants of southwestern British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Botany. 66: 1924-1928. [8841]
- 37. Dittberner, Phillip L.; Olson, Michael R. 1983. The plant information network (PIN) data base: Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. FWS/OBS-83/86. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 786 p. [806]
- 55. Holmgren, Arthur H. 1958. Weeds of Utah. Special Report 12. Logan, UT: Utah State University, Agricultural Experiment Station. 85 p. [2935]
- 126. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service. 1971. Common weeds of the United States. New York: Dover Publications, Inc. 463 p. [2378]
- 134. Welsh, Stanley L.; Atwood, N. Duane; Goodrich, Sherel; Higgins, Larry C., eds. 1987. A Utah flora. Great Basin Naturalist Memoir No. 9. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University. 894 p. [2944]
- 135. Whitson, Tom D., ed. 1987. Weeds and poisonous plants of Wyoming and Utah. Res. Rep. 116-USU. Laramie, WY: University of Wyoming, College of Agriculture, Cooperative Extension Service. 281 p. [2939]
- 140. Stubbendieck, J.; Hatch, Stephan L.; Hirsch, Kathie J. 1986. North American range plants. 3rd ed. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. 465 p. [2270]
Trusted
Description
Trusted
Diagnostic Description
Synonym
Trusted
Ecology
Habitat
Habitat characteristics
Common dandelion tolerates a wide range of site and soil conditions, but it
most commonly occurs in disturbed areas such as cut-over or burned
forests, avalanche areas, overgrazed ranges, and marshy floodplains
[54,133]. It also occurs sites on highway and railroad rights-of-way,
waste places, old fields, pastures, and lawns [114,126].
Common dandelion occurs on soils that vary from thin layers above permafrost in
the subarctic to deep loams in the western United States [37,114]. Soil
texture ranges from clays and clayey loams to sandy loams. Common dandelion
does poorly on dense clay soils, saline soils, and acidic soils [37].
Common dandelion occurs on flat to rolling topography or moderate to steep
slopes [27,37]. It is found from sea level to high alpine elevations
[126]. Regional elevational distributions are as follows [27,37,99]:
feet meters
Utah 4,100-11,300 1,250-3,445
Colorado 4,500-13,500 1,372-4,115
Wyoming 4,100- 9,600 1,250-2,926
Montana 2,900- 9,200 884-2,804
Washington 2,574- 2,722 780-825
Oregon 7,095- 7,920 2,150-2,400
Alberta 4,323- 6,336 1,310-1,920
Common shrubs, grasses, and forbs associated with common dandelion include
common snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus), Wood's rose (Rosa woodsii),
russet buffalo berry (Shepherdia canadensis), blueberry (Vaccinium spp.),
chokecherry (Prunus virginiana), black sagebrush (Artemisia arbuscula
nova), Wyoming big sagebrush (A. tridentata ssp. wyomingensis),
Oregon-grape (Mahonia repens), rough fescue (Festuca scabrella), Idaho
fescue (F. idahoensis), slender wheatgrass (Elymus trachycaulus),
prairie Junegrass (Koeleria cristata), timber danthonia (Danthonia
intermedia), Richardson's needlegrass (Stipa richardsonii), timothy
(Phleum pratense), tufted hairgrass (Deschampsia caespitosa), Kentucky
bluegrass (Poa pratensis), aster (Aster spp.), willowweed (Epilobium
spp.), prairiesmoke avens (Geum triflorum), small-leaf angelica
(Angelica pinnata), Colorado columbine (Aquilegia caerula),
rhexia-leaved paintbrush (Castilleja leonardii), Oregon fleabane
(Erigeron speciousus), wallflower (Erysimum elatum), one-flower
helianthella (Helianthella uniflora), Utah peavine (Lathyrus utahensis),
and Richardson geranium (Geranium richardsonii) [32,83,117,124,129].
- 27. Cole, David N.; Hall, Troy E. 1992. Trends in campsite condition: Eagle Cap Wilderness, Bob Marshall Wilderness, and Grand Canyon National Park. Res. Pap. INT-453. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 40 p. [17764]
- 32. Crow, T. R.; Mroz, G. D.; Gale, M. R. 1991. Regrowth and nutrient accumulations following whole-tree harvesting of a maple-oak forest. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 21: 1305-1315. [16600]
- 37. Dittberner, Phillip L.; Olson, Michael R. 1983. The plant information network (PIN) data base: Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. FWS/OBS-83/86. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 786 p. [806]
- 54. Holloway, Patricia S.; Alexander, Ginny. 1990. Ethnobotany of the Fort Yukon region, Alaska. Economic Botany. 44(2): 214-225. [13625]
- 83. McInnis, Michael L.; Vavra, Martin. 1986. Summer diets of domestic sheep grazing mountain meadows in northeastern Oregon. Northwest Science. 60(4): 265-2170. [1604]
- 99. Pratt, David W.; Black, R. Alan; Zamora, B. A. 1984. Buried viable seed in a ponderosa pine community. Canadian Journal of Botany. 62: 44-52. [16219]
- 114. Staniforth, Richard J.; Scott, Peter A. 1991. Dynamics of weed populations in a northern subarctic community. Canadian Journal of Botany. 69: 814-821. [14944]
- 117. Stevens, Richard; McArthur, E. Durant; Davis, James N. 1992. Reevaluation of vegetative cover changes, erosion, and sedimentation on two watersheds -- 1912-1983. In: Clary, Warren P.; McArthur, E. Durant; Bedunah, Don; Wambolt, Carl L., compilers. Proceedings--symposium on ecology and management of riparian shrub communities; 1991 May 29-31; Sun Valley, ID. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-289. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 123-128. [19105]
- 124. Tyser, Robin W.; Worley, Christopher A. 1992. Alien flora in grasslands adjacent to road and trail corridors in Glacier National Park, Montana (U.S.A.). Conservation Biology. 6(2): 253-262. [19435]
- 126. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service. 1971. Common weeds of the United States. New York: Dover Publications, Inc. 463 p. [2378]
- 129. Wakimoto, Ronald H.; Willard, E. Earl. 1991. Monitoring post-fire vegetation recovery in ponderosa pine and sedge meadow communities in Glacier National Park, NW Montana. Research Joint Venture Agreement INT-89441. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 17 p. Progress Report. [17635]
- 133. Weaver, T.; Lichthart, J.; Gustafson, D. 1990. Exotic invasion of timberline vegetation, Northern Rocky Moutnains, USA. In: Schmidt, Wyman C.; McDonald, Kathy J., compilers. Proceedings--symposium on whitebark pine ecosystems: ecology and management of a high-mountain resource; 1989 March 29-31; Bozeman, MT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-270. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 208-213. [11688]
Trusted
Habitat: Cover Types
This species is known to occur in association with the following cover types (as classified by the Society of American Foresters):
More info for the term: cover
Common dandelion is found in nearly all SAF cover types.
Trusted
Habitat: Plant Associations
This species is known to occur in association with the following plant community types (as classified by Küchler 1964):
Dandelion is found in nearly all Kuchler Plant Associations.
Trusted
Habitat: Ecosystem
This species is known to occur in the following ecosystem types (as named by the U.S. Forest Service in their Forest and Range Ecosystem [FRES] Type classification):
FRES10 White - red - jack pine
FRES11 Spruce - fir
FRES12 Longleaf - slash pine
FRES13 Loblolly - shortleaf pine
FRES14 Oak - pine
FRES15 Oak - hickory
FRES16 Oak - gum - cypress
FRES17 Elm - ash - cottonwood
FRES18 Maple - beech - birch
FRES19 Aspen - birch
FRES20 Douglas-fir
FRES21 Ponderosa pine
FRES22 Western white pine
FRES23 Fir - spruce
FRES24 Hemlock - Sitka spruce
FRES25 Larch
FRES26 Lodgepole pine
FRES27 Redwood
FRES28 Western hardwoods
FRES29 Sagebrush
FRES30 Desert shrub
FRES32 Texas savanna
FRES33 Southwestern shrubsteppe
FRES34 Chaparral - mountain shrub
FRES35 Pinyon - juniper
FRES36 Mountain grasslands
FRES37 Mountain meadows
FRES38 Plains grasslands
FRES39 Prairie
FRES40 Desert grasslands
FRES41 Wet grasslands
FRES42 Annual grasslands
FRES44 Alpine
Trusted
Key Plant Community Associations
Dakota, South Dakota, and Washington [51,137].
- 51. Hodorff, Robert A.; Sieg, Carolyn Hull; Linder, Raymond L. 1988. Wildlife response to stand structure of deciduous woodlands. Journal of Wildlife Management. 52(4): 667-673. [6668]
- 137. Willard, E. Earl. 1990. Use and impact of domestic livestock in whitebark pine forests. In: Schmidt, Wyman C.; McDonald, Kathy J., compilers. Proceedings-symposium on whitebark pine ecosystems: ecology and management of a high-mountain resource; 1989 March 29-31; Bozeman, MT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-270. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 201-207. [11687]
Trusted
Trusted
Associations
Faunal Associations
-
Hilty, J. Editor. 2013. Illinois Wildflowers. World Wide Web electronic publication. flowervisitors.info, version 04/2013.
See: Botanical Terminology and Line Drawings, Ecological Terminology, Website Description, Links to Other Websites, Reference Materials
Trusted
Flower-Visiting Insects of Dandelion in Illinois
(Bees suck nectar or collect pollen; beetle activity is unspecified; other insects suck nectar; some observations are from Krombein et al. and MacRae as indicated below, otherwise they are from Robertson; Robertson's observations occurred during the spring)
Bees (long-tongued)
Apidae (Apinae): Apis mellifera sn cp fq; Apidae (Bombini): Bombus impatiens sn; Anthophoridae (Nomadini): Nomada denticulata sn; Megachilidae (Osmiini): Osmia lignaria lignaria sn, Osmia pumila sn
Bees (short-tongued)
Halictidae (Halictinae): Agapostemon sericea sn cp, Halictus ligatus sn cp, Lasioglossum versatus sn fq; Colletidae (Colletinae): Colletes inaequalis (Kr); Andrenidae (Andreninae): Andrena arabis (Kr), Andrena barbilabris (Kr), Andrena ceanothi (Kr), Andrena cressonii sn, Andrena dunningi sn, Andrena erythrogaster (Kr), Andrena erythronii cp (Kr), Andrena forbesii (Kr), Andrena hippotes (Kr), Andrena illinoiensis (Kr), Andrena imitatrix imitatrix (Kr), Andrena melanochroa (Kr), Andrena miranda (Kr), Andrena miserabilis bipunctata sn fq (Rb, Kr), Andrena nigrifrons (Kr), Andrena perplexa (Kr), Andrena persimulata (Kr), Andrena rugosa (Kr), Andrena sigmundi (Kr), Andrena thaspii (Kr)
Flies
Syrphidae: Eristalinus aeneus; Bombyliidae: Bombylius fascipennis, Bombylius major; Muscidae: Neomyia cornicina; Fanniidae: Fannia manicata
Butterflies
Nymphalidae: Vanessa virginiensis
Beetles
Buprestidae: Acmaeodera neglecta (McR), Acmaeodera ornata (McR), Acmaeodera tubulus (McR)
-
Hilty, J. Editor. 2013. Insect Visitors of Illinois Wildflowers. World Wide Web electronic publication. illinoiswildflowers.info, version (05/2013)
See: Abbreviations for Insect Activities, Abbreviations for Scientific Observers, References for behavioral observations
Trusted
Foodplant / feeds on
adult of Aeolothrips tenuicornis feeds on live flower of Taraxacum officinale agg. sensu lato
Foodplant / spot causer
few, epiphyllous, scattered, blackish-brown pycnidium of Ascochyta coelomycetous anamorph of Ascochyta taraxaci causes spots on live leaf of Taraxacum officinale agg. sensu lato
Remarks: season: 8
Foodplant / parasite
sporangium of Bremia lactucae parasitises live Taraxacum officinale agg. sensu lato
Other: unusual host/prey
Plant / resting place / within
puparium of Chromatomyia farfarella may be found in leaf-mine of Taraxacum officinale agg. sensu lato
Foodplant / internal feeder
larva of Ensina sonchi feeds within capitulum of Taraxacum officinale agg. sensu lato
Foodplant / spot causer
amphigenous colony of Ramularia hyphomycetous anamorph of Mycosphaerella hieracii causes spots on live leaf of Taraxacum officinale agg. sensu lato
Remarks: season: 9-10
Foodplant / visitor
adult of Myopa visits for nectar and/or pollen flower of Taraxacum officinale agg. sensu lato
Foodplant / internal feeder
larva of Paroxyna producta feeds within capitulum of Taraxacum officinale agg. sensu lato
Remarks: Other: uncertain
Foodplant / miner
larva of Phytomyza wahlgreni mines leaf (mid-rib) of Taraxacum officinale agg. sensu lato
Other: sole host/prey
Foodplant / parasite
Podosphaera fusca parasitises live Taraxacum officinale agg. sensu lato
Foodplant / gall
chlamydospore of Protomyces pachydermus causes gall of live peduncle of Taraxacum officinale agg. sensu lato
Foodplant / parasite
aecium of Puccinia dioicae var. silvatica parasitises live Taraxacum officinale agg. sensu lato
Remarks: Other: uncertain
Foodplant / parasite
telium of Puccinia hieracii var. hieracii parasitises live Taraxacum officinale agg. sensu lato
Foodplant / parasite
telium of Puccinia variabilis parasitises live leaf of Taraxacum officinale agg. sensu lato
Foodplant / gall
sorus of Synchytrium taraxaci causes gall of live phyllary of Taraxacum officinale agg. sensu lato
Foodplant / feeds on
male of Thrips hukkineni feeds on live flower of Taraxacum officinale agg. sensu lato
Remarks: season: 5,7-9
Foodplant / feeds on
female of Thrips physapus feeds on live flower of Taraxacum officinale agg. sensu lato
Remarks: season: 5,7-9
Foodplant / feeds on
adult of Thrips tabaci feeds on live flower of Taraxacum officinale agg. sensu lato
Foodplant / feeds on
adult of Thrips validus feeds on live flower of Taraxacum officinale agg. sensu lato
Remarks: season: 4-9
Trusted
Known predators
Antilocapra americana
Lepus townsendii
Based on studies in:
USA: California, Cabrillo Point (Grassland)
This list may not be complete but is based on published studies.
- L. D. Harris and L. Paur, A quantitative food web analysis of a shortgrass community, Technical Report No. 154, Grassland Biome. U.S. International Biological Program (1972), from p. 17.
Trusted
General Ecology
Fire Management Considerations
Late spring burning in the tallgrass prairies of Kansas reduced
common dandelion cover compared with burning at earlier dates. In shortgrass
prairies of western Kansas, common dandelion was less affected by dormant
season (fall and winter) burns than by spring burns [20]. Burning to
decrease cover of common dandelion on rangelands should be done in the spring
after growth initiation. Annual burning in March or November in
Nebraska resulted in the highest total cover of common dandelion. Burning in
April decreased cover [46].
Following logging, bulldozing, and slash burning, common dandelion will
establish in the open spots [14].
Common dandelion competes with tree seedlings on burned sites. Grasses
aerially seeded on burns may compete with and displace common dandelion. After
4 to 5 years of grass seeding on sites in Montana common dandelion populations
eventually decreased [14].
- 14. Bedunah, Don; Pfingsten, William; Kennett, Gregory; Willard, E. Earl. 1988. Relationship of stand canopy density to forage production. In: Schmidt, Wyman C., compiler. Proceedings--future forests of the Mountain West: a stand culture symposium; 1986 September 29 - October 3; Missoula, MT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-243. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 99-107. [5070]
- 20. Bragg, Thomas B. 1991. Implications for long-term prairie management from seasonal burning of loess hill and tallgrass prairie. In: Nodvin, Stephen C.; Waldrop, Thomas A., eds. Fire and the environment: ecological and cultural perspectives: Proceedings of an international symposium; 1990 March 20-24; Knoxville, TN. Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-69. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station: 34-44. [16631]
- 46. Gibson, David J. 1989. Hulbert's study of factors effecting botanical composition of tallgrass prairie. In: Bragg, Thomas B.; Stubbendieck, James, eds. Prairie pioneers: ecology, history and culture: Proceedings, 11th North American prairie conference; 1988 August 7-11; Lincoln, NE. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska: 115-133. [14029]
Trusted
Broad-scale Impacts of Plant Response to Fire
Lyon's Research Paper, Hamilton's Research Papers
(Hamilton 2006a, Hamilton 2006b), and the following Research
Project Summaries also provide information on prescribed fire use
and postfire response of many plant species including common dandelion:
- Effects of fall and spring prescribed burning in sagebrush steppe in east-central Oregon
- Understory recovery after low- and high-intensity fires in northern Idaho ponderosa
pine forests - Vegetation response to restoration treatments in ponderosa pine-Douglas-fir
forests of western Montana - Vegetation changes following prescription fires in quaking aspen stands of Colorado's
Front Range - Effects of surface fires in a mixed red and eastern white pine stand in Michigan
Trusted
Plant Response to Fire
Common dandelion generally establishes during the first or second postfire
year. It usually increases in frequency after fire [22,36,41]. One
year after a spring burn (May 24, 1983) in Galena Gulch, Montana,
common dandelion showed a 50 percent increase in frequency, but by the second
year showed only a 47.5 percent increase over the prefire level [22].
Common dandelion increased in frequency following a fire in 1974 in a Scotch
pine forest in Scotland, but by postfire year 4, frequency started to
decrease. Maximum frequency occurred at 3 years after fire [119].
Common dandelion frequency was greater in burned than in unburned oak
communities in Utah [74]. Following a prescribed fire in a Douglas-fir
stand in south-central Idaho, common dandelion frequency increased
significantly by postfire year 2. Prefire frequency was 8 percent; at
postfire year 1 frequency was 4 percent; and at postfire year 2
frequency was 24 percent [78].
In the Hedges Mountain area of the Helena National Forest, Montana, a
sagebrush/rough fescue habitat type was burned in spring (May) and fall
(September). Prefire and postfire community types, as named by the
dominant species, were compared. Following the spring burn, bluegrass
and common dandelion were the dominant species during both postfire years 1 and
2. Following the fall burn, the dominant species during postfire year 1
were bluegrass, mountain brome (Bromus marginatus), and common dandelion. By
postfire year 2, common dandelion was no longer a dominant; the site was
dominated by bluegrass, Wood's rose, and common snowberry [109].
A fire on June 28, 1977 in Montana in a rough fescue community minimally
disrupted reproduction and carbohydrate production of common dandelion. Its
frequency increased slightly on burned sites by the summer of 1978 [6].
In the timbered breaks along the Missouri River in central Montana,
common dandelion was favored by big game animals every postfire year except
year 28. At postfire year 17 common dandelion was found at high frequencies.
First peak in frequency occurred at postfire year 4 [41].
On ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir communities in the Blue Mountains
of northeastern Oregon, common dandelion cover and frequency were higher
on unburned control sites than on prescribed burned, thinned, or
thinned-and-burned sites. Common dandelion was determined to be an indicator
species for unburned sites (P≤0.05). For further information on the effects
of thinning and burning treatments on common dandelion and 48 other species,
see the Research Project Summary of Youngblood and others' [141] study.
- 6. Antos, Joseph A.; McCune, Bruce; Bara, Cliff. 1983. The effect of fire on an ungrazed western Montana grassland. American Midland Naturalist. 110(2): 354-364. [337]
- 22. Bushey, Charles L. 1985. Summary of results from the Galena Gulch 1982 spring burns (Units 1b). Missoula, MT: Systems for Environmental Management. 9 p. [567]
- 36. Diboll, Neil. 1986. Mowing as an alternative to spring burning for control of cool season exotic grasses in prairie grass plantings. In: Clambey, Gary K.; Pemble, Richard H., eds. The prairie: past, present and future: Proceedings, 9th North American prairie conference; 1984 July 29 - August 1; Moorhead, MN. Fargo, ND: Tri-College University Center for Environmental Studies: 204-209. [3574]
- 41. Eichhorn, Larry C.; Watts, C. Robert. 1984. Plant succession on burns in the river breaks of central Montana. Proceedings, Montana Academy of Science. 43: 21-34. [15478]
- 74. Kunzler, L. M.; Harper, K. T.; Kunzler, D. B. 1981. Compositional similarity within the oakbrush type in central and northern Utah. Great Basin Naturalist. 41(1): 147-153. [1390]
- 78. Lyon, L. Jack. 1966. Initial vegetal development following prescribed burning of Douglas-fir in south-central Idaho. Res. Pap. INT-29. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 17 p. [1494]
- 109. Schwecke, Deitrich A.; Hann, Wendell. 1989. Fire behavior and vegetation response to spring and fall burning on the Helena National Forest. In: Baumgartner, David M.; Breuer, David W.; Zamora, Benjamin A.; [and others]
- 119. Sykes, J. M.; Horrill, A. D. 1981. Recovery of vegetation in a Caledonian pinewood after fire. Transactions of the Botanical Society of Edinburgh. 43(4): 317-325. [19768]
- 141. Youngblood, Andrew; Metlen, Kerry L.; Coe, Kent. 2006. Changes in stand structure and composition after restoration treatments in low elevation dry forests of northeastern Oregon. Forest Ecology and Management. 234(1-3): 143-163. [64992]
Trusted
Immediate Effect of Fire
Trusted
Post-fire Regeneration
Ground residual colonizer (on-site, initial community)
Initial-offsite colonizer (off-site, initial community)
Caudex, growing points in soil
Trusted
Fire Ecology
regions with variable FIRE REGIMES. Common dandelion is primarily adapted to
fire through its prolific production of wind-dispersed seed [123]. Site
colonization after fires occurs in many forested areas because of
common dandelion's persistent, viable seed bank [1].
- 1. Ahlgren, Clifford E. 1979. Buried seed in the forest floor of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area. Minnesota Forestry Research Note No. 271. St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota, College of Forestry. 4 p. [3459]
- 123. Toth, Barbara L. 1991. Factors affecting conifer regeneration and community structure after a wildfire in western Montana. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 124 p. Thesis. [14425]
Trusted
Successional Status
More info for the terms: climax, competition, marsh, tree
Common dandelion is an important colonizer following vegetation disturbances in
temperate climates throughout North America [85,99]. Although the role
of common dandelion as an early seral species does not change, the length of
time common dandelion populations are present varies among ecosystems.
Common dandelion enters a disturbed community and rapidly becomes abundant. It
may achieve a peak in dominance within 2 to 3 years [7,14]. Holland
found common dandelion to be a transitory colonist of marsh habitats in
Massachusetts; it was found for 10 years after the disturbance and then
disappeared [53].
Common dandelion was one of the earliest colonizers after tree harvesting in a
maple-beech-birch ecosystem in Michigan [32]. On an abandoned farmland
in Arizona, common dandelion was one of the predominant species following
winter precipitation [30]. Common dandelion was a pioneer species on a
brine-killed forest site after elimination of brine discharge on the
site in the spring of 1982 [7]. On a Douglas-fir clearcut in Colorado,
common dandelion was a dominant species in the understory the second year after
cutting but was not present in the initial community [7]. Common dandelion is
not a member of the climax plant community on rangelands since it cannot
withstand competition for moisture, nutrients, and light with the climax
vegetation. It invades these areas after the preferred species have
been removed by overgrazing [85].
- 7. Auchmoody, L. R.; Walters, R. S. 1988. Revegetation of a brine-killed forest site. Soil Science Society of America Journal. 52: 277-280. [11374]
- 14. Bedunah, Don; Pfingsten, William; Kennett, Gregory; Willard, E. Earl. 1988. Relationship of stand canopy density to forage production. In: Schmidt, Wyman C., compiler. Proceedings--future forests of the Mountain West: a stand culture symposium; 1986 September 29 - October 3; Missoula, MT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-243. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 99-107. [5070]
- 30. Cox, J. R.; Madrigal, R. M. 1988. Establishing perennial grasses on abandoned farmland in southeastern Arizona. Applied Agricultural Research. 3(1): 36-43. [11177]
- 32. Crow, T. R.; Mroz, G. D.; Gale, M. R. 1991. Regrowth and nutrient accumulations following whole-tree harvesting of a maple-oak forest. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 21: 1305-1315. [16600]
- 53. Holland, Marjorie M.; Burk, C. John. 1990. The marsh vegetation of three Connecticut River oxbows: a ten-year comparison. Rhodora. 92(871): 166-204. [14521]
- 85. McLean, Alastair; Marchand, Leonard. 1968. Grassland ranges in the southern interior of British Columbia. Publication 1319. Ottawa, Canada: Canada Department of Agriculture, Division. 18 p. [1622]
- 99. Pratt, David W.; Black, R. Alan; Zamora, B. A. 1984. Buried viable seed in a ponderosa pine community. Canadian Journal of Botany. 62: 44-52. [16219]
Trusted
Regeneration Processes
Common dandelion reproduces apomictically through parthenogenesis [62]. Plants
develop from unfertilized gametes. Common dandelion is an aggressive seed
producer and reproduces mainly from seed [42]. Seeds travel a
considerable distance because of the parachuting effect produced by the
spreading pappus. In a tallgrass prairie in Iowa, achenes of common dandelion
were blown by the wind several hundred meters from the nearest source
population [98].
Common dandelion creates a long-lived seedbank [11,99]. In a seedbank of a
ponderosa pine community in Washington, viable common dandelion seedlings
emerged from litter and soil samples in greenhouse germination trials.
Seed density of spring samples was 160 seeds per square yard (133
seeds/m sq) and of autumn samples was 60 seeds per square yard (50
seeds/m sq) [99]. Seeds of common dandelion were viable up to 5 years in soil
samples from Montana [11]. Seed germination on a control plot in
Wisconsin was inhibited by thick mulch. Light mulch that remained on a
mowed plot also reduced germination [36]. Germination was highest on a
burned plot [36].
Vegetative: Common dandelion sprouts from the caudex after disturbance
[114,126].
- 11. Bard, Gily E. 1952. Secondary succession on the Piedmont of New Jersey. Ecological Monographs. 22(3): 195-215. [4777]
- 36. Diboll, Neil. 1986. Mowing as an alternative to spring burning for control of cool season exotic grasses in prairie grass plantings. In: Clambey, Gary K.; Pemble, Richard H., eds. The prairie: past, present and future: Proceedings, 9th North American prairie conference; 1984 July 29 - August 1; Moorhead, MN. Fargo, ND: Tri-College University Center for Environmental Studies: 204-209. [3574]
- 42. Ellison, L.; Aldous, C. M. 1952. Influence of pocket gophers on vegetation of subalpine grassland in central Utah. Ecology. 33(2): 177-186. [3427]
- 62. Kearney, Thomas H.; Peebles, Robert H.; Howell, John Thomas; McClintock, Elizabeth. 1960. Arizona flora. 2d ed. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1085 p. [6563]
- 98. Platt, William J. 1975. The colonization and formation of equilibrium plant species associations on badger disturbances in a tall-grass prairie. Ecological Monographs. 45: 285-305. [6903]
- 99. Pratt, David W.; Black, R. Alan; Zamora, B. A. 1984. Buried viable seed in a ponderosa pine community. Canadian Journal of Botany. 62: 44-52. [16219]
- 114. Staniforth, Richard J.; Scott, Peter A. 1991. Dynamics of weed populations in a northern subarctic community. Canadian Journal of Botany. 69: 814-821. [14944]
- 126. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service. 1971. Common weeds of the United States. New York: Dover Publications, Inc. 463 p. [2378]
Trusted
Growth Form (according to Raunkiær Life-form classification)
Trusted
Life History and Behavior
Cyclicity
Phenology
Common dandelion is one of the earliest spring bloomers on western rangelands
[134]. It flowers from March to late fall in most states and will
flower throughout the year in warmer areas [126]. General first
flowering dates are from April 28 to May 19, and sometimes earlier in
some locations [116]. By mid-June, common dandelion has reached its maximum
bloom stage, and the seeds from earlier flowering dates are mostly
disseminated. By mid-July, all seeds are disseminated [40].
Reported dates for anthesis in some states are as follows [16,37,100]:
Utah April-July
Colorado April-August
Wyoming May-August
Montana April-September
North Dakota April-June
Virginia February-June
Georgia February-June
Mississippi February-June
Tennessee February-June
Kentucky February-June
Iowa April-June
Alberta June-July
- 16. Bergen, Peter; Moyer, James R.; Kozub, Gerald C. 1990. Dandelion (Taraxacum officinale) use by cattle grazing on irrigated pasture. Weed Technology. 4(2): 258-263. [14775]
- 37. Dittberner, Phillip L.; Olson, Michael R. 1983. The plant information network (PIN) data base: Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. FWS/OBS-83/86. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 786 p. [806]
- 40. Eckert, R. E. 1975. Improvement of mountain meadows in Nevada. Research Report. Reno, NV: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Land Managment. 45 p. [8124]
- 100. Radford, Albert E.; Ahles, Harry E.; Bell, C. Ritchie. 1968. Manual of the vascular flora of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press. 1183 p. [7606]
- 116. Stevens, O. A. 1956. Flowering dates of weeds in North Dakota. North Dakota Agricultural Experiment Station Bimonthly Bulletin. 18(6): 209-213. [5168]
- 126. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service. 1971. Common weeds of the United States. New York: Dover Publications, Inc. 463 p. [2378]
- 134. Welsh, Stanley L.; Atwood, N. Duane; Goodrich, Sherel; Higgins, Larry C., eds. 1987. A Utah flora. Great Basin Naturalist Memoir No. 9. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University. 894 p. [2944]
Trusted
Molecular Biology and Genetics
Molecular Biology
Barcode data: Taraxacum officinale
No available public DNA sequences.
Download FASTA File
Trusted
Statistics of barcoding coverage: Taraxacum officinale
Public Records: 6
Specimens with Barcodes: 20
Species With Barcodes: 1
Trusted
Conservation
Conservation Status
National NatureServe Conservation Status
Canada
Rounded National Status Rank: N5 - Secure
United States
Rounded National Status Rank: N5 - Secure
Trusted
Threats
Management
Management considerations
Common dandelion is an invader species that commonly inhabits overgrazed
rangelands [85]. Common dandelion availability for deer decreases on
cattle-grazed sites [7].
Common dandelion meets the nutritional requirements of beef cattle and is
readily grazed by them [16]. Producers may want to control common dandelion in
irrigated pastures to restrict seed movement to adjacent land where
common dandelion may be undesirable [16].
Common dandelion is a threat in upper forest and alpine zones of western
Montana because of its ability to invade little disturbed or undisturbed
native vegetation through seed dispersal [133]. In Montana, common dandelion
seedlings compete with conifer seedlings on forest sites. Grass seeding
on these sites will eventually decrease the common dandelion population in 4 to
5 years [14].
Clearcuts and thinning of forests stimulates common dandelion production. Sage
grouse and deer populations benefit from increased production of
common dandelion [10]. Sage grouse habitat loss due to development and
postdevelopment land use can be minimized by regulation of livestock on
important adjacent nondeveloped lands [10].
Common dandelion can be readily controlled with 2,4-D. It is most effective to
spray in early spring before first bloom. Sites should not be mown for
3 to 5 days before spraying or 1 to 2 days after [92].
Strip spraying in Idaho in relatively high annual precipitation (13
inches [33 cm]) areas benefits sage grouse brood-rearing habitat due to
quick recovery of common dandelion and other forbs. Average cover of common dandelion
in sprayed areas was 17.2 percent, whereas average cover in nonsprayed
areas was 11.2 percent [23].
A decrease in the population of common dandelion occurs where pocket gophers
are present. When gophers were removed, common dandelion population increased
by 50 percent in 2 years on mountain grasslands and meadows of Colorado,
Utah, and Oregon [42].
- 7. Auchmoody, L. R.; Walters, R. S. 1988. Revegetation of a brine-killed forest site. Soil Science Society of America Journal. 52: 277-280. [11374]
- 10. Autenrieth, Robert; Molini, William; Braun, Clait, eds. 1982. Sage grouse management practices. Tech. Bull No. 1. Twin Falls, ID: Western States Sage Grouse Committee. 42 p. [7531]
- 14. Bedunah, Don; Pfingsten, William; Kennett, Gregory; Willard, E. Earl. 1988. Relationship of stand canopy density to forage production. In: Schmidt, Wyman C., compiler. Proceedings--future forests of the Mountain West: a stand culture symposium; 1986 September 29 - October 3; Missoula, MT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-243. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 99-107. [5070]
- 16. Bergen, Peter; Moyer, James R.; Kozub, Gerald C. 1990. Dandelion (Taraxacum officinale) use by cattle grazing on irrigated pasture. Weed Technology. 4(2): 258-263. [14775]
- 23. Call, Mayo W. 1979. Habitat requirements and management recommendations for sage grouse. Denver, CO: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Denver Service Center. 37 p. [591]
- 42. Ellison, L.; Aldous, C. M. 1952. Influence of pocket gophers on vegetation of subalpine grassland in central Utah. Ecology. 33(2): 177-186. [3427]
- 85. McLean, Alastair; Marchand, Leonard. 1968. Grassland ranges in the southern interior of British Columbia. Publication 1319. Ottawa, Canada: Canada Department of Agriculture, Division. 18 p. [1622]
- 92. Pacific Northwest Extension Service. 1983. Common and false dandelion. PNW 117. Corvallis, OR: Pullman, WA; Moscow, ID. 2 p. [6612]
- 133. Weaver, T.; Lichthart, J.; Gustafson, D. 1990. Exotic invasion of timberline vegetation, Northern Rocky Moutnains, USA. In: Schmidt, Wyman C.; McDonald, Kathy J., compilers. Proceedings--symposium on whitebark pine ecosystems: ecology and management of a high-mountain resource; 1989 March 29-31; Bozeman, MT. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-270. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station: 208-213. [11688]
Trusted
Relevance to Humans and Ecosystems
Benefits
Nutritional Value
body maintenance for deer in ponderosa pine communities [94]. Common dandelion
meets the nutritional requirements of beef cattle in Alberta [16].
Protein and manganese content increase from early June to early July,
when it is harvested on ranges in Alberta. By late September, protein
content decreases significantly [16].
Chemical composition (in percent) of common dandelion from an irrigated pasture
during 1986 was as follows [16]:
June 3 July 7 September 24 Average
Acid detergent fiber 28.1 22.4 25.8 25.4
Crude protein 13.8 22.8 14.7 17.1
Ca 1.21 1.55 1.61 1.46
P 0.30 0.48 0.29 0.36
Mg 0.31 0.47 0.50 0.43
K 2.58 2.24 2.46 2.43
- 16. Bergen, Peter; Moyer, James R.; Kozub, Gerald C. 1990. Dandelion (Taraxacum officinale) use by cattle grazing on irrigated pasture. Weed Technology. 4(2): 258-263. [14775]
- 94. Patton, David R. 1988. Selection of silvicultural systems for wildlife. In: Baumgartner, David M.; Lotan, James E., compilers. Ponderosa pine: The species and its management: Symposium proceedings; 1987 September 29 - October 1; Spokane, WA. Pullman, WA: Washington State University, Cooperative Extension: 179-184. [9416]
Trusted
Palatability
than in postbloom stages [81]. It is poor to fair in palatability on
ponderosa pine sites throughout the West [85].
Palatability ratings for common dandelion from selected western states are as
follows [37]:
UT CO WY MT ND
Cattle good good fair fair good
Sheep good good good good good
Horses good good fair good good
Elk good ---- good good ----
Mule deer good ---- good fair fair
White-tailed deer ---- ---- good fair fair
Pronghorn good ---- good good fair
Upland game birds good ---- good good good
Waterfowl fair ---- poor ---- good
Small nongame birds fair ---- fair fair fair
Small mammals good ---- fair fair fair
- 37. Dittberner, Phillip L.; Olson, Michael R. 1983. The plant information network (PIN) data base: Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. FWS/OBS-83/86. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 786 p. [806]
- 81. Anderson, Howard G.; Bailey, Arthur W. 1980. Effects of annual burning on grassland in the aspen parkland of east-central Alberta. Canadian Journal of Botany. 58: 985-996. [3499]
- 85. McLean, Alastair; Marchand, Leonard. 1968. Grassland ranges in the southern interior of British Columbia. Publication 1319. Ottawa, Canada: Canada Department of Agriculture, Division. 18 p. [1622]
Trusted
Importance to Livestock and Wildlife
Common dandelion is a preferred food of domestic sheep grazing on mountain
meadows [83] and is readily eaten by cattle on rough fescue (Festuca
scabrella) prairies in Alberta [38]. Common dandelion is commonly eaten in the
spring by sharp-tailed grouse [89]. It is a minor component of bighorn
sheep diets in the Upper Yellowstone Valley [63] and is an important
food for pocket gophers on mountain grasslands of Colorado [132].
Common dandelion is an important source of nectar and pollen for bees in Alaska
[96]. Common dandelion is consumed by deer and elk in the spring, summer, and
fall in meadows of the Rocky Mountains [73].
In Yellowstone National Park, common dandelion is an important food for grizzly
bears in summer. Peak use in in June [82]. Leaves, stems, seeds, and
flowers were found in grizzly and black bear scats in Glacier National
Park [65].
In Alberta, black bears browse on earlier phenological stages of
common dandelion (spring and early summer) because of the higher nutrient
quality. Common dandelion is one of the dominant species found in spring bear
scats [52].
During prenesting through incubation of greater prairie chicken broods
(April-May) on the Sheyenne National Grasslands in North Dakota,
common dandelion flowers were one of the primary diet items. Individual fecal
samples contained up to 96 percent common dandelion flowers during April and
May [106].
Common dandelion is one of the favored foods of sage grouse in the spring,
summer, and fall in Nevada. Of all meadow forbs consumed, common dandelion
contributed 82 percent to spring forb diets [40,67].
In British Columbia, deer consumed common dandelion at significantly higher
(P less than 0.05) rates on harvested lodgepole pine sites than on unharvested
sites [28].
- 38. Dormaar, Johan F.; Willms, Walter D. 1990. Sustainable production from the rough fescue prairie. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 45(1): 137-140. [11389]
- 40. Eckert, R. E. 1975. Improvement of mountain meadows in Nevada. Research Report. Reno, NV: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Land Managment. 45 p. [8124]
- 52. Holcroft, Anne C.; Herrero, Stephen. 1991. Black bear, Ursus americanus, food habits in southwestern Alberta. Canadian Field-Naturalist. 105(3): 335-345. [18673]
- 63. Keating, Kimberly A.; Irby, Lynn R.; Kasworm, Wayne F. 1985. Mountain sheep winter food habits in the upper Yellowstone Valley. Journal of Wildlife Management. 49(1): 156-161. [15521]
- 65. Kendall, Katherine C. 1986. Grizzly and black bear feeding ecology in Glacier National Park, Montana. Progress Report. West Glacier, Montana: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Glacier National Park Biosphere Preserve, Science Center. 42 p. [19361]
- 67. Klebenow, Donald A. 1984. Habitat management for sage grouse in Nevada. World Pheasant Association Journal. 10: 34-46. [1346]
- 73. Kufeld, Roland C. 1973. Foods eaten by the Rocky Mountain elk. Journal of Range Management. 26(2): 106-113. [1385]
- 82. Mattson, David J.; Blanchard, Bonnie M.; Knight, Richard R. 1991. Food habits of Yellowstone grizzly bears, 1977-1987. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 69(6): 1619-1629. [19515]
- 83. McInnis, Michael L.; Vavra, Martin. 1986. Summer diets of domestic sheep grazing mountain meadows in northeastern Oregon. Northwest Science. 60(4): 265-2170. [1604]
- 89. Nemick, Joseph J. 1987. Sharp-tailed grouse management and ecology in Wyoming. In: Fisser, Herbert G., ed. Wyoming shrublands: Proceedings, 16th Wyoming shrub ecology workshop; 1987 May 26-27; Sundance, WY. Laramie, WY: University of Wyoming, Department of Range Management, Wyoming Shrub Ecology Workshop: 45-47. [13920]
- 96. Petersen, Stephen F. 1989. Beekeeping under northern lights. American Bee Journal. 129(1): 33-35. [12332]
- 106. Rumble, Mark A.; Newell, Jay A.; Toepfer, John E. 1988. Diets of greater prairie chickens on the Sheyenne National Grasslands. In: Bjugstad, Ardell J., technical coordinator. Prairie chickens on the Sheyenne National Grasslands [symposium proceedings]
- 132. Ward, A. Lorin; Keith, James O. 1962. Feeding habits of pocket gophers on mountain grasslands, Black Mesa, Colorado. Ecology. 43(4): 744-749; 1962. [2453]
- 28. Collins, William B.; Urness, Philip J. 1983. Feeding behavior and habitat selection of mule deer and elk on northern Utah summer range. Journal of Wildlife Management. 47(3): 646-663. [6915]
Trusted
Other uses and values
leaves of common dandelion in salads or boil and eat them [54]. Roots of
common dandelion can be ground and used as a mild laxative or to treat
heartburn. Tea and wine can be made from flowers [140].
- 54. Holloway, Patricia S.; Alexander, Ginny. 1990. Ethnobotany of the Fort Yukon region, Alaska. Economic Botany. 44(2): 214-225. [13625]
- 140. Stubbendieck, J.; Hatch, Stephan L.; Hirsch, Kathie J. 1986. North American range plants. 3rd ed. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. 465 p. [2270]
Trusted
Value for rehabilitation of disturbed sites
disturbed sites. Erosion-control potential is low [37].
- 37. Dittberner, Phillip L.; Olson, Michael R. 1983. The plant information network (PIN) data base: Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. FWS/OBS-83/86. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 786 p. [806]
Trusted
Cultivation
-
Hilty, J. Editor. 2013. Illinois Wildflowers. World Wide Web electronic publication. flowervisitors.info, version 04/2013.
See: Botanical Terminology and Line Drawings, Ecological Terminology, Website Description, Links to Other Websites, Reference Materials
Trusted
Wikipedia
Taraxacum officinale
Taraxacum officinale, the common dandelion (often simply called "dandelion"), is a flowering herbaceous perennial plant of the family Asteraceae (Compositae). It can be found growing in temperate regions of the world, in lawns, on roadsides, on disturbed banks and shores of water ways, and other areas with moist soils. T. officinale is considered a weed, especially in lawns and along roadsides, but it is sometimes used as a medical herb and in food preparation. Common dandelion is well known for its yellow flower heads that turn into round balls of silver tufted fruits that disperse in the wind called "blowballs"[1] or "clocks" (in both British and American English).[2][3][4][5]
Contents |
Description
Taraxacum officinale grows from generally unbranched taproots and produces one to more than ten stems that are typically 5 to 40 cm tall but sometimes up to 70 cm tall. The stems can be tinted purplish, they are upright or lax, and produce flower heads that are held as tall or taller than the foliage. The foliage is upright growing or horizontally orientated, with leaves having narrowly winged petioles or being unwinged. The stems can be glabrous or are sparsely covered with short hairs. Plants have milky latex and the leaves are all basal, each flowering stem lacks bracts and has one single flower head. The yellow flower heads lack receptacle bracts and all the flowers, which are called florets, are ligulate and bisexual. The fruits are mostly produced by apomixis.[6]
The 5–45 cm long and 1–10 cm wide leaves are oblanceolate, oblong, or obovate in shape with the bases gradually narrowing to the petiole. The leaf margins are typically shallowly lobed to deeply lobed and often lacerate or toothed with sharp or dull teeth.[6]
The calyculi (the cuplike bracts that hold the florets) are composed of 12 to 18 segments: each segment is reflexed and sometimes glaucous. The lanceolate shaped bractlets are in 2 series with the apices acuminate in shape. The 14 to 25 mm wide involucres are green to dark green or brownish green with the tips dark gray or purplish. The florets number 40 to over 100 per head, having corollas that are yellow or orange-yellow in color.
The fruits, which are called cypselae, range in color from olive-green or olive-brown to straw-colored to grayish, they are oblanceoloid in shape and 2 to 3 mm long with slender beaks. The fruits have 4 to 12 ribs that have sharp edges. The silky pappi, which form the parachutes, are white to silver-white in color and around 6 mm wide. Plants typically have 24 or 40 pairs of chromosomes but some plants have 16 or 32 chromosomes.[7]
Taxonomy
The taxonomy of the genus Taraxacum is complicated by apomictic and polyploid lineages,[8][9] and the taxonomy and nomenclatural situation of Taraxacum officinale is not yet fully resolved,[7] The taxonomy of this species has in the past been complicated by the recognition of numerous species,[10] subspecies and microspecies. E.g. Rothmaler's flora of Germany recognizes roughly 70 microspecies.[11] The plants introduced to North America are triploids that reproduce by obligate gametophytic apomixis[7][12] Some authorities recognize three subspecies of Taraxacum officinale including:[13][14]
- Taraxacum officinale ssp. ceratophorum (Ledeb.) Schinz ex Thellung which is commonly called common dandelion, fleshy dandelion, horned dandelion or rough dandelion. It is native to Canada and the western US.[15] Some sources list it as a species, Taraxacum ceratophorum.[16][17]
- Taraxacum officinale ssp. officinale, which is commonly called common dandelion or wandering dandelion.
- Taraxacum officinale ssp. vulgare (Lam.) Schinz & R. Keller, which is commonly called common dandelion.
Two of them have been introduced and established in Alaska and the third (ssp. ceratophorum ) is native there.[18]
Taraxacum officinale has many English common names (of which some are no longer in use), including blowball, lion's-tooth, cankerwort, milk-witch, yellow-gowan, Irish daisy, monks-head, priest's-crown and puff-ball;[19] other common names include, faceclock, pee-a-bed, wet-a-bed,[20] swine's snout, [21] white endive, and wild endive.[22]
Carl Linnaeus named the species Leontodon Taraxacum in 1753. The genus name Taraxacum, might be from the Arabic word "Tharakhchakon",[6] or from the Greek word "Tarraxos".[23] The common name "dandelion," comes from the French phrase "dent de lion" which means "lion's tooth", in reference to the jagged shaped foliage.[23]
Ecology
Taraxacum officinale is native to Eurasia,[24] and now is naturalized throughout North America, southern Africa, South America, New Zealand, Australia, and India. It occurs in all 50 states of the USA and most Canadian provinces.[18] It is considered a noxious weed in some jurisdictions,[25] and is considered to be a nuisance in residential and recreational lawns in North America.[26] It is also an important weed in agriculture and causes significant economic damage because of its infestation in many crops worldwide.[25]
The dandelion is a common colonizer of disturbed habitats, both from wind blown seeds and seed germination from the seed bank.[27] The seeds remain viable in the seed bank for many years, with one study showing germination after nine years. This species is a somewhat prolific seed producer, with 54 to 172 seeds produced per head, and a single plant can produce more than 5,000 seeds a year. It is estimated that more than 97,000,000 seeds/hectare could be produced yearly by a dense stand of dandelions.[citation needed] When released, the seeds can be spread by the wind up to several hundred meters from their source. The seeds are also a common contaminant in crop and forage seeds. The plants are adaptable to most soils and the seeds are not dependent on cold temperatures before they will germinate but they need to be within the top 2.5 centimeters of soil.[18]
While not in bloom, this species is sometimes confused with others, such as Chondrilla juncea, that have similar basal rosettes of foliage.[citation needed] Another plant, sometimes referred to as Fall Dandelion, is very similar to dandelion, but produces "yellow fields" later.
Uses
| Nutritional value per 100 g (3.5 oz) | |
|---|---|
| Energy | 188 kJ (45 kcal) |
| Carbohydrates | 9.2 g |
| - Sugars | 0.71 g |
| - Dietary fiber | 3.5 g |
| Fat | 0.7 g |
| Protein | 2.7 g |
| Water | 85.6 g |
| Vitamin A equiv. | 508 μg (64%) |
| - beta-carotene | 5854 μg (54%) |
| - lutein and zeaxanthin | 13610 μg |
| Thiamine (vit. B1) | 0.19 mg (17%) |
| Riboflavin (vit. B2) | 0.26 mg (22%) |
| Niacin (vit. B3) | 0.806 mg (5%) |
| Pantothenic acid (B5) | 0.084 mg (2%) |
| Vitamin B6 | 0.251 mg (19%) |
| Folate (vit. B9) | 27 μg (7%) |
| Choline | 35.3 mg (7%) |
| Vitamin C | 35 mg (42%) |
| Vitamin E | 3.44 mg (23%) |
| Vitamin K | 778.4 μg (741%) |
| Calcium | 187 mg (19%) |
| Iron | 3.1 mg (24%) |
| Magnesium | 36 mg (10%) |
| Manganese | 0.342 mg (16%) |
| Phosphorus | 66 mg (9%) |
| Potassium | 397 mg (8%) |
| Sodium | 76 mg (5%) |
| Zinc | 0.41 mg (4%) |
| Link to USDA Database entry Percentages are relative to US recommendations for adults. Source: USDA Nutrient Database | |
While the dandelion is considered a weed by many gardeners and lawn owners, the plant has several culinary and medicinal uses. The specific name officinalis refers to its value as a medicinal herb, and is derived from the word opificina, later officina, meaning a workshop or pharmacy.[28] The flowers are used to make dandelion wine,[29] the greens are used in salads, the roots have been used to make a coffee substitute (when baked and ground into powder) and the plant was used by Native Americans as a food and medicine.[30]
Culinary
Dandelions are wildcrafted or grown on a small scale as a leaf vegetable. The leaves (called dandelion greens) can be eaten cooked or raw in various forms, such as in soup or salad. They are probably closest in character to mustard greens. Usually the young leaves and unopened buds are eaten raw in salads, while older leaves are cooked. Raw leaves have a slightly bitter taste. Dandelion salad is often accompanied with hard boiled eggs. The leaves are high in vitamin A, vitamin C and iron, carrying more iron and calcium than spinach.[31]
Dandelion flowers can be used to make dandelion wine, for which there are many recipes.[32] It has also been used in a saison ale called Pissenlit (literally "wet the bed" in French) made by Brasserie Fantôme in Belgium. Dandelion and burdock is a soft drink that has long been popular in the United Kingdom.
Another recipe using the plant is dandelion flower jam. In Silesia and also other parts of Poland and world, dandelion flowers are used to make a honey substitute syrup with added lemon (so-called May-honey). This "honey" is believed to have a medicinal value, in particular against liver problems. Ground roasted dandelion root can be used as a non-caffeinated coffee substitute. [33]
Herbal medicine
Dandelion root is a registered drug in Canada, sold principally as a diuretic.[citation needed] A hepatoprotective effect in mice of chemicals extracted from dandelion root has been reported.[34] Dandelion is used in herbal medicine as a mild laxative, for increasing appetite, and for improving digestion.[35] The milky latex has been used as a mosquito repellent[36] and as a folk remedy to treat warts.[37]
Other
Yellow or green dye colours can be obtained from the flowers but little colour can be obtained from the roots of the plant.[38]
T. officinale is food for the caterpillars of several Lepidoptera (butterflies and moths), such as the tortrix moth Celypha rufana. See also List of Lepidoptera that feed on dandelions.
Toxicity
Dandelion (Taraxacum officinale) has been linked to outbreaks of stringhalt in horses.[39]
References
| Wikiversity has bloom time data for Taraxacum officinale on the Bloom Clock |
| Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Taraxacum officinale |
- ^ McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific & Technical Terms
- ^ [1]
- ^ [2]
- ^ "dandelion clock - Definition from Longman English Dictionary Online". Ldoceonline.com. Retrieved 2010-07-03.
- ^ [3]
- ^ a b c Morley, T. I. (1969). "Spring Flora of Minnesota". 1974 reprint with minor corrections (University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis MN): 255
- ^ a b c "Taraxacum officinale in Flora of North America @". Efloras.org. Retrieved 2011-10-23.
- ^ Wittzell, Hakan (1999). "Chloroplast DNA variation and reticulate evolution in sexual and apomictic sections of dandelions". Molecular Ecology 8 (12): 2023. doi:10.1046/j.1365-294x.1999.00807.x. PMID 10632854
- ^ Dijk, Peter J. van (2003). "Ecological and evolutionary opportunities of apomixis: insights from Taraxacum and Chondrilla". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences 358 (1434): 1113. doi:10.1098/rstb.2003.1302. PMC 1693208. PMID 12831477
- ^ Thomas Gaskell Tutin (1976). Flora Europaea: Plantaginaceae to Compositae (and Rubiaceae). Cambridge University Press. pp. 332–. ISBN 978-0-521-08717-9. Retrieved 29 October 2010.
- ^ Rothmaler, Werner (1966). Exkursionsflora: Kritischer Ergänzungsband Gefäßpflanzen. p. 347.
- ^ Lyman JC, Ellstrand NC (1984). "Clonal diversity in Taraxacum officinale (Compositae), an apomict". Heredity 53 (1): 1–10. doi:10.1038/hdy.1984.58.
- ^ "ITIS Standard Report Page: Taraxacum officinale". Itis.gov. 2010-05-13. Retrieved 2011-10-23.
- ^ Robert F. Barnes; C. Jerry Nelson; Kenneth J. Moore; Michael Collins (19 January 2007). Forages: The science of grassland agriculture. Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 11–. ISBN 978-0-8138-0232-9. Retrieved 29 October 2010.
- ^ "PLANTS Profile for Taraxacum officinale ssp. ceratophorum (common dandelion) | USDA PLANTS". Plants.usda.gov. Retrieved 2011-10-23.
- ^ "Taraxacum ceratophorum". Calflora. Retrieved 2011-10-23.
- ^ "Taraxacum ceratophorum in Flora of North America @". Efloras.org. Retrieved 2011-10-23.
- ^ a b c "What is AKEPIC? | Alaska Natural Heritage Program". Akweeds.uaa.alaska.edu. 2010-11-15. Retrieved 2011-10-23.
- ^ Britton, N. F.; Brown, Addison (1970). An illustrated flora of the northern United States and Canada: from Newfoundland to the parallel of the southern boundary of Virginia, and from the Atlantic Ocean westward to the 102d meridian. New York: Dover Publications. p. 315. ISBN 0-486-22644-1.
- ^ http://www.nps.gov/akso/NatRes/EPMT/Species_bios/Taraxacum%20officinale.pdf
- ^ Loewer, Peter (2001). Solving weed problems. Guilford, Conn.: Lyons Press. p. 210. ISBN 1-58574-274-0
- ^ Jonas: Mosby's Dictionary of Complementary and Alternative Medicine. (c) 2005, Elsevier.
- ^ a b Kowalchik, Claire; Hylton, William H.; Carr, Anna (1987). Rodale's illustrated encyclopedia of herbs. Emmaus, Pa.: Rodale Press. p. 141. ISBN 0-87857-699-1.
- ^ Vít Bojňanský; Agáta Fargašová (2007). Atlas of Seeds and Fruits of Central and East-European Flora: The Carpathian Mountains Region. シュプリンガー・ジャパン株式会社. pp. 751–. ISBN 978-1-4020-5361-0. Retrieved 29 October 2010.
- ^ a b Stewart-Wade, S.M.; S. Newmann, L.L.Collins, G.J. Boland (2002). "The biology of Canadian weeds. 117. Taraxacum officinale G.H. Weber ex Wiggers". Canadian Journal of Plant Science 82: 825–853.
- ^ Richardson, Jonathan (1985). "In praise of the archenemy". Audubon 87: 37–39.
- ^ "Taraxacum officinale". Fs.fed.us. Retrieved 2011-10-23.
- ^ Stearn, W.T. 1992. Botanical Latin: History, grammar, syntax, terminology and vocabulary, Fourth edition. David and Charles.
- ^ "Recipes - Dandelion Wine". Cooks.com. Retrieved 2011-10-23.
- ^ Clarke, Charlotte Bringle (1977). Edible and useful plants of California. Berkeley: University of California Press. p. 191. ISBN 0-520-03261-6.
- ^ "Common Dandelion". Wildmanstevebrill.com. Retrieved 2012-07-20.
- ^ "winemaking: Dandelion Wines". Winemaking.jackkeller.net. 2004-05-22. Retrieved 2012-07-20.
- ^ Wera Sztabowa, "Krupnioki i moczka, czyli gawędy o śląskiej kuchni", Wydawnictwo Śląsk, Katowice, 1990, ISBN 83-216-0935-X.
- ^ Mahesh, A.; Jeyachandran, R.; Cindrella, L.; Thangadurai, D.; Veerapur, V. P.; Muralidhara Rao, D. (2010). "Hepatocurative potential of sesquiterpene lactones of Taraxacum officinale on carbon tetrachloride induced liver toxicity in mice". Acta Biologica Hungarica 61 (2): 175–190.
- ^ Stuart, Malcolm (1979). The Encyclopedia of Herbs and Herbalism (1st Grosset & Dunlap ed. ed.). New York: Grosset & Dunlap. p. 271. ISBN 0-448-15472-2.
- ^ Plantwatch - Plants[dead link]
- ^ "Dandelion - The Natural History Museum - Country Cures". Nhm.ac.uk. Retrieved 2012-07-20.
- ^ A. Dyer (1976) Dyes from natural sources. G. Bell & Sons Ltd., London
- ^ John Kohnke. "Australian stringhalt". South East Victoria Equine Network.
Further reading
- Blanchan, Neltje (2005). Wild Flowers Worth Knowing. Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. ISBN 0-665-98934-2.
- Everitt, J.H.; Lonard, R.L., Little, C.R. (2007). Weeds in South Texas and Northern Mexico. Lubbock: Texas Tech University Press. ISBN 0-89672-614-2. ISBN 0-89672-614-2
- Köhler, Franz Eugen (1887). Köhler's Medicinal Plants. Gustav Pabst.
Unreviewed
Notes
Comments
Phenotypic and genotypic variation of this species have been studied in North America (L. M. King 1993; King and B. A. Schaal 1990; J. C. Lyman and N. C. Ellstrand 1998; O. T. Solbrig 1971; R. J. Taylor 1987), but results of those studies did not lead to the recognition of microspecies.
Specimens of Taraxacum officinale with deeply lobed leaves are sometimes difficult to distinguish from those of T. erythrospermum when fruits are missing (see also R. J. Taylor 1987). Usually, however, early leaves of the former are much less deeply lobed than those of the latter, which are more consistently lacerate throughout development, though broadly winged initially. The two taxa are easily distinguished in fruit, the red cypselae of T. erythrospermum standing out from the dull olive ones of T. officinale.
In northeastern North America, Taraxacum officinale and T. lapponicum often are confused, which has led to reports of the common dandelion farther north than I have been able to verify (it has yet to be collected from the Nunavik region of Quebec, for instance). The characters in the key above help separate the two taxa.
The typification by A. J. Richards (1985) would leave the common dandelion of both Europe and North America without a valid name (J. Kirschner and J. Štepánek 1987). For the time being, with the nomenclatural situation still not resolved, I am following traditional usage of the name Taraxacum officinale.
Trusted
Names and Taxonomy
Taxonomy
Comments: Taraxacum officinale is the generally accepted scientific name for the common dandelion, with variation among taxonomists as to extent of inclusiveness of this species. As treated by Kartesz (1994 checklist and 1999 floristic synthesis), includes both Eurasian plants widely established in North America (ssp. officinale) and native North American plants (ssp. ceratophorum). The native plants included here by Kartesz have been variously considered distinct species by many authors, including Taraxacum integratum, T. lacerum, T. laurentianum, and T. maurolepium. The Eurasian subspecies (ssp. officinale), as treated by Kartesz, includes plants sometimes considered a distinct species, T. palustre, as well as plants sometimes treated as another subspecies, T. officinale ssp. vulgare. LEM 17Jan00. Weber (Taxon 47: 495, 1998) notes that customary usage of the name Taraxacum officinale is for an aggregate of apomicts, with the name Taraxacum campylodes used for the particular segregate apomict which includes the type of T. officinale; nomenclatural formalization of this practice is requested. LEM 3Jun98.
Trusted
Disclaimer
EOL content is automatically assembled from many different content providers. As a result, from time to time you may find pages on EOL that are confusing.
To request an improvement, please leave a comment on the page. Thank you!



